Sunday, September 12, 2010

Was 9/11 a False Flag "Black" Operation?



I dismissed the 9/11 truther's contention that a lack of plane parts and a lack of damage to the Pentagon building and surrounding area proved that a 757 never struck the Pentagon.

However, after watching National Security Alert (video above), which incorporates evidence that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis -  part of the 2006 Citizen Investigation Team - gathered together that clearly establishes that the plane that was seen flying low over Arlington on 9/11 did not hit the Pentagon and discredits the directional approach and path of the aircraft claimed by the official report, along with lots of other evidence, I've reconsidered.

The physics of flight mathematically prove the official story impossible as most of the damage was at ground level indicating the massive 757 slid into the bottom floor on its belly  with its RB211 engines (see left for scale) digging into the concrete and yet there is no damage/charring to the foundation in all of the aftermath photos taken 9/21/2001 by FEMA.

Using the reported speed and other values from the released 2006 NTSB alleged black box data,  Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the g-force required for the pilot to descend to the levels of the light poles and then pull up instantaneously to enter the building low and level enough as required by the physical damage would indicate. They found it aeronautically impossible for this aircraft to have pulled out of that dive instantaneously and be level with the lawn. It gets even worse when factoring in the NTSB reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level.

In addition, 13 eye-witnesses, many of whom were aviation professionals and police officers, independently and unanimously confirmed a north-side approach of the plane, when all official documents reported a south-side approach. And even though a few of these witnesses saw the plane start to pull up, none of these witnesses actually saw the plane fly away.  Why?  Aside from the fact that they were running, diving or ducking for cover, the explosion was timed exactly at the moment the plane started to pull up totally obscuring their view of the plane flying away.

Nevertheless, a few people saw the plane fly away who did not see it approach. One man ran out as soon as he heard the explosion and that's when he saw the plane fly away. Other witnesses were recorded by the Center for Military History soon after 9/11/2001 as saying that a bomb went off and that a jet kept on going.  And then there is Lloyde (above) the taxi -driver...well, you just have to watch.

Links:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

Witness list broken down

The Pentagon Building Performance Report

Supplemental Presentations

6 comments:

Gen Albert Stubblebine 14:19  

"In my last assignment, I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me.
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always-always-rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on.
So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very
carefully, it was not an airplane.
If you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel-vehicle, or whatever it was-have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off-there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence.
I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it-NO WAY!
We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -what certainly the-the stories that were told-all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers.
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt-to melt-the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?"

Maj GenStubblebine 14:55  

"In my last assignment, I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence.
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always-rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on.
I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very
carefully, it was not an airplane.
If you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel-vehicle, or whatever it was-have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off. I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off. But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off-there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence.
I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it-NO WAY!
We pride ourselves with the free press. I do not believe the free press is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being the stories that were told-all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers.
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt-to melt-the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?"

Anonymous,  14:56  

Holy shit!

Roth's stepchild 02:08  

Thanks for posting! If true, it's unbelievable how "they" can get away with such an enormous lie but I'm sure they follow the advice of a very good teacher re this issue:

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.

The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.

Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.
~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Anonymous,  03:30  

It seems like there is way too much effort to make the available evidence fit the official claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of that size, weight, and speed no matter how hard they try to make the evidence fit.

One of the things they try to push is that the main body, the 13 ft wide cylinder, could fit the hole made at the Pentagon, as if everything else, wings with two 6-ton engines underneath, ntm, the 45' tail fin vaporized into thin air.

Roth's stepchild 13:51  

Yeah, I have to admit that since I never believed in the 9/11 conspiracy, I have not looked into it, therefore, know very little. However, that's going to change, as I can't stop thinking about it now, lol.

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP