Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 1011121314 18> |
| Author | |||
Blacksword 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
 Posted: May 23 2006 at 14:52 |
||
|
^ Yes, it is Andy
There are so many (conspiracy) theories out there, that the whole picture has become ever more blurred. It's inevitable that when something like this happens people will theorise. The more that happens the further we get from the truth. So, the conspiracy theorists are working - inadvertantly - for the authorities. A conspiracy theory in itself, I guess. What's been peddled as the official line is so full of holes you could fly a 757 through it, but the authorities can sit back, happy in the knowledge that no one can ever touch them. There is no way the truth can ever come out. Can you imagine what would happen in America if somehow it was revealed that the Whitehouse was complicit in the worlds worst ever 'terror' attack? |
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
 |
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:11 |
||
|
Indeed, the truth will never come out.
It's so ludicrous, that not even a novelist would have come up with it! Yet, I am more convinced than ever now, that at least the Pentagon was not hit by a 757. The Addendum sections of that article are very interesting reading indeed, covering things I've never come across before, yet, seem remarkably well researched. Most of the witnesses seem to be hoaxes and are liars. Ten of the witnesses apparently all worked for the Gannett news outlet. There are more holes in the true story than a bathmat. |
|||
  
|
|||
|
|||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:26 |
||
|
Gannett News is based in Washington DC, also known as USA Today. It
would not surprise me if they new how to get their interviews posted.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg W
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2004 Location: Chicago Status: Offline Points: 3904 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:46 |
||
|
The wheels on the bus go round and round.
We never landed on the Moon either!!
 So, if all these conspiracies are true....why? What motive would the US government have deciding to carry through such a rash and most unreasonable act, or even allowing such a thing to occur. It just doesn't make sense.
...and don't say it was the old cliched oil either!!
 Let the dead rest!!!
 |
|||
|
|||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:50 |
||
|
By the way, my friend's company is based in Washington. Some of his
coworkers saw the plane hit on their commute. Not a missle, but a plane.
|
|||
|
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:56 |
||
|
Well, in that case, we would like to hear their witness statements. But then again, it's a bit late now.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ghandi 2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 17 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1494 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 16:27 |
||
I haven't been following much of this too closely, but you must have made a mistake. There is no way a cruise missile going Mach 2 hit the Pentagon. If it was going above the speed of sound there would be a very loud sonic boom which everyone would have heard, and the glass in the cars that were on the highway that it passed over would have shattered. I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, but if one did it was not going Mach 1 or faster.
The thing that punches holes for me is the phone calls. If they're real than that means the official line is more or less true, and if they're fake, I ask you this: wouldn't people who are smart enough to manage to fake somebody's voice in real time so that nobody can tell that it's not the person calling (which I don't think is possible, but we'll assume it is for the sake of debate) don't you think they would deliberately avoid all the "holes" that "proves" the calls were undoubtedly fake "no ifs, ands, or buts"? Or is it more likely that Mark was incredibly stressed out and/or had a somewhat weird relationship with his mother, which caused him to state his full name? And they were calling from Airfones, so that "cellphones can almost never connect at that height" nonsense (and I don't even see how he got that data, as you can't get to 30,000 in a small private plane) is ridiculous.
|
|||
|
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: May 23 2006 at 16:54 |
||
|
I agree with your first statement actually Ghandi. It wasn't a missle (not one going post Mach 1 anyhow) and it wasn't a 757 either.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1835 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 07:50 |
||
It was not a missile, full stop.:
(from an anti-establishment site, to boot.)
Have you been on the perimeter road of an airport right at the end of a runway when a large jet airliner takes off? When a large jetliner thunders over a public road at *very* low altitude with a traffic jam on it, I think we can safely say the people in the cars and those not in cars who also saw it (see numerous articles plus the post by billbuckner) can tell the difference between it and a cruise missile (the length, diameter and wingspan of which are about 6 metres, 0.5 metres and 2.7 metres, respectively). If you wish to believe that some, or all, of the physical evidence was falsified and/or that some, or all, of the hundreds of witnesses (close by and at a distance) were confused, misguided, brainwashed or whatever, then that is your prerogative. But the more I read, watch and ponder, the more far-fetched the claims of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon seem to be, to me. The debris was apparently that of a 757 (refer to the various URLs posted previously, plus other references you can find on and off the Web). The human remains were DNA-identified as those of the passenger list of Flight 77 (ditto). The Perdue University computer modelling and dynamic simulation showed the building damage (internally, too) was consistent with an aircraft the size and shape of a 757: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
One can spend days on the Internet reading thousands of sites covering this one crash alone, and discussing it as nauseam: claims, debunking, counter debunking, counter counter debunking. At the end of the day, one has to make one's own mind up, making sure one reads as many as possible of the articles and papers on both sides of the argument and considering all the points carefully. If I get some time, I'll do some calculations on the velocity and video frame issue (my earlier post refers) and post the result here. For me, that's it for the time being. Back to music. (Actually, back to the grindstone.) |
|||
|
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 07:59 |
||
|
Fitzcarraldo, you should read the two articles I cited on the previous page, both by the same guy. He has the most convincing argument of all. He doesn't conclude what hit the Pentagon, but he rules out a 757 and a missile. He is even anti a lot of the conspiracy theorists. I am not trying to get you to alter your decision, but those articles are the best I've read about The Pentagon and the WTC buildings.
As I also said, he debunks his first article, after reading more into it and has altered his view, but he still denies a 757 hit The Pentagon. Oh and your example isn't exactly correct, an aircraft taking off over a congested road, is not the same as an aircraft going a lot faster, with it's undercarriage up, heading away from the road (but of course, nobody seems to mention it before it gets to the road, except those who viewed it from a building, but then don't clarify that they saw it before the road either). Edited by Geck0 - May 24 2006 at 08:06 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 08:04 |
||
'Let the dead rest' What you really mean is, shut up, dont talk about it. Accept what you've been told. Great attitude. |
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 13:12 |
||
|
So, I guess that failing to trust the public story of anything is a better view?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 14:45 |
||
|
^ No, but questioning the official line on something so unbelievable, is essential IMO.
|
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1835 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:33 |
||
So unbelievable to you, Blacksword. Not everyone shares your opinion.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1835 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:36 |
||
|
I have now done some rough calculations using a) Mike Wilson's SolidWorks 3D scale model, b) his rendering of the view of the aircraft from the time lapse CCTV camera, and c) the Pentagon video. I don't have access to Wilson's full model, just the executable which can be downloaded from his Web site http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/, otherwise I would have been able to see the plan view with the aircraft as shown in the above-mentioned rendering, which would have enabled me to make precise measurements. I ran the model executable until I thought the aircraft was in the position (*) shown in the rendering which you can see on his Web site or, more easily, at the bottom of the Web page http://www.911myths.com/html/911_pentagon_links.html. * I estimated this position by drawing a line from the CCTV camera through the barrier's ticket pedestal and extrapolating it across the Pentagon lawn. Bear in mind that my line is not necessarily 'spot on' the view in the 3D model rendering and video still, but should at least give an indication of whether the video is plausible. By doing the above, I calculated the nose of the 757 was circa 205 feet from the point of impact on the Pentagon's facade.
According to Professor Kausel's paper, the recovered flight data recorder (black box) revealed that the speed of the aircraft was 345 mph (506 feet per second) at the time of impact. The length of each of the Pentagon's outer walls is 921 feet according to various Web sites, one such being http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm So, from my rough measurement on the plan view of the scale model, the end of the aircraft was roughly 360 feet from the facade in the video still. The length of a 757-200 is 155' 3". Thus the aircraft's tail would have disappeared into the building (ignoring any obscuring by the explosion and smoke) 360/506 = 0.7 seconds after the video still. Bear in mind that my estimate of the aircraft position is approximate. But even so, we're clearly not talking about several frames here. And, just to complicate matters further, the January 2003 Pentagon Building Performance Report by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) & SEI (Structural Engineering Institute) http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf states that the five video stills are approximately one second apart (not half a second as the BBC reported). In which case the aircraft would indeed have only been visible in the one frame, given the timing of the frames in relation to the aircraft's position. As I say, my estimate of the aircraft position by extrapolating a line between the CCTV camera and barrier ticket pedestal is approximate. The above-mentioned ASCE/SEI report states that the aircraft was "approximately 320 feet (approximately 0.42 second) from impact" in the frame. If we go back to my estimate of 205 feet for the distance between nose and facade, the nose would have hit at 205/506 = 0.41 seconds (to two decimal places), so my estimate of position would appear reasonable. I only discovered the ASCE/SEI report after performing my calculations and can promise that I did not fix the position of the aircraft to fit the ASCE/SEI report. The close correspondence between my estimate and the ASCE/SEI report is gratifying. Thus, as the frames are approximately one second apart, and my calculation of the complete aircraft disappearing is around 0.7 seconds after the one frame where it appears, this could indeed explain why the aircraft only appears on the one frame in the video.
A scan of the annotated printout of the plan view I captured when running Mike Wilson's model is shown below (hopefully). I hope it is legible.  Edited by Fitzcarraldo - May 24 2006 at 18:27 |
|||
|
|||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:39 |
||
Do you subject the conspiracy theroies to the same standard? Even so, that may not be enough, hence the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" |
|||
|
|||
|
Hierophant
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 11 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 17:03 |
||
There is no conspiracy theory except the official story - the "conspiracy theorists" point to the most powerful government in the world, who had the most to gain from this astrocity vs. 19 guys with box cutters with a lust for virgins. If you came from another planet with no former knowledge of any of these events... which explanation would you most likely label a conspiracy theory?  |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1835 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 18:25 |
||
|
Candid interview by the Web site owner of a Mike Walker, one of the witnesses, printed on a 'conspiracy theory' Web site (one that seems more sincere and willing to investigate thoroughly the issues):
It's well worth reading the interview, but here are some excerpts:
The conclusion in the French book is absurd. I saw the jet; there is no doubt in my mind it was a jet that slammed into the Pentagon.
I knew it was a big commercial airline. I saw the AA on the side so I knew it was an American Airlines passenger jet. I was surprised at how graceful and slow the banking of the jet appeared to be, and how quickly it accelerated after it had lined up the Pentagon.
I know a lot of people have different theories about what happened that day. I don’t have any theories, I just have two eyes! I saw what I saw. It was an American Airlines jet that slammed into the Pentagon that day. I have nothing to gain or loose by saying this. The truth is the truth, that’s what happened. The reason why I’ve consented to this interview is because I’ve learned a lot as a result of that day. I’m a guy who grew up reading books, newspapers, and magazines. I’m a guy who watches television and listens to the radio. Those are the mediums that I’m comfortable with and understand. I’ve written for radio, TV, newspapers and even contributed to two books. Having said that, I understand the power of the web, and did before 9-11. But it really hit home afterwards. So many websites have critiqued my words, and added meaning to statements I made by taking them out of context.
Edited by Fitzcarraldo - May 24 2006 at 19:17 |
|||
|
|||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 19:10 |
||
FACT 1: Flight 77 did not reach it's intended destination. FACT 2: A hijacking was reported on Flight 77. FACT 3: Flight 77 was an American Airlines jet. FACT 4: Debris from an American Airlines jet was found at the crash scene. FACT 5: Rolls-Royce Engine parts corresponding to the engines used on Flight 77 were found at the crash scene. FACT 6: Many witnesses reported seeing an American Airlines jet striking the Pentagon. FACT 7: Bodies were identified among the Flight 77 remains. These identifications corresponded with Flight 77s roster. |
|||
|
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: May 24 2006 at 19:16 |
||
|
FACT 1: Flight 77 did not reach it's intended destination.
Correct. FACT 2: A hijacking was reported on Flight 77. Yes, reported, not fact. FACT 3: Flight 77 was an American Airlines jet. Correct FACT 4: Debris from an American Airlines jet was found at the crash scene. Allegidly FACT 5: Rolls-Royce Engine parts corresponding to the engines used on Flight 77 were found at the crash scene. Proof please, I've not read this. FACT 6: Many witnesses reported seeing an American Airlines jet striking the Pentagon. Circumstantial FACT 7: Bodies were identified among the Flight 77 remains. These identifications corresponded with Flight 77s roster. Allegidly |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 1011121314 18> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...
Topic Options
BaldJean wrote: