Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I think the government used CIA agents in invisible cloaks and invisible tanks to knock down the light poles and then they moved that guy's taxi and took the staged picture. Then the ground opened up and they used their secret mind-wiping device to zap people's brains so they forget the missile they saw and instead remember seeing a plane hitting the Pentagon. All passengers on the supposed Flight 77 are living new secret lives overseas. The 125 Pentagon personnel were not personnel, but human clones from another military project that were conveniently disposed of with this conspiracy. Come on prove my theory wrong!

^I'm easily impressed/confused (take your pick) - I'm still trying to get my head round the indestructible passport

But surely knocking down a few light poles (and forgetting to disturb the lawn) doesn't take invisible tanks - but the difference in flight trajectories does seem to provide some objective, verifiable evidence that needs to be explained.

And in any case, in Lost they managed to cover up a whole plane crashing into an island... so there..! (I presume that the CIA are as creative as tv producers... hmm, on second thoughts - perhaps you have a point there!)

Cheers,
Shafique

There is no such thing as an indestructible passport, it is simply one of many pieces of debris that were found from the disasters. Other passengers possessions were found as well.

Why should the lawn be disturbed if the plane hasn't come into contact with it? Eyewitnesses saw the plane clip the light poles just before accelerating and ploughing directly into the Pentagon.

Many eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines plane hit the building. There is debris from the American Airlines plane in the building and on the ground. I guess those witnesses are a bunch of liars, and little invisible military elves quickly brought out the airplane debris to scatter around the impact site within seconds of the missile impact.

^I like the elves story.

But why be selective with the evidence one chooses to believe? [serious question]

You can certainly hold a view (my one at the start of the thread was that it wasn't a conspiracy, now I'm agnostic) - and then test it against evidence. But I haven't rejected evidence based on my beliefs - it should be rather the other way round. And where there's evidence that contradicts my belief - I'd look for explanations (even 'it was a fluke' may be a valid explanation).

But that's just me - I have no issues at all with people holding different beliefs and interpretations of the same body of evidence/narratives. I think we should be tolerant and explore what people's views are, what these are based on - and if they can be tested by looking at evidence, then by all means look at the evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:According to the data provided by the NTSB

I have clearly shown that the NTSB report doesnt backup your claim, on the contrary.
Also the "NTSB animation" is a fraud. People posting it claim it is based on FOIA 20060483 and FOIA 20050020. Show me FOIA 20060483 and FOIA 20050020 involve the release of NTSB animation. Cant be that hard! As long as you cant you basing your argument on forged government documents.

Ball is in dds' court.

cheers,
Shafique

This my logic... Flight 77 leaves Dulles airport and they lose contact with it. Tons of people see an American Airlines plane crash into the Pentagon. The wreckage is that of the same plane that went missing. That plane has not be found anywhere else. There is security footage from Pentagon cameras showing something very large crashing into the Pentagon and as far as I know a missile as large as a 757 would be noticeable and witnesses would be able to tell the difference between a missile and a plane. They would not be saying it was an American Airlines plane flying over their head. Because the info jives, I have no reason to start looking for complicated alternative explanations.

The US government would have quite a complicated time hiding flight 77 and all those aboard, permanently - Sending a 757 sized missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight without anyone noticing a missile going into the Pentagon - placing American Airlines wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon within seconds of the missile impact.

desertdudeshj wrote: And the defying the law of physics last second maneuvers.

You said there is an excel sheet with all the altitudes and speeds and so on. Show above claim with figures based on that sheet (I am really not going to do your dirty work again). Would like to see a reference to that sheet, as you already have a history of basing arguments on forged documents. The floor is yours to proof this claim with evidence, instead of wild baseless guesses.

desertdudeshj wrote: 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.

The only person who can answer that, is dead.

desertdudeshj wrote: Any airline pilot will tell you that takes a great amount of skill to pull off.

A few sentences earlier he is defying the laws of physics (still waiting for proof) and now he needs skill.

desertdudeshj wrote: 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 ?

All circumstantial guesses at best. Thats the basis of 9/11 truth seekers. Guesses, insinuations, no proof and no alternatives.

-- Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:53 am --

kanelli wrote:The US government would have quite a complicated time hiding flight 77

Not quite complicated, completely impossible. The only explanation we have seen in this thread is that flight 77 is at the bottom of the sea, no further explanations were given. Its not only that, the whole thing had to be a conspiracy. Just remotely imagine how many people would have been involved, including news agencies as some claim. And after nine years, no proof whatsoever of an alternative for even one event of many that took place that day.

desertdudeshj wrote:Oh and BTW this warning goes for Berrin too.

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.

Who has told you or tought you to moderate under such mannerism?

The owner of the thread is Icenic, it is he that has the priority to moderate it in any direction he wants...This is what the opening message said....

Does anyone really believe that 9/11 was a "terrorist" act? I mean I know that the media has successfully brainwashed most Americans into believing that, but are there others who believe that?

The only time I contributed to OP was that one and only message of mine .....
Nex time you give people warning you be careful otherwise I’ll get you kicked out of forum moderation you spoilt c.cky pr.t...

Excuse my language folks as I have been saving myself for him a long time..

DD has to learn that everyone is entitled to their own facts and opinion as long as they don’t show personal attacks, get rude and insult, it’s up to everyone else to elaborate on any message they like or else leave the thread die idle..We don’t live in one perfect world and not everyone is uniformed to share the same opinion, style or intentions...

Berrin wrote:Nex time you give people warning you be careful otherwise I’ll get you kicked out of forum moderation you spoilt c.cky pr.t...

OK, now I am curious. How are you getting DDS kicked out of this forum?

DDS - Hani Hanjour, the hijacker pilot of Flight 77 seemed to have the most training of all of them with a commercial license obtained in 1999 (he wanted to be an airline pilot in Saudi) then two more sets of training in 2000 and 2001 after being brought into the 9/11 plan by Al-Qaeda. By the accounts of his flying instructors and by his grades, he performed satisfactorily at best and dismally at worst. However, judging by what the witnesses said, he was quite successful piloting that plane into the Pentagon. Why would you argue otherwise when there are witnesses who saw the whole thing?

And Berrin, DDS can moderate if he is the moderator of this forum section. He should be moderating according to rules, not his own biases though.

Kanelli - still, I'm impressed with Hani's flying skills and presence of mind. Some stunning manoeuvres their.

Anyway, let's wait for dds and the NTSB data/animations - I want to see what his response is to the 'it was faked' argument.

Cheers,
Shafique

Well I've been at for most part of the evening, taking a looong hard look at everything, re reading everything 10 times, looking through tons of graphs and reports and this is going to make a few people happy.

I will have to eat humble pie on this one for the following reasons

1. The animation cannot be traced back to the NTSB and in fact lead back to one source. So authenticity is doubtfull

2. All NTSB FDR data states, including the animation that the last know reading was magnectic heading 70 degrees. Now overlaying that over a sat image showed it was still out of the light pole path, but since maps are true north and magnecting north is around 11 degress off true north, making adjustments for that, it pretty much follows the light pole path. Although magnetic north keeps on shifting so this cannot be considered conclusive unless we know what was magnectic north on sep 11

I digged out as much NTSB data as I could to study. The NTSB site is a huge PITA to navigate and get anything out of. FAA is even worse

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

The above is the complete NTSB FDR data, as you can see on page four it states there is also a csv file for this as stated on page 4, but I couldn't get it directly off the site without having filling out FOIA requests but i was able to find external sources of this, I got it off a few sites anti and pro for comparison and they seem to be the same, hard to check each and every parameter as it turns out into 31,000 pages worth of PDF. Yes I went through the trouble of converting the csv into pdf, turned into a 117 MB 31,000 page document ! But you can use to the csv in excel aswell. Anyways we still have the NTSB FDR graphs to use as reference and see if they match.

Radar data also exists

https://www.ntsb.gov/Info/Rec_Radar_%20 ... rcraft.pdf

As you can see its in on a CD and will need another FOIA request, haven't look for an external source yet, but will soon.

Here is some more

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/Info/ATC_%20Report_AA77.pdf


So in conclusion there is no way to authenticate the animation and even then the animation heading is magnetic heading 70 which is agreement with NTSB FDR data, check the links above and the animation draws an incorrect path

But this does not mean all is hunky dory in the Flight 77 Vs Pentagon camp, just removes the animation from the evidence through a process of elimination.

There are still inaccuracies in the last seconds of data. The altitude is way too high to have clipped the poles. Also the plane traveling at over 500 mph ( way above its max operating speed at low altitude as specified by Boeing ) from around 200 ft, leveled out flying parallel to pentagon lawn as show in the five released frames from the CCTV camera where we see a level smoke trail comming in ) to hit it at ground floor level with in a second. For such a big aircraft it has to be literally inches above the ground if not scrapping it.

And all these miraclous arial maneuvers are attributed to Hani Hanjour who months before was not allowed to rent a single engine propeller Cessna 172 light plane with a maximum cruise speed of 120 knots (around 120 Mph )because he was having difficulty controlling and landing it. Now many will say well he didn't need landing skills as he wasn't planing to land it. I'll get to that in a second.

Hani Hanjour after passing the east side of the pentagon and doing a U turn now has the pentagon in view, this is where he starts doing his victory lap a 330 degree downward spiral ( Why not just dive into the pentagon ? ) and then does a further massive drop in altitude and then seconds before another one with the 757 now inches above ground.

Now that is much more complicated and difficult than trying to land a 757 at full throttle on a aircraft carrier, so now someone who could not land a Cessna 175 properly ( an average landing speed of 70 knots ) can pull it off ? I'm sure all you have traveled by air in a commercial jet, imagine you are approaching the runway and just before you land your pilot starts to do a 330 degree downward spiral and then makes a perfect touch down at full throttle flawlessly ?

Also while looking around for the NTSB FDR data and animation authenticity I came across a new tid bit of information among other things, that the rooster pit door was never opened during the flight, it records readings every 4 seconds.

Now the NTSB FDR report does metion this as one of the parameters the FDR records

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf ( posted again for quick reference )

On top of page 13 listed as Port Name : EICAS L/R A1 Parameter assignment : Flight Deck Door.

Now just from the sheer amount of data given, I haven't been able to trace down this single parameter yet.

Will look into it and analyse the data further and report back.

@ Berrin
Last outburst from you mate, next time straight to the bin.

kanelli wrote:There is no such thing as an indestructible passport, it is simply one of many pieces of debris that were found from the disasters. Other passengers possessions were found as well.

Kinda convenient isn't it ?

kanelli wrote:Why should the lawn be disturbed if the plane hasn't come into contact with it? Eyewitnesses saw the plane clip the light poles just before accelerating and ploughing directly into the Pentagon.

First off all you need a a very skilled pilot to make contact on the first floor coming in on a downwards trajectory. Skill akin to pilots you land on aircraft carriers ( Considered the best among the avaiation community ) They have to land on a patch on carrier runway which has arrestor cables so the trailing hook can catch the plane before it runs out of ground and fall into the sea. Hence they approach at just enough speed that if they miss that small patch then can fly off safely and try again. Now mulitply that difficulty with commecial jet at full speed with our Ace hani hanjour on the controls

Secondly, the CCTV frames shows something, mostly a smoke trail comming in level and if we assume its a 757, then it was just feet or inches of the ground. But for a 757 to hit the ground floor and specialy at a bank ( refer to EH's picture with a 757 overlay with the pentagon ) The left engine would have scrapped the law and foundation floor of the pentagon pretty bad, but no scrape marks either on the foundation or the grass lawn.

kanelli wrote:Many eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines plane hit the building. There is debris from the American Airlines plane in the building and on the ground. I guess those witnesses are a bunch of liars

There are many credible witnesses including but not limited too, Sgt Lagasse and Sean Boger who was the air traffic controller for the pentagon helipad, just feet away from impact zone, who saw a low level, slow flying, white plane with no marks on teh tail except humbers north of the Citgo station, the disputed North Path. Are they all liars then ?

Kinda convenient isn't it ?

How so? Who's used the passport as proof that the passport holder was a hijacker of the flight, especially when all that 'proves' is that the passport holder was simply a passenger.

I've never, ever heard someone mention the passports as proof of anything.

There are many credible witnesses including but not limited too, Sgt Lagasse and Sean Boger who was the air traffic controller for the pentagon helipad, just feet away from impact zone, who saw a low level, slow flying, white plane with no marks on teh tail except humbers north of the Citgo station, the disputed North Path. Are they all liars then ?

Do you have any idea how contradictory your arguments are?

In the previous paragraph you're claiming a cruise missile struck the Pentagon but now you're citing two eyewitnesses who both saw a passenger plane fly into it.

Which is it, a plane or a cruise missile?

No more convenient than finding other possessions of other passengers.

Where are you getting the statements of skill from? If you are highly motivated terrorist with a lot of pilot training despite bad grades, it is not inconceivable to pull this off. In fact, there are tons of witnesses who saw with their own eyes that he was successful. People can speculate all they want, but what use is that?

So then the little elves came out and put the 757 debris with American Airlines markings in the impact site and on the lawn seconds after the white plane with numbers crashed into the Pentagon... Remember that the body parts and DNA from Flight 77 passengers were also present at the Pentagon. That means they boarded Flight 77 which was a 757, then the hijackers stopped somewhere and re-boarded the passengers on a small white plane with numbers on the tail, then flew it into the Pentagon.

So, we can now eliminate the animation from the 'evidence' - thanks to DDs verifying what FD challenged him on (and eating humble pie).

I have to say, that if they got the difference between magnetic and true North wrong and you only picked that up when looking at this in more detail, it does call into doubt the other evidence. At least I'd like to see the evidence double checked, verified. (Probably unfair, but when one piece of evidence was given so much credibility turns out to be dodgy, it calls into question other bits.. that's human nature.)

I'm leaning back to my original position of 'no conspiracy' (overall) now.

Cheers,
Shafique

There are a lot of people on this forum that wouldn't openly admit when they got something wrong or that the data that they were posting was not verifiable and I think DDS deserves credit in that he did. Ultimately the only reason that DDS is having to dig out flight path data is because the 100s of pictures and videos of the actual event that the US government has have not been released. Why is that? There is only one shady video I have seen that last all of 2 seconds with an impaired view and shows a craft (call it what you like) flying horizontal until impact. You can't make out on the video what it is. If its a plane let the US government release some pictures and show us please. As someone in this forum said earlier these theories survive because of a lack of transparency. If the US government wanted to kill them off they could start by releasing some real information.

I don't think comments about elves or such like are helful to the actual discussion. If there is a point being made lets hear the debate and not detract from the points. Some of the comments in all honesty remind me of the tv interview that Glen Beck gave to the maker of in Plane Site which is just shocking an attempt to mock the person/topic and a refusal too have a serious discussion.

I think the flight path evidence is one peice but the list of anomolies is too large to believe that 911 was an act of terrorism. I still find the collapse of the buildings the largest single irregularity but as I said there are many.

JoeTGF wrote:that the data that they were posting was not verifiable

Thats a big understandment. Its fraud, government documents were falsified for it.

JoeTGF wrote: and I think DDS deserves credit in that he did.

I would agree 100%, if it wasnt for his statements before his admission:

Instead of trying to discredit the information, maybe should have checked with the source first ?

Which goes to show you did not even look at the thing with more than a blink of an eye

Just goes to show you have no intention of looking at anything that remotely deters from the official narrative, even though the sources are official, and are just here for conformation bias.

And if you are a part of or wish to take part in this debate then you are required to back up your beliefs instead of just dismissing/mocking/shrugging off others who have provided evidence

I dunno if your good at reading maps

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.

JoeTGF wrote:I don't think comments about elves or such like are helful to the actual discussion.

So, what happened to flight 77 if it wasnt elves?

JoeTGF wrote: If there is a point being made lets hear the debate and not detract from the points. Some of the comments in all honesty remind me of the tv interview that Glen Beck gave to the maker of in Plane Site which is just shocking an attempt to mock the person/topic and a refusal too have a serious discussion.

See previous statments by DDS!

Posters supportive of the 9/11 conspiracy even contradict themeselves on a regular basis. After nine years they cannot get their act together. And we are supposed to take them seriously? In one weak moment I actually looked into their claims and appeared to be fraud!

Sorry JoeTGF, are you posting something constructive to refute my theory that it was elves?

Well like I said all is not hunky dory in pro 9/11 camp yet, still a lot of holes and discrepencies in the official story. Even on the pentagon case. Even from the original NTSB data which you cannot disqualify now as its from the orginal source now.

You still have to have the plane and our Ace pilot Hani do some out of this world manuevers to fit into the official story, The planes were too high to have clipped the light poles or do rapid 8G dives twice in succesion first to come down to the pole level and then to come flush with the lawn of the pentagon all the while travelling at over 500 mphs.

Also that the pentagon wall were so tough that the plane either vaporized or was broken down into very small chunks and yet strong enough to penetrate trough the outter C ring wall. Also not even a single scrape on the lawn or the pentagon wall. And not to mention our pilot Hanjour was so kind he flew past Rummys office on the other side and made a direct impact on the side which was being renovated and reinforced thus ensuring minimal casulaties and damage.

Also where are expected to believe the heart of the American military has no air defense or no air cover from nearby Andrews Airforce base and sits there in the American Capital unguarded.

The light poles being hit at full throttle of a 757 fall neatly within feet of their base without even scraping the grass they sit on.

And still we have the WTC7 which fell in its own foot print without rhyme or reason, or the WTC comming down due literally like a house of cards turning into dust. And we haven't even touched on flight 93 yet.

And there are official explanations for all of those things DDS, you just choose not to believe them. Some things will never be known unless they directly replicate which is of course impossible, e.g. how the lamp posts were hit. Witnesses seeing the plane clipping the light poles and slamming into the Pentagon is pretty conclusive to me.

desertdudeshj wrote: Even from the original NTSB data which you cannot disqualify now as its from the orginal source now.

Which NTSB data are you talking about now? Pin point to it.

desertdudeshj wrote:The planes were too high to have clipped the light poles

Show me exactly how you reached this conclusion. For now its a baseless statement. And your track record is already very bad. May I remind you of your own words:

desertdudeshj wrote: The devil is in the details. Just as someoe is sentenced on the testimony of one witness and later that witness is proved to be a liar, then the sentence is revoked and the person exonerated.

With flight77 you are constantly contradicting yourself and making baseless statements.

kanelli wrote:And there are official explanations for all of those things DDS, you just choose not to believe them. Some things will never be known unless they directly replicate which is of course impossible, e.g. how the lamp posts were hit. Witnesses seeing the plane clipping the light poles and slamming into the Pentagon is pretty conclusive to me.

I would love to hear them, please enlighten me. The only explination I know in this regard is the 9/11 commision and that has be proved to be inaccurate on so many levels including people who drafted it. The other report I am aware of is the one by some engineering society ( I forgetthe name, I thing I've mentioned it earlier in the thread ) that only gives details to the internal damge caused inside the pentagon in great detail.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Which NTSB data are you talking about now? Pin point to it.

The NTSB FDR data.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

The altitude, heading and speed. Is mentioned in almost every graph at the bottom, plus this data is given in almost every other NTSB link I've provided so very easy to say. Then you have to tie that in with the 5 frame capture from the CCTV to fill in the last missing blank.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Show me exactly how you reached this conclusion. For now its a baseless statement. And your track record is already very bad. May I remind you of your own words:

Again altitude and speed data along with a time line is given in the various links, multiple times in the link above. Track record I couldn't care of, I presented something, did my own extensive research and found out it was hard to call it credible and admited by saying so. If nothing that just improves my credibilty as I willing to scrutinze and revise my own opinion if indeed there is a need cause for it being looked into, unlike some. Something you and friend EH have never done even when shown whatever is being said is utter bollocks in the many threads spread over this section of the forums. Anyways thats another story all toghter and lets not detract.

kanelli wrote:Sorry JoeTGF, are you posting something constructive to refute my theory that it was elves?

Well Kanelli throughout this thread I have posted comments of what looked odd to me - particularly the buildings collapsing and you posted nothing apart from "elve theory" and less recently a refusal to even look at the "conspiracy" theory as you call it. This is a discussion thread right? So lets discuss. I don't personally see the point of bringing elves into it and if all you have to say is that you are not interested in conspiracies and anyone questioning the official 911 story than I think you have made that point several times before.

Do you have anything to add on the way the buildings collapsed on 911 after a few hours or burning? As I have said I don't believe its natural to fall in that manner - particularly ones that have not been struck by a plane (building 7). Many people (fireman, survivors, etc) at ground zero (many youtube links on this) said they heard explosions as the buildings came down. Barry Jennings whom you may have heard of said he was blown back by one of them - he is now dead. If you wish to comment on this than please do so but not sure its contructive to involve elves. There is more to this than meets the eye but if you start bringing elves into this than its clear you are not considering the case but rather refusing to consider it at all.

FD - As I have said before I don't know what happened to flight 77. But I don't think that the way to find out the truth is necessarily to find flight 77 but rather to question the official line. If buildings can't just collapse like that (as many engineers have said they can't) and planes can't cause the damage that was see on the Pentagon than there are holes in the official story and the question should be put to the US government about where flight 77 is not me. Do you personally believe that its normal for a government that has 100s of pictures of a plane supposedly flying into the pentagon to not release even one of them? Its quite easy to dispell the conspiracy with some transparency don't you think?

desertdudeshj wrote:The altitude, heading and speed. Is mentioned in almost every graph at the bottom

Copy paste a graph and point to the point where 77 is flying over the poles. I am not going to do your dirty work again, especially after you were thumping up and down, left and right for some period about a fraudulous "ntsb animation".

desertdudeshj wrote:Something you and friend EH have never done even when shown whatever is being said is utter bollocks in the many threads spread over this section of the forums. Anyways thats another story all toghter and lets not detract.

Another blatant lie!

Come on man the graphs are there are in almost every NTSB link I provided, anyways



And just incase you think I was making this up or you can't see it clearly
Go to page 9 of this link. Its a decluttered graph with each value at on a seperate graph
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf

And remember the impact time to be 9.37.45 and there is a time scale on top aswell at the bottom for reference

Look at the top graph for the altitude from 9.30 and then at 9.35 ( 2.47 seconds from impact ) till the end, now make your own conclusions.

Now look at the bottom one from 9.33 onwards. This is where Ace pilot hanjour starts his victory lap, It takes him around five and a half second to complete a 220 degree downward spiral at an approximate speed of 300 knots ( second graph ) level out twice in the last two seconds.

Care to take a guess at how much G load that would create let alone if an air frame of a 757 could handle such a thing

desertdudeshj wrote:Come on man the graphs are there are in almost every NTSB link I provided

I looked at the first graph of your link (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf):



point to me, where flight 77 didnt hit the pole according to you with an arrow, because I can seriously not see it.

desertdudeshj wrote:And just incase you think I was making this up or you can't see it clearly
Go to page 9 of this link. Its a decluttered graph with each value at on a seperate graph
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf

oh, another link, I thought you could base all your statements based on the first one. But same thing, point with an arrow where 77 flew over the light poles, because no I cannot see it clearly:



I copy pasted the relevant part for the light poles, since your copy pastes where cut off from that part of the graph.