New UK analysis of Flight 77 black box data

[rodin]

BBC911 dwelt on the Pentagon strike. Apart from a computer animation by Chris Hoffman which showed a boeing knocking down interior columns but not the exterior wall in front of them there was testimony form a C130 pilot. Now, this is an edit, but I was wondering if Snowy could do us a diagram of where the C130 was when Steve O'Brien, the pilot, says (paraphrased)

'at 12 o'clock the plane was in a steep bank 30-40 degrees.... Then all of a sudden we saw a big explosion.'

I mean, how long would it take to level off in time for those light poles?

[GazeboflossUK]

Something I said in another thread.

Ahhh, it's this type of behaviour that will cause all future problems if some people are not careful

First it was the POD, then No Planes, now it is Space Beams.....what next? I dare not think.

I really think all this running too far ahead is frankly a very silly and childish trait that will be exploited by those trying to discredit all our hard work so far.

We already have enough information to make the foundations of strong, comprehensive and comprehensible case against the OCT......can't you see that?

Look, I don't ever see myself believing the No Plane theory.......but lets say it is true, hypothetically.........then PLEASE have the common sense and WAIT until we get to the stage where the case for no planes would not necessarily drive attention away from ALL the other issues regarding the orchestration of 9/11!

It's just a very important year for 9/11 Truth and being too damn complacent could cost us dear.......I believe most of us are in this for all the right reasons so lets be smart.....in fact, lets continue to be smart about this because we surely have come too far and worked too hard to begin and throw it all away!

Gareth.

[johndoex]

yeah.. i got some time to kill...

Hey Snowy. .this troll TWwhatever-his-name-is giving you trouble?

Hey TW... want to debate the data, animation with a real professional? Its obvious you havent a clue what you are talking about, you havent watched the film (i know 14 yr olds who understand the information.. how old are you?).

Geeeze,, we get hassles from people calling us no-planers.. .and then we get harrassed by people who are the real no-planers.. lol

Dont these trolls know how to pick up the phone and record the govt while questioning them as we do at pilotsfor911truth.org? Ahh.. i guess they would rather troll message boards than get work done..

Anytime you want to debate the facts, let me konw TW. But first might i suggest you learn a bit about aviation.

www.faa.gov.

They have free pdf downloads for those wishing to educated themselves. Let me know when you know the difference bettween True Altitude, Pressure Altitude, Absolute Altitude, Density Altitude, Vertical Speed, True Airspeed, Calibrated Airspeed, Indicated airspeed and know how to cross-check each one with the other.

Until then.. you dont even know the language.

Cheers!
Rob

[johndoex]

BBC911 dwelt on the Pentagon strike. Apart from a computer animation by Chris Hoffman which showed a boeing knocking down interior columns but not the exterior wall in front of them there was testimony form a C130 pilot. Now, this is an edit, but I was wondering if Snowy could do us a diagram of where the C130 was when Steve O'Brien, the pilot, says (paraphrased)

'at 12 o'clock the plane was in a steep bank 30-40 degrees.... Then all of a sudden we saw a big explosion.'

I mean, how long would it take to level off in time for those light poles?

For goodness sake. Look @ you. Squabbling like children. Don't you know there's a war on?

Quote aimed @ Snowy in the interest of relevance

picture courtesy of Merc at www.thepentacon.com

[truthmonger]

Haven't seen this mentioned on this thread, so here goes.

I imagine many of you have seen Joe Viall's pages at:
www.vialls.com/pentagon/pentagon2.html.

Joe thought he had found proof that a plane had hit the Pentagon. He titled his page: "Missing" Pentagon Attack Jet FLT AA 77 Found At Last!

We all know that no plane hit the Pentagon, so he was wrong on that, but the interesting thing about his evidence is that it shows former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak in a London BBC studio speaking just hours (maybe less) after the first plane hit the North Tower, saying:

If it is a kind of Bin Laden organization, and even if it's something else, I beloieve it is time to deploy globally a concerted effort led by the United States, UK, Europe and Russia against all sources of terror .... What is needed is also [going] after rogue states ... like Iran, Iraq and Libya. ... It's time to launch an operational concrete war against terror".

