Matthew Lewis

I know it was a joke but on the serious side, there is hardly any call for a silent blender. Helicopters on the other hand can benefit from decreased noise to please residents near airports and military customers. Research goes where the money is. I don't know about that Matthew. Seems like there are at least 2 here on this thread that would love a silent blender. Not everyone lives near an airport but there is a blender in almost every home. Still I suppose the mark up is bigger on a helicopter. Perhaps. Still, no matter how quiet the blender is, I only use ours to blend ice. I can't imagine that ever being quiet.

This at least suggests that Bell would be working on ways to decrease noise. We can put a man on the moon and invent a silent helicopter, but we can't invent a silent blender? BK I know it was a joke but on the serious side, there is hardly any call for a silent blender. Helicopters on the other hand can benefit from decreased noise to please residents near airports and military customers. Research goes where the money is.

Neither I think would many others. I was able to find some info on noise reduction. http://www.aviation.com/technology/070727_...r_industry.html This at least suggests that Bell would be working on ways to decrease noise.

Many other pilots and flight attendents have similar stories. Either of themselves using them or of passengers on their flights using them. I already posted a couple examples as well as a link to some research on the subject.

Bingham's mother has reported that sometimes he did use his last name when identifying himself to her. Is she a xxxx? http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html What about calls that contained personal information that others would not know? Linda Gronlund called her sister to tell her the combination to her safe http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html There is some evidence that cell phone use may not be completely impossible from an airplane. http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html The third and second paragraphs from the end here http://www.caa.co.za/Public/Air%20Rage/doc...llp0622-01.html specifically mention cell phone use while in flight. So obviously it is not impossible. It appears that more study needs to happen before one can conclude the use of a cell phone was impossible.

Is it possible that you missed the id numbers? Or that they were less visible due to the paint scheme? Even governmental aircraft must have id marks, afaik. My first thought was perhaps they were Eurocopters (but that is probably just because I recently saw a show on Green TV comparing the Bell 206 and the Eurocopter and they made a point of the Eurocopter being quieter.) http://www.luftrettung-hamburg.de/html/heli_expo_2005.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctor_keats/2309718634/ Could you describe some of the characteristics (if you remember) of the copters to see if we can narrow down the model? Was the tail enclosed or open? How big did they appear (how many people would you estimate they could hold)? Was the nose rounded or pointed? Were they all the same model? How many windows? Did they have skids or wheels? (wheels may have been retracted giving a smooth bottom, some models leave them out) Rounded or angular features? Narrow body or did they have pods or winglets? Pure speculation here, could they have been a new Bell model? Perhaps one they were testing for noise specifically in groups?

For your info, (no conclusion or opinions offered) Weather observations at JFK on 11 September 2001 found here http://english.wunderground.com/history/ai...;theprefvalue=1 Wind observed coming from variations of NW to North until late afternoon. Specifically at time from impact to collapse (my comments italicized, wind speed and direction bolded) METAR KJFK 111151Z (0751 AM) 32006KT 10SM FEW250 19/14 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP197 70069 T01940144 10200 20172 51013 METAR KJFK 111251Z (0851 AM) 31010KT 10SM FEW250 21/14 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T02110139 METAR KJFK 111351Z (0951 AM) 35007KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 23/13 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP205 FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG SE T02280133 (note mention of plume direction added) METAR KJFK 111451Z (1051 AM) 34006KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 24/12 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 SFC VIS LWR SW-NW FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG S-SE T02440122 50006 (again, the mention of the plume) METARS are direct observations of current conditions used primarily by the aviation world. They are issued hourly unless the condition changes enough to issue a special report. If the wind is variable or gusting, that will be noted also. METAR tutorial for those interested in reading the rest of each line (translations of each also on first page referenced) http://english.wunderground.com/metarFAQ.asp I'm still looking for the weather as forecast for that day (TAF format) but TAFs seem harder to find, at least in my quick search.

I did not answer the CNN "time related questions as they are not relevant to the discussion. The 9:04 was not on the original video. I have never claimed that CNN mislabeled the footage. It was added by someone else. Josiah Thompson has well summarized the situation. I responded to the questions that were relevant and some that weren't.

Ineresting theory. I had not heard that the white plane was seen over NYC or Pennsylvania. Everything I've seen said it was seen over Washington. Not surprising as it was shown to be the E-4B NAOC aircraft which while based in Offut has a secondary base at Andrews. The plane you posted is the prototype for the airborne laser. It is very highly unlikely that this plane was seen anywhere on the East coast on 911 as the airframe without the laser was only first flown in 2002. The laser was finally installed just last year (plauged by budget cutbacks as is the rest of the Air Force). It is boubted by some that the system will ever become operational. Even so, it uses a megawatt class laser. While much more powerful than a laser pointer, it still does not burn through its targets. It is said that it will weaken the skin of a missle in flight and cause it to break up due to atmospheric stress. Highly doubtful that this laser could have brought the towers down, especially from this airframe which wasn't even flying at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/ http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

It is foolish to claim that two different images taken at two different times, from two different cameras at two different angles should show the same exact thing. It is foolish to claim that the south tower is still standing when one can see light shining through the smoke and dust in its location. It is foolish to continue to believe that the still on the left comes from 9:04 when there is no evidence to show that it does and plenty of evidence to show that it comes from the collapse video. Have you even looked at the archived video footage? If so, how can you possibly claim that the south tower is not collapsing? Seems like you don't want to address this: Why would they be talking to Tom Clancy at 9:04 with the heading "America Under Attack" (which if you look through the archive is not used until around 10:58 AM) just a minute after the second plane hit? Do you really believe that in one minute they realized that it was an attack, and in the confusion somebody decided to call Tom Clancy and they got him on the phone?

not to be picky but, mislabled (sic)? Can you provide verification/cite CNN mislabeled any graphics or lower third supers? Are you aware as to how international news organizations time-stamp their tv feeds and what free running time-code means? Are you on active duty, Mr. Lewis? Just curious. I apologize for the spelling error. My spelling often suffers when I type which is the primary reason many of my posts are later edited. I do not say and have not tried to imply that CNN mislabled the video. As shown in the archive, (have you watched it?) the video does NOT have 9:04 on it. The still from it that Jack claims shows an explosion at building 6 does. I contend that the video was NOT from 9:04 and rather was from the first collapse as it shows the first collapse. I contend also that someone else (unknown) added the 9:04 time to it to push their theory of an explosion in building 6. It is sometime after that in which Jack obtained the picture to push the building 6 explosion theory. I know that I have seen the theory of an explosion in building 6 elsewhere originating before Jack put it into his studies. I do not believe the idea originated with him. I do not believe that he added the time stamp either (I could be wrong) but merely accepted it as gospel. I am always considered Active Duty as opposed to being Guard or Reserve. I am however NOT ON DUTY which is I believe what you meant. Are you trying to suggest that my posting here is related to my work? I have stated multiple times before that my posting here has nothing to do with my job. I resent the implication that it does. For your information, this forum as well as most others are blocked on the network at work as posting on most web forums is against the terms of service. I only ever post from home when I am OFF DUTY. I believe that I have endured more than enough insinuations from Jack and others that my posting here is job related or that I am somehow paid to post. If it continues I will make a formal complaint.

Why would they be talking to Tom Clancy at 9:04 with the heading "America Under Attack" (which if you look through the archive is not used until around 10:58) just a minute after the second plane hit? Do you really believe that in one minute they realized that it was an attack, and in the confusion somebody decided to call Tom Clancy and they got him on the phone? You say the south tower is still standing but it is clear in the archived video that this is not so. As the cloud you say is from the "explosion" of building 6 get larger, the area where the south tower WAS gets lighter. We see light appear THROUGH it. The building (south tower) has collapsed. Don't take my word for it though. I encourage anyone to review the archived video for themselves. The entrie video covers 11:34 AM to 12:16 PM. They start talking to Clancy around 17:20 in the video (would be approximately 11:51 AM). The video on screen is reviews of different angles of the collapses. The one in question starts at about 19:05 (approximately 11:53 AM). It does not say anything about 9:04 and simply says "earlier". It is evident when watching the video that the building (south tower) is collapsing. Again, review the archive for 9:04, http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 They initially think the explosion from the second impact is an additional explosion from the first impact (partly because the second tower is behind the first in their view and partly because they are talking to a reporter on the street, again not Tom Clancy, and the anchor was not watching the video feed). It is not until 9:04 and into 9:05 that they realize that a second plane even hit. It is not until 9:06 that they reshow the second impact. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about that still that you purport shows an cloud from an explosion in building 6 from the CNN video that was mislabled as 9:04? What proof is there that the still you have is from 9:04?

Sure, Jack. Because you could never just admit you were wrong could you? What proof do you have that the video that the 9:04 time stamp has been added to (it was NOT added to it by CNN) is in fact from 9:04? All evidence seems to point to the not being from 9:04 but instead from later, closer to noon. Did you even watch the video? It is obvious in the video that the first collapse is happening and the dust cloud that rises is from that collapse. Additionally, why would CNN be talking to Tom Clancy just a minute after the second plane hit? Given Clancy's background, it makes sense to talk to him only after it is clear that this is an attack on the country. It makes no sense to talk to him before the second impact as most assumed that the first impact was an accident. You would have us believe that in a SINGLE MINUTE since the second impact, they concluded it was definitely an attack (yes this did happen quickly but not that quickly) somebody thought to talk to Clancy in all the confusion and they got him on the phone in that short of time? Preposterous! Rather, it would make sense that immediately after the second impact that they would be reshowing the impact multiple times and talking about that second impact. In fact, if you review the archive for 9:04, this is exactly what you see. http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 They initially think the explosion from the second impact is an additional explosion from the first impact (partly because the second tower is behind the first in their view and partly because they are talking to a reporter on the street, again not Tom Clancy, and the anchor was not watching the video feed). It is not until 9:04 and into 9:05 that they realize that a second plane even hit. It is not until 9:06 that they reshow the second impact. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong about that still that you purport shows an cloud from an explosion in building 6 on your still from the CNN video that was mislabled as 9:04? That is me in the photo on my avatar so the answer is right where it is supposed to be. Remember, that is the same photograph that you misidentified me as wearing a militay uniform. Yet another thing you have never admitted to being wrong on.

and continued The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there. I encourage everyone to watch the video in the archives themselves as the downward motion of the collapse is very apparent. Again, the archive footage with the clip that Jack says is from 9:04 is here http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

The video is not from 9:04. CNN didn't talk to Clancy until much later. An archive with CNN footage showing the supposed 9:04 clip can be seen here http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216 notice that this clip doesn't START until 11:34 EDT If you look through the rest of the archive for CNN's coverage at 9:04 you will not find the clip Jack labels 9:04 http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 This was already discussed in detail on this other thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119436 A search of the archives revealed that the footage Jack refers to as 9:04 (CNN did not have the time posted on the video) that shows the cloud above WTC 6 is during the first collapse Starting at about 19:05 in the video with a different still taken about once a second.

I'm curious: Do you know how many satellites are up there? Is your "knowledge" based upon information released by the USG and/or mainstream trade press sources? Is it your position that such "official" sources are to be trusted to provide accurate data on highly sensitive subjects? Do you accept official and mainstream analyses of recon satellites "shortcomings" without question? Do you understand how and why technological capabilities are both oversold and undersold by governments? Charles is both correct and wise in his statement about "why technological capabilities are both oversold and undersold by governments?". the USG has publicly [if not prominently] disclosed that they have a complete Earth-cover of surveillance satellites that can read a licence plate [hinted they can sometimes have even better resolution]. These are in geosynchronous orbit and some classified number of them are mobile [can be moved to be above a specific target]. I'm sure many NOT involved in the 911 conspiracy [yes, you heard me correctly!] who are in charge of these satellites just don't want [or are under orders to not let] civilians to know their exact capability or to set a president and show images on Public demand. I could prove the above, but maybe it is time for you to do your homework yourself. Here is the most pleb site of all with its intelligence overseerers, to boot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_satellite and this ten year-old site {!] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1482...ever-sleep.html so ancient data and now they CAN read your license plaet or ID card...... I could could post other sites that would curl your toes. Curl your own....I think you and some others don't want to know the truth of the state of the Planet and American Polity and MIC. Cynical me/evil them. Your own links say reading license plates is a myth. But no matter as that wasn't the subject or question anyway and I don't really care. The second link does indeed mention continuous coverage of a battlefield when using higher orbits. It also mentions those higher orbits lowers the resolution to a meter or less. Interesting though and thank you for the prompt answer without the hostility that often accompanies posts in this board (from all parties). It is refreshing to say the least.

Peter, Are you positive there are no date / time details associated with the images, or is it just speculation because your copies do not have one / you have been unable to find one? Not saying if one exists, but want to see what your investigations have determined. Some few of the videos, all but none of the still images seem to have timestamps. A problem for all. What I was saying, however, was that the USA [and world] are covered by recon satellites that can see things down to 0.5m resolution. They certainly have every moment of WTC and DC and Shanksville, not to mention the planes and [potential] interceptors - but since the photos shown during the Cuban Missile Crisis [when the resolution was horrible], I don't think they ['they'] have ever released much and they certainly are NOT releasing those on 9/11 [which from their directly above viewpoint would contain much important information and they ARE timestamped]. With work almost all photos and videos can be objectively set in time. It is a lot of work and I'd like to see people on 'both sides' work on this. I'm curious. Do you have a reference to the US having satellite coverage of the world at all times? That would seem to contradict what is known as a shortcoming of recon satellites ie their orbits are known by other governments and objects can be hidden when the satellites are overhead. This is one of the reasons to still have spyplanes and UAVs. To cover everything at all times would require a lot more satellites than what the world seems to think is up there.

I have no idea why he or the secret service acted as they did that day, nor do I care. Nor was I trying to draw any conclusions from it. Nor did I accuse anyone here of anything. I was asked specifically about it which is why I speculated and only speculated by repeating things that I have heard others mention before. That is hardly the armchair quaterbacking that others undertake by assigning a particular motive to those that acted or did not act in the way people feel they should. I sought to explain nothing away, so quit with the hostility and drop the insults. It reflects poorly on you and the forum to resort to insults like that.

If I may intrude, why, instead of going and getting aboard that "moving target," did they remain "sitting on the ground" for half an hour while knowing "America was under attack," doing nothing but listen to a pet goat story and compose and then give a presidential statement in the schoolhouse, thus endangering not just the president but all the children and teachers there? Just your typical Secret Service agents at work? It is possible that the motorcade route had to be coordinated, the plane was still being fueled, security had to be coordinated, etc. Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this? All I ever see is "armchair-quarterbacking" about how they shouldn't have sat there for x amount of time.

You really think that a moving target, in an unknown location, with a fighter escort, would be more vulnerable than sitting on the ground? Interesting. As already mentioned, the intercept of Payne Stewart's jet took over 80 minutes, not less than 20. The confusion likely stems from the switch from EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) to CDT (Central Daylight Time) in the middle of the intercept when the crossed from one time zone to the other in the official NTSB report. If we were to believe the intercept was within 20 minutes, then we would also have to believe that the plane was intercepted before the Air Force was even notified of the problem with Stewart's jet. NORAD was notified at 9:55 AM EDT when the plane had first failed to respond at 9:33 AM EDT

