Overunity.com Archives

Here are three alternative explanations for three highly contrived government accounts:


In number 4, KSM admits his participation in the "Shoe Bomber operation to down two American airplanes." Again, this seems like a credible claim.

Number 3, however, was originally posted as "REDACTED." This was before the Internet started humming about its likely contents.

Given the placement of number 3 high among the provable acts of terror committed against Americans on American soil, I and others speculated that KSM may very well have been staking claim to one of two events.

One is the Oklahoma City bombing. As has been well enough documented, convicted conspirator Terry Nichols made multiple trips to the Philippines when KSM's "nephew," Ramzi Yousef, was living there. Yousef was constructing the bombs for the impending aviation attack that KSM refers to as "the Bojinka operation."

According to a recent House report, Nichols traveled with the book, "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives," and just happened to show up in Cebu City at the exact same time as master bomber Yousef.

This was November 1994, six months before the Oklahoma City bombing. Nichols changed his itinerary immediately after Yousef's lab was busted by the Manila police in January 1995 and left the county in haste.

In "Against All Enemies," Clinton anti-terror czar Richard Clarke has this to say about the visits of these two terrorists to the same city in the same country at the same time: "We do know that Nichols' bombs did not work before his Philippine stay," writes Clarke, "and were deadly when he returned."

The second likely suspect for the redacted terror act was TWA Flight 800, the 747 blown out of the sky off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996, Saddam's national liberation day.

According to two separate sources within the NSA, on the night the plane went down Yousef phoned KSM from his New York City prison and said—in their native Baluchi– "What had to be done has been done, TWA 800″.

American Airlines 587 was blamed on the pilot for kicking the tail off the aircraft with the rudder pedals. Pan Am 800 was blamed on a short circuit when multiple witnesses reported seeing missiles ascending toward the aircraft. Oklahoma was blamed on Tim McVeigh when an Arab was witnessed parking the Ryder Truck.

David Phillip Schippers was an organized crime investigator at the Department of Justice from 1963 to 1967. In 1998 he became chief counsel to the House of Representatives leading the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Schippers:

"Clinton and his boys didn't want the United States to realize that  Flight 800 was a terrorist attack and that Oklahoma City was a terrorist attack because they didn't want to admit that the intelligence of the United States was totally destroyed".

Schippers went on to be quoted as saying; "If the Department of Justice had not ignored the evidence indicating direct Middle Eastern involvement in the 1995 bombing, it is entirely likely that the Twin Towers would still be standing".

Dan Vogel, FBI Special Agent (Ret.)

"What they (The FBI) did was unconscionable".

"The Bureau needed to look into this Middle East network here in Oklahoma City".

"If they had, maybe they would have come upon the network behind the September 11 attacks".

On February 28, of 1993, I sat at home in New Jersey watching the news coverage of the first Ryder Truck Amfo Bomb attack on the WTC. That night I drove into New York and staked the East Village out. After a few hours, an Arab woman approaced the driver side window from behind and spoke: "Don't look at me"! she said. "I know you're a cop"! "There's gonna be another attack tomorrow". I asked where? She said: "Mid Town". I said, "I need more then that". She said "The tunnel." Then she turned and hurried accross 3rd St. and vanished. I never got a good look at her.

The light of realization came to me. I knew of a section in tube number two of the Lincoln tunnel that had ruptured during construction. The leak was so large, box cars had to be lowered by crane off barges on the Hudson River to plug it. Even now, a concave indentation can be seen in the wall just over the NY line in the south wall of the middle of tube number two. Practicly every commuter has had it pointed out.

The next day, March the 1st , I took off to encounter them at 2:00 P.M. I choose that time because this is when traffic lull is the greatest. When I got to the tunnel tolls at the end of NJ S3, it looked like a scene out of one of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" episodes. No Toll takers were on duty in the booths, no Port Authority cops were around. Traffic was piled up in tube two, but the cars were empty. Tubes one and three are for one way traffic in and out of the City. Tube two has two lanes, with traffic both ways. I waited a few minutes and saw no cars coming. I was armed with a broken .22 caliber Crossman pellet gun. I turned into the oncoming traffic lane and guned the V6 cylinder Buick LeSabre I was driving. My hands sweat at the wheel as the speedometer approached 100 around a long blind curve. I began to notice people in the stalled cars, perhaps hundreds to my right as I blasted by full speed. I saw the fractured section approaching and slamed the breaks on screaching to a halt. There they were! I recognized Ramzi Yousef in the back seat of a stalled Rambler in an overcoat. He was pointed out to me in Brooklyn the day he first got off the plane in New York by friends. I drew a bead on him with my Crossman. There were five or six of them, disguised as Hasidic Jews, in Felt Fedoras and phony mostaches. Emud Salem, the Egyptian infiltrator was leaning over open hood of the car. He used my presence to improvise strategy, and called the attack off. I pealed out. At the New York end there were another handful of Arabs blocking traffic, who drew weapons on me. I skidded a U turn through some yellow cones, and sped back to NJ through tube number three. When I got back home, I phoned the FBI and reported the trouble.

That night Ramzi Youssef boarded a plane for Pakistan with a bogus passport.

President Clinton nominated Louis Freeh to the FBI directorship at a Rose Garden ceremony on July 20 1993. On the same day, July 20, Clinton's Executive Counsel Vince Foster was found dead from a gun shot wound to the head in Ft. Marcy Park, McLean, Virginia. Louis Freeh investigated the Foster death, the Oklahoma City bombing and the explosion that downed Pan Am 800. All three investigations were heavily belabored by chronic eyewitnesses interpolations by F.B.I. agents. This is where the interviewing agent states what the witness said for the record not the direct testimony from the eyewitness.

Dan Vogel, FBI Special Agent (Ret.) referring to Oklahoma:

"What they (The FBI) did was unconscionable".

In September of the same year 1993, I was falsely charged with homicide attempt in Eureka California but exonerated by a Trial Jury with a verdict of "Not Guilty". The F.B.I. claimed that I was "very very dangerous" in the trial documents!

Quote from: synchro1 on May 21, 2015, 10:18:50 PM
Here are three alternative explanations for three highly contrived government accounts:


In number 4, KSM admits his participation in the "Shoe Bomber operation to down two American airplanes." Again, this seems like a credible claim.

Number 3, however, was originally posted as "REDACTED." This was before the Internet started humming about its likely contents.

Given the placement of number 3 high among the provable acts of terror committed against Americans on American soil, I and others speculated that KSM may very well have been staking claim to one of two events.

One is the Oklahoma City bombing. As has been well enough documented, convicted conspirator Terry Nichols made multiple trips to the Philippines when KSM's "nephew," Ramzi Yousef, was living there. Yousef was constructing the bombs for the impending aviation attack that KSM refers to as "the Bojinka operation."

According to a recent House report, Nichols traveled with the book, "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives," and just happened to show up in Cebu City at the exact same time as master bomber Yousef.

This was November 1994, six months before the Oklahoma City bombing. Nichols changed his itinerary immediately after Yousef's lab was busted by the Manila police in January 1995 and left the county in haste.

In "Against All Enemies," Clinton anti-terror czar Richard Clarke has this to say about the visits of these two terrorists to the same city in the same country at the same time: "We do know that Nichols' bombs did not work before his Philippine stay," writes Clarke, "and were deadly when he returned."

The second likely suspect for the redacted terror act was TWA Flight 800, the 747 blown out of the sky off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996, Saddam's national liberation day.

According to two separate sources within the NSA, on the night the plane went down Yousef phoned KSM from his New York City prison and said—in their native Baluchi– "What had to be done has been done, TWA 800″.

American Airlines 587 was blamed on the pilot for kicking the tail off the aircraft with the rudder pedals. Pan Am 800 was blamed on a short circuit when multiple witnesses reported seeing missiles ascending toward the aircraft. Oklahoma was blamed on Tim McVeigh when an Arab was witnessed parking the Ryder Truck.

As far as flight 800 goes, over 200 interviewed witnesses said they saw a light coming off the water and traveling up into the sky.  Several of those wits were pilots, some of them military pilots that flew in Vietnam and know what a missile looks like.  Several of those pilots claimed that the "missile"
changed course several times as it "locked on' to the target.  The flight that took off just prior to 800 was an Israeli flight that was supposed to have taken off when 800 did, but, delays with 800 caused a shift in the take-off order.

All boats in the sound that night were accounted for...except one that raced off of the radar at high speed moments after the established time of the explosion.  That boat has never been identified.  This is very funny as the Navy was conducting exercises out in the sound that night, doing war simulations, etc.  There was a ton of radar there yet, no one can identify this boat, or where it went?

The NTSB claimed a fuel-air explosion in the main mostly empty fuel tank caused by a spark...yet, in several tests using similar fuel tanks, they could not recreate that type of explosion no matter what they did.

The really sad/funny thing about all of this is that Clinton said, after 911, that he had wished it could have happened on his watch so he could look like the hero.  As we all now know, there were several terrorist attacks on Clinton's watch that he did not want to admit to being terrorism.

I do not normally agree with "conspiracy theories" except for JFK...but, I have read several books on 800 and all of the stuff that we later learned from advanced interrogation techniques, and it is obvious to me that we were not told the entire truth about this incident.

Where in NJ did you live?

I was born in Plainfield and moved to Hunterdon County when I was 7.

I live in Kentucky (for 30 years now)  and do not miss Joisy at all.

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 22, 2015, 10:55:30 PM
As far as flight 800 goes, over 200 interviewed witnesses said they saw a light coming off the water and traveling up into the sky.  Several of those wits were pilots, some of them military pilots that flew in Vietnam and know what a missile looks like.  Several of those pilots claimed that the "missile"
changed course several times as it "locked on' to the target.  The flight that took off just prior to 800 was an Israeli flight that was supposed to have taken off when 800 did, but, delays with 800 caused a shift in the take-off order.

All boats in the sound that night were accounted for...except one that raced off of the radar at high speed moments after the established time of the explosion.  That boat has never been identified.  This is very funny as the Navy was conducting exercises out in the sound that night, doing war simulations, etc.  There was a ton of radar there yet, no one can identify this boat, or where it went?

The NTSB claimed a fuel-air explosion in the main mostly empty fuel tank caused by a spark...yet, in several tests using similar fuel tanks, they could not recreate that type of explosion no matter what they did.

The really sad/funny thing about all of this is that Clinton said, after 911, that he had wished it could have happened on his watch so he could look like the hero.  As we all now know, there were several terrorist attacks on Clinton's watch that he did not want to admit to being terrorism.

I do not normally agree with "conspiracy theories" except for JFK...but, I have read several books on 800 and all of the stuff that we later learned from advanced interrogation techniques, and it is obvious to me that we were not told the entire truth about this incident.

Where in NJ did you live?

I was born in Plainfield and moved to Hunterdon County when I was 7.

I live in Kentucky (for 30 years now)  and do not miss Joisy at all.

Bill

Documentary surrounding the likely cover up of the TWA 800 crash.
Produced by James Sanders and Jack Cahill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umn4nsNN2E

@Pirate88179,

I'm from Nutley. That's the town Martha Stewart's from. Her father Ed Kostyra was my Scout Master.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 22, 2015, 11:17:47 PM
Documentary surrounding the likely cover up of the TWA 800 crash.
Produced by James Sanders and Jack Cahill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umn4nsNN2E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umn4nsNN2E)

@Pirate88179,

I'm from Nutley. That's the town Martha Stewart's from. Her father Ed Kostyra was my Scout Master.

Nutley?  Then I am sure you know Uncle Floyd?  I met him once in a bar in Bound Brook where he was playing piano.  If you know him or of him, he was also in Good Morning Vietnam.  I used to watch his show all of the time.  I have been there several times on business but, that was along time ago.

Bill

PS  AKA Floyd Vivino.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 22, 2015, 11:41:26 PM
Nutley?  Then I am sure you know Uncle Floyd?  I met him once in a bar in Bound Brook where he was playing piano.  If you know him or of him, he was also in Good Morning Vietnam.  I used to watch his show all of the time.  I have been there several times on business but, that was along time ago.

Bill

PS  AKA Floyd Vivino.

@Pirate88179,

Here he is! He really is great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UHp3QOOJmQ

Quote from: synchro1 on May 23, 2015, 12:34:02 AM
@Pirate88179,

Here he is! He really is great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UHp3QOOJmQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UHp3QOOJmQ)

Exactly!  He is great and really funny.  His "kids" show was really aimed at adults...and college students. I found a link for his radio show...but it only has one show on it.
http://tunein.com/radio/Uncle-Floyd-Radio-s199901/ (http://tunein.com/radio/Uncle-Floyd-Radio-s199901/)

Bill

Speaking before an audience of about 1,000 students at Georgetown University, former president Clinton unbosomed an astonishing range of ignorance about various historical events and even more flawed thinking about what the events mean and what they have to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Here in the United States," he  disclosed, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent." "This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human.... And we are still paying a price today" for those sins.

Clinton boasted of letting Bin Laden go to an audience in Australia on 9/10 2001 a few hours before the attack, then he stated "The attack helped America atone for the sins of slavery" on 9/12.

These statements augment the two terrorist attack cover ups in Oklahoma and JFK in New York he oversaw .

Quote from: synchro1 on May 26, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
Speaking before an audience of about 1,000 students at Georgetown University, former president Clinton unbosomed an astonishing range of ignorance about various historical events and even more flawed thinking about what the events mean and what they have to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Here in the United States," he  disclosed, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent." "This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human.... And we are still paying a price today" for those sins.

Clinton boasted of letting Bin Laden go to an audience in Australia on 9/10 2001 a few hours before the attack, then he stated "The attack helped America atone for the sins of slavery" on 9/12.

These statements augment the two terrorist attack cover ups in Oklahoma and JFK in New York he oversaw .

Clinton may be many things:  narcissist, philanderer, two-faced SOB, etc, but he isn't stupid.  And one would have to be colossally stupid to have made the quote you allege ever, much less on 9/12/2001.  Do you have a reliable attribution for the quote, or is it an urban myth?

Quote from: MarkE on May 26, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
Clinton may be many things:  narcissist, philanderer, two-faced SOB, etc, but he isn't stupid.  And one would have to be colossally stupid to have made the quote you allege ever, much less on 9/12/2001.  Do you have a reliable attribution for the quote, or is it an urban myth?

@MarkE,

He's not stupid, but making that remark was the all time stupidest thing he ever did! Not every foot of network news video is archived on Youtube. I saw it. Clinton categorically maintains 9/11 was not an inside job. Finding the truth out from Bill Clinton is like searching for intelligent life on the planet Mars.

@MarkE,

Whether Bill Clinton made that remark or not; The bottom line on the 9/11 attacks is that the ground level hole punched through the Pentagon wall that day, the one the government falsely maintains was made by a commercial aircraft, was physically unachievable. I can assure everyone, as a highly trained military pilot, that it's completely impossible to fly any kind airplane that close to the ground at cruise speed due to "Ground Effect" cushioning. The aircraft would need to be traveling at landing speed to get that close to the ground. That explosion was either caused by a missile or a bomb planted inside the building. The Government supplied us with a "Surveillance Video", with the airplane missing!

Former President Clinton was barred from practicing law before the Supreme Court because he was found guilty of committing an act of perjury while under oath. He maintains that terrorists piloted an aircraft into the Pentagon on 9/11, 2001. This story line, that Bill Clinton is trying to help hoodwink the public with, is an outrageous falsehood and just one in a long line of cover up stories designed to foist a costly policy of "Global Domination", "Domestic Surveillance", and "Militarization" of the Municipal Police on the American people with. 

A "highly trained military pilot" who doesn't understand ground effect or highspeed low altitude passes? Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHQuqEZbuZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcwuQFaxsGU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgDvY0a5p4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK5XVGV8eM8

Quote from: synchro1 on May 27, 2015, 03:05:59 AM
@MarkE,

Whether Bill Clinton made that remark or not;

Stop right there.  If you are going to chastise someone for something that they said or did, then get yourself on solid ground, or discredit yourself by making unsubstantiable claims.

Quote
The bottom line on the 9/11 attacks is that the ground level hole punched through the Pentagon wall that day, the one the government falsely maintains was made by a commercial aircraft, was physically unachievable. I can assure everyone, as a highly trained military pilot, that it's completely impossible to fly any kind airplane that close to the ground at cruise speed due to "Ground Effect" cushioning. The aircraft would need to be traveling at landing speed to get that close to the ground. That explosion was either caused by a missile or a bomb planted inside the building. The Government supplied us with a "Surveillance Video", with the airplane missing!

Your opinion is opposed by other "highly trained military pilots".  I've watched the videos I could find and it sure looks like an aircraft zipped by in a few frames.

Quote

Former President Clinton was barred from practicing law before the Supreme Court because he was found guilty of committing an act of perjury while under oath.

He lost his law license in Arkansas, which banned him from practicing any law.  He was eligible to reapply in 2006.  I never checked to see if he did.  I would just prefer that the Clintons quietly leave the stage as I find them both infuriating examples of lawyers at their worst.

QuoteHe maintains that terrorists piloted an aircraft into the Pentagon on 9/11, 2001. This story line, that Bill Clinton is trying to help hoodwink the public with, is an outrageous falsehood and just one in a long line of cover up stories designed to foist a costly policy of "Global Domination", "Domestic Surveillance", and "Militarization" of the Municipal Police on the American people with.

The evidence that I have reviewed makes the physical description of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon plausible.  Clinton has told a lot of whoppers, but that story has yet to be disproven.  If you want to be really, really angry at Clinton for something he indisputably did:  He signed repeal of Glass Steagall into law.  To the best of my knowledge he hasn't lifted a finger to try and undo that wretched act.  He's spent too much time taking soft bribes in the form of highly inflated speaking fees.  Like I said he and his wife represent the worst behavior of lawyers.

Quote from: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 07:21:15 AM
Stop right there.  If you are going to chastise someone for something that they said or did, then get yourself on solid ground, or discredit yourself by making unsubstantiable claims.Your opinion is opposed by other "highly trained military pilots".  I've watched the videos I could find and it sure looks like an aircraft zipped by in a few frames.He lost his law license in Arkansas, which banned him from practicing any law.  He was eligible to reapply in 2006.  I never checked to see if he did.  I would just prefer that the Clintons quietly leave the stage as I find them both infuriating examples of lawyers at their worst.The evidence that I have reviewed makes the physical description of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon plausible.  Clinton has told a lot of whoppers, but that story has yet to be disproven.  If you want to be really, really angry at Clinton for something he indisputably did:  He signed repeal of Glass Steagall into law.  To the best of my knowledge he hasn't lifted a finger to try and undo that wretched act.  He's spent too much time taking soft bribes in the form of highly inflated speaking fees.  Like I said he and his wife represent the worst behavior of lawyers.

@MarkE,

So, Sir Issac Newton gets a failing grade because the entire aircraft was completely swallowed up by a structure many times the planes strength, and no plane wreckage hurled backwards onto the lawn nor found inside the Pentagon? No "Landing Gear" no "Tourister Luggage"? At 60 frames per second at least half the Aircraft should appear in the Surveillance Video at the reported air speed. The aircraft was too large for a slick "Zip By" Bub!

I can't find a recording of Clinton making that remark, but I remember it, so I'm unwilling to come forward with any kind of retraction.

Here's an excellent video on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon entitled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" by Barbara Honegger:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

Quote from: synchro1 on May 27, 2015, 09:20:25 AM
@MarkE,

So, Sir Issac Newton gets a failing grade because the entire aircraft was completely swallowed up by a structure many times the planes strength, and no plane wreckage hurled backwards onto the lawn nor found inside the Pentagon? No "Landing Gear" no "Tourister Luggage"? At 60 frames per second at least half the Aircraft should appear in the Surveillance Video at the reported air speed. The aircraft was too large for a slick "Zip By" Bub!

Sir Isaac would disagree with you.  He knew that if you could throw a big enough spitball fast enough you could topple any structure.  Recoil occurs in elastic collisions.  Something that goes fast enough to overcome the plastic limits of what it impacts doesn't recoil.  The surviellance camera caught the plane going by.  For every 100mph something goes, it travels 135 feet per second.  Surveillance cameras run frame rates anywhere from 1fps to 30fps.  That is done to save storage requirements.  Basically, you rely on a bunch of unproven or worse disproven assumptions to arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the available evidence.

Quote

I can't find a recording of Clinton making that remark, but I remember it, so I'm unwilling to come forward with any kind of retraction.

It is to your disadvantage to do so.  Personal credibility suffers when one cannot back up a claim, especially an extraordinary claim with evidence. 

@MarkE,

Please watch the video "Behind the Smoke Curtain" I posted a link to above by Barbara Honegger. I bet you didn't know there were two explosion events at the Pentagon on 9/11, five minutes apart. The first behind the Helicopter Pad caused by what witnesses described as a small commuter jet painted to look like an airliner. I would very much like you to comment on the facts outlined in Barbara's video. Barbara did an excellent job. Please view it, and I'll look forward to your comments. 

By the way, the "Clinton Foundation" just got hit with a massive racketeering (RICO) complaint out of Florida.           

@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY

Quote from: synchro1 on May 27, 2015, 06:10:53 PM
@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY

It doesn't show much of anything.  Typical of many surveillance cameras, the frame rate and resolution are both very low.  Given that other footage caught what looks like a plane I don't see how this footage gives rise to controversy.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 27, 2015, 05:33:08 PM
@MarkE,

Please watch the video "Behind the Smoke Curtain" I posted a link to above by Barbara Honegger. I bet you didn't know there were two explosion events at the Pentagon on 9/11, five minutes apart. The first behind the Helicopter Pad caused by what witnesses described as a small commuter jet painted to look like an airliner. I would very much like you to comment on the facts outlined in Barbara's video. Barbara did an excellent job. Please view it, and I'll look forward to your comments. 

By the way, the "Clinton Foundation" just got hit with a massive racketeering (RICO) complaint out of Florida.           

Clinton is complicit in many things but I have not seen evidence of complicity in 9/11. Under Clinton one of his major campaign contributors:  Loral Space Systems sold all kinds of advanced ICBM guidance technology to China "for civilian use".  The whole den of thieves should have been tried and imprisoned for their treason.  That said:  The run up to 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11 was brought to us by the Neocons.  Clinton's passing contribution was keeping US bases in Saudi Arabia against Bush 41's promise to withdraw once Sadam was quelled.

A RICO complaint in FL makes no sense.  NY, or DC make sense.  FL just sounds like political opportunism much like the whole shameful Starr investigation. 

Here's yet another example of Bill Clinton's cover up strategy:

"Bill Clinton's own FBI director, Louis Freeh, wrote about how Clinton let down the American people and the families of American victims of the Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia during the Clinton administration. After promising to capture the Islamic terrorists responsible for the bombing at Khobar Towers -- a bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds -- Freeh said that Clinton refused to telephone Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to urge him to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in their custody".

Quote from: synchro1 on May 27, 2015, 06:10:53 PM
@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY

I slogged through it.  She engages in a LOT of circular argument.  She relies on the discredited Steven Jones nanothermite BS.  She fails basic math.  She alleges some thngs that are completely wrong such as that the wings of a 757 align to the bottom of the fuselage.  She relies very heavily on her personal speculations of things like evidence for thermite.  Her best evidence is the time disparity between 9:32 and 9:37, and the debris that fell into a woman's car.  She pounds away at her conclusions that explosions were bombs over and over again.  I was not impressed.

Quote from: MarkE on May 27, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
I slogged through two hours of it.  She engages in a LOT of circular argument.  She relies on the discredited Steven Jones nanothermite BS.  She fails basic math.  She alleges some thngs that are completely wrong such as that the wings of a 757 align to the bottom of the fuselage.  She relies very heavily on her personal speculations of things like evidence for thermite.  Her best evidence is the time disparity between 9:32 and 9:37, and the debris that fell into a woman's car.  She pounds away at her conclusions that explosions were bombs over and over again.  I was not impressed.

@MarkE,

The top picture shows the size of a 757 next to the Pentagon. The bottom one the hole it allegedly left. The pillar posts on ether side of the hole in the bottom picture are the same distance apart as the ones in the top picture. Here's leaked footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon 10 years after and more size comparisons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20

The picture on the bottom looks like one she presented of an opening that was in the C ring facing towards the center of the Pentagon.

Here's the deal:  If someone is going to make a claim, such as explosions were the result of planted bombs, then I want to see their evidence that: a) The explosions were from bombs, and b) evidence that those bombs were planted.  In three hours the best she did was replay a testimonial by witness who said they did not smell aircraft fuel.  I call that way insufficient.  Ditto things like her claims that outward blast forces meant that there were planted bombs.  Outward explosive force happens when a lot of material oxidizes in a hurry.  When it consumes oxygen in the process, there is a subsequent pressure drop that sucks back inward.  She simply declared that the signs of outward explosive force meant that there were bombs in the buildings.  She victimized herself with her own circular reasoning.

Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 01:12:32 AM
The picture on the bottom looks like one she presented of an opening that was in the C ring facing towards the center of the Pentagon.

Here's the deal:  If someone is going to make a claim, such as explosions were the result of planted bombs, then I want to see their evidence that: a) The explosions were from bombs, and b) evidence that those bombs were planted.  In three hours the best she did was replay a testimonial by witness who said they did not smell aircraft fuel.  I call that way insufficient.  Ditto things like her claims that outward blast forces meant that there were planted bombs.  Outward explosive force happens when a lot of material oxidizes in a hurry.  When it consumes oxygen in the process, there is a subsequent pressure drop that sucks back inward.  She simply declared that the signs of outward explosive force meant that there were bombs in the buildings.  She victimized herself with her own circular reasoning.

@MarkE,

She makes a pretty solid case from video footage, that there were two nearly simultaneous explosive events. The first one was in the accounting offices behind the fire station and involved a commuter jet shot down by a helicopter followed by a bomb explosion. There was a black female eyewitness who survived that blast and described what she believed to be a bomb blast coming from inside the building. This is the area where Barbara believes the nano-thermite was used and the protruding wreckage observed. That was a different event from the one that caused the hole and the roof collapse further to the south.

The wreckage that fell through the "Sun Roof" of the car matched missile fabricated hull material. She never reported that, she just drive home with it and photographed it. The small amount of wreckage debris collected at the Pentagon, including the one jet engine came from the shot down commuter jet not a 757.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2015, 02:28:01 AM
@MarkE,

She makes a pretty solid case from video footage, that there were two nearly simultaneous explosive events. The first one was in the accounting offices behind the fire station and involved a commuter jet shot down by a helicopter followed by a bomb explosion. There was a black female eyewitness who survived that blast and described what she believed to be a bomb blast coming from inside the building. This is the area where Barbara believes the nano-thermite was used and the protruding wreckage observed. That was a different event from the one that caused the hole and the roof collapse further to the south.

