NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Oystein]

...
Witnesses (1) -- A dozen testify to a path inconsistant with the damage path
Witnesses (2) -- Dozens say they saw the plane hit the building (not proof)

Wait a second - are you saying that you believe (1) as evidence, but don't believe (2) as evidence? When (1) is only a (one) dozend witnesses (around12 individuals), and (2) is dozens (plural) of witnesses (that is, at least twice as many, potentially as much as 10 times as many)? Oh and what is easier to get right for a non-expert witness - get the flight path right for a moving plane up in the sky, or get the crash (or no crash) location right for a plane in a building on the ground - both with reference to said building? Honest answer, Mr. Deeds?

Parts from plane litter the site -- Maybe, but how about the engines?

Engines were found.
However, suppose engines were not found then what about the other parts? Do you mean to wish them away?

Passengers' DNA is found inside -- But chain of evidence questionable

Can you please point out to a crime that was resolved based on DNA evidence where you DO have a chain of evidence that you personally don't find questionable?
Or to put it in a different way: Why do you doubt this particiluar DNA evidence, if not based on your personal, foregone conclusions? Do you mean to imply that those people who published the results of the DNA testing are in on it? Or who is? Please enumerate the possibilities, and count the minimum number of implicated persons!

And the big ones -- how could a novice pilot fly that precise maneuver?

It wasn't a precise maneuver. It was in fact a very wobbly, imprecise maneuver. Hanjour only had to hit the Pentagon somewhere, anywhere. His target was about 70 feet high and 1500 feet wide, it doesn't take a precise maneuver to hit such a huge target, but because Hanjour was such a mediocre pilot, he came in too high, had to circle aroubd to cook off altitude, and still nearly managed to fail.

Every novice pilot could do this sloppy job, it is dead easy.

Where was the Nation's air defense?

If you ever researched that question, you wouldn't have to ask, but would already know:
All 4 (+1 additional) fighters that were on alert in the entire north-east were already airborne: 2 were on CAP in NYC, and 2 were looking out for other suspected hijacks.
All the rest of the air defence was in the process of getting fighters ready. If you knew the first thing about air base operations, you'd know that hot weapons are under lock and key away from the planes, and that it takes more than the 35 between realizing that more than one plane was used for an attack and the Pentagon crash.

This is all so very 2006. You listen to the wrong people, Mr. Deeds. You haven't taken in the necessary information yet, although it is old. Please do your research before spewing nonsense. It doesn't become you or your reputation well.

 

[dadeets]

Wrong, positive ID. NTSB has positive proof. You are spreading nonsense. YOu have no evidene.

1. NTSB has positive proof? -- reference please.
2. The last modification to the data inside the FDR happened
approximately four hours before it was found at the Pentagon which was
many hours after the alleged crash of AA77 at the Pentagon.
3. This indicates tampering of the FDR at some time between the
alleged crash time at the Pentagon.

 

[dadeets]

False, RADAR stops because if impact. Tracked by multiple independant RADAR sites. People saw 77 impact the exact same time it was on RADAR. Oops.

1. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact when airplane was heading westward in eastern Ohio.
2. There was never a re-radar identification of any target flying anywhere as being AA77. Re-identification of a fast moving target eastward bound as AA77 was simply an assumption.

 

[dadeets]

Wrong all those people testify it was the plane that hit the Pentagon an they are all pointing south. To the real flight path. Oops.

All those people (the ones identifying a plane on the north path) testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them. There is no question, the plane was on a path that couldn't have caused the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon.

That these same people believed the plane hit the Pentagon is to be expected, in the same way that audiences believe they see what the magician plans that they will think they see.

 

[dadeets]

Engines were found, in parts. Darn, I have photos used in court. Why don't you?

No identification part numbers. No serial numbers. Nothing to positively connect the scant number of airplane parts with any particular airplane. This includes the FDR.

 

[dadeets]

NORAD does not intercept hijacked planes before 911 over the USA. You should study this one before exposing your lack of knowledge and shoddy research.

These planes should have been treated as inflight emergencies, not hijacked planes. All indicators were they were inflight emergencies:

1. Loss of radio contact
2. Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval
3. Loss of transponder

Thus, NORAD should have responded in the way it always had responded for inflight emergencies, the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911. The same way our air defenses have responded on average over 60 times per year prior to June 2001, when a new scramble protocol was instituted. (BTW, that new protocol was revoked late in the morning of 9/11/2001.)

Whereas:

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

 

[The Big Dog]

All those people (the ones identifying a plane on the north path) testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them. There is no question, the plane was on a path that couldn't have caused the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon.

That these same people believed the plane hit the Pentagon is to be expected, in the same way that audiences believe they see what the magician plans that they will think they see.

What does testify "most importantly" even mean? Where the plane was compared with their surroundings? Seriously?

Further, many on the CIT witnesses were NORTH of the flightpath, Morin and Paik could not even see the CITGO, Boger was in the freaking building . Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them." It seems it flew closest to him when it hit the building he was in, right? Well, Dwain, it looks like you solved the whole shooting match right there, huh?

Also, humans (having evolved on the grasslands of Africa) are horrendously bad at three dimensional analysis of things in the sky.

Anyway, why should we believe you anymore, because you agree with Pickering, CIT and Hoenigger, each of whom contradict one another?

 

[Disbelief]

No identification part numbers. No serial numbers. Nothing to positively connect the scant number of airplane parts with any particular airplane. This includes the FDR.

Have you ever worked aircraft maintenance? Where are the serial numbers for every part for every plane recorded? Who updates the records when the parts are changed after a failure? Can you show me one of these for a current A/C?

 

[dadeets]

Boger was in the freaking building . Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them."

Boger was in an excellent position to view the plane coming over the Navy Annex, and where it flew relative to Citgo. He very definitely testified it flew over the north part of the Annex, which puts it solidly on the North path.

In even a better place to view the flight over the east face of the Navy Annex were Darrell Stafford, Darlus Prather, William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks. They all place the plane solidly on the North-of-Citgo path.

 

[The Big Dog]

Boger was in an excellent position to view the plane coming over the Navy Annex, and where it flew relative to Citgo. He very definitely testified it flew over the north part of the Annex, which puts it solidly on the North path.

In even a better place to view the flight over the east face of the Navy Annex were Darrell Stafford, Darlus Prather, William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks. They all place the plane solidly on the North-of-Citgo path.

And It even puts him in a better position to tell that the freaking plane hit the Pentagon, right Dwain?

By the way, he was also North of the Flight Path. Just like Stafford and Prather, who testified that the plane flew south of them, without reference to CITGO. I am stunned that you don't understand the significance of this. I am also stunned that you don't understand that each of those peoples testimony about the bank angle of the plane destroys your CIT pals idiotic theory.

LaGasse? You mean the guy who ripped Pickering a new one?

Dwain the fact that you cherry pick evidence, and have only the dimest understanding of what you are claiming is disturbing.

 

[TruthersLie]

These planes should have been treated as inflight emergencies, not hijacked planes. All indicators were they were inflight emergencies:

1. Loss of radio contact
2. Diverting off of an assigned routing or altitude without ATC approval
3. Loss of transponder

Thus, NORAD should have responded in the way it always had responded for inflight emergencies, the same way first responders do when an emergency is called in to 911. The same way our air defenses have responded on average over 60 times per year prior to June 2001, when a new scramble protocol was instituted. (BTW, that new protocol was revoked late in the morning of 9/11/2001.)

Whereas:

None of the four planes issued the transponder hijack code. (This means, none of the eight pilots (captains and first officers) issued the hijack alert they have been trained to issue in such circumstances.

OMG... 10 minute get intercepts...

Just a simple question for you. How long did it take for the jets to intercept payne Stewards jet? (I'll give you the answer 88 minutes).

where did those 60 times per year since june 2001 (you watched loose change but never looked up the claim) happen? Over the continental US? (the answer is no they didn't... they happened at the edge of the US airspace... most of them in ALASKA)

 

[dadeets]

Boger said it hit the building, and therefore he "testify most importantly to that which they can see best, where the plane was compared to the surroundings when it flew closest to them."

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

 

[carlitos]

By the same logic, he is not in a position to testify about nano-leprechauns. Since in real life a plane full of passengers crashed into the Pentagon, though, maybe it's better to focus on that, eh?

 

[The Big Dog]

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

Yeah, CIT called him a liar too. We've heard that before. It is garbage like this that makes you No Planers at the Pentagon the laughingstock of the truth movement.

Do you do any thinking for yourself, or just cherrypick the bull **** of some of the most incompetent people on the planet?

 

[dadeets]

OMG... 10 minute get intercepts...

Just a simple question for you. How long did it take for the jets to intercept payne Stewards jet? (I'll give you the answer 88 minutes).

where did those 60 times per year since june 2001 (you watched loose change but never looked up the claim) happen? Over the continental US? (the answer is no they didn't... they happened at the edge of the US airspace... most of them in ALASKA)

I admit, I haven't looked into the 67 times per year numbers. But, there were two big differences in those statistics which I will call NORMAL, as compared with the June 2001 protocol. Those under NORMAL protocol could be approved at the local center (in the field, so to speak) and received priority status if they were an in-flight emergency. (All were, for the past 10 years.) Those under the June 2001 protocol had to go to NORAD for approval. There were NONE other than the four "hijack" instances on 9/11/2001, and they went on a first-come-first-served basis.

 

[DGM]

Boger was diving for cover. Although in a building (the control tower) just in front of the Pentagon, he was not in a position to distinguish between an explosion due to placed explosives, and an explosion due to an airplane impacting the Pentagon.

Why don't we compromise. Let's throw out all the witnesses that described the plane hitting the building and discuss the rest?


Is that OK?

 

[dadeets]

Why don't we compromise. Let's throw out all the witnesses that described the plane hitting the building and discuss the rest?

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

 

[DGM]

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

Why would you want to throw out a "part of" a testimony? How do you decide what is correct?

As far as the "9:32 AM" part, let's focus on one thing at a time. OK?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hardly a compromise. Let's, instead, throw out the part of each witnesses' statement describing a plane hitting the building, and discuss the rest.

Or, maybe another alternative is to throw out all statements about hitting the building that were NOT around 9:32 AM when the clocks stopped.

lulz.

Including the clock that stopped in the Traffic Control Tower where Boger was standing? Or are you suggesting that Boger completely missed the huge explosion that stopped the clock yet was perfectly positioned to see the plane fly North of Citgo before he dove down and created his lie about the plane hitting the building?

I've already explained that you can't have both Barbara Hoenigger's stupid clock theory and CIT's stupid NoC theory, what part of this are you having trouble grasping? Dwain, you really are something else....

Hilarious!

 

[dadeets]

Why would you want to throw out a "part of" a testimony? How do you decide what is correct?

"Set aside" would be a better term than "throw out." Why set aside? Because it brings clarity to analyze this as a two step problem.

(1) What path did the airplane fly relative to Citgo?

(2) What happened at the Pentagon?

When we get to the second step, then the "set aside" testimony can be brought in, together with the path of the airplane determined in step (1), the physical damage in front of and inside the Pentagon, and any evidence of inside explosions. Also the lack of physical damage in front of the Pentagon along the path of the airplane.