Only those to/from the west, as I live about ten miles west of DFW airport, and see dozens daily. I live about 15 miles south of Alliance airport, but its commercial traffic is not heavy. I live about 10 miles east of Carswell JRB, but I seldom see military craft. I am unaware of any overflights from other intercity routes, but none could possibly match the chemtrails I see daily. Jack As you've been told before (and likely ignored) traffic in and out of DFW will be much lower and unlikely to leave any contrails let alone persistent ones. The same thing would apply to the other two airpots you mention both of which also likely have different approach and departure routes to avoid conflict with the higher volume of traffic of DFW (likely why you seldom see military craft). It is very interesting that you definitively say "none could possibly match the chemtrails I see daily" when referring to overflights when in the same sentence you also admit "I am unaware of any overflights from other intercity routes". If you are unaware of where the routes are then how can you possibly say they can't match the trails you're seeing? As Lewis must know, WIND DIRECTION determines approach and departure routes, not airport location. Since prevailing winds in Fort Worth are usually either from the SOUTH, or from the NORTHWEST at least 90 percent of the time. I observe westbound DFW departures and arrivals daily. On leaving the airport, they fly visually parallel to I-30 till they reach downtown Fort Worth at low altitude (15 miles from airport). When they reach downtown, they start climbing and veer off to their destination...either southwest, west or northwest. I observe this dozens of times daily when we have southerly winds. Arrivals follow the reverse of this when the winds are northerly. In the opposite seasons, the reverse is true. Jack All very interesting Jack but not related to the subject at hand. Yes, wind direction affects approach and departure (actually takeoff and landing and the approach and departure routes are then indirectly affected). Location can also affect the routes particularly with smaller airports in the vicinity of larger busier airports. But this has nothing to do with overflights over the city. Approaches and departures are generally under 10,000 feet (altitudes very unlikely for contrail formation) and within the controlled airspace of the airport while overflights will be above 18,000 feet (often well above and at altitudes which are more likely for contrail formation) and in class A airspace. When Evan Burton asked "Do you know what air routes are above your area, and in which directions they are oriented?" he was referring to flights over your city originating from other locations (likely other states) and headed to locations other than your city (again, likely other states). So again, it is very interesting that you definitively say "none could possibly match the chemtrails I see daily" when referring to overflights when in the same sentence you also admit "I am unaware of any overflights from other intercity routes". If you are unaware of where the routes are then how can you possibly say they can't match the trails you're seeing?

Only those to/from the west, as I live about ten miles west of DFW airport, and see dozens daily. I live about 15 miles south of Alliance airport, but its commercial traffic is not heavy. I live about 10 miles east of Carswell JRB, but I seldom see military craft. I am unaware of any overflights from other intercity routes, but none could possibly match the chemtrails I see daily. Jack As you've been told before (and likely ignored) traffic in and out of DFW will be much lower and unlikely to leave any contrails let alone persistent ones. The same thing would apply to the other two airpots you mention both of which also likely have different approach and departure routes to avoid conflict with the higher volume of traffic of DFW (likely why you seldom see military craft). It is very interesting that you definitively say "none could possibly match the chemtrails I see daily" when referring to overflights when in the same sentence you also admit "I am unaware of any overflights from other intercity routes". If you are unaware of where the routes are then how can you possibly say they can't match the trails you're seeing?

Interesting that you say definitively "These were NOT persistent contrails." How would you know? Were any tests done on samples taken from it? Do they somehow look any different than a persistent contrail would be expected to look like? Gee, it seems the answer to both those questions are no. It seems that once again you have no proof that what you are seeing are some kind of mythical "chemtrail".

While it could have other meanings depending on who is talking, my understanding is that a particular platform is "operational" once they have reached enough aircraft to stand up an entire squadron and if necessary be deployed. For example, the F-22 Was considered "operational" a couple of years ago (I can't remember exactly when) when the squadron at Langley got enough jets but the F-22 has yet to see any combat.

JFK was one man last time I checked. So was RFK. So was MLK. Jonestown - now that involved hundreds, maybe thousands, of people. Bluebird, Artichoke & MK-ULTRA involved tens of thousands. Again, not anything I care about and now not anything I know about nor care to know anything about. I fear I may have caused som confusion here. The main conspiracy I see mentioned involving thousands keeping quiet is 911 and that is what I was referring to when mentioning the murder of thousands of people. moving on though as we seem to be getting WAY off topic here.