Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911

[SFC Ollie]

I wonder who I should contact about getting a raise?

 

[DiveCon]

I wonder who I should contact about getting a raise?

when you find out, let me know
i'd love to get a piece of that action

 

[Obamerican]

Yeah, well, he/she/it has proved that many times.

yeah I guess it makes me not bright in the fact that I dont worship the corporate controlled media and corrupt goverment agencys as the truth.Im not very bright since i listen to credible witnesses such as firefighters,demolition experts,architects,engineers and scientists from around the world and top ranking military experts as well. Im not very bright Gomer thinks since I go by what the laws of physics scientists have gove by for thousands of years. when you going to hook up with the man you worship Bill "I never had sex with this woman: Clinton and get that comedy routine started? you seriously should consider it. great classic comedy material as usual Gomer,you kill me.

these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the trolls they are cause they KNOW they cant get around these facts.

Shut the fuck up, you little worm. Your own "side" doesn't even talk to you, ass wipe.

 

[eots]

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon



(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77 - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

 

[SFC Ollie]

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon



(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77 - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

 

[eots]

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col.


Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."



Bio: militaryweek.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col.


Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."



Bio: militaryweek.com

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Really?

 

[eots]

lol

 

[eots]

so where is the air craft ?

 

[eots]

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col.


Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."



Bio: militaryweek.com

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Really?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why would you like to know? You don't want to believe the truth anyway. Even though you have been presented evidence probably over a thousand times you still ignore it. So where is the aircraft? Up your ass for all I give a damn.

 

[DiveCon]

how can those big spools of wire be sitting undisturbed in front of the hole ???

they werent "in front" of the hole, moron

 

[SFC Ollie]

These spools?

"This photograph by Jason Ingersoll shows the impact hole center extending to the second floor and punctured walls to its right. Punctured walls to the left of the hole center are obscured by smoke. The cluster of three spools which appears close to the facade is actually about 80 feet away from it, to its right. "

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

 

[Mr. Jones]

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.

 

[DiveCon]

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.

they heard SOUNDS
and there are multiple items that would give explosive sounds in an office fire

 

[SFC Ollie]

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.

See, there you go proving that you have ADD. I never ignored any witness. I have many times tried to make you understand that what they heard was not the same thing as a controlled demolition. We all know there were secondary explosions, there had to be. But they did not bring down the buildings.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.

nor do demolition experts.,architects,engineers or credible witnesses such as firefighters that are experienced in sounds of demolitions mean nothing to him. pounds table laughing.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the trolls they are cause they KNOW they cant get around these facts.

LOL yeah, we are all "agents"

LOL

No not all there is the odd uniformed dupe that drops by and makes a post or two and then there are the well informed but mental ones such as yourself and then the paid trolls

yeah please stop putting words in my mouth.divecunt YOU are just a kid troll who seeks attention,then there are the Bush dupes who are afraid of the truth who cover their ears and eyes when confronted with evidence and facts such as Elvis and Toto,ect ect,then there are the paid agents like fellow attention seeker candytroll,Gomer Ollie,fizz,gamolon,moron in the hat and slackass.

 

[DiveCon]

LOL yeah, we are all "agents"

LOL

No not all there is the odd uniformed dupe that drops by and makes a post or two and then there are the well informed but mental ones such as yourself and then the paid trolls

yeah please stop putting words in my mouth.divecunt YOU are just a kid troll who seeks attention,then there are the Bush dupes who are afraid of the truth who cover their ears and eyes when confronted with evidence and facts such as Elvis and Toto,ect ect,then there are the paid agents like fellow attention seeker candytroll,Gomer Ollie,fizz,gamolon,moron in the hat and slackass.

fuck off you pedantic PoS

 

[DiveCon]

Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.

I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.

nor do demolition experts.,architects,engineers or credible witnesses such as firefighters that are experienced in sounds of demolitions mean nothing to him. pounds table laughing.

for every 1 "expert" you show, we can show THOUSANDS that disagree
you are pathetic morons