Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[beachnut]

...
These are strange detours that are clearly visible using publicly available news data. The hijackers were not the greatest pilots, but they could surely read a compass, front and center on the plane's dash board. Critical Thinkers should welcome a New Investigation, if nothing else but to validate the OCT.

...

No detours, just failed news sources and nuts on 911 issues. Nuts, like crazy people, not the kind on trees. Don't trust the news, they make errors. "In God We Trust All Others We Monitor" did your drill instructor fail to give you advice?

The funny part of your post is the compass stuff. Dr Griscom points to the ADI, not the HSI. It is funny he has no clue where the compass is as he makes up delusions.
http://cas.fossmart.net/767_tech/flight_instruments/eadi.htm
http://www.meriweather.com/767/center/adi.html
http://cas.fossmart.net/767_tech/flight_instruments/ehsi.htm
http://www.meriweather.com/767/center/hsi_capt.html

It is funny seeing a PhD fail as he spews BS made up out of ignorance. You have presented more CTs from nuts on 911. Good job finding woo.

Critical thinkers would see Griscom made a mistake. Critical thinkers see the call for a new investigating is due to the ignorance of the person calling for it.

 

[beachnut]

Must not. It is from USA Today, a main stream news source. They show a U turn was made. See the link provided in my other post.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/images/flash.swf

Dewey was president.? Good for you, trusting the media and not checking the facts. Did you get through basic training? This is a skeptic forum, you posted errors from USA Today. You are not exercising critical thinking if you accept what you find without checking it.

Then we need a New Investigation to correct the Official Report.
Do you have a URL for the source data for the diagram?
While you look for that, I'll look for the USA Today source data.
It is good critical thinking to check source data.

Wrong, the official report is the graphic I posted, and other NTSB reports. You used news source nonsense that was wrong, mislead by a PhD who prefers fantasy he makes up. I used RADAR source data, you used an invalid new source; critical thinking?

PilotsFor911Truth.org points out that the FDR was always in the hands of a potential suspect of the crime, and appears to have been manipulated.

p4t are morons who have no evidence, anti-government nuts with leader truth-NAZI Balsamo threating to kill those who do not agree with him; Balsamo is a dumbed down version of McVeigh who sells DVD filled with moronic claptrap.

Not my claim, USA Today. OK. I'll be happy to look at the factual evidence. Please send the URL. It should be used for a New Investigation or 9/11.

I posted the data, a critical thinker can find the data. It has been posted. USA Today made no claims, they say 19 terrorists did 911, you and the PhD of woo made or posted failed claims.

Sir, Yes Sir!

You failed to support Griscom's claims with facts.

How many "nuts" can get 193 papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae/index.htm#PUBLICATIONS

Griscom has moronic delusions on 911, you posted the link to his failed claims on 911. It does not matter if his papers are valid, his claims on 911 are nonsense.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Responses to NoahFence

Please refer to post #132 and give me your thoughts. Please.

Thank you for asking so nicely, a good example for JREF. I am up early to hopefully answer all your questions.

it seems to me that you think an airplane hit the Pentagon AND one flew over?

I believe only ONE plane was within a mile of the Pentagon. I am in a quandary, seeing strong evidence for a North of Citgo approach, but weak evidence of a Fly Over.

As HAL 9000 said: "I'm sorry Dave. I do not have enough information." That's why I'm reading JREF, to get more info and challenge my assumptions.

1 striking it, and another flying over?

From the evidence I have evaluated so far, there was only 1 plane that was within a mile of Pentagon - not a 2nd plane, and not a missile.

In your opinion why did the pilot of the C130 asked to tail AA flight 77 not mention a 2nd plane, or a drone, or anything other than AA flight 77?

Because there was only the 1 plane, identified as AA Flight 77 that got to the Pentagon. If anyone saw a 2nd or 3rd plane farther away from the Pentagon, it would have been the C130 or the so-called "mystery plane" the white E-4B mentioned by main stream news plus Discovery.

If there were 2 aircraft as you suggest, wouldn't he have mentioned that?

Although there were 3 in the general area Washington DC, only 1 was actually close enough to hit the Pentagon. We deserve to see a photo of it, which probably exists, considering the 85 security cameras the FBI confiscated.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t14873.html

shall I just add you to the list starting with ergo of truthers who selectively ignore people?

No, please don't put me on the Last Responder list. I try to answer as time permits, and especially not ignore people who ask nicely.

If people don't respond to us soon it may be:
* Something came up in their personal or work responsibilities
* They didn't like the verbal abuse, and just ignore us
* They are composing and researching a well supported response
* They realize we are right and now agree with us

 

[beachnut]

... Note that Flight 11 leaves Boston, gets hijacked, then heads straight NORTH WEST towards Griffiss Air Force Base in Upstate New York. Hey, wrong way Muhammed! Then Flight 11 turns abruptly south to NYC to crash in to WTC 1. ...

Not the truth! Flight 11 took off and about 12 minutes after take off 11 was vectored right 20 degrees by ATC. The truth is ATC vectored 11 twenty degree right, the pilots turned the aircraft and then were killed, never talking to ATC again, dead, killed by terrorists. You failed to research your false statement, your wrong-way is a vector and very close to the great circle route to SFO - gee was 11 planing on going to SFO? Any clue on this?

911 truth is void of flight knowledge - beware!

What does "turns abruptly south mean"? What bank angle was used? Are you saying this to make it sound suspicious, or what? If you were trying to hit the WTC which direction would you turn?

Why do you post false statements?

Flight 11 turned right due to ATC. The vector was within 10 degree or so of a great circle route to SFO; and if 11 had not been taken over by murderers, ATC would have cleared 11 INS direct, or resume direct, or resume flight plan. I only have an ATP, the PhD for pilots, but you have PhD moon rock nut on 911. You win, and have the most woo.

What does Griffiss Air Force Base have to do with the moronic claims of Dr Griscom? 11 turns to the WTC complex over 60 miles from Griffiss AFB. What was the point Griscom was trying to make? http://davidgriscom.com/New911Hypothesis More nonsense and fantasy.

Dr Griscom does not appear to be a critical thinker; you have chosen poorly when it comes to picking experts on 911.

A typical paper of Griscom, "Trapped-electron centers in pure and doped glassy silica: A review and synthesis,” does not appear to help Griscom understand what I have done as a profession since 73, fly. Is Griscom teasing 911 truth, or is he nuts on 911? Why did he go crazy? Why is his research so shoddy and shallow? Poor Dave.

 

[BCR]

Tell that to the 9/11 Commission. You include a graphic that has an incomplete route, then expect your other arguments to be taken on faith?

.....

Flight 77 was lost on radar near Yeager Airport in Charleston WV, with a runway 6302 feet in length, serving both AA and UA. I am not claiming it swapped planes there, only that this needs to be checked out.

No, they said it was lost to ZID radar screens, not to radar. Get it straight. And it has been 'checked out' by a team of independent professionals. Working as part of that team, I did indeed visit Charleston, WV and Yeager. But the plane was lost closer to Huntington's Tri-State (which I visited as well).

So, please do your homework.

 

[Andy_Ross]

PilotsFor911Truth.org points out that the FDR was always in the hands of a potential suspect of the crime, and appears to have been manipulated.

Not my claim, USA Today. OK. I'll be happy to look at the factual evidence. Please send the URL. It should be used for a New Investigation or 9/11.

You were given evidence and claimed it was manipulated by a 'potential suspect'

Brilliant.

 

[Oystein]

...
As HAL 9000 said: "I'm sorry Dave. I do not have enough information." That's why I'm reading JREF, to get more info and challenge my assumptions conclusion.
...

FTFY.

I see you are still looking for reasons that would support your conclusion.
Since you apparently haven't found any such reason yet, don't you think it would be reasonable to just drop your conclusion for the time being, and maybe follow a different path? Like take the reasons (evidence) that you already have and chisel out a different, better conclusion?

 

[TruthersLie]

Then we need a New Investigation to correct the Official Report.
Do you have a URL for the source data for the diagram?
While you look for that, I'll look for the USA Today source data.
It is good critical thinking to check source data.

Not at all. You need to find actual sources and read them. How is that one on the PUT orders coming? Have you figured out where you were wrong about that?

Or about the LIE you told about the towers/wtc7 being Steel and concrete buildings?

PilotsFor911Truth.org points out that the FDR was always in the hands of a potential suspect of the crime, and appears to have been manipulated.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted...

How big is this conspiracy you keep on peddling again? FBI, CIA, NSA, SEC... who next?

How many "nuts" can get a PhD in Physics from an Ivy League university, head a department at the Naval Research Laboratory, be picked by NASA from thousands of scientists who wanted to study the Moon rocks, Program Manager at DARPA, be a Fulbright Fellow, be the Honoree of a scientific conference, and 193 papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
http://DavidGriscom.com/vitae

Argument from authority rejected. Unless he has the experience in building collapses, structural engineering he is out of his element.

Again. When will your 1400ish "architectural and engineering professionals" manage to get a single peer reviewed engineering journal article published in any real journal, in any lanaguage?

Still waiting.

 

[TruthersLie]

Although there were 3 in the general area Washington DC, only 1 was actually close enough to hit the Pentagon. We deserve to see a photo of it, which probably exists, considering the 85 security cameras the FBI confiscated.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t14873.html

as has been stated to you repeatedly you are reporting TRUTHERLIES. There were not 85 security cameras which were confiscated. There were 85 videos which belong to citizens which the FBI took to see what they contained. Only a handful had ANY video of ANYTHING striking the pentagon.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

It isn't hard to actually do some REAL RESEARCH instead of spewing the same debunked crap from infoworld/twoof websites.

Like with the PUT orders (how is that reading coming along anyways? Your ignorance of finance is staggering)
How about the "missing 2.3 trillion" twoof lie you keep on spewing? (your ignorance of accounting practices is staggering)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

what else?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

PilotsFor911Truth.org points out that the FDR was always in the hands of a potential suspect of the crime, and appears to have been manipulated.

Only after they tried to present it as proof of a flyover and had to be informed by "debunkers" that the altitude hadn't been properly corrected. Once it was corrected, it showed an impact and they began claiming it had been faked.

If they were so concerned about whose hands the FDR had always been in, why were they so eager to present it as proof of their claim at the time?

 

[TJM]

How many "nuts" can get a PhD in Physics from an Ivy League university, head a department at the Naval Research Laboratory, be picked by NASA from thousands of scientists who wanted to study the Moon rocks, Program Manager at DARPA, be a Fulbright Fellow, be the Honoree of a scientific conference, and 193 papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals?

At least one, apparently.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Flight 11 was bound for LAX not SFO

Not the truth! Flight 11 took off and about 12 minutes after take off 11 was vectored right 20 degrees by ATC.

You are an Air Transport Pilot, so I respect your knowledge about flights. I posted a link to the news report and graphic made by USA Today, a main stream news source. Similar descriptions and graphics are found in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. So if all these news outlets are wrong, and you have proof, you are welcome to let them know. You could edit Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

was 11 planing on going to SFO? Any clue on this?

You made a good point that a 20 degree right turn would makes sense go towards SFO. But, Flight 11 was bound for Los Angeles, not San Francisco.

Now, if I made this mistake you would probably be hounding all over me "What! Fly much? Clueless! etc." But I'm not like that, and just want facts.

Wikipedia: "The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking began at 8:14." This is about a minute after ATC instructed them to turn, as you provided.

8:19 Betty Ong reports "The cockpit is not answering..." (Did she not see any hijackers go in?)

At 8:26:30 Flight 11 makes a 100 degree turn to the south, according to the NTSB Report, Page 3.
http://www3.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path_ Study_AA11.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

The airplane maintained this altitude and the Northwest heading until about 8:26:30 (point E). At this point, the airplane made a level, left turn to the South.​

The continuation of the NORTH west path for 10 to 12 minutes is suspicious because Atta should have known that NYC is SOUTH west and turned at 8:14, or at least within a few minutes of the hijacking. He then would have another 10 minutes or so to get back south. This detour wasted time, exposing the flight to intercept.

11 turns to the WTC complex over 60 miles from Griffiss AFB. What was the point Griscom was trying to make?

Dr. Griscom hypothesizes that a drone met and replaced Flight 11 near Amsterdam NY, about 64 miles from Griffiss. It is a common War Game tactic for 2 or more planes to fly close, to appear as 1 radar blip to the other side.

Hypothesis means it is a theory, not a claim as fact. It is yet one more thing for a New Investigation to check out. The OCT is a hypothesis.

You well know this, but here is a graphic for non-pilots to see that the compass and heading indicator is easy for the pilot to see.

 

[NoahFence]

Dr. Griscom hypothesizes that a drone met and replaced Flight 11 near Amsterdam NY, about 64 miles from Griffiss. It is a common War Game tactic for 2 or more planes to fly close, to appear as 1 radar blip to the other side.

And the other 3 aircraft? Were they replaced by drones as well?

 

[WildCat]

The obvious absence of a crashed Boing 757. Now the timestamp, Oystein.

You mean except for all that airplane debris scattered all over the lawn?

 

[twinstead]

absence of a crashed Boing 757? Seriously? Jesus, CE, at least have the guts to admit the wreckage and other evidence was there, even if to keep your fantasy alive you have to claim it was planted.

 

[waypastvne]

You well know this, but here is a graphic for non-pilots to see that the compass and heading indicator is easy for the pilot to see. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d98cd6f13bfd.jpg[/qimg]

Thats the artificial horizon. Try again.

 

[BCR]

You made a good point that a 20 degree right turn would makes sense go towards SFO. But, Flight 11 was bound for Los Angeles, not San Francisco.

Here is the AAL11 flight plan and radar track (RIV). Thought it might help the discussion.

Dr. Griscom hypothesizes that a drone met and replaced Flight 11 near Amsterdam NY, about 64 miles from Griffiss. It is a common War Game tactic for 2 or more planes to fly close, to appear as 1 radar blip to the other side.

The only problem with your hypothesis is that the 'drone' would have to merge with the radar track at some point. Prior to that it has its own radar profile. There is no evidence of that in the ARSR or ASR data from the area, so throw that one in the garbage can.

 

[carlitos]

Dr. Griscom hypothesizes fantasizes

Fixed that for you.

 

[BCR]

Because there was only the 1 plane, identified as AA Flight 77 that got to the Pentagon. If anyone saw a 2nd or 3rd plane farther away from the Pentagon, it would have been the C130 or the so-called "mystery plane" the white E-4B mentioned by main stream news plus Discovery.

I literally helped to write the book on the 'mystery plane' and you can scrap that hypothesis too. Not even close.

Although there were 3 in the general area Washington DC, only 1 was actually close enough to hit the Pentagon. We deserve to see a photo of it, which probably exists, considering the 85 security cameras the FBI confiscated.

Why do you keep spreading this lie?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Huntington's Tri-State and Charleston's Yeager Airports

No, they said it was lost to ZID (Indianapolis) radar screens, not to radar.
I did indeed visit Charleston, WV and Yeager. But the plane was lost closer to Huntington's Tri-State (which I visited as well).

You are right. HTS is about 60 miles west of CRW/Yeager.¹ One of its two runways is 7017 feet.²
I'll email this to Dr. Griscom, so he can consider it in the next revision of his hypotheses.³
"Huntington Tri-State Airport handles commercial airline, air cargo, military, and general aviation traffic." They presently serve Delta, Allegiant, and US Airways.^4
1 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...482,-82.017059&spn=0.813528,1.174164&t=h&z=10
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Airport
³ http://DavidGriscom.com/New911Hypothesis
⁴ http://TriStateAirport.com