FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Pentagon - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent interview with David Ray Griffin going over the three versions of the official story from the Pentagon:

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=163

It appears that the new flight data implies a *fourth* official story...more "evidence" to keep everyone guessing, no doubt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rump wrote:
Secondly, the final second of data (as per the usual embedded oddness of everything 9/11, the tape ends a few seconds before impact... ooooOOOoooooo....) places the plane at a minimum of 180' above highway 395. Nowhere near low enough altitude to clip the 5 light poles that were displaced that morning.


Well, there is a 'potentially justifiable' related force that could account for the pristine condition of the fallen poles. Keep in mind these are 'breakaway' poles designed to 'pop out' in a effort to lessen collision injury. (Which means they probably fall over and kill the innocent passerby but...)

Quote:

Wake-Vortex Hazard

Background

When an aircraft wing generates lift, it also produces horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful, high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps, landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.

From: Concept to Reality
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wake_vortex.html


As many of the most important events of the day, the available evidence is in some way impacted by esoteric knowledge of construction, aviation, whatever, that dramatically changes the possible conclusions.

There is the 'common sense' conclusion, and then there is the 'educated' conclusion. In the case of 911, it appears that these two consistently have nothing to do with each other.

If a theory appears to be false, then it is either due to analytical error or deliberate intent to mislead. If you're not right, you're either mistaken or lying, right?

If a theory appears to be false, then evidence supporting that theory is being incorrectly analyzed. This suggests that either the evidence was subject to conditions beyond the scope of 'common sense' interpretation, or else the causal assumption for the existence of the evidence is in error. Meaning the evidence appears to be a result of the impact at the pentagon, but actually got there some other way. (Yes, I realize there's usually only one way for false evidence to accidentally appear at a crime scene, but I don't want to get sidetracked yet - the point is, just because evidence is found at a crime scene, doesn't necessarily prove it was a result of the crime.)

In addition to esoteric scientific knowledge potentially clouding our 'common sense' interpretation of the evidence, there is the possibility of something having hit the pentagon that was designed 'look' like a plane, but provide evidence inconsistent with a commercial jetliner.

By this, I'm obviously referring to the theory that flight 77 was switched with a prototype jetliner made of angel food cake. Upon impact, the plane exploded into thousands of bite sized snacks, which peckish pentagon employees scurried after immediately following the impact. (From: Angels Don't Eat This Cake - a history of the International Baking Conspiracy and the CIA's secret Eclair Munchie Control Program)

In order to examine the evidence in light of the possibilities, I first have to organize the possibilities in a meaningful way in order to apply the mind numbingly boring process of critical thinking. In terms of looking at the evidence, I come up with this - by 'inconsistent evidence' will stick to meaning 'inconsistent with the official story' or it gets real confusing. 'Inconsistent evidence' means evidence that 'supports' conspiracy theory.

If a (767-type) plane hit the pentagon then inconsistent evidence is either inadequately analyzed (esoteric science), or not causally related (planted or 'coincidence').

If a plane did not hit the pentagon, then evidence consistent with a plane is either inadequately analyzed or it isn't actually causally related.

If a 'plane-like' decoy hit the pentagon, then the evidence could be both consistent and inconsistent at the same time when used to support either of the false premises. Unfortunately, consistent enough for the official story, but not enough for you, me, or Thierry.

That's where I'm at - by examining the evidence against the first two premises, I'm hoping the scales will either tip, or lead to an examination of the third premise, which I sincerely hope to avoid, but can't ignore.

I hoped to get further, but this was harder than I thought, took longer, and between my post and Fintan's audio, I keep daydreaming about cake and doughnuts so...soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A quick comment about the light poles: they were mounted on 28" high concrete slabs. There is no advantage to a pole being designed to breakaway upon impact in that scenario - the damage to a vehicle would be done by the slab, and the only thing a toppling pole would do is wreak more havoc when it came down.

I doubt they were breakaways (by design).

Honestly, I think this release just shows that it's not an accurate radar track at all. The shills on the other boards are already spinning it - this is from one guy that I suspect gets his marching orders directly from the DIA: "Obviously, they were pushing the plane to it's limits, and the data was being transferred out of sync." Hence the backstory a few months ago about the plane "exceeding it's software limits", which was eagerly seized upon by truthers as proof it "couldn't have been flown that way", it must have been a drone.

That'll be the built-in excuse - the data ends because the plane crashed at that moment, with the data stream a few seconds behind it. I.e., the positioning data is off, making it appear to have crossed in front of the Pentagon, and crashing before the building, and the altitude data was trailing even more so. Therefore, the plane is shown too high for it's end of flight, and still a few hundred yards from the building when it stops. The altitude is from when it was a mile or so out yet, and the lat-long data is relatively correct, but askew by a mile or so to the West.

This is the built-in excuse for not having to show the impact. And now, guess what - the truther sites can start arguing about whether or not the data could and/or would come in like that. They'll let it fly for a while that "it's impossible", then eventually some "expert" on FDR's will come out saying it's "highly likely", show some pre-arranged charts and diagrams (that were used to backwardly construct this data), and the truthers will look like fools. Again.

I can't wait.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumple4skin wrote:
Sorry for my lapse into CT world, but I've been studying this shit for 4 years now, and I have... feelings about it. Show me a real, non-CGI'd video of Flight 77 slamming the Pentagon, and I promice i'll STFU immediately, and then move on to my next demand (I have dozens).


Problem is, if they do eventually release the footage, nobody is going to give a crap about your next demand.

They will, however, really enjoy lampooning you and your four wasted years of tinfoil delusion.

Remember that dude that thought the gov't tried to 'fake' a plane crash?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Problem is, if they do eventually release the footage, nobody is going to give a crap about your next demand.

They will, however, really enjoy lampooning you and your four wasted years of tinfoil delusion.

Not that I'm in a position to do so, but I'm daring them. I know they don't have it.

Quote:
Remember that dude that thought the gov't tried to 'fake' a plane crash?

You lost me. Confused

They successfully faked on in Shanksville. So far.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Rumpl4skn"]
Jerry Fletcher wrote:


Quote:
Remember that dude that thought the gov't tried to 'fake' a plane crash?

and Rump said:
You lost me.


I think he's saying that'll be *us*, dude. Smile

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay.

Jerry, you should have put that last line in quotes then. Sheesh..... Wink

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not that I'm in a position to do so, but I'm daring them.


All I'm saying is that it's obvious that our 'common sense' is being manipulated, and that I've been burned before relying on it in relation to 911.

These days, I'm just being more careful about putting all my credibility eggs in the basket of 'obvious' evidence presented by the HTB crowd.

Quote:

I know they don't have it.


You know it, or feel strongly and believe it deeply?

I mean, they have the footage - there's cameras all over that place.

Something most likely hit the pentagon, therefore they have surveillance footage of the impact - all of it.

If released, all that footage has to do is look reasonably like what most people expect to see, and the '911 Conspiracy Craze' comes to an end along with Charlie Sheen's political career.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry said:
Quote:
HTB crowd

I'm guessing HTB = 'Hunt the Boeing' ? Or is it?

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah - sorry for launching into shorthand.

I'm so sick of typing the words 'no plane'. Wink

Are we cool with using HTB as shorthand for 'Hunt the Boeing' and as euphemism in general for describing the 'No plane hit the pentagon' segment of the truth movement?

Thierry really kicked that one off, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry asked:
Quote:
Are we cool with using HTB as shorthand for 'Hunt the Boeing' and as euphemism in general for describing the 'No plane hit the pentagon' segment of the truth movement?

Well - if we weren't before, we are now, Jerry. Wink

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't subscribe to "no plane." An aircraft of some sort hit the Pentagon. It just wasn't Flight 77, or even a normal, commercial 757.

That's another psy-op in regards to the Pentagon investigation. "Not Flight 77 = No Plane." The shills do that - anyone who denies the official version is a "no planer." I'm as tired of reading it as we are of typing it.

It's the same as the guy who called me a skinhead because I suspect the Rothschi|ds of being evil manipulators of society, simply because they are Jews. I don't care if they are Arabs, Incas or Eskimos. They uber-powerful pricks. Ths dishonest, illogical association op.

Do I know? As much as I (or we) KNOW the towers were imploded, maybe more so. Granted, if they fudged enough of the radar tracks and other data, then yes... I could be embarrassed. But if it's that deep, then we can trust nothing at all, and we may as well go home right now. Bush could be an audio-animatronics robot from Disney. The whole war in Iraq could be faked like a moon landing.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.