The wreckage that fell through the "Sun Roof" of the car matched missile fabricated hull material. She never reported that, she just drive home with it and photographed it. The small amount of wreckage debris collected at the Pentagon, including the one jet engine came from the shot down commuter jet not a 757.

What she did was make a number of allegations.  That's fine, she has some ideas.  Then it is a matter of evaluating available evidence to see if the ideas hold water.  Mostly what she did was employ circular logic, emphasizing her conclusions and then framing what evidence she had in terms of her conclusions.  It is a tried and true debating technique.  It is not how to do science.  She is not a scientist, so I give her some allowance.  I did sit through all three hours.  I was not impressed.

I am not going to recount all three hours.  She alleges that a drone aircraft was badly dressed up to look like an airliner, was detonated by the helipad along with bombs in the building, and that FL 77 never impacted the building.  By the end of the presentation she went full on into an Israeli / neocon global oil domination conspiracy.  The neocon meglamania and the PNAC thousand year Reich idea called the NAC are real enough.  That the neocons siezed on 9/11 to advance their arm chair dominate the world ambitions is a matter of documented fact.   But when it came down to cases, 95% of what she presented was innuendo without much substance.  Some of the stuff at the end amounted to:  "The Jews did it!" which is a rather offensive thing to say without solid evidence.

I find it remarkable that people allege elaborate black ops on 9/11, a plan of great sophistication, but simulataneously make allegations that the perpetrators were bunglers who left these big clues for the conspiracy theorists to find out in the open.

There were evil people in our government and they did evil things.  There is good evidence that they intentionally left the proverbial door open.  But I have yet to see anyone come up with a smoking gun that shows that the Bush government executed 9/11.

Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 06:18:26 AM
.......................................
...................
...........  But I have yet to see anyone come up with a smoking gun that shows that the Bush government executed 9/11.

Sure, it is all speculation !
What is of interest to observe how the Bush government was well prepared to make the most out of the event.
And what reflects back to the probability of being a controlling participant was the apparent  'blindness' to the event about to take place by the CIA & FBI.  Not many people believe that Osama could have pulled this off unaided. It was a project of mutual interest and with only one to take the blame
Sure, its all speculation
We can only speculate on what events that occurred were within the plan and on what occurred outside the plan
But of one thing I am fairly sure, there was a plan.

When it comes to a flying plane into the WTC,  it played over and over again. 
What would be the resistance not to show the Pentagon surveillance video's, I heard several view angles exist but were confiscated.   At the same time it is no problem to show video footage of the military operation to capture Osama. 
They could have confiscated /forbidden all footage of the plane attack on the WTC,  What judgement would have been used to show or not to show the pentagon attack ?
Red

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 06:47:21 AM
Sure, it is all speculation !
What is of interest to observe how the Bush government was well prepared to make the most out of the event.
And what reflects back to the probability of being a controlling participant was the apparent  'blindness' to the event about to take place by the CIA & FBI.  Not many people believe that Osama could have pulled this off unaided. It was a project of mutual interest and with only one to take the blame
Sure, its all speculation
We can only speculate on what events that occurred were within the plan and on what occurred outside the plan
But of one thing I am fairly sure, there was a plan.

The problem is identifying what was planned and what was executed.  If you believe it was a military black op then you are way short in the evidence department.

Quote

When it comes to a flying plane into the WTC,  it played over and over again. 
What would be the resistance not to show the Pentagon surveillance video's, I heard several view angles exist but were confiscated.   At the same time it is no problem to show video footage of the military operation to capture Osama. 

I don't go by "I have heard."  I go by what evidence is actually shown.

Quote
They could have confiscated /forbidden all footage of the plane attack on the WTC,  What judgement would have been used to show or not to show the pentagon attack ?
Red

Lots of people could have done lots of things.  Get evidence to show that they did a particular thing.

Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 07:59:07 AM
The problem is identifying what was planned and what was executed.  If you believe it was a military black op then you are way short in the evidence department.I don't go by "I have heard."  I go by what evidence is actually shown.Lots of people could have done lots of things.  Get evidence to show that they did a particular thing.

@MarkE,

I'm a former Navy Pilot with thousands of successful landings under all kinds of conditions. Let me repeat that it's physically impossible for an aircraft to fly as close to the ground, as flight 77 was supposed to have, above cruise speed due to "Ground Effect". The best it could do is impact the second story. The aircraft would need to slow down to landing speed and lower it's flaps before it could descend to that low an altitude. No qualified pilot would disagree with me. Don't try and tell me how little I know about it. You have a history of acting like a "know it all" about things you're totally wrong about. I'm right about this fact, don't continue to try and contradict me about it!

Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM
@MarkE,

I'm a former Navy Pilot with thousands of successful landings under all kinds of conditions. Let me repeat that it's physically impossible for an aircraft to fly as close to the ground, as flight 77 was supposed to have, above cruise speed due to "Ground Effect". The best it could do is impact the second story. The aircraft would need to slow down to landing speed and lower it's flaps before it could descend to that low an altitude. No qualified pilot would disagree with me. Don't try and tell me how little I know about it. You have a history of acting like a "know it all" about things you're totally wrong about. I'm right about this fact, don't continue to try and contradict me about it!

When you say things like it would need to extend flaps because of excess lift from ground effect, it makes me question that you understand the physical principles involved independent of what your flying experience may or may not be.  Extending flaps increases lift which is important during slow flight.  As TK's linked videos showed it is not only possible, it is demonstrated that passenger craft can cruise the runway doing touch and gos.  If your idea of fact is mere declaration then it is you who refuse to discuss.

@MalarkE,

Flaps not only increase lift, they help reduce airspeed. A "No Flap" landing requires a longer runway because "Ground Effect" prevents the aircraft from touching down until it approaches stall speed. I don't care to be tutored by you in basic aeronautics. You need to stop acting too smart.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2015, 03:36:25 PM
@MalarkE,

Flaps not only increase lift, they help reduce airspeed. A "No Flap" landing requires a longer runway because "Ground Effect" prevents the aircraft from touching down until it approaches stall speed. I don't care to be tutored by you in basic aeronautics. You need to stop acting too smart.

Are you sure you used to be a pilot?  Yes, flaps increase drag, but their primary purpose is to increase lift which is critical at low air speed conditions:  take off and landing.  IOW they prevent stall at low air speed.  A "no flap" landing requires a long runway because the aircraft has a higher stall speed than with flaps.  Stall at take off or landing is spelled: P L O P.

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-aircraft/boeing-757-high-speed-low-pass/4020449416001/ (http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-aircraft/boeing-757-high-speed-low-pass/4020449416001/)

http://gizmodo.com/5808599/the-craziest-low-pass-flyby-ive-ever-seen (http://gizmodo.com/5808599/the-craziest-low-pass-flyby-ive-ever-seen)

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/17/ukrainian-fighter-jet-makes-extreme-low-high-speed-pass-over-russian-separatists/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/17/ukrainian-fighter-jet-makes-extreme-low-high-speed-pass-over-russian-separatists/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pY-T4P7IM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pY-T4P7IM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSKIP5DcfKU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSKIP5DcfKU)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcwuQFaxsGU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcwuQFaxsGU)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWGLAAYdbbc

Unlike the attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon was not broadcast on live television. In fact, within the first hours of the attack, the FBI had confiscated 84 surveillance videos from dozens of locations nearly all of which have never been released.

The "9/11 Commission Report" makes no mention of the first explosion. The Pentagon was first attacked shortly after 9:30 a.m. – well before 9:37:46, when the "Official Version" says a plane hit the building from the outside.

Below is a photograph of the clock stopped by the first explosion from the "Pentagon Fire Station" on 9/11, currently on display at the Smithsonian.

On September 14, the DOD announced that they had found the "Voice Recorder" black box from flight 77 along with the "Flight Data Recorder" from september 11. Both black boxes for Flight 77 were turned over to the NTSB. However, neither the data of the flight data recorders, nor the voice from the voice recorder from Flight 77 has ever been released.

What I find particularly perplexing, is that none of the major political candidates for the Presidency in 2016, has questioned the validity of the 9/11 Commission findings; As if to signal their willingness to continue to go along with future deceptions.

Quote from: MarkE
Are you sure you used to be a pilot?  Yes, flaps increase drag, but their primary purpose is to increase lift which is critical at low air speed conditions:  take off and landing.  IOW they prevent stall at low air speed.  A "no flap" landing requires a long runway because the aircraft has a higher stall speed than with flaps.  Stall at take off or landing is spelled: P L O P.

What is very obvious Mark is that you've stalled.

You're clearly not an aviator.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 30, 2015, 12:24:37 AM
What is very obvious Mark is that you've stalled.

You're clearly not an aviator.

LOL, if you think so.  Are you going to offer some argument with evidence or just throw mud?

Quote from: synchro1 on May 29, 2015, 09:14:00 PM
.............................................................
What I find particularly perplexing, is that none of the major political candidates for the Presidency in 2016, has questioned the validity of the 9/11 Commission findings; As if to signal their willingness to continue to go along with future deceptions.

Synchro,
It is purely a matter how you see the world around you.
A presidential candidate who would NOT have a willingness to go along with future deceptions, would never get elected. He most probably will be discredited in the early stages of the process.
You might not hold the same viewpoint, but from my angle, the running of a country is no one man show. It is directed by board committee type process, there is a public committee (representatives & senators), but there is a also a background (shadow) committee.   The one is an public elected committee, the other one is just 'power' & 'money'.   
There is a saying, "birds of a feather flock together",  if you then consider anybody who has a "fair chunk of lot of money" would be of similar position and circle in life, usually would associate together due to similar interest, in addition to other interests they would  conspire where is the best money to be made and together will do similar investments to increase their earnings.  It is a natural and inevitable merge of common interests and I would guess this happens on different levels in a similar way.

On the next level, big companies, big banks & big money are no different, although in additional they can wield big power and control on a regional or national level to expand their fortunes. 
When this "big" reaches a certain threshold, there is not much to stop it.  Today in this process of growth has gone to a international level as was seen in colonial times.  The commercial interest would expand into the world under crown protection (mutual interest).  Although we have now come to a point where commercial power has overtaken the crown in wealth and power.  The power has shifted.
In the world economy, big money interests have overtaken regional or national interests and provide the opportunity to make more money quicker.  This went hand in hand with a side effect, the power to control on who will be rich or poor.
USA is a good example of being stripped to the bone, only a magical transformation will save this country(a possibility).  That power & control is not with the people nor their president but with the big industrial & financial complex.  The president is only a front man for the 2 committees that are lopsided towards big money, this limits the freedom of the whole structure .
In a democracy of today, if we take into account the lobbying influence, I would guess that the public at best exercise only 1/4 of the governing control and the president is no different.

PS:   How quick and by which method was the 2007 financial crisis loan to the banks approved ?  It was so quick that  nobody had time to read the document.  What is power?, what is BIG power?  What can it really do?  something to think about.

Deceptions are there to execute shadow agendas,  I would guess the president should be seen more as a coordinator to the interests at hand, he needs to be compliant to a certain level otherwise I would doubt if he would have gotten that position to start of with. Sure he has controlling power for house keeping and daily run of the country.
If at any time using, aiding or aligning with an Islamic fundamentalist group to achieve a desired objective at hand, a moral or national or patriotic objection would not stop this drive. The long term power & control objectives are what matters (that is how I think business is done here). 
Real life "Democracy" doesn't necessary mean exactly what is written in the dictionary or constitution.
An understanding we will need to come to terms with in this century. A new world has arrived (sometime I wonder if are destined by the outline of certain predictions)

PS:  What is REAL power? .  BTW who owns your house that is under mortgage loan?  The bank ?
                                                  BTW, who owns all those trillions of government debt of the US ?  So who own the US gov?
                                                 BTW, it is no different for many other countries with IMF or World Bank loans.
                                                 BTW,  Who controls Greece now? Not the people, not their elected Gov.
It is not a question that he country doesn't have wealth or money, the problem that most of the money is the hands of a limited number of people who exercise the power & control this money give them to achieve their set objectives.  These objectives do not necessary meet the national democratic expectations of the citizen.

***   a little paragraph pulled from wikipedia (JP Morgan), this happened already 100yrs ago, what happens today ?

//   In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold. President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan's offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold[6] to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue. The episode saved the Treasury but hurt Cleveland's standing with the agrarian wing of the Democratic Party, and became an issue in the election of 1896, when banks came under a withering attack from William Jennings Bryan. Morgan and Wall Street bankers donated heavily to Republican William McKinley, who was elected in 1896 and re-elected in 1900.[7]  //

//    The Panic of 1907 was a financial crisis that almost crippled the American economy. Major New York banks were on the verge of bankruptcy and there was no mechanism to rescue them, until Morgan stepped in to help resolve the crisis.[11][12] Treasury Secretary George B. Cortelyou earmarked $35 million of federal money to quell the storm but had no easy way to use it. Morgan now took personal charge. Meeting with the nation's leading financiers in his New York mansion, he forced them to devise a plan to meet the crisis. James Stillman, president of the National City Bank, also played a central role. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives which redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought up the plummeting stocks of healthy corporations.[11]  //


Red_Sunset

Quote from: synchro1 on May 29, 2015, 09:14:00 PM
On September 14, the DOD announced that they had found the "Voice Recorder" black box from flight 77 along with the "Flight Data Recorder" from september 11. Both black boxes for Flight 77 were turned over to the NTSB. However, neither the data of the flight data recorders, nor the voice from the voice recorder from Flight 77 has ever been released.

