Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Jack White

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

Recommended Posts

I had thought these two subjects might raise a lot of interesting discussion among forum members. My initial postings have been greeted with a big yawn so far.

In worldwide significance these two topics rate much higher than the assassination of one man, JFK. The official stories of all three historical events are untrue, and trying to unravel the mysteries and find the truth is a fascinating quest.

If you are interested in my continuation of the Apollo fake photos, please reply to this message. I want to know who wants me to continue, as it is a lot of trouble if nobody is reading and thinking about the questions raised.

I plan to follow the Apollo postings with my 911 studies. Let me know of your interest in both subjects.

Thanks.

Jack White :tomatoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had thought these two subjects might raise a lot of interesting discussion among forum members. My initial postings have been greeted with a big yawn so far.

In fact your thread has had 245 views so far. That is not bad considering it is a new subject. I think one of the problems was the title. I have now recalled it "Moon Landing Hoax". Hopefully this will help. If you have not yet read Jack's postings you will find them here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2632

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jack,

im am indeed very interested as I have yet to read up on either matter. most people take a direct link to the jfk assassination forum, thats probably why people may not see it as much as the other forum.

cheers

john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

can I have a bit of speculation from you as to what happened on sep11. it is believed that the planes were cargo planes, does this suggest somebody in military did this? if the planes werent hijakced, were they flown into the sea? what happened to the plane that went down in pitsburgh? who did this (im asking generally as I know as with the jfk case names cant be mentioned) and why? I would assume as it has been pointed out as a reichstag fire type scenario

john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

I think the photos serve an important public service. Please present as many as possible with your critical analysis. It will generate debate, believe me.

In the JFK forum, there is a rough consensus against the lone gunman (or govenment sponsored null hypothesis) but in this new field of NASA cold war photo propaganda there is a rough consensus for the truth of the central proposition (US astronauts traversed actual Moon)...so people are soaking it up, applying critical skills, wary, and less likely to jump in to comment than they might be about the Kennedy evidence. You will definitely be called to defend this theory before too much time passes with this thread, it is very exciting and challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

I think the photos serve an important public service. Please present as many as possible with your critical analysis. It will generate debate, believe me.

In the JFK forum, there is a rough consensus against the lone gunman (or govenment sponsored null hypothesis) but in this new field of NASA cold war photo propaganda there is a rough consensus for the truth of the central proposition (US astronauts traversed actual Moon)...so people are soaking it up, applying critical skills, wary, and less likely to jump in to comment than they might be about the Kennedy evidence. You will definitely be called to defend this theory before too much time passes with this thread, it is very exciting and challenging.

Thanks, Shanet. I hope that you will note that I present NO THEORIES. I only

present photos and point out obvious anomalies. I have no evidence that manned

missions did NOT go to the moon. I do have much evidence that the PHOTOS WERE

FAKED. Thanks for your interest. I hope you will study each one carefully and

try to find whether I am wrong on any. But remember, IF EVEN ONE PHOTO IS

PROVABLY FAKED, THEN ALL ARE SUSPECT. I think all of my analyses can withstand

debate. If anyone sees ANYTHING WRONG, please tell me. All I want is truth and

accuracy.

Jack :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

can I have a bit of speculation from you as to what happened on sep11. it is believed that the planes were cargo planes, does this suggest somebody in military did this? if the planes werent hijakced, were they flown into the sea? what happened to the plane that went down in pitsburgh? who did this (im asking generally as I know as with the jfk case names cant be mentioned) and why? I would assume as it has been pointed out as a reichstag fire type scenario

john

John...generally I try to avoid "conspiracy theories". But many people smarter than

I am have theorized answers to your questions on numerous 911 websites. I will attempt

to summarize one of the best theories from memory:

1. there were NO hijackings or arab hijackers

2. all four flights were taken over by the military

3. using a pretext, all four planes were landed at military base(s)

4. passengers/crews of all flights were less than 25% capacity

5. all passengers/crews were loaded onto flight 93, loading it to capacity

6. other aircraft were substituted for flight 11 and flight 175, headed for NY WTC

7. flight 77 was hidden at a military base, along with flights 11 and 175 for later disposal

8. the two substitute planes hit WTC towers, which were brought down by controlled demolition

9. a military missile or remote-controlled plane hit a special section of the Pentagon

10. flight 93 WITH PASSENGERS FROM ALL 4 PLANES is shot down over Pennsylvania.

