Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Flying Dutchman wrote:

desertdudeshj wrote:Then I welcome you to please point out where you find the fraud and lies ?

Your youtube clip with the alternate filght path is a fraud!

Why and how ?

Flying Dutchman wrote:Point me to the exact spot in the NTSB document from where you get this info.

Page 2 last paragraph, Page 3 Figure 1 flight path F, Page 4 figure 4, Page 5 figure 3

I dunno if your good at reading maps, Specialy figure 3 as it is a close up of the victory lap depicts flight 77 comming in over the Navy Annex close to Arlington National Cemetary crossing over north of the then Citgo gas station.

here is one just for reference

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=38.8708797&lo ... 15&l=0&m=w

The Navy Annex is marked as Foxcroft Height with a tank logo and if you follow a line with your pointer it will come across a grey rectangle which will then be highlighted as Navy Exchange Gas station ( then know as Citgo Gas station ) and many witnesses saw a white unmarked low and slow flying white with small numbers on the tail north of this station and before.

This is the official flight path comming in from the south, knocking down the poles


Figure two on page four. Shows in the last few seconds rapid decent from almost 5000ft to 0ft with in a matter of seconds. Going with the official story and the 5 released frames from the CCTV footage which shows a smoke trail comming in level across the lawn at almost zeo altitude i,e meaning our champion pilot Hani hanjour traveling in a 757 dropped off a good alititude ( around 180 feet ) and then leveled off just feet above the ground within a second or to give it even more margin of error a few seconds all the while traveling at 530 miles per hour.

And this is even if you don't have the NTSB animation which avaliable from the NTSB even today if your willing to shell out a few bucks for it and going through the hassel of filling out requests forms.

desertdudeshj wrote:I offer you no alternate narrative or conclusion

Critisizing and mockery are easy. Building something is the hard part. Thats where the 9/11 truth seekers fall on their face miserable.[/quote]

And that is exactly what you have done, critizise and mock through out this threas, Again I repeat, the lack of an alternative does not make the official one automatically true.

desertdudeshj wrote:Specialy figure 3 as it is a close up

I wouldnt call it a close up, the figure covers a great amount of square km. The last part of the flight path is not drawn by the way.

Again you disregard everything else and pick out one single piece of information and try to "critizise or mock it" You can do simple math can't you and I assume you have atleast normal deduction capabilties. The last second of the FDR is missing as the NTSB says it stopped a second before impact.

But you do have the official trajectory of the plane and that would sufficently fill in the last one second lapse, right ? But if you overlay/compare both of them there are vast discrepencies one comes in from the north ( NTSB version ) and other from the south ( goverment version ) relative to the Citgo Gas station and require our Ace pilot Hani Hanjour to perform even more arial miracles than before.

And I assume you have decent PDF reader aswell where you can zoom in on the said map.

desertdudeshj wrote:Again you disregard everything else and pick out one single piece of information

Whenever I pick up something up to focus in, it appears to be complete bogus.

Then please define how that detail and the everything along with it is "bogus" as you say it. Again I'm just trying to reconcile the official facts and narrative. These are not uncoroborated facts picked out from thin air, but provided by the US govt and its agencies that you trust.

The Truthers are convinced Lloyde England, the taxi driver whose taxi was hit by the light pole in the photo, was part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

If you just google his name, you'll see truthers write essays on this guy and conduct interviews where they 'catch' in his lies.

Well here is the man himself, Lloyde England on the events of the day. He himself denys that the picture posted above is not where he was and not where his car was facing ? Either the pictures are lying or Lloyd. You be the judge, also the actual cab, which Lloyd still has is featured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5nkRwAL ... re=related

And again almost ingnoring everything else, that according to FDR data provided by the NTSB the plane was no where near the poles and that they have to be around 200 ft tall for the plane to clip it.

Here are the quotes from the three 9/11 truthers on this thread who are convinced Silverstein, talking to a fire chief on a PBS documentary, ordered the destruction of building 7:

Icenic wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329#

Silverstein admitting he issued the order to demolish WTC7. How could they have been ready for a full demolition? Doesn't it take months to demolish a building?

Icenic wrote:So what do you have to say about Silverstein's confession?

Icenic wrote:2.If there was no demolition set up, how could Silverstein issue the order to "pull" the building and it being successfully pulled the same afternoon of 9/11

Icenic wrote:I'm referring to the fact the WTC7 was demolished, as admitted by Silverstein. My question is that how could it have been demolished if it wasn't previously set up to be demolished?

JoeTGF wrote:Why is the silverstein quote scraping the bottom of the barrel? You just posted the silverstein quote and he said its about pulling the building. What am I missing? He admitted that the building was demolished.

desertdudeshj wrote:No he said pull "it"

If what you were try to say was even remotely correct, the correct usage would be "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull them ( out/back)." followed by then they pulled out and we watched......

Now you are trying very hard with verbal gymnastics to squeeze you elaborate explanation in one single word "pull" which itself is an out of context partial quote. The term used was "pull it"

And even if we make that huge leap of faith and accept what you are saying. Why would a fire chief be consulting Silverstien on how do his job. Was Silverstien incharge of fire and rescue operations happening at Ground Zero that day ? And all of this is IF we accept your POV which is almost impossible to swallow in the first place

Now your previous explination would have made sense if Silvestien was referring to WTC 6 which was pulled down, but again WTC 6 has nothing to Silverstien

Here's the quote from Silverstein that no one disputes:

Silverstein wrote:I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

I think it's important for readers to review their comments regarding the quote from Silverstein to decide if 9/11 truthers process information in the same ways that non-truthers would.

If not, then is it likely that any amount of evidence non-truthers provide will satisfy the doubts that truthers have?

And any members who have read the quote from Silverstein for the first time, would you ever, in a million years, read the comments that he made as an admission of guilt that he ordered the destruction of building 7?

A slight deflection of the subject here, maybe a vain attempt at what about-ery and ways I will give him the benefit of the doubt in this one.

I am totally willing to disregard or ignore what Silverstein has to say, consider it done. But does that change the fact the WTC 7 went down in a very controled demolition like fashion in its own foot print, right down to the crimp in the middle, when it was not hit by any plane and had just a few isolated fires.

There was visible damage to one side from falling debri but it is not a thin tall building like the other two WTC's. So giving it a huge margin of error ans possibility only a partial portion should have collapsed if at all. But giving this much leeway as for the detractors to something to chew on

I will even throw you a bone and post very rarely seen damage on WTC 7





Now back to regular programming

How do you reconcile the NTSB FDR data from flight 77 and the official trajectory from the south flight path ? Not even mentioning the extraordinary miraclous flying skills of our ace pilot Hani Hanjour ?

Flying Dutchman wrote:
Every time I do look at it, its fraud, lies or simply just not true. Like I said 9/11 truth seekers just throw a whole bunch of youtube clips and documents at you, hoping something will cause doubt. When I do look at it, its lies. After more than 9 years no smoking gun disproving the official story is presented.?

We cannot call plots as conspiracy if they're gonna leave obvious trace behind them, they will but for the eye of an ordinary citizen it would be very diffucult to identify,so we will be made to believe the offical story presented, however military/ political and scientific experts will ofcourse know what had happened in actual terms.
Beside this, such large organised terror attack cannot happen without involvement/knowledge of more than one country...as planes were crashing, there were bombs being blasted in “advanced” european “Nato” capitals/cities (just so laughable that none of them could have been prevented!)

Every country has numerous number of spies operating or leaked into private/govermental organisations of a targeted nation to find out what is happening or likely to happen in future..Foreign relations/diplomacy/security policies of polarised nations determine tasks of the spies or secret service operations abroad.. All of our emails, fax, cell/line conversations recorded on various parts of the world, mainly in developed countries that founders/users of particular technology to store/ deciphere data. We are watched by CCT cameras on streets and as well from space..So nothing is hidden or unexpected really...In this century we have enough technology to trace every one of us...

In order to understand what happened and why ,you look at the events following the aftermath.
With the fall of soviet u., America, Nato/Israel decided that the next closest threat is likely to approach from/via ME hence had long been working on greater ME initiative/project to reshape regional administration for further efective control... due to various dictator leaderships they knew the project couldn’t succeed without military intervention..so the project literally took start when successive plain crashes,bomb blusts/cartoon controversy etc took off as we know.. while iraq, afghanistan and pakistan were invaded, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran were being heavily pestered....

