Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Len,

You posted:

Mike – I didn't start this "xxxx fight" and if you so want it's over. I acknowledged my mistakes; do you have the courage to admit to yours?

If you want to address the points I made instead of slinging mud feel free.

Peace,

Len

First of all, if you want to call it a "xxxx fight," that's up to you. And if you want to consider my post "mudslinging" that's up to you also. Those are your characterizations, not mine. In my intitial response I said two things that could be construed as personal, although they referred to your methods of research, and not you personally.

1) What kind of "research" is this?

2) I guess its no secret I don't think much of Mr. Colby's "research" or his reasoning on these matters. If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing.

Here were some of your responses:

1) Mr. Hogan's claim is totally bogus

2) it's not hard to find, my 10 year-old daughter found it. Obviously Mr. Hogan has no business criticizing anybody else's research.

3) I left out the above link inadvertently. I presume you have heard of Google, Yahoo and other search engines? With all the time you spent trying to debunk my post you could have found the article in about 5 seconds. That's doing something called 'research'.

4)Since your reply had more error and more serious errors than my original post you disparaging my research is like the "1st little pig" criticizing the "2nd little pig" for building a shoddy house.

5) I agree you post was very tediuos.(sic)

6) Do you understand the difference between ABOVE and BELOW Mr. Hogan?

7) Obviously "Mr. Hogan's" insinuation that I was being misleading is false. (I don't understand why you chose to put my name in quotation marks and I never insinuated that you were being misleading. Once again, that's your choice of words, not mine.)

My reference was only to the quality of your research and reasoning about a narrowly defined subject. (The stand down order) It is you who turned this exchange personal.

You criticized the quality of my research but your criticisms were based more on your mistakes than mine, as a response I pointed out your mistakes. Your tone seemed to me to be mocking and I replied accordingly, you say that wasn't your intention I'll take your word for it and leave it up to the others who read this thread to decide if my reaction was reasonable.

I was hoping you would admit you mistakes like I admitted mine thus far you haven't. Perhaps I could have worded the responses you numbered 1 – 7 more diplomatically but they were all (except possibly 5 and 7) valid, unlike most of your criticisms of my post.

I concluded with:

In closing, I will offer the following quote from Nafeez Ahmed's well documented book The War On Truth:

Throughout the 9/11 terrorists attacks, then, the US national security apparatus systematically facilitated the attacks by implementing policies that either inexplicably delayed the response of US air defense or methodically diverted it. Both the FAA and Norad inexplicably delayed their responses for unconscionably long periods, in breach of standard procedures. Repeatedly, fighter craft were indefinitely postponed, continuously misdirected, and ultimately stood down, in such a manner that permitted the attacks to occur entirely unhindered for over one and a half hours in the most restricted airspace in the world.

Your reply:

There are published books and websites many of them full of footnotes that assert: the Holocaust was a hoax, the Moon landings were a hoax, the Zapruder film was a hoax, the pyramids and Nazca lines were made by aliens, The world is controlled by the Illuminati, Queen Elizabeth is the Worlds biggest drug dealer, the Twin Towers had reinforced concrete cores, global warming will cause the World to explode and that sex between adults and young children should be permitted.(Emphasis mine) Simply repeating someone's assertion isn't enough if Mr. Ahmed has any hard evidence cite it. Without that his opinion and your assessment of it are meaningless.

You use the tactic of linking Nafeez Ahmed's book with books that assert "sex between young adults and young children should be permitted."

I didn't link his book with any books on the subjects in the list, I pointed out that just because the author of a book (or website) says something doesn't make it true. As you pointed out people can cite sources to prove just about anything so I pointed out that there are books with premises that most members of this forum would think are absurd yet are full of "documentation". As I show below Ahmed's book has several assertions that are false or unsubstantiated.

You say that simply repeating someone's assertion isn't enough, and challenge me to cite his evidence. Yet you repeatedly provide links that do nothing more than repeat someone's assertion to bolster your claims.

You did present his opinion without citing an iota of the "evidence" he used to reach his conclusion. It's hard for me to reply without knowing which quotes that I cited or links I provided you are referring to but most if not all the people I quoted were people with demonstrated expertise and/or personal knowledge of what they speak: pilots who have flown 757's or other jetliners saying it wasn't so hard to crash a 757 into the Pentagon, one of "Hani's" flight instructors saying he was a good pilot, the director of one of the flight schools he went to saying she cried on the morning of 9/11 because she knew he was involved, the manager of another flight school saying they had good instructors, a 757/767 pilot saying the controls on a flight simulator were identical to the controls of 767's and most (if not all) the links were to people giving their expert opinions or contained factual information.

Mr. Ahmed on the other had as far as I can tell has no experience in or expert knowledge of: military or civil aviation, radar, flight control, national security issues, the SOP's of the FAA, NORAD or the USAF, terrorism etc etc. He worked many years as a researcher for a human rights organization I've never heard of before founding his own "think tank" he makes no reference to his educational background on his sites (1) or the "about the author" blurb of his book (2) so I presume he doesn't have a college degree, he could even be a secondary school drop out as far as I know.

I read two chapters of his book on Amazon (2) and was not very impressed:

I - Executive Summery - he provides no documentation for any of his claims in this chapter, though it's possible there is "documentation" for them in the rest of the book.

II – Chap. 5 "The Collapse of Standard Operating Procedures on 9-11"

1) He documents broad claims made by other writers or things that are NOT in dispute but not points in contention for example:

i) He quotes Jared Israel (3) "The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed" (4) but he doesn't tell us what evidence Israel presented.

ii) He quotes FAA rules stating the pilots have to file flight plans and closely follow the designated flight paths.

iii) On the other hand he provides NO BACKING for the following:

"Air Traffic Controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced can not be solved through radio contact e.g. to inform commercial pilots when their planes are off course or to assess the situation directly.

The deviation of commercial planes from their designated flight path is a common problem solved via interception…"

Once in 10 years is routine and common? He cites the only case in the decade before 9/11 as if it were just one example of a common occurrence.

Nor does he provide backing for his claim that 8 minutes from "scramble order" to take off "is almost triple the normal amount of time for such aircraft to go from "scramble order" to 29,000 feet". He says that the "US Air Force's own website" says this happens in 2.5 minutes but doesn't provide a direct quote or a link and proves that he is not very good at math. ( Evan and Matthew in your professional opinions is it possible to go from scramble order to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes as a matter of routine? ).

2) He some times misrepresents his sources presumably this is unintentional for example he quotes the NTSB report of the Payne Stewart crash and reports the time of the last radio contact and time of interception but leaves out the references to the different time zones and claims the elapsed time was 21 minutes when in fact it was 81.

3) Some of his sources are third hand. For example he quotes a New York Press article which indirectly quoted a New York Times article stating that air traffic controllers knew that flight 11 had crashed into the Trade Center giving the impression that it was controllers in contact with NORAD. But according to the Complete 9/11 Timeline those were controllers in Newark and they only suspected that. A serious researcher should have used the NYT article as his source.

4) He makes other mistakes, for example he mentions that McGuire AFB is much closer to NYC than Otis but doesn't provide evidence that that base had pilots on scramble alert. He cites the top speed of these aircraft but doesn't take into account that supersonic flight is normally restricted or that (based on what I've read {Evan, Matthew?} it takes several minutes to reach such speeds).

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You did the same thing with Wittenberg. You asked "find me ONE airline pilot in good standing (not the nut who got fired from Continental in the 80's after failing psychological exams) who says Atta, Shehhi and Hanjour weren't good enough to have done what that did."

After one was pointed out to you, you responded by noting:

1) Wittenberg is a pilot but he is also right-wing extremist.

2) In 1988 he attended the fifteenth annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

3) Echoing ultra-right paranoia .....

4) The fact that on top of this he is associated with a Holocaust denier (Hufscmidt) isn't comforting. Might his judgment be clouded by his extremist political views?

My reaction to Wittenberg was very different. My 'beef' with Ahmed's passage that you quoted was that it was devoid of any EVIDENCE or INFORMATION which contradicted my position it was merely the opinion of a non-expert. I never challenged Wittenberg's expertise, quite to the contrary I provided a link to confirm it. I however cited about 8 other airline pilots with similar expertise who disagreed with him and suggested his conclusions might have been "clouded by his extremist political views". How is that any different from "inside job" conspiracy theorists like Ron suggesting that the "sheeple" fail to see the obvious because they've been brainwashed? I didn't see you object to that. Or any different that suggesting that witnesses to the Pentagon crash can't be trusted simply because they are a) Republicans b} military, or c) work for USA Today or CNN? Wittenberg strikes me as the type who got 'hot and bothered' about fluoridation of water in the 60's and the bar codes on the back of road signs in the 80's.

To suggest that people's political views don't effect their judgment is naïve, for example anti-Semites and anti-Zionists are more likely to think Israel attacked the USS Liberty knowing it was a US ship while supporters of Israel are more likely to believe they thought it was Egyptian, what ever the truth in that case it's hardly a coincidence.

Your list of my replies to Wittenberg oddly left out the other pilots I cited also 1) – 4) aren't separate points, 2) 3) and 4) were in support of 1).

Shades of Michael Collins Piper. You attack Wittenberg for his right wing extremist views. The you post a link to The New American, a decidely right wing organization. The author you cite for your claims, William Jasper, also writes stuff like, "May 1st has for over a century been the most important holiday of the year for communists, socialists, and anarchists".....and other extreme right wing views.

I didn't really cite Jasper's opinion or expertise but rather the airline pilots quoted in his article.

As for Piper I see nothing wrong in questioning if an anti-Semite who bragged on this very forum about his intellectual dishonesty might have been swayed by his biases when he wrote a book that (despite his denials) has "the Jews killed JFK" as it's basic premise.

Contrary to what you might think, Len, I make/made no claims as to whether there was a standown or not, or whether something else hit the Pentagon. To tell you the truth, what irritated me and prompted my response was your claim, "So much for stand down, LOL." without even addressing the two later flights.

Later flight. Talking about the "failure" to intercept flight 93 is silly because as I already pointed out:

1) It crashed hundreds of miles befoe reaching its presumed target.

2) The "official story" is that it would have been intercepted. AND

3) Some people theorize that it was intercepted and shot down.

As for flight 77 consider that it took 81 minutes to intercept the only civilian plane intercepted over the US in the 10 years proceeding 9/11 and that plane

1) was flying in a straight line

2) had its transponder on

3) was flying in uncrowded airspace

4) was intercepted by a fighter already in the air.

Or without posting information that was convincing beyond doubt. To me all the links you posted are proof to no one but yourself.

You are entitled to your opinion; I would take it more seriously if you could come up with any evidence that contradicts my conclusions about the failure to intercept flights 11 and 175. Your views seem to have been shaped by Ahmed's error filled book (chapter at least). Also how do you presume to spek for others?

I lack the desire or energy to argue any more with you point by point. You've already told me I have no business criticizing your (or anybody's) research.

I told you that because you criticized mine suggesting that it was worthless. I said that specifically because you claimed that I made an assertion that was not backed by the link I provided when in truth it very clearly was.

You've as much as called me a mud slinger. I could go over things point by point, or link by link....but that would be more tedium than I'm willing to commit to.

And Len, despite your challenge, it has nothing to do with my courage or lack of it.

My reference to your courage was to whether or not you would have enough to admit that several of you points were erroneous (see above). When and if you admit this I will obviously have to (and gladly) acknowledge that you didn't lack the courage to do so, until then it's an open question.

I suspect you don't like me

You are wrong. I only dislike four members of this forum. One of them is Piper but I won't mention the names of the other three though the answer is probably obvious.

and that is understandable.

Why are you a bad person? :)

Bottom line, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, if we post links until the cows come home.

True, but I normally don't expect to convince my opponents when I debate on forums, more commonly the "target audience" is undecided "lurkers".

I'm willing to listen and willing to learn from others. Nowhere did I claim to have answers to what happened on 9/11. I'll close by repeating myself.

If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing.

I'd also be interested in "hearing" if others were convinced one way or the other by what you or I have posted myself.

Peace.

Mike Hogan

Peace

Len Colby

1) http://www.globalresearch.org/org.htm, http://nafeez.mediamonitors.net/

2) http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-7470844-8584948?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0930852400

3] I don't know very much about Mr. Israel except that he defends many controversial positions many of which I agree with (denouncing the invasion of Iraq) and others that I disagree with (he and other writers for his Website are associated with a group called the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic" [ http://www.icdsm.org/more/belongs.htm, http://www.icdsm.org/more/1feb.htm, http://www.icdsm.org/ ]

4) Amazon doesn't allow cutting and pasting of book excerpts any typos were inadvertent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know very much about Mr. Israel except that he defends many controversial positions many of which I agree with (denouncing the invasion of Iraq) and others that I disagree with (he and other writers for his Website are associated with a group called the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic")

Actually, Jared Israel (bio here) left the ICDSM after it was taken over by Ramsey Clark (who should be familiar to students of the JFK assassination for his cover-up role) and Jacques Verges. His articles on this can be seen here and here. His main site has always been tenc.net.

Anyway, I fully support Jared Israel's position on Milosevic and the Serbs. Any serious and detailed look at the charges against them, their origins, and NATO's actions, will, I think, lead to the same conclusion. There's more than enough material about this out there, including the extensive collection of material on Mr. Israel's site. Michael Parenti and Diana Johnstone have also written some pretty good articles and books on the subject of the Yugoslav wars. Actually, you can just read the transcripts of the ICTY; Milosevic (who defended himself) pretty much ripped the prosecution's case to threads, which probably explains why the "new Nuremberg," after the initial hoopla, recieved practically no publicity. Read these articles (here and here) from The Guardian (a relatively mainstream paper and usually very anti-Serb/Milosevic, so it is significant) for a rare window (albeit a small one) into the reality of the proceedings. Maybe I should start a thread for debate of these issues

I think the worst thing about all the media propaganda is how much it suceeded in linking the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind (which is ironic, as the Serbs actively fought the Nazis and protected Jews; not to mention the fact that they were exteriminated in masse in the Croatian Ustashe Jasenovac concentration camp). So much so that challenging the charges against the Serbs, which are, in fact, bogus and distortions of reality, seems like Holocaust denial to many and can be lumped in that bin without any real thought. Consequently, neo-fascists (among them actual Holocaust deniers, such as the "Father of Modern Croatia" Franjo Tudjman) and Islamic extremists (e.g.: the Izetbegovic government in Bosnia and the Al Qaeda-linked KLA) have become the "victims."

Oh yes, and Piper... Since he was mentioned here, I would like to reiterate that he is a contemptible scumbag. It needs saying.

I haven't really gotten around to studying 9-11 yet, but his (Israel's) articles on that subject are up to his usual standard (which is to say, solid, sourced, and well reasoned). I give them my tentative agreement/endorsement (for whatever that's worth). At the very least, I don't think dismissing them because he defends Milosevic against phony war crimes charges is appropriate.

Also, this thread has become a mess and almost impossible to follow.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just heard that there was a nation-wide poll showing that about half of the population had some major questions about the official version of 911 - a very high and impressive number. Polls can, of course, be skewed by who asks, how asked, etc. . I am not suggesting that we decide what happened by taking a poll....but it is significant to me that so many persons are not all that pursuaded by the 'official version' - as is also now true for 11/22/63. In both cases, the average person doesn't know what to believe exactly. Trust in the government and structures of US society are erroding - as well they should for a myriad of other reasons also. As I also believe the government [as currently constituted] also had some designs to control voting using electronic machines and various methods of illegal challenges et al. it will be hard to dislodge them - and time will be short to do so before they perpetrate new horrors upon the US and world. There are two conferences coming up - in Chicago and then Los Angeles - on the 911 matter.

I have questions about the official version. The people who sponser these polls aren't intellectually honest they ask leading very open questions but try to put a more specific spin on them after the fact.

It appears the pilots from Otis said they did go supersonic even though this was normally prohibited. The problem is that it takes a few minutes to accelerate to such high speeds and they may have been routed over the ocean to prevent collisions with other aircraft in one of the World’s busiest air corridors. I’m looking into this and hopefully will be able to post tonight or tomorrow.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Well the disinformation campaign seems to be doing well. I've just read thru this entire thread and mostly i see people focusing their attention on other people. As opposed to the actual events.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I'm less concerned about that than i am about this: i know that my government is telling me lies about what happened on Sept. 11.

I know it's quite possible for leaders to sacrifice a number of their own people, in the pursuit of whatever they may be attempting to obtain. That's been true throughout human history. From the very beginning, we've been hammered with "It was a failure on the part of American intelligence..." That's this generation's Magic Bullet Theory. When in fact we received warnings of terrorist attacks using airplanes from: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordon, Morocco and Russia. Plus people working in our own intelligence agencies who were simply ignored. Warnings from 1994 up to Sept. 10, 2001 (Censored 2006, pg. 206)

And again, i'm less concerned about proving what hit the Pentagon, when i read that 1 day before the planes were hijacked 1,535 contracts were traded on put stock options. As of Sept. 29, 2001, investors whose identities have not been made public made over $2.5 million dollars from United and American Airlines stocks. (Censored 2006, pg. 222)

The mayor of San Frasisco received an anonymous warning that it wouldn't be safe to fly, and he wasn't the only one.

Then we have the usual destruction of evidence -dumping all the steel beams into the ocean. I found this to be particularly interesting: even if you buy the Party line about why building #7 collapsed (it was not struck by an airplane) it would have been the first time of a fire-induced collapse of a steel framed building. Then a careful examination of the evidence would certainly be warranted if for no other reason than to learn some valuable lessons about the safety of high rise buildings.

Some things are not going to be possible for the little people to find out, simply 'cause we don't have the power. You follow the money, and follow the evidence; 2 standard approaches of investigation that work quite well, everything else is smoke and mirrors. (How much has Haliburton made off of the war in Iraq by now?)

anon,

R.D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And again, i'm less concerned about proving what hit the Pentagon, when i read that 1 day before the planes were hijacked 1,535 contracts were traded on put stock options. As of Sept. 29, 2001, investors whose identities have not been made public made over $2.5 million dollars from United and American Airlines stocks. (Censored 2006, pg. 222)

The put options sound odd until you find out that the numbers were not exceptional. There had been more in recent weeks. Add to that the fact that the airlines were already in a slump and there had been recent bad news from American Airlines and they are not really even noteworthy.

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

The "As of Sept. 29, 2001" sounds like it comes straight from Loose Change. The trades were investigated after that, the people were identified and they have been claimed. The Loose Change authors are just horrible at research.

Here's a good site for Loose Change.

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Of course you may have to think for yourself instead of parroting conspiracy propaganda.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. Well the disinformation campaign seems to be doing well. I've just read thru this entire thread and mostly i see people focusing their attention on other people. As opposed to the actual events.

The rest of Randy's comments are in bold.

It sounds like you read a different thread to me. While there have been some personal battles the primary focus of both sides has been events related to 9/11. If you can identify any "disinformation" coming from the 'debunking' camp than please point it out.

"I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I'm less concerned about that than i am about this: i know that my government is telling me lies about what happened on Sept. 11."

Since all of the below is far outside the topic of this thread I'll keep my replies brief. If Randy or anybody else wants to debate them further I would suggest starting new threads or using more appropriate existent ones.

"I know it's quite possible for leaders to sacrifice a number of their own people, in the pursuit of whatever they may be attempting to obtain. That's been true throughout human history. From the very beginning, we've been hammered with "It was a failure on the part of American intelligence..." That's this generation's Magic Bullet Theory. When in fact we received warnings of terrorist attacks using airplanes from: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordon, Morocco and Russia. Plus people working in our own intelligence agencies who were simply ignored. Warnings from 1994 up to Sept. 10, 2001 (Censored 2006, pg. 206)."

Please provide verifiable sources for all these warnings, how many of them had information that was specific enough to have prevented 9/11? A few probably did, but can you show that the failure to act on them was due to conspiracy rather that bureaucratic malaise and lack of interagency cooperation or perhaps even criminal negligence? This is the same intelligence community that was caught off guard by the over throws of the Shah and Samoza and the Teheran embassy take over, and Iraq's invasions of Iran and Kuwait, the same intelligence community that was unable to detect high level moles with in its midst for many years (Ames, Hanssen, Walker etc). This was the same intelligence community that was unable (or unwilling) to plant evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

It is also interesting to that these warnings started coming during the Clinton administration, when most of the hijackers entered the US during this period. Also the directors of the principle intelligence agencies were appointed by the ex-governor of Arkansas. Do you think Clinton was "in on it" too?

Let's consider and even bigger intelligence failure. In 1940 The French missed numerous signs (including the precedent of WWI) that they would be invaded through the "Low Countries", are we to assume then that the (Socialist) French government was "in cahoots" with Hitler? The failure of the US intelligence community was serious but there is no hard evidence it was intentional.

To large certain degree the 9/11 "inside job" theories help Bush, Rove and Cheney because many people conflate baseless "conspiracy theories" with legitimate criticism that the Bush administration ignored the threat of terrorism before 9/11 and afterwards used it as an excuse to push it's rightwing agenda.

"And again, i'm less concerned about proving what hit the Pentagon, when i read that 1 day before the planes were hijacked 1,535 contracts were traded on put stock options. As of Sept. 29, 2001, investors whose identities have not been made public made over $2.5 million dollars from United and American Airlines stocks. (Censored 2006, pg. 222) "

Matthew dealt with that rather nicely I thought.

"The mayor of San Frasisco received an anonymous warning that it wouldn't be safe to fly, and he wasn't the only one. "

Then I assume you will have no trouble saying who these people were and document your claims.

What you said about the "Willie Brown warning" was highly misleading and inaccurate. I started a new thread for this topic.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6979

"Then we have the usual destruction of evidence -dumping all the steel beams into the ocean."

Bullxxxx that's not what happened

"I found this to be particularly interesting: even if you buy the Party line about why building #7 collapsed (it was not struck by an airplane) it would have been the first time of a fire-induced collapse of a steel framed building."

Not true, google "McCormick Center Fire" and "Sight and Sound Theater fire". The theater used the same type of fireproofing as the WTC's 1, 2 and 7. But while it's true that no high rises had completely collapsed due to fire before 9/11 there had been several partial collapses. In 1991 the Philadelphia Fire Department was worried about the Meridian Place fire. The structural engineers the fire department consulted warned there was danger of a "pancake structural collapse". [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4358 - One of the links in that post expired, the new one is: http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...000f932a8c0____ note that several certified engineers say there were no signs that explosives were used ].

Can you cite and previous cases of center core buildings that had fires fueled by about 15 ,000 gallons of diesel fuel which were basically unattended for 7 hours after it (the building) was severely damaged by the collapse of 2 neighboring buildings?

One veteran NYFD captain reported a 20 story hole in the south facade http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html ) While WTC 7 was not hit by a 250,000 lb. plane it was struck by debris from two 5000, 000 ton (1,000,000,000 lb.) buildings.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

"Then a careful examination of the evidence would certainly be warranted if for no other reason than to learn some valuable lessons about the safety of high rise buildings."

NIST and several other groups of engineers are still studying the collapse of WTC 7.

"Some things are not going to be possible for the little people to find out, simply 'cause we don't have the power. You follow the money, and follow the evidence; 2 standard approaches of investigation that work quite well, everything else is smoke and mirrors. (How much has Haliburton made off of the war in Iraq by now?)."

The evidence suggests that WTC's 1, 2 & 3 collapsed as a result of Boeing 767's being flown into the first 2 buildings. Find me one structural engineer or civil engineer or fire engineer or licensed architect or forensic engineer or failure analyst or explosives/demolition expert or mechanical engineer / materials scientist (with experience or expertise in construction methods or materials*) who says that fire and impact damage were not sufficient to bring down those buildings or that they think explosives were used and we'll have something to talk about (on another thread).

Len

* No more dental filling specialists please!

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Since Jack lost the argument on this thread and didn't have anything worthwhile on a second one he posted tis on the other thread

Colby and Lamson are such aeronautical experts, I want their expert opinion on this:

According to the official story and map, Flight 77 descended from several thousand feet quickly at top speed in a tight circle with a RADIUS OF LESS THAN TWO MILES, and then leveled out AT TOP SPEED for a 757 to treetop level before striking the Pentagon with precision at the first floor without striking the lawn.

Based on their 757 jetliner expertise, I wish to know whether Colby and Lamson agree with the official scenario as presented in the map. Please cite Boeing performance statistics regarding rate of descent at various speeds, and the turning radius possible at top speed before the aircraft experiences structural failure. I look forward to receiving all this information.

flight77path.jpg

Jack

Reversing the burden off proof is a classic crackpot tatic, Jack can you cite any evidence that a 757 couldn't have performed such a manovor. See if you can do better than canabis.com! This has already been contradicted by experts cited in this thread.

I'll add a few more:

A Dulles ATC told ABC News "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. (You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe.")

http://web.archive.org/web/20040614170116/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

In other words a 757 CAN be flown in that matter it's just not safe. The part of the quote in parentesis is normally left out by the "truth" movement because it undermines their case

There was also this excerpt from a leading aviation magazine already quoted on another thread:

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

[/size]

And Jack that map is not from any official source, it actually shows an incorrect flight path.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

From another thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=74835

...if the government actually carried out the giant conspiracy that you believe they did and had the technology to fake high resolution live video feed why wouldn't they simply fake a low resolution video that clearly showed a 757 hitting the Pentagon after 4 - 5 years?

First of all, I think it highly unlikely that the planes were some kind of special effect. Something definitely had to hit the twin towers to create those jagged gashes in the sides of the buildings. Same goes for the fireball seen in the south tower hit videos. I lean toward the remote control theory.

Sorry for misquoting your position. But in any case it seems pretty clear that the technology exists if the government wanted to they could easily alter low resolution, low frame rate surveillance video shot quite a distance from the Pentagon to support the official theory. My question is, if there was an "inside job" why haven't they done so? They had 4 ½ years till the Mousoui trial.

My question is this: why would the government keep video evidence, conclusively proving the official story of the pentagon attack, secreted from the public? There are two answers to that question - 1) they are playing some kind of game with the public, or 2) the video evidence does not show what the official story claims, ie - no Boeing 757. I simply cannot believe that there is absolutely no video showing what took place at the pentagon. We know that the FBI took possession of two surveillance videos, one from a nearby hotel, and another from a nearby gas station.

1) There could be other reasons there are legal questions:

-there are restrictions on authorities releasing evidence they plan on using at trial,

-there could be privacy concerns with the hotel and gas station videos people who appear in them were on private property at the time

-I believe that hotel and gas station would retain ownership rights over the tapes so release would be contingent on their approval.

Perhaps Dawn or someone else with legal training can shed light on these questions

2) Legal questions aside the military and intelligence types are very secretive, elsewhere on this forum there is a thread about documents that were declassified under Clinton being reclassified under Bush Jr. one of those was about a plan to send balloons carrying anti-Communist propaganda over Eastern Europe in the late 40's.

3) The government doesn't have much incentive to release the tapes according to the recent Scripts-Howard poll only 6% of the population think it's "very likely" that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and an equal percentage think it's "somewhat likely". If they released the tapes the people who think the Pentagon will say they were altered

I seriously doubt the tapes would show much. Most surveillance video is very poor quality and would barely serve to positively identify someone committing a crime in the area they were meant to survail let alone show much detail of a distant event. According to CT sites the FBI said they didn't show anything. The hotel normally cited is the Sheraton National http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...otage.html#ref1 which is about 0.8 miles from the Pentagon, though it was closer to parts of the flight path http://tinyurl.com/k2v8a the hotel camera is normally said to have "on top" the hotel http://www.pentagonresearch.com/video.html meaning it was probably pointing down to the parking lot or street so I imagine the plane would only have come into view if at all once it was quite a distance away. The gas station was closer to the Pentagon but was still across the highway (see photo on the 911 research page above) placing it about 1000 feet away (see the map from the tinyurl link) the manager believes the camera would have registered the attack but never saw the tape. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html .

Also contradicting Jack's claims that witnesses said the plane made no noise the manager "slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane.

"It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact."

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 90% there, but I have a couple of (genuine) questions re: the impact of flight 77.

Why weren't the wings ripped off by the impact of a number of metal poles on approach to the pentagon? It would appear that aircraft 'skins' are particularly fragile during high-speed impacts.

and

http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/Pictures.htm

The hole which penetrated multiple rings of the pentagon was apparently created by the landing gear of the aircraft.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...?page=6&c=y

If the landing gear was able to totally penetrate multiple rings of the pentagon, including the outer reinforced wall, why did the engines not punch holes through at least one wall or even create visible damage to the outer wall?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm 90% there, but I have a couple of (genuine) questions re: the impact of flight 77.

Why weren't the wings ripped off by the impact of a number of metal poles on approach to the pentagon? It would appear that aircraft 'skins' are particularly fragile during high-speed impacts.

http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/Pictures.htm

Steve where did you get that photo from for it to be applicable we have to know

-What kind of plane is it? Is its wing is of similar construction to that of a 757? It looks like a much smaller plane and thus is presumably not as strongly built as a Boeing passenger jet.

-What caused the damage?

The damage to jetliners seen in photos from the linked site doesn’t look very severe.

Light poles in the US and I believe most other countries are often (usually?) equipped with a “breakaway” feature to reduce injury in car crashes. Presumably the amount of force needed to knock over one of those light poles is less than what a wing of a 757 can withstand. Perhaps Steve Ulman, who’s a traffic engineer, can shed more light on this.

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguide...on_of_strat.htm

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Releases/19989/roadsafe.html

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_321.pdf pgs 147, 149

I have a question for you, if the Pentagon was struck by a missile or drone what knocked down the light poles?

The hole which penetrated multiple rings of the pentagon was apparently created by the landing gear of the aircraft.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...?page=6&c=y

If the landing gear was able to totally penetrate multiple rings of the pentagon, including the outer reinforced wall, why did the engines not punch holes through at least one wall or even create visible damage to the outer wall?

Note that the article didn’t say that the landing gear alone penetrated the other walls that I image was done by the rest of the mass of the plane. The gear apparently was the part that penetrated the furthest. Your own source contradicts your contention that the engines failed to “punch holes through at least one wall or even create visible damage to the outer wall”

“When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings."

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a KingAir, or the T-44 as it's known when in USN livery.
So Evan do think it's a King Air 90? Do you agree it's resonable to assume its wings are NOT as sturdy as a 757's?

The gas station video has been released and as I suspected shows nothing. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsoug...ttack_0915.html

The hotel video was shot outside (I think) but from about 3x the distance I doubt it shows anything either.

There also probably were line of sight problems between the Sheraton and the Pentagon

600px-Pentagonmap1.jpg

High resolution copy of above http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/image...entagonmap1.jpg

600px-Citgo.jpg

High resolution copy of above http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/9/9a/Citgo.jpg

According to the webmaster this photo was taken fro the impact site

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index...Image:Citgo.jpg .

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len said:

Steve where did you get that photo from for it to be applicable we have to know

-What kind of plane is it? Is its wing is of similar construction to that of a 757? It looks like a much smaller plane and thus is presumably not as strongly built as a Boeing passenger jet.

-What caused the damage?

The damage to jetliners seen in photos from the linked site doesn’t look very severe.

My point wasn't really a correlation between the picture or aircraft and a 757, but more the fragility of aircraft skins. The damage in the picture(s) was caused by bird strikes. It would appear they can have a similar effect on 757s.

In February 1999, a Boeing-757-200 suffered extensive damage to the right wing and destruction of an engine when a flock of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) was encountered on takeoff (Cleary and Dolbeer 1999).[birdstrikecanada.com]

It's quite impressive damage for birds which would offer considerably less resistence than a metal pole, break-away design or not. Takeoff is also slower than the predicted speed of flight 77.

I have a question for you, if the Pentagon was struck by a missile or drone what knocked down the light poles?

I don't remember saying it was a missile...

“When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings."

Initial photos clearly show no 75ft hole. They show a 16/20ft hole, presumeably created by the landing gear. The 75ft hole appeared following the collapse due to fire.

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

×
×
  • Create New...