What I find particularly perplexing, is that none of the major political candidates for the Presidency in 2016, has questioned the validity of the 9/11 Commission findings; As if to signal their willingness to continue to go along with future deceptions.

According to the NTSB, the CVR used magnetic tape which was fused into a solid mass from the heat of the fire and no data was able to be recovered from the CVR.  However, the FDR data has been available from the NTSB for quite some time.  The FDR data shows 77 doing about 300 KIAS when it impacted (no flaps, no slats, gear up...).

Quote from: picowatt on May 30, 2015, 02:37:10 AM
According to the NTSB, the CVR used magnetic tape which was fused into a solid mass from the heat of the fire and no data was able to be recovered from the CVR.  However, the FDR data has been available from the NTSB for quite some time.  The FDR data shows 77 doing about 300 KIAS when it impacted (no flaps, no slats, gear up...).

@Picowatt,

Here's another interesting anomaly:

"A flight data file created by the downloaded Flight Data Recorder information of American Airlines flight 77 was created on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 11:45pm. However, as reported by USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance reported that the FDR for AA 77 was recovered on Friday, September 14, 2001 at 4am, 4 hours and 15 minutes after the creation of the AA 77 FDR data file".

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 03:19:04 AM
@Picowatt,

Here's another interesting anomaly:

"A flight data file created by the downloaded Flight Data Recorder information of American Airlines flight 77 was created on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 11:45pm. However, as reported by USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance reported that the FDR for AA 77 was recovered on Friday, September 14, 2001 at 4am, 4 hours and 15 minutes after the creation of the AA 77 FDR data file".

Source?

Quote from: MarkE
LOL, if you think so.  Are you going to offer some argument with evidence or just throw mud?

Your desperation is right up there with Sarkey's.

Stating a truth is throwing mud you say?

Look at your hands - what is that muddy looking stuff there?

Quote from: picowatt on May 30, 2015, 03:22:38 AM
Source?

@Picowatt,

Here's the link:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12519

Another mysterious fact about 77's "Black Boxes":

"Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 (77) 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed inventory control serial numbers".

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 30, 2015, 12:24:37 AM
What is very obvious Mark is that you've stalled.

You're clearly not an aviator.

Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 03:19:04 AM
@Picowatt,

Here's another interesting anomaly:

"A flight data file created by the downloaded Flight Data Recorder information of American Airlines flight 77 was created on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 11:45pm. However, as reported by USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance reported that the FDR for AA 77 was recovered on Friday, September 14, 2001 at 4am, 4 hours and 15 minutes after the creation of the AA 77 FDR data file".

Presenting quotes without attribution or links again? Even you should know that the timestamp of the file depends on the clock of the computer it was created on. Even you should know this. I haven't bothered to set the time on my video camera in a long time, and it is several hours out. When I make a video and transfer that file to my computer, I notice that the file's timestamp often says it was created _tomorrow_.  Your unattributed quote is proof of exactly nothing, except your political agenda and your willingness to ignore facts that conflict with your predetermined conclusions.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 30, 2015, 03:29:49 AM
Your desperation is right up there with Sarkey's.

Stating a truth is throwing mud you say?

Look at your hands - what is that muddy looking stuff there?

LOL, I have made specific statements concerning flight.  You allege that I am wrong.  You offer no evidence.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2015, 05:37:28 AM
Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. Here it is again:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12519

One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

I didin't trash pick my flight credentials from an alleyway dumpster like you.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 02:52:29 PM
@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.

QuoteWhen an aircraft is flying at an altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude) that is approximately at or below the same distance as the aircraft's wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan) or helicopter's rotor diameter, there is, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. This is caused primarily by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices) and downwash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwash) behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_drag), which increases the speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed) and lift (http://overunity.com/javascript:void(0)) of the aircraft.^[3][4] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29There)
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2015, 03:09:34 PM
BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29There)
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858

@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 03:23:07 PM
@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.           

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 03:23:07 PM
@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Really?  You're making an argument over prepositions now?

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 09:14:37 PM
@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.         

You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

Quote from: MarkE on May 30, 2015, 10:47:32 PM
You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 09:14:37 PM
@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.         

OK, you mentioned downed light poles...why would a missile hit the light poles in the first place?  If someone launched a missile, there would be no need for such a low level flat trajectory right?  If one were to argue that they wanted it to look like an aircraft, then why use such a flat flight path which would look suspicious to folks like yourself?

Bill

Quote from: synchro1 on May 30, 2015, 11:19:09 PM
@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.

I did not make any argument concerning the X-1.  If you wish to argue using aerodynamic formulae then present your analysis using those formulae.  Otherwise you are just throwing words around.  If you wish to concede your ground effect contention, then we can move on to a different contention.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 31, 2015, 12:07:28 AM
OK, you mentioned downed light poles...why would a missile hit the light poles in the first place?  If someone launched a missile, there would be no need for such a low level flat trajectory right?  If one were to argue that they wanted it to look like an aircraft, then why use such a flat flight path which would look suspicious to folks like yourself?

Bill

Maybe they weren't light poles.  Maybe they were special drones painted to look like light poles.

You all can argue this case indefinitely,  but one thing should be clear (as in OU), it never is what you think it is

Neither does the one who claims overunity for months or years, has mastered overunity (a good current example is EMjunkie)
But that doesn't mean there isn't a smoking gun.

We might not know the in's or out's of what or how, but that doesn't pre-empt a claim
What we can say with confidence,
1.. The pentagon evidence does not match the story given (damage to the building & aircraft debris shown)
2.. The collapse of the WTC did not match the pancaking theory.  (the no resistance free fall collapse & the lack of a partial but substantial remaining center core standing)
3.. The custom implosion of building 7, ( a building on fire, a decision was made to pull the building down, time required to rig for implosion...just impossibe without pre-meditated pre-work done to execute this action)
4.. Pictures of the debris field of the crashed plane in PA did not come to a near match of any previous known crashes fields

"What and how" is under discussion here and might never get an answer,  although to get closer to the truth we can add "the motive",  this doesn't need much discussion,  it became very clear soon after the event.   A counter action to defuse an enemy party that does you harm is understandable, but that is not exactly what happened.

Lest assume that the events were exactly as claimed, was the extend of the reaction warranted or was the reaction driven by other motives?   If you say the latter, that would definitely put the initial assumption into doubt

Just to get some perspective on this event, switch yourself into the shoes of the other party.
Lets take a current event, like a US drone strike in some other country like Pakistan or Yemen.   Should they come and invade the US because of that event and include Canada because they were in the neighborhood and they didn't like the their Prime Minister ?

See the bigger picture.  The US does what it does became it can!, because it has the superior technology, not because it is morally right or otherwise.   Lets call a spade a spade!.

Red_Sunset

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 31, 2015, 02:50:32 AM
You all can argue this case indefinitely,  but one thing should be clear (as in OU), it never is what you think it is

Neither does the one who claims overunity for months or years, has mastered overunity (a good current example is EMjunkie)
But that doesn't mean there isn't a smoking gun.

We might not know the in's or out's of what or how, but that doesn't pre-empt a claim
What we can say with confidence,
1.. The pentagon evidence does not match the story given (damage to the building & aircraft debris shown)
2.. The collapse of the WTC did not match the pancaking theory.  (the no resistance free fall collapse & the lack of a partial but substantial remaining center core standing)
3.. The custom implosion of building 7, ( a building on fire, a decision was made to pull the building down, time required to rig for implosion...just impossibe without pre-meditated pre-work done to execute this action)
4.. Pictures of the debris field of the crashed plane in PA did not come to a near match of any previous known crashes fields

"What and how" is under discussion here and might never get an answer,  although to get closer to the truth we can add "the motive",  this doesn't need much discussion,  it became very clear soon after the event.   A counter action to defuse an enemy party that does you harm is understandable, but that is not exactly what happened.

Lest assume that the events were exactly as claimed, was the extend of the reaction warranted or was the reaction driven by other motives?   If you say the latter, that would definitely put the initial assumption into doubt

Just to get some perspective on this event, switch yourself into the shoes of the other party.
Lets take a current event, like a US drone strike in some other country like Pakistan or Yemen.   Should they come and invade the US because of that event and include Canada because they were in the neighborhood and they didn't like the their Prime Minister ?

See the bigger picture.  The US does what it does became it can!, because it has the superior technology, not because it is morally right or otherwise.   Lets call a spade a spade!.

Red_Sunset

Declaring conclusions does not make them right.  What is remarkable to me is that people wander off on speculations where they easily discredit themselves by jumping to conclusions, while ignoring what is indisputable, wrong, and in need of public action.  The physical mechanics of 9/11 are a flea speck compared to the evil that has been done in the name of avenging 9/11 and preventing further terrorism.

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 03:50:46 AM
Declaring conclusions does not make them right.  What is remarkable to me is that people wander off on speculations where they easily discredit themselves by jumping to conclusions, while ignoring what is indisputable, wrong, and in need of public action.

The physical mechanics of 9/11 are a flea speck compared to the evil that has been done in the name of avenging 9/11 and preventing further terrorism.

I couldn't agree more !

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 30, 2015, 02:16:29 AM
Synchro,
It is purely a matter how you see the world around you.
A presidential candidate who would NOT have a willingness to go along with future deceptions, would never get elected. He most probably will be discredited in the early stages of the process.
You might not hold the same viewpoint, but from my angle, the running of a country is no one man show. It is directed by board committee type process, there is a public committee (representatives & senators), but there is a also a background (shadow) committee.   The one is an public elected committee, the other one is just 'power' & 'money'.   
There is a saying, "birds of a feather flock together",  if you then consider anybody who has a "fair chunk of lot of money" would be of similar position and circle in life, usually would associate together due to similar interest, in addition to other interests they would  conspire where is the best money to be made and together will do similar investments to increase their earnings.  It is a natural and inevitable merge of common interests and I would guess this happens on different levels in a similar way.

On the next level, big companies, big banks & big money are no different, although in additional they can wield big power and control on a regional or national level to expand their fortunes. 
When this "big" reaches a certain threshold, there is not much to stop it.  Today in this process of growth has gone to a international level as was seen in colonial times.  The commercial interest would expand into the world under crown protection (mutual interest).  Although we have now come to a point where commercial power has overtaken the crown in wealth and power.  The power has shifted.
In the world economy, big money interests have overtaken regional or national interests and provide the opportunity to make more money quicker.  This went hand in hand with a side effect, the power to control on who will be rich or poor.
USA is a good example of being stripped to the bone, only a magical transformation will save this country(a possibility).  That power & control is not with the people nor their president but with the big industrial & financial complex.  The president is only a front man for the 2 committees that are lopsided towards big money, this limits the freedom of the whole structure .
In a democracy of today, if we take into account the lobbying influence, I would guess that the public at best exercise only 1/4 of the governing control and the president is no different.

PS:   How quick and by which method was the 2007 financial crisis loan to the banks approved ?  It was so quick that  nobody had time to read the document.  What is power?, what is BIG power?  What can it really do?  something to think about.

Deceptions are there to execute shadow agendas,  I would guess the president should be seen more as a coordinator to the interests at hand, he needs to be compliant to a certain level otherwise I would doubt if he would have gotten that position to start of with. Sure he has controlling power for house keeping and daily run of the country.
If at any time using, aiding or aligning with an Islamic fundamentalist group to achieve a desired objective at hand, a moral or national or patriotic objection would not stop this drive. The long term power & control objectives are what matters (that is how I think business is done here). 
Real life "Democracy" doesn't necessary mean exactly what is written in the dictionary or constitution.
An understanding we will need to come to terms with in this century. A new world has arrived (sometime I wonder if are destined by the outline of certain predictions)

PS:  What is REAL power? .  BTW who owns your house that is under mortgage loan?  The bank ?
                                                  BTW, who owns all those trillions of government debt of the US ?  So who own the US gov?
                                                 BTW, it is no different for many other countries with IMF or World Bank loans.
                                                 BTW,  Who controls Greece now? Not the people, not their elected Gov.
It is not a question that he country doesn't have wealth or money, the problem that most of the money is the hands of a limited number of people who exercise the power & control this money give them to achieve their set objectives.  These objectives do not necessary meet the national democratic expectations of the citizen.

***   a little paragraph pulled from wikipedia (JP Morgan), this happened already 100yrs ago, what happens today ?

//   In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold. President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan's offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold[6] to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue. The episode saved the Treasury but hurt Cleveland's standing with the agrarian wing of the Democratic Party, and became an issue in the election of 1896, when banks came under a withering attack from William Jennings Bryan. Morgan and Wall Street bankers donated heavily to Republican William McKinley, who was elected in 1896 and re-elected in 1900.[7]  //

//    The Panic of 1907 was a financial crisis that almost crippled the American economy. Major New York banks were on the verge of bankruptcy and there was no mechanism to rescue them, until Morgan stepped in to help resolve the crisis.[11][12] Treasury Secretary George B. Cortelyou earmarked $35 million of federal money to quell the storm but had no easy way to use it. Morgan now took personal charge. Meeting with the nation's leading financiers in his New York mansion, he forced them to devise a plan to meet the crisis. James Stillman, president of the National City Bank, also played a central role. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives which redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought up the plummeting stocks of healthy corporations.[11]  //


Red_Sunset

@Red__Sunset,

The government relied on private bankers to cope with insolvency in the past. When the fiat "Green Back" expires from War squandering the Banks will help evolve the Cashless economy. This involves digital "World Money", and loss of privacy.   

Quote from: synchro1 on May 31, 2015, 06:55:45 AM
@Red__Sunset,

The government relied on private bankers to cope with insolvency in the past. When the fiat "Green Back" expires from War squandering the Banks will help evolve the Cashless economy. This involves digital "World Money", and loss of privacy.

Synchro, 
Yes, bankers is a subject by itself.  The times are changing and banks are becoming more greedy, no surprise they post such incredible profit margins at the end of the year, and super bonuses.  We have already reached the "negative interest" level, you pay the bank for them to hold your money.  Do a google with 'negative interest', it is happening already in Switzerland.
The laws of Thermodynamics apply here. no free lunch here except if you are in the financial power seat.
You are right, cashless control is coming, but I can not see it to become absolute. If enforced, I am sure a sub-world, like black market will develop based on the old ways.  Who knows ?

Privacy, you have lost that already. You are already everywhere, not much you can do about it.  You want to make it worse, get a "smart phone" and a "Facebook" account.
People voluntary give up their privacy. To be hooked into the WWW is bi-directional, like mutual inductance or Bemf or friction.
The laws of physics and life are quite consistent throughout nature.

Red_Sunset

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 03:50:46 AM
Declaring conclusions does not make them right.  What is remarkable to me is that people wander off on speculations where they easily discredit themselves by jumping to conclusions, while ignoring what is indisputable, wrong, and in need of public action.  The physical mechanics of 9/11 are a flea speck compared to the evil that has been done in the name of avenging 9/11 and preventing further terrorism.

Much speculation indicates a deep interest and underlying push for truth and in the case of 9/11 the monstrous evil that followed this tragic event has focused minds on the true motives for the event.

Quote from: Hoppy on May 31, 2015, 11:38:07 AM
Much speculation indicates a deep interest and underlying push for truth and in the case of 9/11 the monstrous evil that followed this tragic event has focused minds on the true motives for the event.

I see a lot of energy put into silly ideas like nano-thermite, and dustifying space beams that does absoutely nothing to marshal against the infinite wars abroad, the decimation of the Constitution at home, the prospect that a two very chummy family dynasty will have run the country for 28 out of 36 years, or that the too big to fail financial institutions that are being subsidized to the tune of nearly $400 billion per year, have not only not been reformed, are taking bigger risks than ever.  These are all huge crimes in progress.

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 04:10:45 PM
I see a lot of energy put into silly ideas like nano-thermite, and dustifying space beams that does absoutely nothing to marshal against the infinite wars abroad, the decimation of the Constitution at home, the prospect that a two very chummy family dynasty will have run the country for 28 out of 36 years, or that the too big to fail financial institutions that are being subsidized to the tune of nearly $400 billion per year, have not only not been reformed, are taking bigger risks than ever.  These are all huge crimes in progress.

The "Too Big To Fail" doctrine goes against the basic fundamentals of capitalism and free markets.  If a company can not survive in the current market, then they fail...period.  If they are too big, then let's look at the Sherman Act and other legislation to see how they were allowed to get that big in the first place.  No company is too big to fail.  I am a free market guy and I say, let the chips fall where they may.  Using peoples hard earned tax money to prop up a failing company is not the way to go.  The way this was done is fascism.  Same with the auto makers or any other business.

Just my opinion.

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 31, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
The "Too Big To Fail" doctrine goes against the basic fundamentals of capitalism and free markets.  If a company can not survive in the current market, then they fail...period.  If they are too big, then let's look at the Sherman Act and other legislation to see how they were allowed to get that big in the first place.  No company is too big to fail.  I am a free market guy and I say, let the chips fall where they may.  Using peoples hard earned tax money to prop up a failing company is not the way to go.  The way this was done is fascism.  Same with the auto makers or any other business.

Just my opinion.

Bill

You make a good point Bill  (highlited)
The other impact that is commonly overlooked is how those "too big too fail" Banks,  absorbed many smaller banks >> increasing the monopoly size even more.  I don't remember the exact number of banks operating in the US after the financial crisis but the reduction was dramatic.  The financial crisis served the big boys well in capturing a bigger share of the market.
Red

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 04:10:45 PM
I see a lot of energy put into silly ideas like nano-thermite, and dustifying space beams that does absoutely nothing to marshal against the infinite wars abroad, the decimation of the Constitution at home, the prospect that a two very chummy family dynasty will have run the country for 28 out of 36 years, or that the too big to fail financial institutions that are being subsidized to the tune of nearly $400 billion per year, have not only not been reformed, are taking bigger risks than ever.  These are all huge crimes in progress.

Some silly ideas have changed the world and will continue to do so. Much explosive energy was released on 9/11 and in reaction continues to be released in human emotion. The truth is now staring many of us in the face!

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 04:10:45 PM
I see a lot of energy put into silly ideas like nano-thermite, and dustifying space beams that does absoutely nothing to marshal against the infinite wars abroad, the decimation of the Constitution at home, the prospect that a two very chummy family dynasty will have run the country for 28 out of 36 years, or that the too big to fail financial institutions that are being subsidized to the tune of nearly $400 billion per year, have not only not been reformed, are taking bigger risks than ever.  These are all huge crimes in progress.

Mark,
Just your take on 911, 
In your view, if you exclude termite, why was there no core column remaining after the collapse of the outer floors in a pancake ?
Decimation of the constitution & wars abroad.>>  If only a few are prepared to defend the constitution and the rest is only prepared to bitch and not use their brains. when they hear the propaganda that is carefully orchestrated by powers that be. A natural result.
In addition to what is in progress, bigger and more shocking crimes can be expected in the near future.
The tube was forecasting today, an expected dead toll by police shooting of over 1000 in USA by the end of the year at the current killing rate.  I wonder if it is the result of the wild West training in Bagdad?
Red

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 31, 2015, 05:36:45 PM
Mark,
Just your take on 911, 
In your view, if you exclude termite, why was there no core column remaining after the collapse of the outer floors in a pancake ?
Decimation of the constitution & wars abroad.>>  If only a few are prepared to defend the constitution and the rest is only prepared to bitch and not use their brains. when they hear the propaganda that is carefully orchestrated by powers that be. A natural result.
In addition to what is in progress, bigger and more shocking crimes can be expected in the near future.
The tube was forecasting today, an expected dead toll by police shooting of over 1000 in USA by the end of the year at the current killing rate.  I wonder if it is the result of the wild West training in Bagdad?
Red

Red:

My understanding was that the twin towers were constructed of an exoskeleton...meaning, the main supports were on the outside of the building and the floors were connected to the outside framework.  One of the after action reports showed that the building contractor used inferior bolts (which were cheaper) to attach the floor beams to the framework.  The heat weakened these bolts and, once the upper floors collapsed, the pancake was the result.  I am not a building engineer so I can not speak to how true this is but, if true, it makes sense.

As far as deaths caused by police, I think your numbers are off.  (I read that it was 60) Even if they are not, have you ever been to any of the areas these guys have to work in?  If you are a cop, and 3 guys run at you and go for their guns, you have to defend yourself.  It is that simple.  Out of the millions and millions of folks protected by the cops, even your number, which I still think is pretty high, is not that bad.

Are all cops good?  Hell no.  Just watch some youtube videos and you can see that there are some that should not be on the force.  Of course, some of those videos are guys trying to bait the cops so they can make a video but still, most of them are just trying to do their job and go home alive.

Try going to Baltimore and walk around at night.  If you are white, you will be attacked by someone.  Heck, even if you are black, you will still get attacked.  The high (record high) murder rate in Baltimore has only happened since the Feds ordered the cops to stop doing patrols and only answer calls from citizens.  Then, and I love this, the mayor blames the cops for not doing their job yet it was the Justice department that ordered no more neighborhood patrols.  It was the Mayor and the State attorney that called in the Feds.  Totally stupid.

My brother lives there and I would not even think of visiting him without being armed.  It is like a war zone as are so many of our inner city locations.
He is afraid to leave his house as innocent folks are being targeted by gang members.  60 murders last month alone.  Look at Chicago...same thing...LA, NY City, etc.  I would not want to be a cop in this day and age.  You do your job and then get charged with murder...nice.

Bill

Quote from: Hoppy on May 31, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
Some silly ideas have changed the world and will continue to do so. Much explosive energy was released on 9/11 and in reaction continues to be released in human emotion. The truth is now staring many of us in the face!

When detonating a shaped charge:  Pay attention to which way you point it.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 31, 2015, 05:36:45 PM
Mark,
Just your take on 911, 
In your view, if you exclude termite, why was there no core column remaining after the collapse of the outer floors in a pancake ?
Decimation of the constitution & wars abroad.>>  If only a few are prepared to defend the constitution and the rest is only prepared to bitch and not use their brains. when they hear the propaganda that is carefully orchestrated by powers that be. A natural result.
In addition to what is in progress, bigger and more shocking crimes can be expected in the near future.
The tube was forecasting today, an expected dead toll by police shooting of over 1000 in USA by the end of the year at the current killing rate.  I wonder if it is the result of the wild West training in Bagdad?
Red

The NIST reports are quite thorough in their explanation of the structural failures in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Thermite is not suitable to a CD.  The main proponent of the the nano-thermite nonsense is a guy whose experimental and analysis skills are so awful that he mistakes scope probe noise for 8X overunity.  Even further into the bushes is the bat shit insane Judy Wood who thinks that a nearly horizontal smoke plume from the north tower was a cloud racing to the heavens from the south tower because of "dustifying beams". 

Civil engineering advances one disaster at a time.    Even though the WTC towers were intended to withstand an airliner crash, a combination of factors caused that best made plan to fail.  9/11 has caused building codes to change dramatically.  The new tower has a very different, and much stronger and more resilent core as a result.

Statistics on police shootings have always been difficult to obtain.  Without them it is hard to tell if the tragedy of 1000 is an improvement or the situation is getting worse.  Compared to other forms of preventable carnage the horror of unjustified police shootings is small potatoes.  The bat shit crazy gun nuts are pushing an agenda of more guns openly carried by anyone, whether or not they have adequate training.  A lot of the police shootings are trained individuals reacting to adrenaline.  That can only get worse with people who are not trained.

The power that we have is still at the polls.  We have an election next year.  What if a large number of people voted against the sure bet of Bush/Clinton in the primaries?

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 31, 2015, 05:54:47 PM
Red:

My understanding was that the twin towers were constructed of an exoskeleton...meaning, the main supports were on the outside of the building and the floors were connected to the outside framework.  One of the after action reports showed that the building contractor used inferior bolts (which were cheaper) to attach the floor beams to the framework.  The heat weakened these bolts and, once the upper floors collapsed, the pancake was the result.  I am not a building engineer so I can not speak to how true this is but, if true, it makes sense.
............................
............................
Bill 

Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)

Quote from: MarkE
The power that we have is still at the polls.  We have an election next year.  What if a large number of people voted against the sure bet of Bush/Clinton in the primaries?

How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 30, 2015, 03:37:38 PM
Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

There is a core group of those who are completely willing to "bluff" when they have gone beyond their narrow field of expertise.

Prove to me that you are not "bluffing".

The X-1 was designed prior to any real knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics. It violates virtually every rule of design that was learned by, ironically, study of its own supersonic aerodynamic failures.

Surprisingly,  it was never flown at 1,000 MPH in the thin air of 40,000 feet , was it?

There are today, few few very high performance aircraft that can make the Mach on the deck. One famous example is the MIG 25 Foxbat. It was pimped as the fastest operational fighter but it could not make the Mach on the deck. Arabs crash landed them in the desert instead of dog fighting Eagles and Phantoms that CAN make the Mach on the deck.

I suspect that you really didn't really mean it when you said that the X-1 went 1,000 MPH on the deck. But, if you were not hallucinating, and, did really mean it, you seriously need to produce documentation for such an astounding claim.

Or else tell me what brand of whisky you drink. My brand is not strong enough. My brand is not powerful enough to enable me to believe that an X-1 could take off on its own power and do a 1'000 MPH fly by.

You are making it up and dissing me by expecting that I am dumb enough to believe any kind of baloney that you would believe if one of your buds told it to you.



CANGAS 173

Quote from: Red_Sunset on June 01, 2015, 02:00:04 AM
Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)
How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red

There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!


CANGAS 174

Quote from: MarkE on May 31, 2015, 08:10:08 PM
When detonating a shaped charge:  Pay attention to which way you point it.

I think you know Mark.  ;)

Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 30, 2015, 03:37:38 PM
Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.

Quote from: CANGAS on June 01, 2015, 02:31:53 AM

There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!
CANGAS 174

I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on June 01, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

Its taking far to long for common sense to kick-in and an essential part of that is the need to hold the investigation to account.

Quote from: Groundloop on June 01, 2015, 04:37:55 AM
Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.

It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+top+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgwkHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlmp2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VSX6BQnFBamrKNHXBO8KBKzftlRfXDrETVAvetM0eAOt6SctRAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CHcQ6BMoADAP): 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+first+flight&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgzkHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlkZ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VWmZRcYlCWk5mekZJulXjiRt_Ojc52r1WUmvcMy8k-88-AM_FFBRUAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CHoQ6BMoADAQ): January 19, 1946
Wingspan (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+wingspan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgzEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlkp2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VeWZeenFBYp6T-AnP80affi4KcNquvWLNnTyNA2sAqul9g1AAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CH0Q6BMoADAR): 28' (8.50 m)
Length (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+length&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgyEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVllJ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VTmpeekmGaYrc6yfcdlWa3cZinxInTtSdqX8MAEu22B9OAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIABEOgTKAAwEg): 31' (9.42 m)
Weight (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+weight&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgyEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVllJ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VeWpmekZJ26PPKS3ih76cSc2f4n3UJKT1XcdyAGPCGpNOAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIMBEOgTKAAwEw): 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+engine+type&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAAFTAKz_AHvTx-gAAAA2CA4SCS9tLzAxZG4yeiona2M6L2F2aWF0aW9uL2FpcmNyYWZ0X21vZGVsOmVuZ2luZSB0eXBlcrbhY3ZUgt7EkcWjPUux0ayv9Aimla4cUwAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIYBEOgTKAAwFA): Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+manufacturer&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAAFUAKv_AHvTx-gAAAA3CA4SCS9tLzAxZG4yeiooa2M6L2F2aWF0aW9uL2FpcmNyYWZ0X21vZGVsOm1hbnVmYWN0dXJlcrFi1yALQeCYs-jjw7Kn3HETcZQCQ5xISlQAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIkBEOgTKAAwFQ): Bell Aircraft (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+aircraft&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgxMHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVEoSZVmxuqaWRnWyln1iWmViSmZ-nn5hZlFyUmFYSn5ufkppjlZuYV5qWmFxSWpRalHY730L6T32mevnTdj65ylV3EqqeAgCVaIEAXwAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIoBEJsTKAEwFQ)


Bill

Quote from: Tin-Koa
Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

You seem a bit confused TinK.  I have not claimed
to be an aviator on this forum.  Whether I am or not
is unimportant at this point.

The Military Aircraft airfoil design permits such low level
flight approaching or in excess of mach 1 if desired.

Commercial passenger aircraft, particularly when carrying
"passengers" are forbidden from such maneuvers or
even exceeding 250 Knots below a certain rather high
altitude.  There may be certain exceptions subject to
pre-approval for purposes of demonstration and/or
flight testing.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 01, 2015, 08:25:24 PM
It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+top+speed&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgwkHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlmp2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VSX6BQnFBamrKNHXBO8KBKzftlRfXDrETVAvetM0eAOt6SctRAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CHcQ6BMoADAP): 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+first+flight&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgzkHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlkZ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VWmZRcYlCWk5mekZJulXjiRt_Ojc52r1WUmvcMy8k-88-AM_FFBRUAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CHoQ6BMoADAQ): January 19, 1946
Wingspan (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+wingspan&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgzEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVlkp2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VeWZeenFBYp6T-AnP80affi4KcNquvWLNnTyNA2sAqul9g1AAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CH0Q6BMoADAR): 28' (8.50 m)
Length (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+length&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgyEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVllJ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VTmpeekmGaYrc6yfcdlWa3cZinxInTtSdqX8MAEu22B9OAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIABEOgTKAAwEg): 31' (9.42 m)
Weight (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+weight&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgyEHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVllJ2spV-YllmYklmfp5-YmZRclFiWkl8bn5Kao5VeWpmekZJ26PPKS3ih76cSc2f4n3UJKT1XcdyAGPCGpNOAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIMBEOgTKAAwEw): 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+engine+type&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAAFTAKz_AHvTx-gAAAA2CA4SCS9tLzAxZG4yeiona2M6L2F2aWF0aW9uL2FpcmNyYWZ0X21vZGVsOmVuZ2luZSB0eXBlcrbhY3ZUgt7EkcWjPUux0ayv9Aimla4cUwAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIYBEOgTKAAwFA): Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+x-1+manufacturer&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAAFUAKv_AHvTx-gAAAA3CA4SCS9tLzAxZG4yeiooa2M6L2F2aWF0aW9uL2FpcmNyYWZ0X21vZGVsOm1hbnVmYWN0dXJlcrFi1yALQeCYs-jjw7Kn3HETcZQCQ5xISlQAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIkBEOgTKAAwFQ): Bell Aircraft (https://www.google.com/search?q=bell+aircraft&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgxMHnxCnfq6-gWFKnlGVEoSZVmxuqaWRnWyln1iWmViSmZ-nn5hZlFyUmFYSn5ufkppjlZuYV5qWmFxSWpRalHY730L6T32mevnTdj65ylV3EqqeAgCVaIEAXwAAAA&sa=X&ei=jfdsVY6rB83lsAT2uILgAw&ved=0CIoBEJsTKAEwFQ)


Bill

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)

Your vague semi quote was probably your poor memory of Yeager saying that immediately after an air drop, he held the X-1 down so he wouldn;t crash into the B-50 overhead. And near the end of the fuel burn, the aircraft weight would have been down close to 7,000 pounds. With a thrust of 6,000 pounds, it would have gone like hell and impressed him with the acceleration. Until the X-1 the best weight to thrust ratio he had experienced may have been an F-80 or F-84, with a ratio of much worse than the nearly 1:1 of a nearly burnt out X-1.

You originally blurted out "1'000 MPH at 10 feet off the deck". Now you are back pedaling and weaseling and trying to hide your tracks.


You make a sensational claim, YOU FURNISH QUOTES AND PROOF!! All you're furnishing are vague half-memories of what you might have read.

Your credibility has just crashed and burned. Like Yeager's 104. 


CANGAS 176

Here's a picture of it:

Quote from: CANGAS on June 02, 2015, 12:29:08 AM

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)

Your vague semi quote was probably your poor memory of Yeager saying that immediately after an air drop, he held the X-1 down so he wouldn;t crash into the B-50 overhead. And near the end of the fuel burn, the aircraft weight would have been down close to 7,000 pounds. With a thrust of 6,000 pounds, it would have gone like hell and impressed him with the acceleration. Until the X-1 the best weight to thrust ratio he had experienced may have been an F-80 or F-84, with a ratio of much worse than the nearly 1:1 of a nearly burnt out X-1.

You originally blurted out "1'000 MPH at 10 feet off the deck". Now you are back pedaling and weaseling and trying to hide your tracks.


You make a sensational claim, YOU FURNISH QUOTES AND PROOF!! All you're furnishing are vague half-memories of what you might have read.

Your credibility has just crashed and burned. Like Yeager's 104. 


CANGAS 176

Ummm...no, you are not correct.  Yeager said this about his GROUND take-off.  I think he would know the difference from a ground take-off to a drop from a B-29...right?  Or, do you not agree?

I was correct about the top speed, I was just mistaken that he hit this speed on the deck.

I am still correct that he flew faster than the 250-300 in ground effect that was deemed "impossible" earlier in this topic.

Also, all X-1 pilots dropped the nose of the craft after being dropped because the B-29's speed was very, very close the the stall speed of the X-1 and, as Yeager has said...stalling the X-1 after being dropped while fully loaded with fuel was not a good thing to do.  Gravity, and the climb that Maj. Gardenias put the 29 into during the drop would have kept the X-1 from hitting the B-29 so...you are not correct about this either.

TK's video links also prove that high speed is indeed possible in ground effect.  Of course, you think they are fake.  If I have to, I can search out a video of Tex Johnson (Famous Boeing test pilot) flying a 707 jet airliner during the test phase making maneuvers that you guys would also deem impossible.

OK  Here is one link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE)

Here is a 757 doing a vertical climb after a high speed low pass in ground effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s)
He is obviously going near top speed in the low pass otherwise he could not have went vertical.

One of these planes is only about 10 ft. off the deck doing about 400 knots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGVXpunZ_4&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGVXpunZ_4&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=2)

Here is a high speed pass by a Jaguar under 10 ft off the deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=3)

Here is an F-14 in ground effect over water at high speed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yreoDmKN_M&index=10&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yreoDmKN_M&index=10&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0)

B-52 doing a high speed low pass in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4xxVyZvwM&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4xxVyZvwM&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=16)

747 doing a low pass at about 15 ft off runway:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw&index=48&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw&index=48&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0)

777 doing a high speed low pass in ground effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ijLu2HzvI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ijLu2HzvI)

Harrier doing over 400 knots in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRfDsSnLtE4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRfDsSnLtE4)

727 doing 300 knots in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXXA-pRIQV8&index=76&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXXA-pRIQV8&index=76&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0)

747 ground effect high speed pass:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBhFaToYC0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBhFaToYC0)

Well, so much for it being impossible eh?  Looks like your theory just crashed and burned.

Bill

Quote from: synchro1 on June 02, 2015, 01:03:52 AM
Here's a picture of it:

That is not the X-1 that broke the sound barrier Oct. 14, 1947.  This photo is the X-1 E model.  I think this one had a little bigger engine.

Good photo.

Bill

PS  Here is the original X-1 the same that did the ground take off:

Quote from: CANGAS on June 02, 2015, 12:29:08 AM

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)



CANGAS 176

Incorrect again.  That would be for a drop flight.  The X-1's landing gear was designed to be used when the fuel was gone and would not support a full fuel landing or take-off.  So, Jack Ridley got out his slide rule and calculated just how much fuel they would hold and also the take-off distance required.  Yeager said that when he took off, it was exactly at the spot Ridley had driven a stake into the ground based upon his calculations.

Therefore, the climb would have been very steep indeed as the ship was very light compared to the air drop weight.

Bill

Guys, your focus is badly distorted in your discussion about "ground speed"
You are missing the point
The possibility to fly on that LEVEL is immaterial as a  YES or NO.
The flying object was on a DESCENDING COURSE ANGLE trying to CRASH into  the Pentagon.
YES, crashing it did, with or without ground buffer.

So long it came to a rest into the wall is all what mattered, even if it had to use its landing gear to do so.

Red

Quote from: Red_Sunset on June 02, 2015, 03:01:45 AM
Guys, your focus is badly distorted in your discussion about "ground speed"
You are missing the point
The possibility to fly on that LEVEL is immaterial as a  YES or NO.
The flying object was on a DESCENDING COURSE ANGLE trying to CRASH into  the Pentagon.
YES, crashing it did, with or without ground buffer.

So long it came to a rest into the wall is all what mattered, even if it had to use its landing gear to do so.

Red

@Red_Sunset,

It's impossible to lower the landing gear at 300 mph. The controls would be unresponsive and "Mushy" to pushing the nose into the ground with the yolk.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 02, 2015, 01:51:58 AM
Incorrect again.  That would be for a drop flight.  The X-1's landing gear was designed to be used when the fuel was gone and would not support a full fuel landing or take-off.  So, Jack Ridley got out his slide rule and calculated just how much fuel they would hold and also the take-off distance required.  Yeager said that when he took off, it was exactly at the spot Ridley had driven a stake into the ground based upon his calculations.

Therefore, the climb would have been very steep indeed as the ship was very light compared to the air drop weight.

Bill

Pirate, you are among the very silliest of liars.

You originally claimed that the X-1 flew at 1,000 MPH at 10 feet above the ground.

The only documented flight of the X-1 that made a normal take off from the runway is one that you now claim was VERY STEEP.

So, in your lies, the X-1 made a VERY STEEP CLIMB in which it exceeded 1,000 MPH before it got over 10 feet 0ff the runway.

And the X-1 never even flew faster than 967 MPH (depending on the source) at ANY ALTITUDE.

You really snort some strong stuff to imagine the shit that you believe and expect us to believe.


CANGAS 177

Quote from: CANGAS on June 03, 2015, 11:28:13 PM

Pirate, you are among the very silliest of liars.

You originally claimed that the X-1 flew at 1,000 MPH at 10 feet above the ground.

The only documented flight of the X-1 that made a normal take off from the runway is one that you now claim was VERY STEEP.

So, in your lies, the X-1 made a VERY STEEP CLIMB in which it exceeded 1,000 MPH before it got over 10 feet 0ff the runway.

And the X-1 never even flew faster than 967 MPH (depending on the source) at ANY ALTITUDE.

You really snort some strong stuff to imagine the shit that you believe and expect us to believe.


CANGAS 177

I don't "now claim' anything.  It is all in the books on my shelf.  I dug one of them out and was reading it again.  I can give you quotes and page numbers...then...you would have to argue with Chuck as he is the one that wrote the books.

I have not lied about anything.  Try reading about the very first powered flight of the X-1.  Chuck buzzed the runway below control tower height and shot straight up back into the sky.   He made a low pass and buzzed the runway at .8 mach.  Then, he pointed the nose straight up and was going .75 mach while climbing and accelerating to .85 mach up to 35,000 ft.

But, according to you he could not do this as you said the X-1 can not make a steep climb.  Well, I consider going from just off the runway up to 35,000 feet straight up to be a steep climb. 

I have over 500 books here in my home library and about 1/3 of them are on aviation and aviation history.  I learned all of this history before learning to fly. 
You should try reading.  It helps you learn.  That way, when someone corrects you when you are wrong, you won't accuse them of lying.

Bill

Quote from: Pirate
Well, I consider going from just off the runway up to 35,000 feet straight up to be a steep climb.

Reminds me of the morning just as dawn was about to break
in 1964.  I had the morning watch on the quarterdeck of USS
Genesee (AOG-8) in Subic Bay, Philippines and we were tied
to a buoy (moored) just off Cubi Point Naval Air Station which
was across the bay from Subic Bay Naval Station.

I heard this tremendous roar coming from Cubi Point runway
so looked over to see a U-2 take off on a mission.  Once it
got airborne it did one of those climbs which was nearly
straight up.  Really impressive and fast and loud.

It was unusual for a U-2 to be at Cubi and it was the only one
I saw while aboard the Genesee in Subic Bay.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 03, 2015, 11:45:45 PM
I don't "now claim' anything.  It is all in the books on my shelf.  I dug one of them out and was reading it again.  I can give you quotes and page numbers...then...you would have to argue with Chuck as he is the one that wrote the books.

I have not lied about anything.  Try reading about the very first powered flight of the X-1.  Chuck buzzed the runway below control tower height and shot straight up back into the sky.   He made a low pass and buzzed the runway at .8 mach.  Then, he pointed the nose straight up and was going .75 mach while climbing and accelerating to .85 mach up to 35,000 ft.

But, according to you he could not do this as you said the X-1 can not make a steep climb.  Well, I consider going from just off the runway up to 35,000 feet straight up to be a steep climb. 

I have over 500 books here in my home library and about 1/3 of them are on aviation and aviation history.  I learned all of this history before learning to fly. 
You should try reading.  It helps you learn.  That way, when someone corrects you when you are wrong, you won't accuse them of lying.

Bill

Your original statement which I disagreed with, was that the first X-1 had been flown at 1,000 MPH at 10 feet or lower and that proved something about the 911 Pentagon crash. I'm not wasting time arguing anything else with somebody like you.

There are no reports available that say you are right. Except in your imaginary books that you refuse to define so that you can be checked.

If you are somehow not lying, define the book, page and quote. That is, IF you can pick back up your same hallucination. Or dream.


CANGAS 178

Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 02, 2015, 01:24:25 AM


I was correct about the top speed, I was just mistaken that he hit this speed on the deck.

I am still correct that he flew faster than the 250-300 in ground effect that was deemed "impossible" earlier in this topic.

Bill

Cangas:

Geeze, I posted this back on June 2nd.  I already admitted that I was mistaken about the speed on the deck being 1,000 mph.

What part of that do you not understand?

Bill

PS:  "Yeager" (1985)  Page 155, paragraph 4..."In all, I flew the orange beast 33 times and achieved the highest speed-1.45 Mach (957 mph)"

Quote from: CANGAS on June 07, 2015, 12:19:05 AM

Your original statement which I disagreed with, was that the first X-1 had been flown at 1,000 MPH at 10 feet or lower and that proved something about the 911 Pentagon crash. I'm not wasting time arguing anything else with somebody like you.

There are no reports available that say you are right. Except in your imaginary books that you refuse to define so that you can be checked.

If you are somehow not lying, define the book, page and quote. That is, IF you can pick back up your same hallucination. Or dream.


CANGAS 178

Try reading:

"Yeager"
By General Chuck Yeager and Leo Janos 1985

"Press On"
By General Chuck Yeager and Charles Leerhsen 1988

"Across The High Frontier" (The Story Of America's Greatest Test Pilot Chuck Yeager)
William R. Lundgren 1955

"Always Another Dawn"
A. Scott Crossfield and Clay Blair, Jr. 1987

"The Right Stuff"
Tom Wolfe 1979

"The Fastest Man Alive"
Frank K. Everest, Jr. and John Guenther 1958

There are, of course, more books dealing with this period in aviation history but reading these will give you a very good accounting from several different perspectives.  Then, you will see that what you call lies and hallucination are really facts about historical events.

Read first, post later, then you will appear to be more intelligent on this subject of which you obviously know little about.

Bill

The five light poles.

Pole #4 provides prooof the event was staged with that neat cut around the base.

Quote from: synchro1 on June 07, 2015, 02:01:32 PM
Pole #4 provides prooof the event was staged with that neat cut around the base.

In the first photo, I see what look like burn marks.  Are we sure this was taken right after the event?  Or, was this photo taken during the clean-up where a worker used a torch to cut this base in order to replace the damaged pole?

I am just asking as, of course, I do not know either way.

Bill

Here they are picking it up. You can see how it came to rest in the  ´The five poles¨ picture #4 above. The removal crew did not run a cutting torch around the base of the light pole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6m5KkcKJmk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6m5KkcKJmk)

I just think it is really sad that none of the planes in this video can go very fast in ground effect.  You can tell they are trying...but...none of them can seem to go more than 450 mph or so.....

Bill

Synchro:

Thanks...that base did look burned to me but...the photos of them loading up the scrap still does not tell us if they had to cut it, or it was that way afterwards.  I mean, if it needed to be cut, they would still have to load it up to haul away....right?

I am just saying that, to me, this is not conclusive is all.  Has anyone ever interviewed any of the clean-up teams?

Thanks,

Bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDW27kbuxcM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDW27kbuxcM)

This series has the SR-71 flying in ground effect.  We all know just how slow this plane was...

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 07, 2015, 10:26:58 AM
Cangas:

Geeze, I posted this back on June 2nd.  I already admitted that I was mistaken about the speed on the deck being 1,000 mph.

What part of that do you not understand?

Bill

PS:  "Yeager" (1985)  Page 155, paragraph 4..."In all, I flew the orange beast 33 times and achieved the highest speed-1.45 Mach (957 mph)"

Well, you know, the part about 10 feet altitude bothers me, and everything about your defensive attitude bothers me.

And now that you have revealed a name for a magic book, it bothers me that you have not said a page number and have not actually posted a quote.

And it bothers me that your original statement specified speed starting from a ground take off, and now you write of a speed that was accomplished after an air launch and then a steep DIVE.

You have convinced me that you are a pathological liar and that your information is totally unreliable.


CANGAS 179

One of the five light posts can be seen standing upright in the Pentagon survelience video after it should have all ready been colided with by the Airliner´s wing and collapsed.

The other point is, the Aircraft begins to surf on it´s own foward ¨Bow Wake´. The cockpit controls would only tend to slow the aircraft down, but grow completly ineffective at pressuring a descent by leaning on the Yolk.

Quote from: CANGAS on June 08, 2015, 12:37:53 AM

Well, you know, the part about 10 feet altitude bothers me, and everything about your defensive attitude bothers me.

And now that you have revealed a name for a magic book, it bothers me that you have not said a page number and have not actually posted a quote.

And it bothers me that your original statement specified speed starting from a ground take off, and now you write of a speed that was accomplished after an air launch and then a steep DIVE.

You have convinced me that you are a pathological liar and that your information is totally unreliable.


CANGAS 179

Looks like you are blind and deaf to the truth. He not only posted the page number but the paragraph and a quote. This would pretty much make you the pathological liar and unreliable one.

We can see the base of pole #4 cleanly seperated as it was discovered. The Pentagon is still on fire in the background. No time time to squeeze a cutting torch in.

Quote from: synchro1 on June 08, 2015, 01:39:16 PM
We can see the base of pole #4 cleanly seperated as it was discovered. The Pentagon is still on fire in the background. No time time to squeeze a cutting torch in.

I hope you realize that break away pole mounts are not uncommon.  They reduce damage and the risk of injury in vehicle collisions.

If it's your contention that break aways were specially installed, then look for when those street lamps were last replaced prior to 9/11.

Quote from: MarkE on June 08, 2015, 02:38:01 PM
I hope you realize that break away pole mounts are not uncommon.  They reduce damage and the risk of injury in vehicle collisions.

If it's your contention that break aways were specially installed, then look for when those street lamps were last replaced prior to 9/11.

@MarkE,

The way wierd inference is that the "District of Columbia" routinly runs cutting torches around all it's lamp post bases as a safety measure!

Quote from: Spilled Fluids on June 08, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Looks like you are blind and deaf to the truth. He not only posted the page number but the paragraph and a quote. This would pretty much make you the pathological liar and unreliable one.

Thank you Sir. 

You saved me from having to make a similar post.

Thanks,

Bill

Quote from: synchro1 on June 08, 2015, 07:08:04 PM
@MarkE,

The way wierd inference is that the "District of Columbia" routinly runs cutting torches around all it's lamp post bases as a safety measure!

Why is it that in all these photos, the lamp post look like they were gently laid down on the grass? There are no signs that they were violently toppled or the turf would be ripped up pretty badly.
Also, it looks like most of the lamp posts are still standing in the video that has two frames of some small blur heading to the Pentagon with a smoking trail after it.

Quote from: synchro1 on June 08, 2015, 07:08:04 PM
@MarkE,

The way wierd inference is that the "District of Columbia" routinly runs cutting torches around all it's lamp post bases as a safety measure!

What I consider weird is the proposed idea that someone secretly ran a cutting torch along the bottom of some lamp posts in front of the Pentagon without anyone noticing.  Isn't that your hypothesis?

Quote from: Spilled Fluids on June 08, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Looks like you are blind and deaf to the truth. He not only posted the page number but the paragraph and a quote. This would pretty much make you the pathological liar and unreliable one.

Well, Sock Puppet, Billy Pirate originally posted that an X-1 had flown I,000 MPH at 10 feet  and claimed that to be proof of something in the Pentagon crash. I disagreed and demanded that Billy Pirate Liar show me documentation about such a flight.

Nobody has ever seen any such verification. Now your cute ass shows up and says "O yes he did it over there . See!" ;)

So, liar Sock Puppet, print the quote, book name, and page number HERE in your next post. 1,000 MPH at 10 feet and Saint Billy is not a GD liar.


CANGAS 180

Unless I am mistaken, Bill conceded that he was mistaken about both the 1000 mph, more like 950mph top speed, and the top speed happening on the deck.  He did list several books he claims to have read on Yeager.  He cited a single passage from one of those books to solidify his position on 950mph.  Synchro1's contention that ground effect would have made impacting the Pentagon just above the ground impossible got lost in the jabs.

Never before in history has a crashed aircraft left no identifiable parts nor bodies, yet here on the same day 9/11, we record two such incidents, the other flight #93 terminated in Shanksville PA. Events so remarkable the kind of which have never been recorded before or since, yet not once but twice the same day!

Quote from: synchro1 on June 09, 2015, 12:01:48 PM
Never before in history has a crashed aircraft left no identifiable parts nor bodies, yet here on the same day 9/11, we record two such incidents, the other flight #93 terminated in Shanksville PA.

PSA 1771 didn't leave much.  But they did find Burke's finger.

Dick Cheney admits he gave the order to shoot down flight #93 in this televised interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

Flight #93 left an 8 mile debris field that ended in Shanksville after being shot down by a D.C. Air National Guard F-16 flown by Major Digby. The official version placed the cause of the crash on Todd Beamer who was supposed to have burst into the cockpit and fought with the terrorists over the controls for the plane, leaving the plane pilotless.

The United States Government covered up the truth about Flight #93 for at least 10 years before Dick Cheney spilled the beans on network T.V.! This cover up was preceded by a string of cover ups. David Schippers blamed them all on then President Clinton, because Clinton began to destroy his intelligence community from the beginning, starting with the removal of Judge Sessions the F.B.I bureau Chief.     

Clinton blinded himself from the outset, and grew embarrassed by his failure to intercept the series of attacks that followed the first one in '93. The two most outstanding: Pan Am 800 and the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I could see the boulder headed my way.

My college deferment expired, my lottery number came up and I got drafted. I was told the country needed officers and that I could volunteer for OCS, or serve as an NCO in the infantry. I chose to volunteer for OCS pilot training at NAS Pensacola. I scored the highest flight grades in my training squadron and earned an R.V.A.H pipeline slot. This aircraft carrier based jet bomber carried a tactical nuclear war head for use against enemy Polaris type submarines. My new assignment required a second security check for nuclear weapons clearance. I was granted the higher security clearance, but it was discovered that I was two weeks over the age limit when I was sworn in. Subsequently I found myself appealing before the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Great Lake Navy base, CNO Elmo Zumwalt and the President in the White House Jimmy Carter. I had a higher security clearance then the President who hosted me. They went by the book, I was shown the door, and hit the bricks after passing through de-conditioning at T-9 in Philadelphia P.A..

I accepted a "Transaction" in Philadelphia, because the Government had invested many millions of dollars in training me, and I felt obligated to cooperate. My first order of business was to arm myself with the most sensitive concealable Geiger Counter available in the market place and set out to "Sniff" for terrorist nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

I was in the field conducting volunteer terrorist nuclear weapons surveillance for 19 years before Bill Clinton was elected to the White House. I reported directly to President Ronald Reagan routinely by personal phone call for 8 years. How could it be possible that a such a highly critical field agent was rail-roaded into San Quentin State Prison on a false homicide charge that carried the death penalty from Clinton's White House after defusing the "Five Landmarks" attacks the day after the '93 attack on the WTC?   

       

6 months after the tunnel save, my defense attorney Jim McKittrick ("Jimmy the Shark" 1993), the best criminal lawyer in Northern California died from two bullet wounds to the head during the preliminary phase of my murder trial and the Humboldt County Coroner judged it a suicide.

An atomic bomb detonated under the Hudson river would have sent a huge tsunami wave across Mid-Town Manhattan washing hundreds of thousands of lunch time pedestrians into the east river.

I was shot at from the towers on Sierra yard of CCC in '95 because I mentioned to my class of GED pupils that two explosions were recorded in Oklahoma City the day of the terror bombing. I wrote and complained to Senator Dianne Feinstein and she managed to get the tower guns removed from all the California Prisons.

Here's a brief summery of the events from my 9th district appeal:

Defendant was charged with attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664, 187;  except as noted, unspecified references are to the Penal Code);  assault with a deadly weapon, involving personal use of a firearm (§§ 245, subd. (a)(2), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.5), and unlawful possession of a firearm within 10 years of being convicted of a misdemeanor assault (§ 12021, subd. (c)).The victim testified defendant fired shots at him with a revolver.   The other witness testified she saw the victim running near her house while a man fired a rifle towards him.   Defendant denied firing any shots and claimed to have been in a shed on his own property, at the local Coast Guard Station or traveling by boat between those two locations.   He also claimed on the day of the alleged shooting the victim had threatened to kill him and had, contrary to the allegations, actually fired shots at him.The jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder but found him guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm and guilty of possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a misdemeanor assault.   The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to prison for a total term of seven years, including a two-year concurrent term for the firearms possession conviction.   Defendant promptly appealed. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of- ... 473gG.dpuf

My superior court trial involved four lawyers, three judges and two trials. The prosecution asked for the death penalty. The D.A. suborned perjury, manufactured evidence and violated the principal of double jeopardy. The term lasted for 3 1/2 years at hard labor!

The F.B.I informed the Court that I was very very dangerous!

"An FBI informant learned of a plan to bomb major New York landmarks, including the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Disrupting this "landmarks plot".

"As a result of the investigations and arrests, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals, including Ajaj, Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima, the Blind Sheikh, and Ramzi Yousef, for crimes related to the World Trade Center bombing and other plots".

"The New York City landmark bomb plot was a planned follow-up to the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing designed to inflict mass casualties on American soil by attacking well known landmark targets throughout New York City in the United States. If the attack had been successful, it is likely it would have resulted in the death of thousands. The plot was foiled in 1993 before it could be carried out".

"Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

"From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. "Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access," says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. "It was all under grand-jury secrecy."

"What haunted me more than anything else was that [President Clinton] refused to make a decision.  Human lives were at stake – the lives of American service members and the lives of our allies who opposed Saddam at our behest and were now under attack.  At a time when America's honor and grander principles were being challenged and the world was watching our every move... the president was watching golf.
     ...I approached the president and said, "Sir, our aircraft are ready, bombs loaded, and waiting for your command...His reply destroyed my faith in him as commander-in-chief and convinced me that the greatest security risk to the United States was none other than...the president himself".
     — Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (Ret.), author of "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security," recalling his three different attempts to pull Clinton away from watching the Presidents' Cup long enough to give the go-ahead to bomb Iraq on Sept. 13, 1996.  With lives hanging in the balance, Clinton, all three times, replied that he would deal with it later.

Anyone can see how the Ensign Synchro got falsely labeled as an HBO Pork Shop hoodlum by Cinnton's Ozark "Boss Hog" outfit!   

post deleted

The complete "Sopranos" series is on VCR tapes and DVD's. James Gandolfini portrayed a New Jersey Mafia Don. Well worth watching a few episodes! A 300 pound guy showed up on my upper prison bunk who was either an F.B.I agent or a Capo in the N.Y.C. based Gambino crime family. He had knowledge of things that were strictly confidential, that could have come from either source.

The worst of the bunch, Ramzi Yousef, was still at large at that time; I was equivocal about the security, but the reputation the "Fat Guy" left me with in prison led to an even more serious problem: Don Richy "Bagadoughnuts".

Remember the T.V. series the "A" team staring George Peppard, Mr. "T" and "Mad Dog Murdock"? I created that V.A. pilot character as an M.F.A. story board contributor at U.S.C. with Erwin Blacker, the creator of the Bonanza Series.

This thread is about calling for the second impeachment of former President Clinton on a charge of treason for an act of willful negligence resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent victims in the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. That attack could have been prevented if Clinton had handled the '93 terrorists as a foreign enemy instead of according them full rights as American Citizens. What Clinton did was tantamount to court marshaling a shoplifter.

I called for President Clinton's impeachment on this charge in 1993 with a mass mailing to every member of Congress. Clinton seriously compromised F.B.I. efficiency by violating Bureau Chief Judge Sessions' tenure with a dismissal on spurious grounds.

Clinton wouldn't pay any attention to me when I tried in vain to explain that the WTC explosion was the result of terrorism. Shortly after that, I was framed for homicide attempt, but exonerated by jury verdict as not guilty. Jana Davis, a local news journalist, was persecuted in Oklahoma City for trying to expose the Mid-Eastern connection to the bombing; Meanwhile, Terry Nichols was instructed by Ramzi Yousef in the Phillippines on how to replicate the '93 WTC Ryder Truck Amfo Bomb. I was targeted by tower fire while in CDC, after suffering a false conviction on the lesser included charge of ADW, just for mentioning it. The only member of Congress who responded to my mailing was our California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who I credit with helping save my life.

After I was released from California State Prison, I was placed on parole in Humboldt County. While parked in front of the Bagel Shop on D. St. in Arcata CA. shortly after my release in the year 2000, I was approached by a short white guy with a shark tooth necklace. He asked me if I would be willing to give flight lessons to a private party. After a short conversation I learned of the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

I mentioned it to my parole officer. He said; "Why are you telling me this? I'll be back in prison where you just came from if I talk about it, and so will you if re-mention it to anyone".

Once again on another hunch I flew on flight #93 in September 2001 from EWR to SFO as a volunteer Air Marshall, but I was a week to soon. I informed the head stewardess I was a trained military pilot. She told me the captain wanted to see me up in the cockpit. The pilots and crew I spoke with were fully warned by me of the terror threat. Unfortunately, they were all shot down by Dick Cheney. I personally warned thousands of people about the WTC attack in advance, but I didn't endanger myself by reporting directly to law enforcement as a parolee.

Interviews with FBI Whistleblower Ted Gunderson:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPNN-y_c3g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu77VlA41Sk

Emud Salem, an undercover F.B.I informant taped a phone call with his supervisor asking if they were using a dummy bomb in 93', and he said "No they were using a real bomb". Gunderson names Salem's F.B.I supervisor in the video.

The point is, six people were killed by the bomb  and a thousand injured, when the F.B.I. had advance knowledge of the attack! Gunderson's personal physician maintained he was killed by arsenic poisoning.

Ted Gunderson states that the Government wanted an "Anti-Terrorism Law" passed. The attack in 93' failed to produce enough casualties. Salem showed up again with the "Group" for the "Five Landmarks Attack" and was caught by me. He squealed on the group to stay out of trouble.

Clinton signed the "Anti-Terrorism Law" act into law, abrogating many of our rights as citizens shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing in 95' while I was deep in California State Prison on false charges.

The fact is, the F.B.I knew in advance about all three of these terror attacks!

I was a product of the Nixon, Ford, Carter, conservative era. Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush transitioned once again back to the CFR progressive policies that brought us into Vietnam out of our Dallas episode, and were followed by William Jefferson Clinton who still defies classification.

G. H. W. Bush must have helped put those ONI-FBI wheels into motion because Clinton was only in Office a mere 83 days before the first WTC
attack.

We may have to start by impeaching George Herbert Walker Bush.

This video has three great interviews; One, with Hillary Clinton another with General Wesley Clark and the third with Dick Cheney:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAeM73hIpU

It's revealed that the plan to wage covert war against Russia in Afghanistan was crafted in secret while James Carter was still President.

This was a very serious error for the United States of America. 

Ted Gunderson maintained that Michael J. Riconosciuto, the "Trapdoor Software Engineer" for the Promis program, reported overwhelming and highly detailed information of the 9/11 hijacking to the F.B.I. from Federal Prison six months before the attack. Bin Laden bought a black market version of the "Promis Program" from the Russians to secretly move funds through the banking system. Riconosciuto had "Trojan Horse" access codes that allowed him to "Hack" Bin Laden's clandestine transactions.   


"They further alleged that the software was used within the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies to track internal intelligence, and was used by intelligence operatives to track international interbank transactions. These reports further stated that Osama bin Laden reportedly later bought copies of the same Promis-derivative on the Russian black market for $2 million. It was believed then that al Qaeda used the software to penetrate database systems to secretly move funds throughout the banking system, and to evade detection by U.S. law enforcement".

The F.B.I had advance knowledge of every terror attack from Ruby Ridge to the Boston Marathon Bombing, and bat zero.

From the Washington Post:

"Accused spy Robert P. Hanssen gave secret U.S. software to his Russian handlers that later went to terrorist Osama bin Laden, allowing him to monitor U.S. efforts to track him down, federal law enforcement officials said. The sophisticated software gave bin Laden access to databases on specific targets of his choosing and the ability to monitor electronic banking transactions, easing money-laundering operations for himself or others, according to the sources. Believed to be an upgraded version of a program known as "Promis" developed in the 1980s".

Apparently Hanssen got the "Promis Program" from Vince Foster!

I shadowed Bill Clinton in Europe in 1968 for the D.I.A. while he organized Anti-War protests in London England. Clinton alledged he was recruited by Cord Meyer for the C.I.A. and traveled to Moscow. Clinton was actually recruited in the Kremlin as a K.G.B agent. 

Hillary plans to appoint Bill as Ambassador to the U.N. after she's elected to the White House. Clinton has amassed over two billion dollars in contributions for his Global Initiative, enough to buy himself a seat as Secretary General of the United Nations. His job is to transition America to the "One World Government" after Hillary bankrupts the Nation's currency from war in Central Asia.

This is the Clinton's 86' plan, conceived of in that calendar year. The K.G.B. set out to bankrupt America with the same strategy America used to bankrupt the former Soviet Union. Clinton was programed as a "Manchurian Candidate" when he traveled illegally behind the Iron Curtain to Moscow in 1968.

Judge Sessions, the F.B.I. chief caught Vince Foster passing the Promis program to Bin laden through Moscow for the K.G.B. and got ditched. Judge Sessions actually caught a terrorist in 1993, was abused by special mistreatment from Clinton for it.

Marc Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton. He created the spot and black market for oil. The supply chain of routes, individuals, families and organizations that allow oil to flow to Turkey from ISIS controlled fields are well-established, some dating back decades, to when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq smuggled oil during the United Nations' oil-for-food program. "Those borders have never been sealed, and they never will be sealed". Marc Rich engineered the oil supply network that feeds the ISIS terror group with 2 or 3 million dollars a day to recruit and arm mercenaries. Barack Obama and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have prevented Vladimir Putin from bombing the steady convoy of oil trucks to Turkey. The black market smuggling profits are enormous.

Adolph Hitler paid the Chicago Mafia to assassinate J.F.K in Dallas in November of 1963 from Argentina. Our O.S.S. learned of the plot and bought the J.F.K. hit back from Johnny Roselli. A third gunman went wide and connected with Jack off the Grassy knoll. An O.S.S. operative shot at that assassin from the Highway over pass with a German Navy Luger.

The question is; Was the inside job group that sent a cruise missile into our pentagon on 911 the same as the Hitler Werewolf group that assassinated J.F.K. to further Hitler's diabolical crusade against Communism?

@Tinselkoala,


Hitler killed Kennedy and a V-1 slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Quote from: synchro1 on March 04, 2018, 03:56:33 AM
@Tinselkoala,


Hitler killed Kennedy and a V-1 slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Yeah !  what public water closet did you read that in ? was it near the pentagon ?

@Tinselkoala,

This one minute of video (49:45 to 50:45) says everything about the very high improbability of a "Human Hijacker" performing the final approach maneuver manually that crashed a 747 into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsadQzNhT-Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsadQzNhT-Q)

"Both recorders were recovered from Flight 77, right at the point it hit the outer wall of the Pentagon and disintegrated. All data was recovered".

We have very strong evidence to prove that flight 77 was remotely piloted, and not controlled by the hijacker pilot.

This video proves the F.B.I. committed crimes of "Flight Data Recorder Fraud" while special investigator Robert Swan Mueller III was acting director:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmGi5YeQ_Bw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmGi5YeQ_Bw)

The data the F.B.I alleged came from the data recorder recovered from the Pentagon, described a manuver that would be impossible for a human pilot to perform from inside the cockpit with Manuel controls. The ailerons from both wings would have to be raised simultaneously which would require a computer program impossible to perform by yoke control. At 465 Knots, the aircraft would climb if the yoke were used to try descend.


The flight data recorder wasn't even the same kind that was installed in the Aircraft by Boeing. Robert Muller helped manufacture this fraudulent evidence to cover up an inside job!

Robert Mueller just unlawfully released to the public a tape recording of a conversation between President Trump and his attorney that was edited to misrepresent the truth.

This is the same M.O. Bob Mueller used with the flight data from the flight #77 recorder in 2001.

just day before 9/11 Rumsfeld said that the US has a new enemy. The Pentagon. Pentagon had several accountants trying to figure out where the money goes. They wanted to know where trillions of dollars go and they go into Rumsfeld's black projects. Unsupervised for decades. That means they probably harvest children for replacement organs for key people. This happens when you got license to kill and nobody watches you.

Now who has the resources to fire a cruise missile inside US air space? A cruise missile hit Pentagon and apparently the flight 93 crash site, where the first time in history a plane crashed into ground leaving only a 3,5m smoking crater. No fuselage, seats, body parts, clothing and luggage. Nothing. Just a smoking hole. So the question is, who needed those people or one person that was supposed to be in that plane? I mean the plane did not crash anywhere, so the people were removed from it in a military base. Where are these people? I mean this is so weird even the family of the victim would want to know what actually happened to their loved ones.

Bin Laden said after the attacks, that this was an inside job. Not something a terrorist usually does. It was an inside job. CIA and NSA are infiltrated by Mossad operatives OR Mossad&CIA had a joint operation. Mossad gets the "Greater Israel" project going for the Zionists and the CIA gets more war. More bases and more weapons testing. Bankers get money from all sides. ISIS is probs just a Mossad operation.

So now the muslim world is being pounded by the US army and Israel can move onto Jerusalem. So the marines and civilians are dying and everybody else gets something out  of this. I mean when every I see an american TV show where a marine says "I had a brother in WTC, so that is why I am in Iraq fighting for freedom" and I think "you should be fighting in Israel then..."