11. "official story" propaganda is controlled by the government

12. "official story" provides NEW PEARL HARBOR excuse to launch anti-arab war for OIL.

I recommend the book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, which can be purchased from Amazon.

It is also available FREE on the internet but I do not have the URL handy. I also recommend

the video 911 IN PLANE SITE.

Jack :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

can I have a bit of speculation from you as to what happened on sep11. it is believed that the planes were cargo planes, does this suggest somebody in military did this? if the planes werent hijakced, were they flown into the sea? what happened to the plane that went down in pitsburgh? who did this (im asking generally as I know as with the jfk case names cant be mentioned) and why? I would assume as it has been pointed out as a reichstag fire type scenario

john

John...generally I try to avoid "conspiracy theories". But many people smarter than

I am have theorized answers to your questions on numerous 911 websites. I will attempt

to summarize one of the best theories from memory:

1. there were NO hijackings or arab hijackers

2. all four flights were taken over by the military

3. using a pretext, all four planes were landed at military base(s)

4. passengers/crews of all flights were less than 25% capacity

5. all passengers/crews were loaded onto flight 93, loading it to capacity

6. other aircraft were substituted for flight 11 and flight 175, headed for NY WTC

7. flight 77 was hidden at a military base, along with flights 11 and 175 for later disposal

8. the two substitute planes hit WTC towers, which were brought down by controlled demolition

9. a military missile or remote-controlled plane hit a special section of the Pentagon

10. flight 93 WITH PASSENGERS FROM ALL 4 PLANES is shot down over Pennsylvania.

11. "official story" propaganda is controlled by the government

12. "official story" provides NEW PEARL HARBOR excuse to launch anti-arab war for OIL.

I recommend the book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, which can be purchased from Amazon.

It is also available FREE on the internet but I do not have the URL handy. I also recommend

the video 911 IN PLANE SITE.

Jack :D

Here IN PART is OPERATION PEARL by Canadian Professor A.K.Dewdney:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Operation Pearl

by Professor A. K. Dewdney

August 2003

Editor's note: Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 (a detailed extension of the

Valentine-Plissken Hypothesis) is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple. Here's a synopsis for those

who have a slight comprehension problem or don't have time to read it all:

1.Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take

off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2.Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with

extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to

deceive the air traffic controllers.

3.These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes

later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4.A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5.Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

6.This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania,

eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7.Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the

Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.

1 Summary

It is possible to produce the appearance of a terrorist attack on the United States by means

that do not employ terrorists, as such, but by the simple substitution of one aircraft for

another, particularly when the transponders of the aircraft involved are turned off. The only

people who need to be deceived by such an operation are the radar operators at air traffic

control (ATC) centers.

The scenario explored here, called Operation Pearl (after Pearl Harbor), has been described in

sufficient operational detail that sound judgments can be made about a) feasibility and :D

consistency with evidence on the ground. At the time of this writing it is probably the best

available description of what probably took place on September 11, 2001.

Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the passengers of all four flights died in an aerial

explosion over Shanksville, PA and the remaining three airliners are at the bottom of the

Atlantic Ocean.

2 Introduction

Since March of 2002, persons probing the web for further information about the 9/11 attacks

could not fail to encounter, sooner or later, a scenario advanced by Carol Valentine. Called the

"Flight of the Bumble Planes" (Valentine 2002), it allegedly came from an informant who would

only identify himself as "Snake Plissken," the name of the hero of the movie, Escape from New

York (footnote 1).

The informant outlined the basic hijacking method in an email message to Carol Valentine,

comparing it to a flight of bumble bees. Watching bees as they buzz around among flowers, it is

very difficult to follow individual bees, since they are always passing close to one another.

This metaphor translates into the flight of two aircraft in a confined locale of airspace. If

the separation between them is small enough, radar operators will see not two aircraft, but one.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, according to this scenario, all four "hijacked" aircraft

landed at a single airport or air base, transferring their passengers to a single aircraft, the

one that crashed in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, remotely controlled aircraft of various types

carried out the actual attacks. The scenario, as presented by Valentine, consists of little more

than I have presented here.

Of course, there is a vast difference between an outline and a detailed operational plan. It may

turn out, for example, that any attempt to imagine how a specific scheme is implemented runs

into snags, as in the attempt by Spencer (2003) to get all four aircraft to one air base long

enough for the combined list of over 200 passengers to board a single aircraft, take off and

crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Spencer, however, assumed that the takedown of aircraft

coincided with the turning off of transponders. In the present paper the scenario is modified to

allow takedown prior to the turning off of transponders, assuming that takedown occurred at the

first deviation of each aircraft from its flight plan. The refurbished scenario has now been

completed to a level of detail that makes it possible to evaluate its feasibility, as well as

its consistency with the evidence, as presently acquired and developed.

A scenario named Ghost Riders in the Sky was previously constructed by the author (Dewdney

2002). The purpose of that scenario was simply to demonstrate that alternate scenarios that

fitted all the facts (as then understood by the author) could be constructed. The scenario

involved killing all the passengers and flight crew with a fast-acting nerve agent, then

triggering a software patch in the aircraft flight control systems to direct the aircraft to

their various destinations. However, when it became evident that no Boeing 757 had actually

struck the Pentagon (see The Pentagon Evidence, also on this website), the scenario was rendered

invalid. The Ghost Riders scenario, like the Bush-Cheney scenario, required that the aircraft

that struck their respective targets were as advertised, two 767s and two 757s.

The fact that the Ghost Riders scenario must now be rejected illustrates the nature of this

inquiry. As in science, hypotheses must be formulated, then tested against the available

evidence. If found wanting in the light of that evidence, they must be rejected. It is normal in

any scientific inquiry to formulate and analyze more than one hypothesis before one is found

that actually works. The same remark also applies to criminal investigations.

3 The Evidence Filter

Any scenario constructed to account for the events of September 11 2001 must pass a graduated

test, as embodied in the following items. These fall into three classes:

Suspicious circumstances

1.Four of the named hijackers were not in the United States.

2.The WTC towers collapsed without adequate heat stress.

3.Smaller aircraft accompanied Flights 77 and 93.

4.Most of the alleged hijackers were rather poor pilots.

5.Evidence of the alleged hijackers developed too quickly.

6.Westward excursion of Flights UA93 and AA77 are inexplicable as terrorists hurrying to

targets."

Anomalies

1.The US Air Force failed to intercept any of the flights.

2.The hijackers' names did not show up on passenger lists.

3.The hijackers' faces did not appear on boarding gate videos.

4.Black boxes were missing from all but one flight.

Contradictions

1.The Pentagon was not struck by a large passenger aircraft.

2.Cellphone calls alleged to have been made by passengers were essentially impossible.

A successful scenario must at least explain the contradictions and account for a majority of the

anomalies. It is of course desirable that it also account for the suspicious circumstances, but

no scenario need stand or fall in this regard.

It must be remarked that the only scenario ever supplied to the public via the official media

was the Bush-Cheney scenario, that Arab hijackers seized control of the four aircraft and

proceeded to pilot them into national landmarks, killing both themselves and their passengers.

Clearly, the Bush-Cheney scenario, considered in detail, explains none of the suspicious

circumstances, none of the anomalies and is directly contradicted by the facts adduced in the

third category. As scenarios go, it is a distinct failure.

4 Technical Elements

The two major technical aspects of the Operation Pearl scenario involve radar and remote

control. Radar technology has been with us since World War Two, some 60 years ago. Remote

control technology has been around in various forms for at least twenty years. With a basic

understanding of both radar and remote control in relation to 9/11, it becomes possible for the

average citizen to think for himself or herself.

4.1 Radar Substitution

A radar screen is essentially a circular CRT (cathode ray tube — like a television screen) that

displays aircraft within the circular airspace represented on the screen. Radar operators are

the only people who can be aware of what planes are in the sky and where they are going. The

vast majority of people are completely unaware of what is going on in any large volume of

airspace and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let

alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a

commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft

for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the radar

operators.

The resolution of a radar screen is the size of the smallest point that can appear there,

approximately two millimeters in diameter — a "blip." A typical radar screen, less than a meter

in diameter, could therefore be described as less than 500 "blips" wide. If the airspace

represented on the screen were 500 kilometers in diameter (approximately 300 miles, a not

atypical size), each blip would represent a piece of airspace that is more than 500/500 = 1

kilometer wide.

In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within a kilometer of one another, there would be a

tendency for their respective blips to merge. With half a kilometer separation or less, the two

aircraft could easily appear as one.

Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a distinct risk of collision — unless

they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent

airspace in the same way as a map, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed. Thus,

without additional information in the form of a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for

a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not.

Altitude information is displayed if an aircraft's transponder is turned on, otherwise, the

radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.

If one aircraft happens to be within a half kilometer of another, whether above that aircraft or

below it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a

horizontal separation that is no greater than half a kilometer (about 500 yards).

Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both

with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both

planes swerve, each taking the other's former direction. The operator would simply see the

aircraft cross and would have no way to realize that a swap had taken place.

There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch

up and "pass" another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded

up.

Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be

invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a

radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had

been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.

Of course, if the transponders are turned on, as explained in the next section, such confusion

is less likely to occur. Even in this case, however, the deception can be complete if the

aircraft switch transponder codes.

4.2 Aircraft transponders

Every commercial passenger jet carries a transponder, a device that emits a special radio

message whenever it senses an incoming radar wave. The signal carries the transponder code, a

multi-digit number that serves to identify the particular aircraft to radar operators at air

traffic control centers. The purpose of the code is to make it clear to ATC operators which

plane is which. Other information sent by the transponder includes the altitude at which the

aircraft is flying. Transponders were implemented many years ago precisely for the reason that

radar blips are otherwise easily confused. Transponders make the radar operator's job much

easier.

The pilot of an airliner can turn the transponder on or off in the cockpit. He or she can also

change the code by keying in a new number.

Transponder codes for all aircraft departing from a given air traffic control region are

assigned by the ATC authority more or less arbitrarily. The only important criterion for the

numbers so assigned is that they all be different. It sometimes happens that an aircraft

entering the control area carries the same transponder code as another aircraft that is already

in the area. In such a case, one of the pilots is requested to change his or her code to avoid

confusion.

4.3 Remote Control

A remote control system of the type used in this scenario uses a signal interface that does two

things: It reads signals from a ground station and sends signals back to it. Both sets of

signals must pass through the aircraft's antenna system. In the Boeing 757 and 767 the antenna

system is located in the forward belly of the aircraft.

The outgoing signal from the aircraft would include a video signal from a camera located in the

nose or other forward portion of the aircraft. Flight data such as control positions, airspeed

and other instrument readings are also included in the outgoing signal. The incoming signal from

the ground station would include the position of a virtual control yoke (governing direction of

aircraft), thrust, trim, and other essential flight parameters.

The virtual pilot would sit in front of a reduced instrument panel and a video monitor. A

simplified control yoke or "joystick" control would also be part of the operator's equipment.

The remote pilot would watch the instruments, as well as the video image, making continuing

adjustments in the aircraft's flight path, just as if he or she sat in the cockpit of the actual

aircraft.

Many claims of the attacking aircraft being under "remote control" have appeared on the web

since 9/11, but typically with little or no supporting documentation. The claim of a

pre-installed anti-hijacking system (Vialls 2001) has proved impossible to verify. Similarly,

claims that Global Hawk technology (USAF 98) was used are rampant, but do not quite fit the

specific version of Operation Pearl presented here. For one thing, the Global Hawk system does

not use remote visual guidance, but onboard navigation electronics that bypass the need for

direct, minute-by-minute human control.

The system invoked for the attacks in Operation Pearl is based on the Predator unmanned

surveillance vehicle (USAF undated), a modularized aircraft that can be broken into components

for ease of shipping and rapid deployment. One of the components includes a remote guidance

module which could be refitted to another aircraft (with appropriate modifications) without the

need to strip a predator vehicle. The predator operates under remote human guidance from a

ground station that, once deployed, would require as few as two human operators during a

"secure" operation.

