Real 9-11 Research

[Blake]

http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/12....affadavit.pdf

Smh

[RandomGuy]

http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080303_DeclaJVL_62.pdf

more stuff from the same law firm along the same lines...

We now have information from a February 23, 2008, newspaper article published in the N.Y. Times, copy annexed as Exhibit A, that defendant Gilsanz engaged in engineering work at Ground Zero, the site of the destroyed Twin Towers, on September 11, 2001. Accordingly, he has first-hand information that he knew, or should have, that confirms the claims of plaintiff herein that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons.

uh-huh.

[RandomGuy]

A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

It would have bounced off.

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bull .

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

Dan, if you are so convinced of the truth in your position, tell me which of these websites you have read through?

(a blast from the past... 2008. betcha dan hasn't read any of them)

[Parker2112]

9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:
6

a. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the boeing 767 they would be looking at an efis (electronic flight instrumentation system) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode lcds interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.

[Parker2112]

even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a boeing 767 towards new york because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high al ude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking at ude, al ude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the boeing 767 of .80 mach.

the alleged 'controlled' descent into new york on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.
its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "efis" (electronic flight instrument display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

[Parker2112]

B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the pit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

[Parker2112]

C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

[Parker2112]

he would also have to control his al ude with a high degree of

precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
in addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute.

[Parker2112]

to propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his al ude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [nist claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for aa11 at impact and 6 degrees for ua175; see page 276 of 462 in ncstar 1-2].

that an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot i know that i could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited

8

experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on september 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Parker2112, are you saying you don't believe planes hit WTC 1, WTC 2 and the Pentagon on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

You mean like your ty sources dated from 2004?

Two calls, both made on the same plane, out of 64 calls made were from actual cell phones, from an estimated al ude of less than 1000 feet, and both were dropped in less than 2 minutes.




Both calls were about what one would expect from 2001 technology.

As I said, this has been deunked YEARS AGO.
The "truth" movement lies and lied to you Dan. Sorry you can't see that.

Don't be sorry for me, be sorry for yourself that you can't see when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. The government couldn't admit that people were making cell phone calls at al udes and speeds which were technologically impossible in 2001, so they created the scenario in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial of only two of the 60 alleged phone calls made from cell phones at al udes, very conveniently, where it was possible that these calls were successfully made...

Of course, press reports of September 11 detail at least 15 cell phone calls made from all 4 planes including..

Madeline Sweeney's phone call: Flight attendant Sweeney placed a cell phone call to American Arilines flight services office, and reached her friend, services manager Michael Woodward, starting at 8:21 and talked for 25 minutes, until the plane crashed. Sweeney related many details such as wounds by victims of the hijackers to seat numbers of the hijackers. 3 There are conflicting reports on whether the call was recorded.

The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister [Rev. Bonnie Bardot] confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport. 2

Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, [XXXXXXXXXX]. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.

I could go on and on and on....


Quit being butt hurt, and just Keep hanging your hat on the 911 commission report RG, that's a sure winner

[Nbadan]

There were no cell phone calls made from the planes.

Two calls, both made on the same plane

at RG moving the goal posts

[Nbadan]

K, why do you feel these two impossibly made cell phone calls are of such great importance.

They are what linked the whole hijacking scenario as well as the hijacking to 'middle-eastern men' on board the flights.... I'm not claiming that these calls were faked, but maybe these flights were not at al udes which they were supposed to be at the times they were supposed to be...this is very significant...

[Nbadan]

16 million dollars and no peer review....

The NIST report is unscientific and false due to the Finite Element Analysis.... and the numerous fallacious arguments it gives to explain its work are further evidence of being unscientific and deliberately deceptive



NIST

[RandomGuy]

at RG moving the goal posts

That isn't moving the goal posts, dummy.

That is simply correcting an error.

I was unaware that there was any evidence, outside biased truther websites.

Once again, however, it seems truthers are jumping up and down, waving their arms at something that they think supports their implausible theories.

Yet when one drills down into the details, the "smoking gun" appears to be little more than mundane trivia.

[RandomGuy]

[/left]

A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

It would have bounced off.

The man destroys his own credibility.

So, basically we have:

Thousands of eyewitnesses, hudreds of hours of video tape, tens of thousands of pictures, hundreds of tons of physical evidence, all saying that two large, widebody planes, specifically the types that UAL says were flying, DNA evidence from the passenger lists that day.

vs.

The word of a UFO chasing pilot who destroys his own credibility when he says that large airplanes would have just bounced off the buildings.

He is claiming that no large passenger planes hit the buildings.

Do you believe him?

For a second time:
What do you think hit the buildings?

Not that I think you have the courage to answer that question, but , I will play along.

[RandomGuy]

They are what linked the whole hijacking scenario as well as the hijacking to 'middle-eastern men' on board the flights.... I'm not claiming that these calls were faked, but maybe these flights were not at al udes which they were supposed to be at the times they were supposed to be...this is very significant...

Except that the only two cell phone calls made were made from places and in a manner consistent with the governments account.

All the other calls were from the seatback phones, again consistant with the governments accounts.

You have not proven your case. You have only "press accounts" to support your claim that many of them were made from cell phone calls, essentially third-hand accounts.

The people receiving the calls would not know if the calls they recieved were from an airphone or a cell phone. You can't use their claims about "cell phone calls" as any kind of definitive proof.

The reporters, dutifully repeating those statements, would be just as wrong.

Is it possible this is the explanation for news reports about "cell phone" calls?

[RandomGuy]

16 million dollars and no peer review....

The NIST report is unscientific and false due to the Finite Element Analysis.... and the numerous fallacious arguments it gives to explain its work are further evidence of being unscientific and deliberately deceptive

NIST

"numerous fallacious arguments"

Such as?

[RandomGuy]

Don't be sorry for me, be sorry for yourself that you can't see when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. The government couldn't admit that people were making cell phone calls at al udes and speeds which were technologically impossible in 2001, so they created the scenario in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial of only two of the 60 alleged phone calls made from cell phones at al udes, very conveniently, where it was possible that these calls were successfully made...

Of course, press reports of September 11 detail at least 15 cell phone calls made from all 4 planes including..


I could go on and on and on....


Quit being butt hurt, and just Keep hanging your hat on the 911 commission report RG, that's a sure winner

You didn't watch the video, did you? Shocker.

[Blake]

....this is very significant...

Why do you believe that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets have ignored this significant information?

[SA210]

at RG moving the goal posts

Sounds about right

[Nbadan]

I was unaware...

Yes you were, just as you are 'unaware' about a lot of things RG...

That's the way all these guys like RG will play it to save face when the narrative created by a underfunded and non authoritative committee whose own chair-people have admitted was deceived and evidence withheld by the Bush administration starts crumbling to the ground...

...it's ony a matter of time RG... better start composing that long post about how 'unaware' you were now...

[Nbadan]

Why do you believe that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets have ignored this significant information?

They didn't...they just never bothered to live up to their original claims that many of the phone calls originated from cell phones when the government made the argument during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial....for that, the M$M is either complicit or horrible at researching their facts...this is technology people, there are records...

[ChumpDumper]

Dan, in your heart you know all this conspiracy theory bull is just that. I can tell because you never actually say you believe any of it.

You have never once said you believe any alternative theory whatsoever.

Not once.

Because you don't -- you're personally invested in spreading alternative theories for some reason, but you don't believe any of them.