In a nutshell, All they needed was a good argument(radical islam)and a legitimate excuse(radical muslims/al qaida) to be the name of the game for such a massive military operation to take start, we knew that western foreign policy was pushed hard to be implemented when major opposing political figures were one by one assasinated or overturned within that period..such as Rafique hariri, Benazir butto and other political figures and nuclear scientists etc..
I said somewhere earlier that ME/persion gulf is a hub to control not only threats coming from ME but threats coming from far east nations such as china...So within the last decade everyone was playing their cards to re position themselves for re centralised power..

Well in the mean time of course whoever now is in control of a nation will also have a say on its future distribution of natural wealth as well..so extra bonus for the hassles and against damages I’d say..
Also, during our lifetime, unless something terribly goes wrong, we will not see the offical evidences of such plots and conspiracies, however certain nations will always have and use their evidences as carrot and stick to negotiate behind closed doors...In this day and age, it would be more realistic to hear about evidence of conspiracies that took place when europe was being pushed for 1st and 2nd world war and perhaps for holocaust..

Berrin wrote:In this day and age, it would be more realistic to hear about evidence of conspiracies that took place when europe was being pushed for 1st and 2nd world war and perhaps for holocaust..

Lets hear it, especially the holocaust part!

I am totally willing to disregard or ignore what Silverstein has to say, consider it done. But does that change the fact the WTC 7 went down in a very controled demolition like fashion in its own foot print, right down to the crimp in the middle, when it was not hit by any plane and had just a few isolated fires.

Of course not. Silverstein admitted as such when he said that he ordered the 'pulling' of the building when talking to the fire commander because he didn't want any more firefighters to perish - on a PBS documentary, no less.

Of course, CNN reporter Aaron Brown is also in on the conspiracy too, working for the government, just like cab driver Lloyde England (and the witnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon), by letting us know in advance to expect that building 7 would collapse (several hours before they set off the explosives in the building):

It's funny how you left out my final quote about the matter, so here it is, just to remind you.

Icenic wrote:Well I have to say, I'm now having doubts that Silverstein was in fact issuing an order to demolish the building. The term "pull it" could also mean "pull the squad out". Then again, the fact that WTC6 collapsed in a demolition-like manner seems coherent with the idea that Silverstein issued the order.

It's funny how do made like the media and "left out" that part, since you obviously went through the page it was on. Also, how are we back on Silverstein?

Eyewitness accounts of a plane striking the Pentagon:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... esses.html

I still don't understand why Truthers are so intent on believing it was a cruise missile in any event.

Truthers believe, somehow, that the planes that crashed into the WTC weren't flown by hijackers. So, why couldn't the government do the same with flight 77?

It's funny how you left out my final quote about the matter, so here it is, just to remind you.

I grant you that you later acknowledged having doubts but you did post the video clip of Silverstein.

Did you not watch it or did you watch it and say to yourself, 'hey, this guy just admitted he was behind the demolition of building 7 on a PBS documentary!' ?

EH your are just being condesending now and not providing anything usefull to the debate, any further such posts will be either edited or deleted.

I am more than willing to discuss this issue and even stated that I will and have totally disregarded the Silverstein interview in this debate and even provided you with "damaging" pictures of WTC 7 to further your side of the debate. And yet you choose to decend down to your usual tactics.

Now I would still love to hear how the WTC 7 came down from a few fires and some exterior damage to one side of the structure or the conflicting NTSB FDR data with the official trajectory for Flight 77.

FD asked for specific places where the NTSB report show inconsitencies and I did and there was no further talk on that issue after that. He called them bogus and lies and yet to give his opinions as to why he considered as them as such.

Oh and BTW this warning goes for Berrin too.

Well EH, after you presented a logical analysis, I questioned my opinion on the matter, but am still agnostic. As I said, the fact that WTC7 collapsed in a demolition-like manner does make me question the meaning of "pull it". So until you provide a logical analysis as to why WTC7 collapsed the way it did, I will remain agnostic, even though I now agree that Silverstein's words are not enough to prove anything.

This is also something that needs to be looked into

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/sept ... -11-09.php

This is the guy who drafted the original 9/11 comission report The American goverments only defense for the events that went down on the September 9th, 2001.

Computer Simulation of the Crash -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg

In a nutshell this video is a simulation of the crash (describing the fuel dispersion from the wings,shards, probable structural damage, that led to the collapse in a free fall manner) , - Key Points Emphasized

1. The fuel WAS responsible for the fires that extended to the upper and lower floors
2. The impact debris DID come out of the other end of the building
3. Also shows structural damage to the core element of the building, that might have aided in the free fall of the floors

What is this video saying ? - The probability that the 'controlled demolition theory' was constructed, due to the similarities between its parameters and the way in which the the towers collapsed (as a result of the impact)

I've seen this animation by Perdue many times over

1. The fuel WAS responsible for the fires that extended to the upper and lower floors

Nobody disputes that

2. The impact debris DID come out of the other end of the building

Nobody disputes that and is clearly visible in all the videos

3. Also shows structural damage to the core element of the building, that might have aided in the free fall of the floors

Nobody also disputes that part of the core was damaged. The bolded part is an assumption on your part, even the animation shows just a handfull of core columns being cut and I'll give you an equal number of columns as severly damaged. Yet majority of the core columns are intact.

The buildings were designed to withstand impacts from commercial liners and everyone can
see they did that they did a brilliant job at it. The 9/11 commision and the NIST ( National Institute of Technology add Standards ) reports do not contribute to fall of the towers to the jets but the resulting fires. Jet fuel which is basically kerosene does not burn at temps high enough to melt steel beams. But it is also argued the jet fuel does not need to melt but just hot enough for steel to loose structural integrity. Also take note a lot of molten metal was present in the resulting debri and beams with clear signs of having melted, what caused that when they themselves say fires were not enough to melt ? Also keep in mind fuel atomisation. Majority of the fuel was atomised mixed with air and ignited, resulting into the huge fireballs everyone saw. Not 10 tonnes of jet fuel lying in pools in the WTC as they would have you believe.

Like I've said earlier in this thread all the steel columns need to fail within miliseconds and not even a seconds of each other for the WTC's to fall as they did. From you own supplied animation see how many deducting the columns which were sheared by the impact and even giving the margin of error by having just as many severly damaged still majority of them remain. And this did not happen just once but twice on that fatefull day. Do a simple experiment and stuff a rod of rebar ( not even thick beams used in construction ) in a kerosene fire in it and wait 103 minutes and see how it is ?

The official pan cake theory fails because then you would have a core steel structure jutting up hundreds of feet into the sky and not end up as a pile of rubble.

And when you say free fall you mean to say hundreds of thousands tonnes of steel and concrete, which until now were suppourting the towers perfectly ( also keep in mind the rated load of such steel and concrete is on the safe side and in actuality much higher ) offered just as much resistance as air ?

Also what happened to WTC 7. It was not hit by any plane or severly damaged ?

desertdudeshj wrote:FD asked for specific places where the NTSB report show inconsitencies and I did and there was no further talk on that issue after that. He called them bogus and lies and yet to give his opinions as to why he considered as them as such.

NTSB:



How does this contradict?

Zoom in on the NTSB map as much as you can ( best done on the PDF link I provided ) and for reference use the map of the pentagon I gave, you can zoom in and out on that aswell to get the exact reference until you know what your looking at, all maps except the NTSB one are North orientated i.e north side up .

Now compare the two flightpaths

Here is the same reference map zoomed out a bit further incase you have trouble reading maps. This time without the added detail and just the sat image to make comparision easier

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=38.8687831&lo ... 15&l=0&m=s

The cross hairs in the center at, very close to where the NTSB flight path map ends. Now draw a straight line from there to the pentagon and you will see how it misses all the light poles

Here is the official trajectory zoomed out a little



Now take note of the angle (for reference : intersects the 4 leaf clover road intersection almost dead center from the point of impact) and now go back to the wikimapia map or google earth if you wish and draw the same line this time extending outwards from the pentagon hitting all 5 poles and intersecting the 4 leaf clover junction. Also remember there is no room for error in this path as it will miss atleast one of the downed light poles and thus not remain true. The further you zoom out the wider apart the NTSB FDR path and the official trajectory drift apart. You could simply make aprint out of the map and use a simple pencil and ruler and do these aswell.

Also all this is because you don't believe in the authencity of the Flight Animation which is available from the NTSB, but still you get the same results.

Also the FAA also released an animation, exactly the same as the NTSB in its flight path



Pause at around 0.27 to see the flight path drawn over a sat map, it also misses all 5 light poles and this contradicts the govt trajectory.

Also no comment on ace of the skies Hani Hanjour and his victory lap

Zoom:



And the dots:



Large arrow is from ntsb, shorter arrow close to Pentagon is from your pic. Done by poster.

No thats not correct, maybe your just not getting it

So here is a quick paintbrush I cooked up



The blue line is approximately the official trajectory kocking off the light poles.

The orange one is the NTSB and FAA flight paths completely missing the light poles not to mention way offcourse

P.S : The second map you posted with the red arrows is correct for the NTSB and FAA fight paths

The blue line is according from ntsb according to DDS. Which is completely inconsistent compared to the flight path of the ntsb document, which he claims support his blue line. NTSB show the path south of 244. DDS' is north of 244.



-- Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:34 am --

desertdudeshj wrote:P.S : The second map you posted with the red arrows is correct for the NTSB and FAA fight paths

Yes, the large red arrow is from ntsb, the small one based on your pic of the last bit of the flight path...and they connect.

Flying Dutchman wrote:The blue line is according from ntsb according to DDS. Which is completely inconsistent compared to the flight path of the ntsb document, which he claims support his blue line. NTSB show the path south of 244. DDS' is north of 244.

Maybe there is a language barrier here or something ? The Blue line is the official govt trajectory which is supposed to have clipped the 5 lightpoles

The orange line I drew is more consitent and similar to the NTSB and FAA flight paths. Both og them don't match and that is the whole point of this.

Also you really have to post larger maps or atleast hotlink them so one can zoom in as to exactly where you are pointing or atleast also post another zoomed in pic aswell.

Personaly I don't even have to go into such minute detail when the NTSB and FAA animations are there. Wheter geninue or not, they follow the NTSB data to the dot.

I post again so you don't have to flip back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEe ... r_embedded

The FAA animation is in this or last page so need to post again

desertdudeshj wrote:The orange line I drew is more consitent and similar to the NTSB

It isnt, it way off!

desertdudeshj wrote: you really have to post larger maps or atleast hotlink them so one can zoom in as to exactly where you are pointing or atleast also post another zoomed in pic aswell.

I really havent got to do a thing. For me its clear. If you cant read them, make them and post them yourself. I am not your mother to answer all your questions about your uncertainties!

LOL !

Its not my uncertainties they are yours. Just look at the FAA animation and freeze frame it at aroun the 0.27/28 mark and there is the path already sketched out on a sat image already. For me its also clear that the two flight paths don't match. According to the data provided by the NTSB and FAA.

Anyways since your getting too flustrated with this, maybe move on to something fresher if you feel like ? and come back to this later.

What about Ace pilot Hani Hanjour and his flying abilities. And the defying the law of physics last second maneuvers. Why did he not just nose dive into the pentagon on the east side when he first had the chance, Instead he flies out miles away does a U turn. Again he a clear view and facing the pentagon but itstead of aiming his nose to the pentagon he starts doing a 330 downwards spiral. Any airline pilot will tell you that takes a great amount of skill to pull off. Levels off just before and hits the first floor dead on. When the roof and center of the pentagon presented a bigger and thus eaiser target to hit. Unless you were aiming to hit the reinforced walls.

Also being the center of defense for the biggest military in the world you'd expect it to be protected by some sort of SAM support or was the American military in such a state of denial and hubris it left such an important military assest totaly unguarded, even if not. Andrews airforce base is minutes away across the river and they let a plane know to be hijacked through ?

NORAD earlier made claims about the sophistication of its radars that nothing happens above the air space in N.America without them knowing it, yet three planes were able to succesfully attack ?

Interesting info folks.

DDS' orange line in his map clearly shows a trajectory that would miss the light poles. If I understand correctly this trajectory is from the published NTSB data and contradicts the 'official' trajectory which has the plane knocking down the light poles.

FD - can you show that the NTSB data does not show the flight trajectory missing the light poles?

(Sorry, there are so many posts I may have missed this clarification - so help a less technical by-stander out here).

Cheers,
Shafique