Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 467 Location: North London
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: Don't get it
Sorry, Snowygrouch, I still don't get it. You say that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and the Pentagon are lying. OK, with you there. Then you say another plane hit the Pentagon. And there's where I've lost you.
The reason that people ignore the 100 or so witnesses who say they saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is that:
i. there is no physical evidence to support this, and
ii. it is very, highly unlikely that a passenger plane could have been flown into the Pentagon in terms of the official story.
There are no plane parts that make a Flight 77 hit the most likely. There are no Flight 77 engine remnants. The plane could not have vapourised.
And as reported:
Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job
17 Jul 2005 By Greg Szymanski
Knowing the flight characteristics of the "big birds" like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was "totally impossible for an amateur who couldn't even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn't do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.
"I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn't jump in and fly one," he added.
Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.
"If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted," said Wittenberg. "Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane's flight identification goes with it.
"All that's left on the controller's screen is a green blip, that's it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example."
So are you saying another 757 or similar hit the Pentagon?
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: PLane
This is a point I`m trying to make here, ALL I CAN PROVE 100% is the faked black box data.
That is enough to get the bas****s, I dont know what DID hit the building and nobody on this forum or ANY other does either.
If you want my "opinion" it is that a medium sized military cargo plane did hit the building. Probably a fair bit smaller than a 757-200 but there are too many eyewitnesses and physical parts to say its definetly a missile.
What I`m trying to do here is stick to what I can ABSOLUTELY PROVE and no more. Thats what you'd do in a courtroom and for me this forum IS that courtrom.
If I could PROVE it was a missile I would. However I dont have the evidence to prove it either way so I`m open minded about it.
Do I think it was a 757-200????? NO.
Can I prove a missile????? NO.
Can I prove enough to interest my MP and the press???? YES.
Job done IMHO. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Snowygrouch, this is excellent work. When some people say they have done research they mean they have checked out somebody else's research - you are a true researcher. I take my hat off to you.
So, please, please, please don't think I am being critical when I ask this.
In your interview, the interviewee says, 'it will be the heading corrected for variation [my note: and presumably, deviation] so it will be a magnetic heading'. Bearings are corrected from magnetic to true.
And I might be wrong about this as I only ever worked on military aircraft but I would expect the compass used in the recording of data would be a gyro compass, i.e. a compass which gives bearings as true readings - no correction for variation or deviation is necessary. The interviewee refers to a gyro system at the end of the second section.
Variation and deviation combined can cause huge magnetic/true differences.
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: bearings
THX for the compliment, bear in mind there are 15 minuites of calls between myself and this guy. He goes into ALOT of detail but I cannot post all the calls at its way over the upload size limit.
The upshot is the plane is well under 20 years old (i have the data sheet from the FAA somewhere) and so has the lazer gyro system. Accurate to several decimal places.
An error of 6 degrees at 500 Mph will put you 1 Kilometer off course in 42 seconds to put that sort of error in perspective. Not the sort of error that you want!
He explained that even the old system has very sophisticated compensation systems that log changes in the earths magnetic field etc and are so exceptionally accurate.
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: Agreed.
As usual, excellent work from you SG. Keep it up
And might I also add a thankyou , hopefully behalf of all of us who tend to trust their own eyes and intuition, but are reluctant to conduct the (increasingly) neccesary spadework involved in backing up such common sense intuition.
I know what I saw at the pentagon. I instinctively knew it when I saw it the very first time. But of course, and at express speed, the MSM - MainStream Media made my instincts ( which asked for that fleeting second "wheres the plane gone ?" ) look stupid.
3 years and a lifetimes reading later, I understand of course that I should have trusted my instincts at the time.
I might at this point go into the "Fool me once " quote, had that not been already immortalised by the ultimate fool.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:42 am Post subject:
Let's assume he was in on whatever was about to happen.
This is exactly what SG meant, do not assume anything, stick to the facts and we might actually get somewhere. Great work Calum! _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
My take is with you and Andrew on this, there certainly was some sort of aircraft that hit the pentagon (Global Hawk with a missile) AND a very low flying 757. Not saying it was Flight 77, just an inkling that there definitely was a 757 around at the same time.
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 489 Location: Manchester
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject:
really good work snowy
and i like your attitude. lets stick to proof. we have opinions and conclusions, we should be careful not to blur the line between them.
we need more people like you if we are to make any significant progress.
if you need more webspace to host your mp3s i'd be happy to upload stuff to my server. i've got plenty of space and a fair bit of bandwidth _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum