NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[carlitos]

Mr. Deets,
Is your contention that a freaking bomb went off 5 or 7 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon? If so, you appear even more ill-informed about this event that you are about avionics. Which is no small feat.

Again, you really need to find non-paranoid information sources.

 

[The Big Dog]

Items of evidence of six-minute discrepancy between inside explosion(s) and the official impact time.

1. April Gallop. Her watch stopped at 9:32 a.m.
2. The New York Times, the national newspaper of record, cited in a September 12, 2001, article, "Plane Slams Into Pentagon," that the attack occurred "about 9:30." Also Reuters said the same (at 3:57 p.m. on 9/11/01), and USAToday the same (at 6:11 a.m. on 9/12/01).
3. Heliport Clock stopped at 9:31:30 (clock on display in Smithsonian Museum).
4. Official Navy Photo of Wall Clock stopped at 9:31:40
5. White House Counsel (later Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales, taped official Navy lecture: “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”
6. Denmark’s about-to-be Foreign Minister (Per Stig Moller): 9:32
7. CNN’s Sixth Anniversary special on the E4B C&C ‘Doomsday Plane’ over White House on 9/11, at 0:33 to 0:48 in, Jonathan King: “There was word of an explosion at the Pentagon and then Secret Service warnings of another (third) plane (allegedly Fl 77) still on course for Washington” (triggering WH evacuation)

Ref: "The Pentagon Attack Papers" by Barbara Honegger (updated January 2011)

Mr. Deets: I notice that you cite Barbara Honegger. Are you aware that Ms. Honegger directly contradicts CIT regarding the Pentagon in connection with Lloyde England?

Are also aware your claims regarding the "pre blasts" in the Pentagon are directly inconsistent with Sean Boger and the testimony of CIT's star witnesses?

Yet you have appeared in a video praising CIT.

Does it bother you that you are promoting two directly inconsistent theories regarding the damage at the Pentagon?

 

[dadeets]

Does it bother you that you are promoting two directly inconsistent theories regarding the damage at the Pentagon?

I don't see these as inconsistent.

Honegger gathers witness testimony, mostly from inside the Pentagon, that there were explosions inside at approximately 9:32 AM. That is about six minutes before the official time for an airplane impact to the exterior wall.

CIT gathers witness testimony that an airplane flew a path north of Citgo, which turns out to be inconsistent with the external and internal damage path. That suggests that airplane didn't cause that damage. Nothing is said by the CIT witnesses about the time of day this airplane flew over.

Honegger and CIT are notably consistent in bringing out aspects that are in direct conflict with the official explanation.

There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's. However, the official explanation isn't one of them.

 

[Oystein]

...
There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's...

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

 

[Locknar]

After a review of this thread by the Mod Team, we have decided to remove it from Moderated Status (but will actively monitor it for the foreseeable future). That stated, ensure your posts are civil/polite, are on topic and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[beachnut]

I don't see these as inconsistent.

Honegger gathers witness testimony, mostly from inside the Pentagon, that there were explosions inside at approximately 9:32 AM. That is about six minutes before the official time for an airplane impact to the exterior wall.

CIT gathers witness testimony that an airplane flew a path north of Citgo, which turns out to be inconsistent with the external and internal damage path. That suggests that airplane didn't cause that damage. Nothing is said by the CIT witnesses about the time of day this airplane flew over.

Honegger and CIT are notably consistent in bringing out aspects that are in direct conflict with the official explanation.

There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's. However, the official explanation isn't one of them.

The CIT flight paths are physically impossible to fly, and witnesses are not good to draw ground tracks of planes. They are good for lines of position. CIT are not trained aircraft accident investigators and it shows. No big deal but most their witnesses point to the official flight path.''

Please explain why RADAR is not evidence; RADAR proves CIT claims wrong.

A bomb in the Pentagon would have killed April, so Honegger explosion stuff is a kinetic energy impact from 77. There was no blast damage from explosives, no explosive damage to people. If you are familiar with bomb and the damage they do you will quickly see Honegger is making up false claims.

RADAR, DNA, and FDR prove 77 impacted the Pentagon; you have not refuted RADAR, DNA, or the FDR; you never will. But go ahead make my day, I worked in AFWAL as an engineer and all I see so far from you is paranoid anti-government drivel you have adopted from paranoid conspiracy theorists and those who sell lies on DVD to the gullible. Are you making money off of spreading lies and feeding Balsamo and CIT some "expert" quotes?

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't see these as inconsistent.

Honegger gathers witness testimony, mostly from inside the Pentagon, that there were explosions inside at approximately 9:32 AM. That is about six minutes before the official time for an airplane impact to the exterior wall.

CIT gathers witness testimony that an airplane flew a path north of Citgo, which turns out to be inconsistent with the external and internal damage path. That suggests that airplane didn't cause that damage. Nothing is said by the CIT witnesses about the time of day this airplane flew over.

Honegger and CIT are notably consistent in bringing out aspects that are in direct conflict with the official explanation.

There are a number of possibilities that could explain what happened while being consistent both with Honegger's findings and with CIT's. However, the official explanation isn't one of them.

What a fascinating response. I point out that Honegger and CIT are in direct conflict (particularly with regard to Boger's statement, and the people at the CITGO and Lloyde) and you manage to completey avoid disussing it at all.

Fascinating.

 

[shure]

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 11, rule 12.

 

[dadeets]

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

 

[Oystein]

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

You didn't address my post. I asked:

Please support this claim by spelling out at least two such possibilities! I obviously expect they are not only consistent with the very limited set of observations listed by Honegger and CIT, but also with the entire body of evidence, as well as with the physics of real airplanes and buildings, but for starters they should fit those two sources to a t.

 

[carlitos]

What is your percentage estimate for the number of clocks at the pentagon that were off by a few minutes?

 

[DGM]

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
.

My neighbor and I both surveyed our back yards and found them to be flat. Therefor the earth is flat. Good enough for you?

 

[beachnut]

What is your percentage estimate for the number of clocks at the pentagon that were off by a few minutes?

When a movement, ironically named "truth", starts showing clocks with minute hands and second hands not even close to being synchronized, you know the movement is running on empty.

Showing clocks not set correctly is very truthy. If the clocks stopped it means they fell to the ground and the battery fell out, and the minute hand most like like fell in the down direction, if the clock was ever correct in the first place. Who uses a wall clock in an office as an exact time, unless it is set methodically to the atomic clock. The clowns in 911 truth never offer evidence the clock were set properly, and never proved the hands did not move after the clocks fell to the ground knocking the batteries out. Plus, no one heard explosions, until 77 impacted. Many witnesses were right next to the impact outside proving no explosion before impact. 911 truth has to be one of the biggest anti-intellectual fantasy movements around.

...
In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

....

Not a single thing these people have is reality based. They made it up. They fool gullible people, or people who prefer the fantasy of the paranoid conspiracy theory kind. We have a few nuts like Barbara Honegger and CIT who make up moronic lies with no evidence. They have failed to make an impact in the real world because they have delusions and failed claims. It has been shown they are making it up, you can't prove anything.

 

[dadeets]

Not a single thing these people have is reality based. They made it up. They fool gullible people, or people who prefer the fantasy of the paranoid conspiracy theory kind. We have a few nuts like Barbara Honegger and CIT who make up moronic lies with no evidence. They have failed to make an impact in the real world because they have delusions and failed claims. It has been shown they are making it up, you can't prove anything.

In reference to Barbara Honegger's research respecting the timing of the inside explosion(s) vis a vis any (alleged) flight AA77. The 9/11 Commission report on its interview with the person in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC) that morning, Capt. Leidig, has been released, and is at:

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf

…He (Capt. Leidig) had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked if he felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate, (whether) it might be a terrorist attack. No one talked Force Protection (protecting the Pentagon and other military assets) before the Pentagon was struck, that he recalled (followed by censored block labeled “9/11 Classified Information”)…

 

[The Big Dog]

I prefer to think of Barbara Honegger and CIT as complementary. Barbara focuses on inside the building, and the time of the violent explosive event, whereas CIT focuses on the flight path approaching the building, and how it isn’t in alignment with the path of destruction.

In both cases, their respective research brings out facts that are dramatically inconsistent with the official explanation. That should be the takeaway message. The official explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would estimate the consistency between Honegger and CIT at about 80% on those parts that overlap. I don’t want to get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly.

You are estimating again? Hmmmm.

I know you don't want to "get diverted into a discussion on the 20% that don’t align exactly."

How about the 50% that directly contradict each other? Can I divert you into discussing that? Lets start with Boger, Lloyde and Lagasse.

Deal?

 

[beachnut]

In reference to Barbara Honegger's research respecting the timing of the inside explosion(s) vis a vis any (alleged) flight AA77. The 9/11 Commission report on its interview with the person in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC) that morning, Capt. Leidig, has been released, and is at:

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf

…He (Capt. Leidig) had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked if he felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate, (whether) it might be a terrorist attack. No one talked Force Protection (protecting the Pentagon and other military assets) before the Pentagon was struck, that he recalled (followed by censored block labeled “9/11 Classified Information”)…

I read the whole thing, it supports the impact of Flight 77 when you take in all the reality based evidence. (like RADAR, FDR, DNA, and more)

The impact of a 757 going 488 knots at impact with the Pentagon would sound a lot like an explosion. WHY? E=1/2mv² What was it I said? Oh, Kinetic Energy impact of a Jet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on board, the impact alone is equal to 1200 pounds of TNT. This is the explosion everyone felt in the Pentagon, it is a lot of energy, and the jet fuel fire ball would be a the source of the flames. Proof 77 impacted the Pentagon? DNA from the passengers found in the impact zone caused by a kinetic energy impact. The damage to the Pentagon was not a bomb blast, but exactly the damage a 757 makes at 488 knots. Simple physics proves this is a fact.

... testmony taken April 29, 2004, almost 3 years after 911. Would neat if there was a point.

a small light plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.
They had live television feed from multiple TV stations.

Gee, like the rest of world, when he came on duty that day, everyone thought the WTC impact was an accident. Wow. If it was an inside job, it sure looks like the Pentagon was in the dark, as were all of us. What did you do on 911 to help?

Ignoring DNA evidence and using delusions from Honegger and CIT.

http://cryptome.org/nara/dod/dod-04-0429.pdf

He had no awareness of AA 77 coming back to Washington D.C. His first

awareness was a call from the SECDEF's three-star aide who asked ifhe felt the explosion in the building and asked Leidig to investigate, ​

it might be a terrorist attack. ​

What is force protection? Is it http://www.pfpa.mil/index.html ? Or what? You want to know why that paragraph is redacted? You want to know what is going on? This is your smoking gun, or as Jones says, the "loaded gun"? This is your defense of made up lies about the time of impact? You know how broad "force protection" is, or why it might be sensitive? Can you drop your paranoid conspiracy theories for a second and see why teaming up with CIT and Honegger is essentially apologizing for terrorists and teaming up with anti-government, anti-intellectual nuts on 911?

The explosion at the Pentagon, was the impact of Flight 77. If it was a bomb, people would be dead due to blast effects; none reported. In a bomb blast you don't report flames, you are dead from the blast. In a bomb blast there are blast effects, not a kinetic energy damaged Pentagon. Good luck with your conspiracy buddies, Honegger and CIT. Better check out Balsamo special pilot for truth math, all 11.2gs of it. Your tendency to believe in conspiracy theories is being used by Balsamo to sell DVD filled with nonsense.

 

[dadeets]

I read the whole thing, it supports the impact of Flight 77 when you take in all the reality based evidence. (like RADAR, FDR, DNA, and more)

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.

 

[carlitos]

Deets,

You missed the memo on CIT. They are now no longer endorsed by ae911truth. It took Gage 18 months to figure it out though, so I'm guessing it will take you about 10 years.

LINK from Screw Loose Change blog.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

...

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

 

[beachnut]

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.

The FDR is hard evidence of 77. It has over 24 hours of flights from the airframe which was 77 on 911. I have worked with the NTSB before, and they are not evil guys, and you know that.

A true critical thinker can see the FDR is real. I am an engineer and worked at AFWAL, the FDR is real, the data is correct, you are wrong.

The federal government is our government, we can change it by voting. Do you vote, or make up failed claims about 911?

The DNA is true, you can't refute it.
The RADAR is true, you can't refute it, you have not presented evidence.
The FDR is correct, you can't refute it.

You calling the Navy liars? They ran oversight on the DNA; you know why? Any clue on this one?

Talk is not evidence, you present trash talk, anti-government paranoid lies, and you worked at NASA. Now you are spreading false information based on you our anti-government views. Kind of big time biased tripe.


Wait; you are from NASA, paid by the government, an executive branch of the government, are you spreading false information to make 911 truth look dumber?

 

[Reheat]

These items should not be considered "reality-based" evidence, or what I would more simply call hard evidence.

The FDR is not hard evidence, in that no positive identification of the alleged airplane, AA 77 (N644AA), has been provided.

A true critical thinker would be cautious when using information stemming from this compromised data set.

Caution should be extended to other items of so called evidence emanating from this same source, which in this case is the federal government.

That means as well, the radar data and DNA reports should not be considered hard evidence, but viewed with a degree of caution.

Thank-you for your opinion. My 5 year old nephew thinks there are boogers under his bed at night and wants to keep a night light on. We mostly humor him. Quite frankly, based on your postings here, you have equal credibility regarding your boogers as he does his.