text:
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
|The Commentator
User ID: 587619
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
He is an authority on AIRCRAFT and FLIGHT.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Actually, clunker, he isn't. He is, arguably, an expert at operating aircraft within an airway system, but that does not mean he knows the first thing about the physics, engineering, design compromises or engineering subtlety of aircraft design and science.
A trained ape can ride a bicycle, it does not follow that the ape is an expert in gyroscopes.
Once again your Dunning Kruger effect has lead you astray.
non sufficit Orbis
Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.
"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"
Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill
NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
User ID: 986233
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon 757 crash:Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281
[link to www.debunk911myths.org]
Not important.
Debunked by Citgo.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
[link to www.debunk911myths.org]
The Pentagon is surrounded by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard, on the side where the impact occurred. Numerous passerbys and other people working in the nearby surrounding area witnessed the aircraft and many saw it crash into the Pentagon.
Washington Boulevard, Columbia Pike, and I-395
1.Gary Bauer, "I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. My office called to tell me about the first plane in New York, the reaction was 'horrible accident.' And then they called about the second plane, and clearly that meant something much worse was going on. It was only then that I really noticed where I was in that traffic jam. I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.[1]
2.Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. The sight was shocking and chilling, even for a veteran reporter. "You don't hand in your humanity when you get a press pass," he said.[2]
3.Donald R. Bouchoux "I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."[3]
4.Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."[4]
5.Daryl Donley, saw the crash as he was driving on Washington Boulevard. Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road.[5] Mr. Donley also had a camera with him, and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[6]
6.Penny Elgas exited I-395 and came on to Washington Boulevard, heading towards the Memorial Bridge. She was "stuck in late morning rush hour traffic, almost in front of the Pentagon. Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!" In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers. In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke."[7] (read more... See photos)
7.Fred Gaskins recounted "(The jet) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," he said , who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA TODAY near the Pentagon when the jet passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."[8]
8.Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam on Columbia Pike near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."[4]
1.Asework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, was driving on Columbia Pike on his way to work as a consultant for Nextel. He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. "I thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low." He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.[9]
9.Eugenio Hernandez, APTN - Latin American Desk, "I was in my Jeep Cherokee, driving on Route 395 toward DC and listening to NPR. I saw the plane coming down. I didn't have a camera with me. On the left shoulder, I saw this tourist with a video camera. The man was with his wife and son. They were from southern Virginia. He was freaked out completely. He was not recording anything. The camera was facing the ground. I jumped out of my car, pulled out one of my business cards, and handed it to him. 'I work for a news agency. Please could I borrow your camera?' I explained, 'I'm sure you will be rewarded.' He handed me the camera, and I went across the road. No one stopped me. I was holding my press badge on top of the camera while I was recording; I walked as close as possible. I was maybe 300 feet from the impact."[10]
10.Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. "There was a big boom," he said. "Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled 'Did you see that?' Nobody could believe it."[8]
11.Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[11]
12.David Marra had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: "It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.[12]
13.Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church. "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "I hadn't heard about the World Trade Center at that point, and so I was thinking this was an accident. I figured it was just an accident. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.[13]
14.Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I was right underneath the plane, I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." [9]
15.Christopher Munsey, who was en route to work on I-395, "Already dumbfounded by the first, sketchy radio reports of the catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York, I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. It was a nightmare coming to life. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking "whoomp," as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. A huge flash of orange flame and black smoke poured into the sky. Smoke seemed to change from black to white, forming a billowing column in the sky." [14]
16.John O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication, "I was going up Interstate 395, up Washington Boulevard, listening to the radio, to the news, to WTOP, and from my left side, I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet, it came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, 'That's not going to make it to National Airport.' And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black thick smoke. The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went 'pfff.' It wasn't what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me. The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible. Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. There was nothing to see but black. The whole side of Washington Boulevard was black and on fire. I lost all sense of time. I think I was standing outside a good 20 minutes or so, and then, it was just 10 minutes until I got to the Memorial Bridge, which was closed, so I went up the GW Parkway and to a friend's house."[15]
17.Mary Ann Owens, of Gannett News Service, was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, when she saw the airplane pass 50 to 75 feet overhead and crash into the Pentagon.[5]
18.Christine Peterson, "I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, 'holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car' (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. Now I wanted to get as far away as I could, but that was impossible. The people around me had gotten out of their cars. At least half had cameras and the others were on their cell phones. I experienced a moment of irrelevant amazement that so many people had cameras in their cars. A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away."[16]
19.Alfred S. Regnery, travelling on I-395, "As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. Although airplanes regularly fly over the Pentagon on their way to Reagan National Airport, just a mile or two south, this plane was too low and going too fast. As I watched it disappear behind bridges and concrete barriers I knew it was about to crash... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."[17]
20.Steve Riskus witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, as he was driving along Washington Boulevard and stopped to take photographs moments after the impact.[18]
21.Joel Sucherman, USAToday.com Editor, "saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course." [19]
22.Jim Sutherland, on I-395, witnessed the plane pass 50 feet overhead, heading in a straight line into the Pentagon.[20]
Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was driving near the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. when he saw a 737 airplane 50 feet over Interstate 395 heading in a straight line into the side of the Pentagon. The fireball explosion that followed rocked his car. Drivers began pulling over to the side - some taking pictures - not quite believing what they were seeing.[21]
23.Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. "There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud," he said.[22]
24.Clyde Vaughn, Brig. Gen. of the U.S. Army and director of military support, told reporters he was in his car on nearby Interstate 395 when the plane hit the Pentagon on Tuesday morning. Vaughn said "I was scanning the air" as he was sitting in his car. "There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank," he said. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern. A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the craft's impact. [23]
25.Mike Walter, USA Today reporter, while driving on Washington Boulevard, also witnessed the crash. He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went — I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion."[24] (See video - Mike Walter debunks the conspiracy theorists)
26.Barbara (spoke to CNN at 10:20 a.m.):
Barbara - As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit, we were trying to get off the exit for Memorial Bridge. Off to the lefthand side, there was a commercial plane that came in and was coming too fast too low and the next thing we saw was it go down low beside the road and we just saw the fire that came up after that
CNN - How large was the explosion?
Barbara - It was large.
CNN - Was there a sound, as well?
Barbara - Umm, that can't verify because the windows were up in the vehicle.
CNN - Was it clear to you what had happened?
Barbara - Yes, definitely.
CNN - So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?
Barbara - Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where it, the Pentagon was in relation to where the plane went down, but they are relatively close to one another, whether it hit any part of the Pentagon, I'm not sure.
CNN - How low was the plane?
Barbara - When it was coming down?
CNN - Yep.
Barbara - It was coming down on less than a 45 degree angle and coming down to where the side of the 395 and when it came down it just missed the 395 and went down below it and we saw the fire come up from it.
CNN - Were you able to see what kind of plane or what airline it belonged to?
Barbara - No, I did not see what kind of airliner. I just assumed that we were so close to the airport that it was coming in to land.
CNN - But it seemed awfully low to you?
Barbara - Yes. And fast.
CNN - How big was the fireball?
Barbara - Umm, I was spatially challenged at times, but it was pretty big.
CNN - What did you think was happening?
Barbara - Umm, I know that it hit the ground and exploded.
CNN - Were you frightened yourself?
Barbara - Yes, everybody stopped the cars and we all got out and so forth.
CNN - Thank you very much.
The Pentagon
1.David Battle, who worked at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."[25]
2.Maurice L. Bease, a Marine Sergeant, had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood. Immediately, a ball of flame shot up the side of the building, followed by smoke, lots of it.[26]
3.Mickey Bell, on-site foreman, had "just left the Singleton Electric trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast. Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened. During Bell´s close call, other Singleton workers, including sub-foreman Greg Cobaugh, were doing other work on the first and third floors."[27] "We went out to look at his truck and the truckbed was filled with all kinds of debris that must have come from the blast. He's one really lucky guy," marvels Singleton.[28]
4.Sean Boger, worked at the Pentagon helipad air traffic control tower, which was between the building and the heliport. He was looking out the window and saw "the nose and the wing of the aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer... I am watching the plane go all the way into the building, " he stared as the Boeing 757 smacked into the building" less than 100 feet away.[29]
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."[30]
5.Mark Bright, a police officer at the Pentagon, saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building. "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area. [31]
6.Mike Dobbs, Marine Commander, who worked at the Pentagon, was on an upper level of the outer ring, looking out the window. He saw an American Airlines aircraft as it passed over the Navy Annex and hit the Pentagon.[20]
7.Lincoln Liebner, Army Captain, who was parking his car in the South Parking lot... "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low, My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening."[32] He saw Flight 77 come in "full throttled, wheels up, a controlled flight."[33]
8.Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, "left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."[34]
Probst - At approximately 9:30 a.m. on September 11, he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He begna walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 a.m. As he approached the heliport, he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the gorund and observed t right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator tha provides backup power to Wedge 1. The right engine took out the chain-link fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entred the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down tice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact.[35]
9.Alan Wallace was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. After a quick breakfast, the 55-year-old firefighter moved the station's firetruck out of the firehouse...He parked it perpendicular to the west wall of the Pentagon. Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck (Young was in the station) when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away—the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. Wallace ran back toward the west side of the station, toward a nine-passenger Ford van. "My plans were to run until I caught on fire," he says. He didn't know how long he'd have or whether he could outrun the oncoming plane. Skipper ran north into an open field. Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire."[36]
1."I just happened to look up and see the plane," said Wallace. "It was about 200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast. I told Mark that we needed to get the hell out of there."[37]
2.Dennis Young, was inside the Pentagon's fire house facility. He'd been watching the reports of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on television when he heard a loud noise. Ceiling tiles lifted from the pressure as a ball of fire rolled through the station. The fire house was demolished but, other than twisting his ankle when he was trying to get out of the building, Young was unhurt. "I knew from past experience that it was a plane crash." said Young, who was one of the first to respond when a Canadian C-130 crashed near Fairbanks, Alaska in 1989.[37]
10.John J. Kirlin Inc. employee - For one employee with Wedge One's mechanical subcontractor John J. Kirlin Inc., Rockville MD, "lucky" is an understatement. "We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows," says Kirlin President Wayne T. Day, who believes the window structure saved the man's life.[28]
Pentagon City
1.Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw "very, very large passenger jet." He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[38]
2.D. S. Khavkin "We live in Arlington, VA just outside of Washington, DC in a high-rise building on the eight floor. Our balcony faces the city, with a panoramic view of the Pentagon, National Airport, and the entire downtown area of Washington, DC. We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke."[39]
3.Dave Winslow, AP reporter, who also witnessed the crash, recounted "I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon."[40]
1."I live in Pentagon City on the tenth floor of a 17-floor building that looks out at Washington. I've got a wall of windows stretching from one side to the other. I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. I said, "Oh, my God. I know what's happening." You'd have to stand next to a plane on the runway to hear it that loud. I knew it was another attack. As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out. Then came an enormous fireball. Only in the movies have I ever seen anything like that. It lasted one to three seconds max."[10]
Navy Annex and VDOT
1.Terry Morin, who worked at the nearby Navy Annex, witnessed the airliner pass 100 feet overhead, moments before it crashed into the Pentagon.[41]
2.Anonymous, from the Navy Annex. As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. [42]
3.R.E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He "peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building. Later, recalling its screaming engines he judged that the pilot must have pushed the jet's throttle to the limit; he estimated its altitude at less than 150 feet."[43]
4.Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."[44]
1.Deb Anlauf was in her 14th floor hotel room, "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall. When it hit, the whole hotel shook."[45]
Arlington Cemetery
1.Ron Turner, the Navy's deputy chief information officer, was standing solemnly at a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. "There was a huge fireball," he said, "followed by the [usual] black cloud of a fuel burn."[46]
Crystal City
1.Some workers at offices in nearby Crystal City also witnessed the crash.[11]
National Airport
1.Allen Cleveland, who was aboard Washington Metro heading to Ronald Reagan National Airport, "looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon."[47]
1."I was just pulling in on the subway station at national airport, I just happened to look over, actually my back was facing in the direction of the Pentagon, I looked to the right from the train, as we were coming into the station and I notice a jet flying in real low, about a mid-size passenger jet flying in, I know it was silver, that's the only thing I know, as it was coming in, I just realized that there was no landing strip on that side of the subway system, so I just happened to look and thought maybe it was just my mistake because the subway system kind of curves around a little bit, and the next thing I know there was a huge explosion there and everybody on the subway, one mouthed profanity, everybody on the subway turned around and looked and everyone went into total hysterics, women were crying, and people were just absolutely in disbelief."[48]
2.Meseidy Rodriguez, also on Metro, saw the plane. "I saw it as it was about to hit, I didn't see it coming in because he [Allen Cleveland] just caught my attention, he yelled and I looked up and I started seeing, basically it was , I just saw very little of it, all I could tell was it was like a mid-size plane and then it was gone and there was all this smoke, and it just caught me off guard I couldn't really tell, it just went straight for the building, straight for the Pentagon."[48]
3.Kate Agnew, a passenger on Washington Metro, also witnessed the explosion.[11]
George Washington Parkway
1.Mike Cahill, a Alexandria paramedic, was driving along the George Washington Parkway near the Pentagon, listening to radio reports about the World Trade Center attack, when he saw "a huge column of smoke" rising above the trees in front of him. Cahill stepped on the gas of his 1995 Subaru Impressa and arrived at the scene minutes later. He pulled his first-aid bag out of his trunk, hopped over a barrier and rushed toward the flames. Injured streamed from the building. "Everyone that was coming towards me had burns," he said . "Some of these guys still literally had smoke or steam coming off of their body or skin."[49]
1.Steve Anderson worked on the 19th floor of the USA Today building. "I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11...as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."[50]
Elsewhere in Arlington
1.Daniel McAdams and his wife, Cynthia, said they were sitting in their kitchen drinking coffee in their third-floor condominium in Arlington just two miles from the Pentagon when they heard a plane fly directly overhead around 9:45 a.m. It was unusually loud and unusually low. Seconds later, they heard a big boom and felt the doors and windows of their three-storey building shake. From their window, they could see a plume of black smoke coming from the Pentagon.[51]
Across the Potomac
1.Captain Joseph Candelario, USA a first year student in the Family Nurse Practitioner Program began Tuesday, 11 September like most people. It was a clinical day, which meant getting up early and making the trip in to Ft. McNair to start seeing patients at 0630. He was first alerted that the day was drastically changing when one of the medics told him that a plane hit the World Trade Center. While watching the tower burn, another plane hit the second tower. Thinking that this was a very serious terrorist attack, I went outside to the river to take a break. As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.[52]
2.Ken Ford, a State Department employee, recounted looking from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, over 1 1/2 miles away, "We were watching Reagan National Airport through binoculars a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."[53]
3.Steve Snaman, manager of the datacom division for Walker Seals, watched in horror from Fort McNair (across the river) as the jetliner came in low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon. "We saw the plane hit the Pentagon," Snaman said.[54]
Elsewhere in Arlington
1.Ralph Banton was on "a house porch a little more than a mile away." He heard a jet flying directly overhead, very low. "It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down," he said. Seconds later, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.[55]
Other witnesses
1.Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[56]
1.it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."[4]
2."I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.[57]
CNN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
CNN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
Timmerman: 7-5-7.
CNN: 757, which, of course.
Timmerman: American Airlines.
CNN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
Timmerman: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
1.Oscar Martinez, "I saw a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed. There was a big noise when it hit the building."[58]
2.Paul Begala, Democratic Party consultant, was among others who witnessed the explosion at the Pentagon.[40]
3.Pam Bradley, "was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I am in a complete state of shock."[59]
Aircraft debris
1.Carlton Burkhammer, a member of the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team... Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They'd been told the plane's "black boxes" would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. "We wanted to find live victims," says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. "Finding the black box gave us a little boost," he says.[36]
2.John Damoose, a Travis City, Mich. native who was in a meeting said "everybody got nervous. .'.'. We didn't know whether to stay inside or go outside. The thing with terrorist attacks is that you don't know what is the next thing that will happen." Damoose said the worst part was leaving the Pentagon and walking along Fort Meyer Drive, a bike trail, "you could see pieces of the plane."[9]
3.Michael Defina, Captain of the National Airport's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF), "That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring. 'The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear.'"[60]
4.Rich Fitzharris (electrical engineer and former residential contractor) was in the Modular Office Compound at the time of the crash and rushed to the site on foot, arriving before the partial collapse. He recalls that the building - near the are of impact - was in flames, and he remembers seeing small pieces of debris, the largest of which might have been part of an engine shroud.[35]
5.Jamie McIntyre, CNN reporter, "A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."[61]
6.Anonymous - "There were pieces of aircraft spread all the way up the road, at least a third of a mile from the impact site." - a witness speaking to a local CBS reporter. [1]
User ID: 986233
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
David Lee Griffin...Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281
[link to screwloosechange.blogspot.com]
This is an excellent article rebuking his foolishness...
[link to www.publiceye.org]
You haven't read Griffin's work, eh?
Compare the two. More obfuscations here. Some correct statements, but the key issues are not debunked.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Plane debris at the Pentagon:
[link to www.debunk911myths.org]
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Flight path from FDR:
[link to www.ntsb.gov]
User ID: 986233
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
and the black box data show a flyover,Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281
Wrong again.
[link to arabesque911.blogspot.com]
The evidence is interesting: it stops before the end AND the flyover path WAS from the left of the Citgo. So it was too high and from the wrong angle.
Of course the height matches well with the witnesses: they saw THAT plane (except the ones which were lying).
The light poles were staged.
It's complex -- and this is how it all unravels -- just as with the issues around the coffin and JFK: it ot very complex how we know the coffi was delivered late and the body early ... but it's conclusive since the AARB did its work (see Horne, "Inside the AARB"); Lifton got much right but not perfect. Like the Pilots.
What is clear: the plane did the wrong thing at every point in the gov't story.
Good link, though.
The black box data could also have come from a second plane which executed a more southerly pass. Point is, nothing matches.
And no jet fuel, no proper hole, etc. Honestly, good hunting but insufficient.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
No, I know of that. But WHERE WERE THE REMAINS FROM?Quoting: mclarek 986233
Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...
And your source on that?
My guess is that you know nothing about this one way or the other and you're just winging it based only on your assumption that this can't be true.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 960518
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
(CAPSLOCK= "mclarek"[/b)
(normal font= "...Sing, I'll Sway...")
"Does anyone here read properly?"
Most of us.
"Why do so many here pick on specific phrases which people -- not just I -- use to make things palatable, readable, show other points of view? In what context was each phrase used?"
It's actually pretty simple, and I'm slightly annoyed that I have to repeat myself, but it's like this:
YOU claim 9/11 was an "inside job", and that the evidence for this is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
While reading YOUR POSTS I was nearly blown over by the amount of TRUE AMBIGUITY you pepper your arguments with. In fact, it was kind of SHOCKING HOW MUCH you actually ADMIT to not knowing.
Like, for instance, WHAT exactly happened to the passengers of the planes.
Which you don't know. You have no idea. And yet you're convinced something "not-nice" happened to them. Or you claim (AS YOU DID) that most probably had connections to the government and were either "liked" or "in trouble".
You make OUTRAGEOUS claims like that, but you BACK THEM UP with, "...might have...", or "...possibly...", or "...no one knows..."
It's absurd, "mclarek".
"If I were to pick on your language I would find it overconfident about a subject you know far less about than I do."
Well, you'd be wrong. To avoid sounding and/or being a dick I make an effort to only get involved with issues/discussions I know something about (which is why I never got involved in your epic "rotating moon"-debate; I like astronomy, but don't know much about physics, per se).
This way I can speak coherently, and not sound like a woo-woo wack-job. This matters in life as it's important to carry oneself with dignity.
So I'll dispute my alleged-"overconfidence" and settle for just plain "confident". Which, if that's the way I sound, then good. That's the plan.
Meanwhile, you claim, despite (and this you CAN'T dispute) not knowing a damn thing about me or what I know, that you know more than me.
How the fuck am I supposed to react to that?
"And no, I don't mean I KNOW EVERYTHING."
Right. You just know more than me.
So, I'm feeling kind a lazy and don't really feel like putting up a bibliography for this post. Since you're an expert on everything I've read and know...do you think you could?
You know, just a bibliography. Just list all the shit I've read on 9/11. For an expert like you, on me, this should be a breeze.
And when you're done with that I've got some great deals on a few used cars you might be interested in...
"I have, however, spent a long time looking very deeply into the issue. After a wile, one gains some familiarity. And if, like a good (and I mean decent) FBI agent, you let things STICK where they should ... and this is many people here's problem, you look at info but you don't let things stick, for comparative analysis ... you will come to see that the case stands."
Right. Cool. And I sincerely congratulate you on your hard-wrought research (the fruits of which have been on display for all to enjoy- and enjoy them we have).
I was going to counter this with claims of my own "vast research"...but that would be redundant, wouldn't it?
As you already know what I've read/watched/listened to...ect....ect....ect....
"Of course, if a fact cannot be absolute, it should not be treated as such."
Of course.
"But if it is, or is nearly, you have to let it stick and do comparisons. THEN you will know if you have done your work as a jury (or lawyer, but you do have to be a lwayer for both sides at first, so I chose jury as the more total example)."
Right....what the hell are we talking about right now? My issue with you is your inability to explain your claims about 9-11. I know it's a blast to congratulate ourselves on our tremendous research-tactics, but...
Nevermind. Moving on.
"So many here look at facts in some kind of jumble,"
I could give a shit, at the moment, about "so many people here". I'm more concerned with the "facts" you're claiming. Particularly your confidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that 9-11 was an inside job.
You claim the passengers on the 4 planes are either in the Witness Protection Program or they've been "disappeared" "not so nicely". You also claim the witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon are lying (but the 3 OR 4 PEOPLE standing from a certain vantage-point who support your agenda- THEY just happen to be the ONLY reputable eyewitnesses in the area that day. What a coincidence).
This is what matters to me within the context of "mclarek". And honestly, it's not even for the benefit of "winning" some kind of a debate. Look at how many views a link like this gets compared to posts.
There are LOTS of lurkers 'round these parts. People are reading this. And THEIR opinions can be shaped by the validity of OUR arguments. Make no mistake, we're on display.
You...might be hopeless, "mclarek". You get such a kick out of imagining the world around us as a glorified "James Bond"-film with villains masterminding 9/11 you wouldn't relinquish it for anything.
So I could kind of give a shit what you say, think, or believe. But there're lots of fence-sitters out there, and they're the reason ideas like yours have to be tactfully challenged whenever possible.
"But some facts trump others."
"For instance, one impossibility means FAKING WAS GOING ON. (E.g., the Moon photos.) There don't have to be multiples."
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here. And I think the fact I'm articulate and am-able-to-express-myself-in-a-coherent-manner dismisses the inevitable accusation of "me not getting it".
Multiples of what? One impossibility of what? WHAT?
"But if there are, and you get some familiarity with what kinds there are, then you can judge the extent of the problem: one nice faked replaced image, or a set for publication in embarrassment over not being able to take proper shots possibly on the Moon, or maybe a whole faked journey?"
I barely can follow this. And you've been soundly defeated with regards to this subject already, so...
Regardless, you're being irritatingly vague and incoherent.
"But one way or another, faked images (or rather, to be neutral, STUDIO images) are part of the NASA Apollo record were they are not CLAIMED to be by NASA."
I'm not getting into this with you. I read this morning page-after-page of an earlier-form of this debate. Which you lost.
Is this, like, you attempting to give it another go? You lost to those guys earlier and now you're testing to see what your chances are with me...?
It's boring and I don't give a shit. And even if I did you're being way too vague for me to even know where to begin.
Although I think I get the overall point- you're presenting different "modes" of gathering "info", as well as the "process" of subsequently "forming an opinion" based on the collective results of that "info".
I know. I get it. I understand "research".
"So, re. the planes issue: If one fact makes the planes highly unlikely, or absolutely contrary to the gov't claim (absolutely), or one aspect is physically impossible, the whole issue bears looking at."
One thing I want to make clear here is this preoccupation with anything being the "government's claim".
For the thousandth time- I could give a fuck about this government.
You call youself a patriotic Canadian? Great. I'm a socialist American. And I could give a fuck.
So we'll just end this particular "form" of "9/11-Truther"-condescension right now. I'm far from an individual who's modus operandi is towing the government line.
Furthermore, you don't need to read the 9/11-Commission Report (which I never have and don't ever plan on) to read/understand the countless witnesses to the planes going into the Pentagon AND the towers.
You said pages back that "most" of the people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the planes hitting the towers were frauds. I forget if you claimed they were government or media or what (though, I guess, to you, they're one in the same).
I would dispute THAT and implore you to prove it.
What, are you going to claim that the majority of the witnesses in NYC were "actors"? GASP- actors in New York City, of all places!!!!
I will say I agree with you- where there are inconsistencies there should be examination. Obviously. And then when said examinations reveal nothing relevant, WE MOVE ON.
That's your fatal flaw, "mclarek", and the flaw of all those like you- you let yourselves become overwhelmed by random, self-percieved "connetions". In the end you're chasing your tail.
It almost sounds like an anxiety disorder. Seriously. You can't let things go. You HAVE to connect them.
Like the 1983 IRAS data. I can't believe you people still cling to that...
"The only reason you think it's absurd is that you were told (in various ways) there were planes. If they'd come out and said, "The perps got a hold of the media and ran a feed through, but really couldn't use planes and onlly used CGI and explosives" would you have such a problem? No."
I was also told the moon is not, in fact, made of cheese.
Should I suspect I was being lied to then, also...? [i}I've never been to the moon.
And thanks for answering your question for me (just like how you know you know more than me, I still appreciate that, too) but ACTUALLY YEAH I'd have a BIG problem with it if "they" (who exactly? *sigh* forget it...) came out and said that.
First, what is your definition of "the media" and how does one run A SINGLE FEED through..."it"...?
Seriously. THAT would be the first issue I had. SECONDLY, I'd find it VERY hard to believe that "they" (who exactly? *sigh* forget it...) would be able to rig up BOTH towers with that much explosive. Under the nose of...pretty much the entirety of downtown NYC.
"So let's get to it: Your attitude on this thread"
Sure thing, doc.
"not necessarily yours"
No, actually, let's just stick to mine. I'm not speaking for anyone else- this post is long enough as is.
"what I am talking of required excitement to learn and lots and lots of not just "listening to arguments" as if all are equal in the end. You listen at first as if all are equal, and yes, you keep listening, but if certain facts HAVE to trump others, if true, you stick them on your mental board and find out more."
Again, you're talking fucking...technique here. Or, like, modes and methods of "gathering information". You spend so much time analyzing this. BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY to defend your ideas. Just explain yourself. Explain what you claim happened to the fucking passenges, for starters.
You claim some "might have" been disappeared. Great. Why? How? When? How do you explain the many, many phone calls which were made to people on the ground?
How you gathered info is irrelevant to me. It's probably NOT MUCH DIFFERENT than how I "gathered info".
We watch, we listen, we read, we learn, we debate.
"So what of the passengers and children?"
"They have nothing to do with the required events of the day."
Jesus Christ...
Jesus...Christ... Wow. Wow. That takes a lot of balls.
"Unless they made real phone calls, but other evidence points away from that (of dozens of reasons)."
Right. Another claim that, when I ask you to elaborate, you'll answer with: "They have nothing to with the required events of the day".
You're inching perilously close to being a cowardly, histrionic, pontificating, FUCKING FRAUD.
btw, I didn't get the memo- what are the "requirements" of the day?
To claim 9/11 was an "inside job" "beyond a reasonable doubt"....and then FLEE from explaining why...? Is that what teh "requirement" of the day is?
....I don't even know why I'm even going forward with this fucking MOCKERY, but I'm going to anyway out of a sense of fucking obligation to finish what I've started.
You know- similar to THE OBLIGATION TO BACK UP ONE'S CLAIMS.
"So, if there were flyoves, bombs instead of planes, etc., what does it matter if there were children on board or not -- unless you want to work out what could have happenend to them."
You HAVE TO explain what HAPPENED to the children and everyone else. YOU HAVE TO. Because they were on THE PASSENGER MANIFESTS and their families HAD FUNERALS FOR THEM.
THIS is why YOU have to explain what happened to them.
Why all this pussy-footing around the subject? I thought this was all "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I thought you were so sure of all this?
"A typical problem (and it's happening here in your comments) is the assumption that because one aspect is being discussed -- say, the passengers -- it is in isolation. But the blackbox info and flyover, plus the lack of jet fuel and the parallax and othe issues and so on STILL STAND."
WHAT blackbox info? WHAT flyover?
There are DOZENS of witnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. "Loose Change", that travesty of a "film", actually has INTERVIEWS with a few of the witnesses (a testament to the film's inherent incoherency).
WHAT does the blackbox info entail, "mclarek"? In your own words. IF this info is so damning then why isn't the world up in arms about it? Oh, because the world's "in denial"?
But you're not because YOU'RE fucking special. I have no idea what this blackbox info is but I'm guessing the conclusions of your Lear-affiliated pilotsfortruth are slightly biased and highly-questionable. As I've never heard of ANY definitive evidence that the blackbox shows, "beyond a shadow of a doubt", that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
(AND ANYWAY, WHY would "they" put on such a pathetic spectacle? You know there's a highway right next to the Pentagon where MANY of the witnesses were sitting in traffic when the plane hit? WHO would've thought it was a good idea to just have a plane...fly over the Pentagon? In front of...EVERYONE?)
(AND what caused the damage at the Pentagon if it wasn't a plane? A missle? Where are all the "missle-witnesses"?)
"They are not in isolation. While you are discussing one area and delving into it, keep all other areas in mind."
I could ask you to do the same, but it would be pointless which is why I don't.
Meanwhile, you cower from explaining CRUCIAL aspects of your arguments.
"I hope you can recognize key, trumping arguments, and consider, with respect for expertise, but not authority positions, where they hail from. In other words, if the gov't experts are excellent, so be it; but they've been shown if you use your mind, not to be telling the truth."
What happened to the passengers? Explain all of the witnesses in New York who saw the planes. Explain the witnesses in DC who saw that plane. If they're lying, why?
Explain how a bulldozer was ferreted into Shanksville to dig a "plane-shaped" hole in the ground? Why haven't I ever seen any bulldozer treads in any photos of the crash site?
Is it even POSSIBLE to dig a "plane-shaped" hole with a bulldozer? They don't exactly strike me as nimble "artisic implements".
"It is citizens of professional (and non-professional familiarity with the case, such as Griffin, and soem even smaller names who have done direct research on names, places, claims) who must be doing the better work in most instances."
I don't give a fuck who you are an acolyte of. WHY do you go on these tangents explaining "The Better Virtues of Proper Research"...?
"But if one is going to poke holes in anyone's arguments, it must be done excellently."
Right. And if one is going to drop claims like 9/11 is an "inside job" "beyond a reasonable doubt" they have to defend that statement with excellence.
Meanwhile, I just saw you dive under a couch.
"And the gov't story doesn't add up in any key area at all."
That's funny. Same thing could be said about your ideas.
Difference is, when challenged, there's a reasonable, coherent explanation for nearly every "self-percieved incosistent detail".
Meanwhile, I just saw you dive under a couch.
"I wish it did, in some way, for then we might really not have rogue elements ruling -- only disgruntled people from Saudi Arabia (the hijacker patsies were mostly from SA) wanting to blow a couple of things up."
What "rogue elements" ruling?
...see, THIS you won't elaborate on either. I know you won't. This is one of the killers for me about "9/11-Truthers"....not one of you can say who did it or WHY. Most don't even have the balls to even speculate.
I could NEVER throw my weight behind SUCH a profoundly important idea UNLESS I could stand behind it 100%.
..."rogue elements". Right. Vague. By design.
And no shit, I know most of the hijackers were Saudis. Thanks for the fuckin'....411.
Are you going to claim they're all "alive" now? Like "Loose Change" does? Without showing a single one of them "alive"?
And...are you DISPUTING the existence of religious hatred? Personally, I have nothing against Islam. But there ARE Islamic fundamentalists who DO have a problem with me. And YOU.
What's next? Are you going to say the Crusades never happened either? There's NEVER been a conflict between the Christian world and the Muslim world...?
"Well. Griffin has argued admirably (in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking") that Pop. Mech. was lying, by showing obviously how it was done, point for point. So when I say reasonably argued, I mean excellently."
WHY can't you sum this up somehow and say EXACTLY how Popular Mechanics was "lying"?
I saw the Popular Mechanics guys "debate" the "Loose Change"-kids and it was a debacle. Seriously. The "Loose Change"-kids humiliated themselves.
All they did was parrot what's said in their film, as if they were reading off of cue cards. Meanwhile, with simple logic and a calm demeanor, the Popular Mechanics editors owned them.
"So that's key."
Right. Not being able to explain your ideas/beliefs is the key.
Keep your key. You earned it.
"And that stands no matter what others say repeating the arguments which HAVE been debunked -- and it's the official conspiracy theory which is debunked."
"David Ray Griffin did a masterful job of showing the cross-talk (usually considered debunkithere more dependent on other factors such as much familiarity with other aspects of the case, so people have acted as if they are not sure; in other words, they have been stretched so far, as if one could make them unsure; because of that, and the fact some are, as I first mentioned, not sure, too, I only use the absolute parallax issues.)"
Jesus Christ....more analyzing how others think/act.
Just try elaborating your own thoughts.
"If the parallax in some vids was fake on NYC coverage, this does not mean of itself the planes were fake, of course, by itself. So THAT is not a sure thing, but the parallax problems are. This casts the planes and other aspects of the events into serious doubt. (But in combination with the other aspects I'm not getting into, such as butterplane into building leaving perfect 14-floor hole with wingtips and all, but no hole on video as it goes in), faulty soundtracks, and other physical aspects of the "planes" themselves and clean-up and witnesses, carefully combed through, then yes, the video fakery evidence is conclusive too."
There's a piece-of-shit video available for streaming on Netflix. I honestly can't remember what it's called. Anyway, it advocates your "ideas" about parallax and shadows and whatever.
It's a total hack-job piece of shit.
But anyway, you're claiming some pretty AMAZING CGI-work here, "mclarek". Indivuals in the special effects community (and I know a couple rather-talented ones) don't seem to have any issues with the NYC footage. Do you know better than them?
Furthermore, you're claiming they did a "masterful" job on the plane CGI, but FAILED to get the parallax correct? And you have the balls to talk of things being "cast into doubt"?
Also, TONS of videos of planes were amateur videos. HOW do you explain those? THOSE are fakes too?
"Now, even with this short run-down, the case is beyond a reasonable doubt EVEN WITH CLAIMS BODIES WERE FOUND AT THE PENTAGON."
Ha...you have balls of steel...there it is again...."beyond a reasonable doubt..."
ha....my God. The US government makes worldclass CGI, from MULTIPLE angles (not easy- especially with technology from 10 years ago...) which fools, literally THE WHOLE WORLD...but fails to get the parallax right...?
On EVERY video? They got everything right- EXCEPT the parallax? They made THAT SAME MISTAKE on EVERY video...?
"Unless those really were found -- and wo controls those labs? No. Why would the gov't give the wrong black box? And so on. And on. ..."
Then where are these "alive" dead people? YOU'RE bringing it up, "mclarek". So now ELABORATE.
WHERE are the "alive" people who were killed at the Pentagon?
"If I said "every one" of the passengers, I slipped."
Not in the exact words, but you did. It's fair to say I'm paraphrasing. I have no problem with that. As it's ALSO fair to say you claim they were either government stooges or involved with the "9/11"-scheme.
And depending on whether they were "well liked" or not, they're either in the Witness Protection Program, or dead. According to you.
BUT HOLY MO-LEE, after half an hour of this bullshit it looks like you're ABOUT to mayby try to explain all this "passenger"-business (DESPITE the fact it's not of the day's "requirements"!!!)
"I know I *have* said before, that MANY passengers were, or "almost every one" was (intended to show a high pecentage). It was. There is work on that. I don't have it at my fingertips right now. I don't keep this stuff on hand. I worked through it and moved on. Now I know it, but not the original work anymore."
I bet, again, you can't prove even a small percentage of them had anything to do with anything.
And WHAT exactly "kind of work" are we talking about, "mclarek"? Because if it turns out someone worked for the fucking Social Security Administration, yes, they MIGHT have been "government employees"...but that's not good enough.
You need to explain what happened to these people, "mclarek". This is a HUGE hole in your theories, here...
"But when you say gov't military, you can count working for privat efirms linked to gov't/military too, as being suspicious (not conclusive)."
No, you can, if you want. And even IF you do uncover someone who worked for a government contractor, that's STILL not enough. LOTS of people work for Lockheed. It doesn't prove anything if one of them were on any of the planes.
And, again, I'm confident you won't be able to find "suspicious" affiliations for hardly any of the passengers.
Which is going to leave A LOT of explaining to do.
"Whatever you do, realize -- at least in the hypothesis here, a picture of the totality where there was fakery and sloppiness and cheap laziness from perps -- the passengers don't matter to the plane issue any more than the planes matter to 9/11. "
Right. Dismiss the disappearance of over a hundred of people as if it's not relevant. That way you don't have to explain it and can continue harping on about shadows.
And don't forget to explain the amateur/tourist footage of plains hitting the towers. Explain those, too.
"You can follow them and know as much as you want, and yes there are a lot of probs with the official account of the passnegers. But if there were no planes, then the passengers were elsewhere."
EITHER WAY, you STILL have to account for them.
It's like you have this fantasy that if there were no planes (which is...preposterous) then the funerals of all those passengers don't have to be explained.
"One trumps the other, in the hypothesis. And the lack of planes is physically more reasonable on all fronts, with specific witnesses in good positions to know coming out with not "just contradictory" but saliently contradictory -- specific situational contradictory -- testimony. This is key. So is the black box, the silliness in Shanksville, and the whole aura from media fakery known from NYC parallax lies.
I'm not repeating myself.
[b["They simply trump the other things. The other things your mind tells you from what the gov't says CANNOT be right if these are, which they are. These are SALIENT facts. Do you know what that is? They REQUIRE the hypothesis to trump the plane hypothesis."
I swear to God, if there was only some way to properly communicate to you how UNBELIEVABLY annoying and condescending it is EVERY SECOND you spend trying to explain to me "salient facts" or...collecting/analyzing evidence....
You have no idea...
"This was long because I think you're interested AND I am tired and so not the best right now. Sorry for the length bt I was trying to be helpful, not angry."
Just answer my fuckin' questions.
Senior Forum Moderator
User ID: 634208
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Look at the testimony only. And realize he has high expertise in the field.Quoting: mclarek 986233
There you go again, appealing to authority using a nutjob as an expert. And you accuse US of being guilty of appealing to authority? You're unfrickenbelievable clare. You just don't get it.
You're the self-proclaimed "nut", Astronut.
har har. You come up with that one yourself? There's a difference between being able to laugh at yourself and making yourself a laughing stock. He is not a legitimate expert, he's INSANE and he refuses to defend his insane claims. You hold him up as an expert, an appeal to authority. You're therefore just as bad as he is.
He is an authority on AIRCRAFT and FLIGHT.Quoting: mclarek
He claims there are secret space stations and that the shuttle shouldn't need to take more than a few hours to reach ISS on any given mission. He's refused to acknowledge evidence and facts which directly contradicts this. He's a lunatic, not an expert.
concludes the planes couldn't do the manoeuvres.Quoting: mclarek
I don't give a shit what he concludes, he claims all kinds of bullshit.
have discovered there was a flyby at the Pentagon, per the black box data,Quoting: mclarek
Right, the witnesses are lying, a lunatic is a good expert, and a comma separated values file from a black box is forensic quality data. You're a piece of work clare.
Last Edited by The Gentle Astromut on 06/01/2010 04:32 PM
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
and the black box data show a flyover,Quoting: mclarek 986233
Wrong again.
[link to arabesque911.blogspot.com]
The evidence is interesting: it stops before the end AND the flyover path WAS from the left of the Citgo. So it was too high and from the wrong angle.
Of course the height matches well with the witnesses: they saw THAT plane (except the ones which were lying).
The light poles were staged.
It's complex -- and this is how it all unravels -- just as with the issues around the coffin and JFK: it ot very complex how we know the coffi was delivered late and the body early ... but it's conclusive since the AARB did its work (see Horne, "Inside the AARB"); Lifton got much right but not perfect. Like the Pilots.
What is clear: the plane did the wrong thing at every point in the gov't story.
Good link, though.
The black box data could also have come from a second plane which executed a more southerly pass. Point is, nothing matches.
And no jet fuel, no proper hole, etc. Honestly, good hunting but insufficient.
[link to www.debunk911myths.org]
Washington Boulevard is also takes commuters over to Rosslyn, Virginia. I-395, itself, is also busy at this time of day, with drivers here having a clear view of the Pentagon. Certainly, hundreds of people saw Flight 77. Nobody saw a missile. Nobody saw the plane do a "fly over" and pass over the building. They saw the plane crash into the building.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
and the black box data show a flyover,Quoting: mclarek 986233
Wrong again.
[link to arabesque911.blogspot.com]
The evidence is interesting: it stops before the end AND the flyover path WAS from the left of the Citgo. So it was too high and from the wrong angle.
Of course the height matches well with the witnesses: they saw THAT plane (except the ones which were lying).
The light poles were staged.
It's complex -- and this is how it all unravels -- just as with the issues around the coffin and JFK: it ot very complex how we know the coffi was delivered late and the body early ... but it's conclusive since the AARB did its work (see Horne, "Inside the AARB"); Lifton got much right but not perfect. Like the Pilots.
What is clear: the plane did the wrong thing at every point in the gov't story.
Good link, though.
The black box data could also have come from a second plane which executed a more southerly pass. Point is, nothing matches.
And no jet fuel, no proper hole, etc. Honestly, good hunting but insufficient.
Funny how there isn't a single witness who saw a "flyover" with rush hour traffic right by the Pentagon.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 960518
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
"Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...
They could have come from anywhere."
...So I take it you don't eat in restaurants because you can't see your food being made... and so you don't know what could be done to it?
And I guess when you go to the laundromat you're never sure if the clothes in the dryer ARE your clothes or if a government agent switched them with identical clothes with data-reocrders sewn in secretly?
When you get your car back from the mechanic do you check under it for bombs?
When you get blood results back from your doctor I take it you never believe them because...who's to say it's really YOUR blood that was examined at all?
When babies are delivered at hospitals who's to say they aren't switched with other babies by the government for all kinds of fucked up, evil reasons?
I mean....where does it end, "mclarek"?
I guess it never ends...long as you've got an agenda...