A second possibility involves a system known as a "flight termination system," manufactured by

the System Planning Corporation. (SPC 2000) This system permits hands-on control of a nearly

endless variety of aircraft, the control interface being to a large degree customizable. For the

purposes of the Operation Pearl scenario, either of these systems might well be adaptable to the

remote operations of nonmilitary jet aircraft.

Without question, however, the basic technology for the remote guidance of aircraft has been on

hand for many years. For a large intelligence organization it would be a straightforward

technical operation to install a remote control system in virtually any type of aircraft,

whether a large commercial airliner or anything smaller. The aircraft carrying the installation

would be available and prepared in advance, then substituted for the passenger aircraft it was

meant to replace.

4.4 Electronic towing

An interesting but different form of remote control is invoked by the Operation Pearl scenario

in the "cleanup" phase, namely the disposal of the three aircraft that did not crash in

Pennsylvania or anywhere else. I call this facility "electronic towing," It consists of two

"black boxes" that pick up signals from an aircraft's data bus, a shared electronic pathway

travelled by all electronic signals that control the aircraft. (Spitzer 2000) Each black box can

read the bus through the data bus monitor, as well as insert information into the bus. Because

the connections are already available, installation of the boxes could be completed in a matter

of hours on any aircraft. In this relatively simple form of remote control, one aircraft would

be called the "slave," the other the "master." In addition, two 2-way radios allow the black

boxes to communicate, specifically for the master box to send its signals to the slave box.

Under identical conditions, the slave aircraft will do precisely what the master aircraft does.

Such control signals could also be taped and replayed later to invoke in the slave aircraft

exactly the same behavior as the master.

To initiate towing, the master aircraft takes off first, while the slave aircraft remains on the

runway, completely unoccupied. As soon (or as late) as the pilot of the master aircraft wishes

to, a recording of the master signals is played over the radio to the slave aircraft, which then

takes off precisely as the master aircraft did. The slave will then follow the master wherever

the pilot of the master wishes to go. With a short time delay in the control loop, the slave

aircraft would appear literally to be towed by the master, always maintaining the same distance

and position behind it. If the pilot of the master aircraft wished to "unhitch" the slave, he

could simply cut the control signal. Over the ocean, the unhitched aircraft might fly until it

runs out of fuel or it might be blown up by implanted explosives.

5 Operation Pearl

In the detailed scenario to follow, Harrisburg International Airport was selected as the base of

operations. However, any airport, airbase or landing strip of suitable length within, say, 50 km

of Harrisburg might work just as well. The following table displays the takeoff times of the

respective aircraft from Boston's logan Airport, Newark International, and Washington's Dulles

Airport on the morning of September 11, 2001. Assuming a takedown at the first deviation, the

flying times to Harrisburg International Airport are calculated and the arrival times of the

respective aircraft at Harrisburg are displayed. All flying times are based on the assumption of

an average airspeed of 805 km/h (500 mph). In each case, 5 minutes is added at either end of the

flight to allow for takeoffs and landings.

(time schedule redacted)

As a convenience, the takedown of Flight UA93 has been made simultaneous with the aircraft's

takeoff. Since the flight path was directed toward Harrisburg, the takedown time is not relevant

to the calculation as it could have taken place anywhere along the route, yielding the same

result for arrival in Harrisburg.

As a feasibility check, we may now calculate whether there was adequate time on the ground in

Harrisburg to deplane three of the aircraft, loading their passengers onto Flight UA93. Working

backwards, the flight of UA93 from Harrisburg to Shanksville involved a distance of 144 km for a

flight time of 18 minutes. Thus, to "crash" at 10:06 am, it had to leave Harrisburg no later

than 9:45 am. This would give the agents of Operation Pearl (see Appendix C) some 36 minutes to

board the passengers from the other flights onto Flight UA93.

A master timetable for the entire operation has been provided at the end of this article.

Readers may wish to consult this table, along with the accompanying map, in order to obtain a

birdseye view of all four flights.