(The timing of this broadcast is uncertain. Joe said that the voice-over indicated that Barak was interviewed "three hours" after the first strike on the WTC. I am trying to get the full information on the broadcast out of the BBC on a FOI request, but they have so far refused to divulge it).

The connection with Flight 77 is that there is a large screen behind Barak in the studio showing a plane with a light-coloured underside i.e. filmed from below. The plane appears to be diving steeply towards the ground - the reason Vialls thought it was Flight 77.

The question is: which plane was it? Certainly not either of the planes which hit the towers.

I am trying to force the BBC to reveal where this footage came from and what it represents. I think it could be interesting.

There is also the question as to whether Barak (whose speech was prepared) had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Paul

[Eckyboy]

Snowy and his friends have found evidence that could prove that it was impossible for flight77 to have hit the pentagon and this for me is extremely relevant and important to what happened that day TRUTHWILLSETU3. This evidence for me seems to prove no plane hit the pentagon so I don't understand why you are attacking the guy who has obviously put a lot of time and effort into doing something constructive and which could prove invaluable. Keep up the good work Snowy.
Speaking of the C-130. Is it not also strange that this cumbersome and slow C-130 had visual contact with 2 of the 4 planes and yet the military could not get any super fast fighters to intercept them? Nobody ever seems to question this glaring fault.

[rodin]

BBC911 dwelt on the Pentagon strike. Apart from a computer animation by Chris Hoffman which showed a boeing knocking down interior columns but not the exterior wall in front of them there was testimony form a C130 pilot. Now, this is an edit, but I was wondering if Snowy could do us a diagram of where the C130 was when Steve O'Brien, the pilot, says (paraphrased)

'at 12 o'clock the plane was in a steep bank 30-40 degrees.... Then all of a sudden we saw a big explosion.'

I mean, how long would it take to level off in time for those light poles?

For goodness sake. Look @ you. Squabbling like children. Don't you know there's a war on?

Quote aimed @ Snowy in the interest of relevance

picture courtesy of Merc at www.thepentacon.com

John - check out the C130 pilot testimony in BBC911. He clearly said he saw the AA pane bank @ 30 - 40 degrees. First on the left (11 0 clock?) and then at 12 o'clock (dead ahead). Then he saw an explosion @ the Pentagon.

From those flight trajectories it seems to me that AA never crossed his path ie was never in the 12 o'clock position. In fact, from his description, he must have seen the explosion out of a right window.

Unless...

Is the AA flight trajectory incomplete on that picture? I guess it is - looks like the Pentagon is @ the spot marked DC? Ok they would cross just in front of the Pentagon. Does not mean that the flight hit the Pentagon. If it had flown over the Pentagon and a missile or bomb had hit @ the same time do you think the C130 pilot would notice the fast-departing AA plane?

[Samantha J Fox]

Very interesting work guys, keep it up.

As for TTWSU3, I believe his posting rights should be restricted to the NPT/Alternative theories forum.

To see his nonsense continually being spouted on a thread that reveals actual 1st hand research and some top class effort is just cringe worthy.

As more of a lurker than I poster I can honestly say that this poster does this forum not one iota of good.

[halm]

Absolutely excellent work Snowy. This is the kind of stuff that is going to bring this house of cards down - once major inconsistencies are incontrovertibly proven, the media cannot keep up the pretense any longer.

As an occasional visitor to the site, I too would like for TTWSU3 to be limited in some way as he consistently disrupts the honest and informative work of others. Its one thing promoting you own bizarre theories, but attempting to discourage and discredit the good work of others is plain wrong.

I mean ffs how can you possibly argue that black box data is worthless whilst promoting the evidence-less NPT??? Whether intentional or not, I believe his actions discredit the movement.

[Graham]

The question is: which plane was it? Certainly not either of the planes which hit the towers.

Well, it was white, and had 4 engines.

[truthmonger]

Hi Graham - bit of a cryptic reply. Do you have more specific information on its identity? It doesn't look like the C130 which was apparently in the area.

Paul

[ian neal]

Given that TTWSU3 was banned yesterday for his persistent failure to respect the advice of the moderators with regards his use of the forum, I have taken the liberty of deleting his posts and all those discussing his posts from this thread, since IMO they added nothing to the discussion of this research

Thanks