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
The hole in the Pentagon:
[link to www.oilempire.us]
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Debunking 911 "truther" foolishness:
[link to sites.google.com]
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Pentagon Building Performance Report from the impact:
[link to fire.nist.gov]
Lots of details of the crash damage.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
[link to sites.google.com]
A brief (which is more than it deserves) look at the "A missile hit the Pentagon" theory
1) No missile was seen or heard by anyone. All eyewitnesses report a passenger jet crash.
2) No missile debris was found.
3) Missiles do not carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel, which caused massive fires.
4) Missiles do not carry the remains and personal belongings of flight 77 passengers and crew.
5) Missiles do not carry tons of 757 debris.
6) In the diagram below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over, or the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. The Tomahawk Cruise missile that Loose Change suggests hit the Pentagon has a wingspan of 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 m).
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
User ID: 989275
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
6) In the diagram below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over, or the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. The Tomahawk Cruise missile that Loose Change suggests hit the Pentagon has a wingspan of 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 m).Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281
Yeah, but the light poles were 'pre-knocked-down' as part of the coverup, doncha know?
User ID: 997
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 989286
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
|Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian
User ID: 434868
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Better late then never.
Got banned for something I QUOTED! Dagnabit!
RE: Apollo
George, I'm sick of this. The arguments around the Moon hoax, JFK, etc. are so complex ...Quoting: mclarek 986233
It is usually considered a good idea not to shoot ones mouth off about things one doesn't understand.
By the way, the original suits for the astronauts were of lead;Quoting: mclarek 986233
What is your evidence for this claim?
the LEM was shot in stage sets to accomplish the sizes big enough;Quoting: mclarek 986233
What is your evidence for this claim?
the one in the museum was not big enough to guarantee easy use;Quoting: mclarek 986233
What is your evidence for this claim?
and the landing site and flag are never seen on Moon photos ...Quoting: mclarek 986233
Pray tell, how BIG a telescope is required to image Apollo artifacts on the Moon?
Show us your calculation.
except now they've indicated where they should be and YOU KNOW WHAT?Quoting: mclarek 986233
This is really really weird, but the guy who developed the high-end, acclaimed Advanced Photographic Extraction Process (APEP), Ron Stewart...Quoting: mclarek 986233
And why are Clementine's images so much poorer than the original Moon images?Quoting: mclarek 986233
The camera was just a hitchhiker, imaging the Moon wasn't a mission objective.
That's what the LRO is for.
... Jack ...Quoting: mclarek 986233
Please find one [1] professional photographic annalist who doesn't think that Jack White is hilariously inept.
Plus, they simply wouldn't have had time to do it all.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Any analysis NOT by Jack White shows there was plenty off time.
Never mind the fact that the camera was not specially protected for rays, said its manufacturerQuoting: mclarek 986233
The camera and magazines are metal boxes.
And film would have been ruined anyway.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Well -- happy hunting for more lies. Unfortunately, one can say, who cares? And in some ways I don't. They lie they lie. What can I do? Well, at least I know they lie -- sometimes.Quoting: mclarek 986233
You know nothing.
The issue of what Russia would do is another thing: they had a conspiracy of their own, reported at the time and investigated separately. Their Gagarin probably didn't fly: he was the photo stunt guy. They whisked him off after the photo op. There's a whole thing about that.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Could you be anymore vague?
And why not? Everyone was competing. So anyway, the Russians didn't want their faking to be exposed.Quoting: mclarek 986233
So, pray tell, why didn't the Soviets hoax their Moonlanding before the Yankees did?
How fucking BIG is this conspiracy anyway?
Everybody is in it but you?
Complex, but <shrug> likely true. Scientific discovery is this way: one thing seems (say, from the Earth) to be true but when you lear about all the other factors and positions and unseen forces, etc., many things are known to be true, but would seem couterintuitive when you start learning.Quoting: mclarek 986233
There is a reason the English language invented the word gobbledygook.
Watch the movies on the hoax. I id hours of watching. I remember it from one of the movies. If you are really interested in knowing if it's fake, then learn about it.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Watching YouTubes is a sorry excuse for actual research.
I am prsenting what they presented.Quoting: mclarek 986233
Without having put one iota of critical thought into it.
Isn't there any brand of woowoo you won't buy hook, line, and sinker?
There are many people under nat. sec. oaths to this day from NASA and some are talking, but obliquely.Quoting: mclarek 986233
"I'm hearing what I want to hear, not what people are saying."
The photos are faked (hoaxed, rather);Quoting: mclarek 986233
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has got one.
But the inside images of the Apollo 11 flight (see to end to understand fully) are enough, actually, to know: they are still close to Earth too long into their flight to have likely made it to the Moon.Quoting: mclarek 986233
[link to youtube.com]
AND there's the question of why fake anything on the flight? For this was clear flight fakery: there is NO question in this leaked video: there are he guys, the film in front of the window, the conversations they are known to have broadcast (but they only broadcast part of what's caught on the leaked vid) ... etc.
Bart Sibrel's "never before seen" and 'leaked' footage was broadcast LIVE at the time.
Sibrel doesn't show you the bits that actually DISPROOF his claims.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Jim McDade, writing in the Birmingham News, characterized A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon as "full of falsehoods, innuendo, strident accusations, half-truths, flawed logic and premature conclusions." According to McDade, the "only thing new and weird" in the 47-minute film is the claim that the video views of Earth were actually filmed through a small hole to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit. "Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup," says McDade.
Sibrel is a con-man, a stalker, and a li... *thoof*
Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 06/01/2010 05:59 PM
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. — Don Marquis
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.
Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
|Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian
User ID: 434868
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
RE: Chemtrails.
In the Real World smart people adhere to the KISS* principle.
IF a secret cabal wanted the effects of Islamist terrorists flying hijacked airliners into office buildings
they would have ARRANGED for Islamist terrorists to fly hijacked airliners into office buildings.
That minimises the number off potential loose ends, people involved, leaks, contradictory evidence, etc, etc.
RE: The Moon's rotation.
No amount of verbiage can hide your daftness.
* Keep It Simple, Stupid.
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. — Don Marquis
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.
Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 896329
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Look at the testimony only. And realize he has high expertise in the field.Quoting: mclarek 986233
There you go again, appealing to authority using a nutjob as an expert. And you accuse US of being guilty of appealing to authority? You're unfrickenbelievable clare. You just don't get it.
You're the self-proclaimed "nut", Astronut.
And no, you have no knowledge how real wonderful people hold all kinds of other theories than you'd accept --- but here, it is his flight experience at that level which counts.
He is an authority on AIRCRAFT and FLIGHT.
He backs up what he says and concludes the planes couldn't do the manoeuvres.
Plus, the other pilots and aircraft personnel, who do NOT all believe there were no planes, have discovered there was a flyby at the Pentagon, per the black box data, and other things.
And we have a witness who refused to be cowed, only 40 fet away, saying no jet fuel. So did early reporters.
And that's just the Pentagon.
Argue not from firm conclusion, and you will see Lear is not arguing from conclusion either. He has the experience and he backs up his argument.
Hypothesis is a temporary conclusion to discover all lines of reasoning; but one does not argue from "final conclusion" in the sense of a notion which one does not back up and refuses to test.
DFDR data is not 100% accurate. If you knew how they worked, you would know they have a margin of error in the data they record.
Oh, I forgot...you don't know what a DFDR is.
|Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
In the Real WorldQuoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD
While it seems like a flippant accusation to say someone doesn't about the "real world," that is a large part of the problem here.
In the Real World, you can't just sneak bulldozers and trucks of debris into rural Pennsylvania and secretly make a fake crash site.
In the Real World, you can't sample someone's voice and create a digital simulation that would convince an intimate associate.
In the Real World, you can't set off an explosion in a building that exactly matches the fake videos you've made ahead of time. In the Real World, you can't simultaneously insert your fake videos into every conceivable media stream in NYC.
In the Real World, you can't send in Men in Suits to covertly plant plane parts at a scene inundated with media and all sorts of emergency responders.
|George B
Extinct But Not Forgotten!
User ID: 976283
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
You just shot your argument down before it started.Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281
Opponent Exhibit #1: Contrail definition by NOAA: A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines. [link to www.wrh.noaa.gov]
Case closed.
I in no way feel the above definition by NOAA limits my chances of winning. Why don't you observe the Trial and see.
The point is that the "normal" definition of contrails explains everything observed perfectly well. Why bring un-needed complexity into something that is really very simple.
Your are correct the complexity is staggering. It is one of the most complex scientific, political, military, and social issue of our era. Aerial particulate dispersal for tactical and weapon system support has a long and ugly past. The Air Force alone has spent decades studying the medical and environmental implications in Project Ranch Hand. The particulate dispersal programs of the past are minimal compared to the more covert and massive programs that are now in play. I feel shining the light of day on the activities would be welcomed by concerned citizens!
Last Edited by George B on 06/02/2010 12:30 AM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!
"Email: firstname.lastname@example.com"
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
|George B
Extinct But Not Forgotten!
User ID: 976283
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
[link to www.globalsecurity.org]
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
National Security and
International Affairs Division
September 22, 1998
The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Dear Senator Reid:
This report responds to your request regarding the use of chaff by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the effects of chaff. Chaff is composed of aluminum-coated silica glass fibers that can be spread by aircraft in flight, ships at sea, and vehicles on the ground to help them evade enemy
radar. You expressed concern about DOD's continued use of chaff for decades without sufficient knowledge of its long-term effects on the environment. As agreed with your office, this report addresses (1) the extent and locations of chaff use, (2) its reported known and potential
effects, and (3) the initiatives being taken or considered to address chaff's unintended effects
While DOD components report that chaff is an effective means of defense for aircraft, ships, and related weapon systems, DOD and other agencies have identified some unintended and potential side effects of chaff. Chaff
can affect safety by interfering with air traffic control radar. Chaff can also affect weather radar observations and the operation of friendly radar systems, especially when vehicles stir up chaff that has settled on the
ground. It has been reported that chaff has also caused power outages and damaged electrical equipment. Potential effects cited by Defense and other organizations include those on health and the environment. For example,
the Air Force reported that chaff has a potential but remote chance of collecting in reservoirs and causing chemical changes that may affect water and the species that use it.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!
"Email: firstname.lastname@example.com"
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
|The Commentator
User ID: 587619
United States
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
[link to www.globalsecurity.org]Quoting: George B
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
National Security and
International Affairs Division
September 22, 1998
The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Dear Senator Reid:
This report responds to your request regarding the use of chaff by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the effects of chaff. Chaff is composed of aluminum-coated silica glass fibers that can be spread by aircraft in flight, ships at sea, and vehicles on the ground to help them evade enemy
radar. You expressed concern about DOD's continued use of chaff for decades without sufficient knowledge of its long-term effects on the environment. As agreed with your office, this report addresses (1) the extent and locations of chaff use, (2) its reported known and potential
effects, and (3) the initiatives being taken or considered to address chaff's unintended effects
While DOD components report that chaff is an effective means of defense for aircraft, ships, and related weapon systems, DOD and other agencies have identified some unintended and potential side effects of chaff. Chaff
can affect safety by interfering with air traffic control radar. Chaff can also affect weather radar observations and the operation of friendly radar systems, especially when vehicles stir up chaff that has settled on the
ground. It has been reported that chaff has also caused power outages and damaged electrical equipment. Potential effects cited by Defense and other organizations include those on health and the environment. For example,
the Air Force reported that chaff has a potential but remote chance of collecting in reservoirs and causing chemical changes that may affect water and the species that use it.
So get a fucking in situ sample and END the argument.
oh wait, that may ruin your fantasy, right?
non sufficit Orbis
Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.
"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"
Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill
NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!


text:
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — A Philippine military official says seven marines were killed and 21 others were wounded in a fierce jungle clash with a large group of al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf militants.
Regional military spokesman Lt. Col. Randolph Cabangbang says the platoon of marines managed to penetrate a jungle encampment of more than 50 Abu Sayyaf militants in mountainous Patikul township in southern Sulu province when a gunbattle erupted early Thursday.
Cabangbang says it was not immediately clear if there were casualties among the militants, who were led by Radulan Sahuran, a one-armed commander long wanted by U.S. and Philippine authorities for a string of terrorist attacks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pasadena Burglaries
PASADENA (CNS) - A series of burglaries have been reported this month in Pasadena, with thieves making off with electronics and jewelry, police warned residents today.
At least seven homes were burglarized this month between Lake Avenue and Martello Avenue north of Orange Grove Boulevard, according to the Pasadena Police Department.
During one of the robberies, two black males were seen, police said. Both men were in their 20s, one was 5 feet 8 inches tall, thin, and wearing a light-colored ``Harvard'' t-shirt and the other was 5 feet 10 inches tall, thin, and wearing a red t-shirt and olive cargo shorts.
On another occasion a Hispanic or Armenian female in her 20s with black hair worn in a ponytail was seen taking recently delivered packages from a front porch, police said. She got into a red, four-door vehicle with black and yellow dealer paper plates. The vehicle was driven by a male.
Most of the burglaries were during the day and early evening, with some taking place within two to three hours of the victims leaving their homes, police said. Suspects may be in the area watching and waiting for the victims to leave, police said.
Authorities urged residents to lock doors and windows when leaving home.


text:
Westminster man dies in Saturday tractor accident
A Westminster man is dead following a tractor accident Saturday afternoon. Oconee County Coroner Karl Addis says 68 year-old Furman Wallace "Dink" Blackwell died at the scene near Alice Lane in Westminster. Police say 911 was notified of the incident just before 4:00 PM on Saturday when a passerby noticed the overturned tractor. Addis says Blackwell was turning soil using a Long 445 tractor. It appears the tractor went up a slop causing it to rollover sideways and onto its top, pinning Mr. Blackwell beneath it. Addis has classified the death as accidental, due to asphyxiation. There will be no autopsy.


text:
Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by jacs, Dec 3, 2004.
post them if you have them
This is funnier if you have kids...
Hey I kinda like that last pic
good one
Anyone find it the least bit hypocritical that the term "owned," is used w/ NO repercussions or complaints by the same group of ppl, that become incensed if I, as a "white American" refer to them as anything OTHER than, "African"??
LMAO!!! That is so dang funny. I'm having flashbacks...If that lil girls hair had been a bit darker, I'd swear those were my kids. Funny now - nightmare then.. Do you know how much Johnsons baby wash it takes to clean up that mess???
WOWWW, Even I'M not gonna comment on certain few points in THIS statement!!!
what??? My kids have brown hair and so did their daddy. I'm the only blonde in this household... and yes, I am a true blonde