We will now examine key elements of the scenario in the form of mini-dramatizations that place

the reader in the scene, as it were. The following sketches supply enough detail to provide a

secondary check on feasibility. I have used a compact notation to refer to the four replacement

flights, simply appending an "X" to the flight number. Thus "UA175X" refers to the replacement

aircraft for flight UA175.

5.1 The takedown

The morning of September 11 dawned bright and clear over Boston's Logan Airport as crews arrived

for the first flights of the day. The departure lounge for American Airlines Flight 11 was

already filling with passengers when John Ogonowski, the pilot, and Thomas McGuinness, the

second officer, arrived to board their Boeing 767 and begin the preflight check.

As passengers slowly filed past the check-in counter and onto the boarding ramp, the flight

officers proceeded through the cockpit checklist. The weather would be perfect for flying. Only

one little detail soured Ogonowski's day. He had been informed that an FBI antiterrorism agent

would be aboard the aircraft. Among the incoming passengers, a nondescript gentleman in a

business suit settled into a seat in first class. Just as the giant turbofan engines began their

warmup, a stewardess reminded the gentleman, now scribbling on a piece of paper, to fasten his

lap belt.

REMAINDER REDACTED BECAUSE OF LENGTH.

For full article, go to:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks jack,

this is fascinting stuff indeed. Im sorry to keep asking these questions but how are the cellphone calls made by passengers accounted for?

is the general concensus among family members of victims that this is the scenario that took place or do they think more along the lines that the govt had prior knowledge?

john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think nowadays we are less likely to get an inquiry into events sych as these, this is where broadcasters and producers come into the fold as they are likely to pay for studies to be done before they make a programme and should the programme be made this will cause public interest. it is imperative that documentaries be made about subjects such as these.

john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks jack,

this is fascinting stuff indeed. Im sorry to keep asking these questions but how are the cellphone calls made by passengers accounted for?

is the general concensus among family members of victims that this is the scenario that took place or do they think  more along the lines that the govt had prior knowledge?

john

Thanks for the intelligent question, John.

Rather than writing a complete summary of the IMPOSSIBILITY OF CELLPHONE CALLS

FROM AIRLINERS, I refer you to:

prisonplanet.tv/articles/ august2004/080804callsimpossible.htm

homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm

letsroll911.org/ipw-web/ bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=23188

www.ebtx.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB. pl?board=misc;action=display;num=1091514065

www.newstarget.com/002240.html

home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

http://www.rense.com/general56/moreholes.htm

911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html

www.911dossier.co.uk/hj08.html

rense.com/general40/nocell.htm,

911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/ 911/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm

feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ project_achilles_report_2_030225.html

www.sianews.com/ modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48

...and many more (Google 911 cellphone calls)

Jack :D

PS...it appears that all URLs did not copy properly as links, so you may need

to copy and paste.

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two A11 consecutive photos that demonstrate

bad lighting. The pix are part of a panorama series taken

from the same viewpoint. Therefore the lighting in the

background SHOULD BE IDENTICAL though the camera

is pointed a few degrees more to the right in the second

view. But note that at the splice line, the lighting does

not match.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are two A11 consecutive photos that demonstrate

bad lighting. The pix are part of a panorama series taken

from the same viewpoint. Therefore the lighting in the

background SHOULD BE IDENTICAL though the camera

is pointed a few degrees more to the right in the second

view. But note that at the splice line, the lighting does

not match.

Jack

Shadows in the flag photo are lighted from several

directions.

Jack :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another BAD LIGHTING sequence from A11.

In two different photos from the same viewpoint, the

LEM shadow points two different directions.

Jack :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is another BAD LIGHTING sequence from A11.

In two different photos from the same viewpoint, the

LEM shadow points two different directions.

Jack :blink:

Another bad lighting photo:

1. "hot spot" of lighting; sunlight would provide even lighting.

2. shadows go many directions; sunlight shadows would all go same direction.

3. + in center is center of photo; with "sun" behind photogapher, the SHADOW

OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER MUST POINT TO THE CENTER OF THE PHOTO.

Jack :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×