NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Oystein]

...
...Some of the issues that come to my mind:

1. Probably would have pilot alerts going off (audio warnings, blinking lights, etc.), causing distractions to the pilot. This creates a higher workload, increasing the likelihood of getting behind in the primary task of hitting the building. If the pilot gets behind, the deviations from some nominal flight path become larger, and the need to correct the deviations become more time critical.

2. The need to correct deviations is where the increased closure rate, and need for faster reaction times is where I would expect the greatest problems.

3. Since the plane is flying well beyond the design limits, I wonder at the primary control surfaces power actuators ability to respond to the pilot’s more abrupt commands (which would be coming if the deviations from nominal became quite large.) Can the hinge moments possibly demanded by the pilot’s commands be met by the power actuators (which were designed under the assumption the plane would not be flown that far beyond its design limits.)

4. Is there what traditionally has been called a pilot induced oscillation (PIO) possibility? This is where the pilot’s commands, usually to correct a deviation, couple with the airplane such that the airplane at first seems slow in responding, but then overshoots. The pilot then commands in the opposite direction which becomes out of sync, and an oscillation grows in amplitude, with the pilot inadvertently driving it. This can happen even to an experienced pilot when well outside the design envelope, in that the flight condition would not have been anticipated by the control system and airframe designers.

...

A lot depends on how precisely the targets were intended to be struck. I believe the precision desired was much greater than apparently you believe. We can’t resolve that easily, since it deals with intent.

Dadeets,

while I agree that all the points you raise may jeapordize the task the hijacker-pilots set out to accomplish, you word them all in speculative terms. if we were looking at the problem ex ante, your objections certainly would carry some weight and convince me to apply cautious values when assessing the terrorists' chances of hitting the towers with oversped planes.
However, we are looking at the problem from an ex-post point of view, where all probability terms must be factored with a Baysean term expressing the fact that the towers were indeed hit by oversped planes. If, ex ante, the chance of missing the towers was, say, 99%, that chance drops considerably if ex post we already know that the towers were hit and not missed. Then suddenly, the however slim ex ante probabilities don't matter anymore. My father once won the lottery jackpot. It was, ex ante, exceedingly unlikely. But he did win - and that fact does not allow you to conclude that he somehow cheated, because the probability of winning the lottery jackpot is 100%, if you already know that you won it.

You may still wonder, but face it: The identity of the planes is in no serious doubt, and way too many people knew too well the technical shape these planes were in. At the end of 9/11, there were four planes in the service of US-based airlines unaccounted for. You have the airlines, Boeing, the NTSB, the insurances, the FBI, the FAA, the air force, caterers, mechanics, plane spotters, the relatives of passengers and crew all agreeing that indeed the people and material lost on 4 commercial flights that day coincide with witness sightings, DNA readings and debris parts found in the rubble of 4 terrorist attacks.

No matter how unlikely the maneuvers, they were done. You'd have to show they are absolutely impossible to make a case. But you can't and don't do that. You are dealing in felt probabilities, rules of thumb and speculation.

 

[The Big Dog]

MR. Deets:

I would like to give you the opportunity to respond to your detractors in the Truth Movement regarding your opinion that No Plane crashed into the Pentagon, which was recently featured on Jesse Ventura's television show.

For example, on 911 Blogger, we find the following comment:

"The Pentagon no planers have been straightened out six ways from Sunday for years now. This is an exercise in repetition. You are aware of these challenges as most are. This episode is a circus of ridiculous misinformation. It's incoherent, rambling conspiracy porn of the worst kind, and does extreme injustice to 9/11 Truth. The IDEA that a missile was involved, is something not even CIT accepts as credible. It's utter delusional crackpottery. Dwain Deets?? He got it handed to him in debate on this site. He knows next to nothing about the Pentagon. Rob "Tends towards planes at the WTC" Balsamo??

....

There was no missile. There was no flyover. A plane hit the Pentagon. The witnesses weren't 'fooled', the Pentagon no planers were. The passengers are dead, and they died at the Pentagon.

The answers to no planer's questions are all over 911blogger. To no avail."

Thank you in advance.

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

Grasping at straws is a favorite hobby of the typical bureaucrat.
It is unbecoming of an engineer.

A lot of issues come to mind. Therefore, I wouldn’t automatically expect it to be an easy piloting task.

No one's "automatic" expectation has any interest whatsoever.
One's thoughtful conclusions might be of interest.

Of course, in the following litany, you give precisely zero conclusions.
You Just Ask Question.

And, as soon as one applies a bit of thought, they are revealed to be irrelevant questions.

Your characterization of the task, “hitting a building with an aircraft” makes it sound much easier than it probably is.

Nope.

1. Put the building directly in front of you.
2. Keep it there.
3. No step 3.

There is no other piloting task, that I'm aware of, that is easier.

Most importantly, it is not just “an aircraft,” it is an aircraft flying considerably faster than its design speed (maximum dive velocity). Some of the issues that come to my mind:

1. Probably would have pilot alerts going off (audio warnings, blinking lights, etc.), causing distractions to the pilot. This creates a higher workload, increasing the likelihood of getting behind in the primary task of hitting the building. If the pilot gets behind, the deviations from some nominal flight path become larger, and the need to correct the deviations become more time critical.

"Impending death" (especially when intentional & planned) has a way of focusing one's attention.

Alarms create a higher workload ONLY if you are trying to figure them out & correct the situation. Which is useful if a pilot wants to land the plane safely & keep his job.

These considerations, as well as the "increased workload" argument, become irrelevant for a suicide pilot.

2. The need to correct deviations is where the increased closure rate, and need for faster reaction times is where I would expect the greatest problems.

And if the deviations are kept to a minimum by the absolutely trivial technique of keeping the buildings stationary in front of you, then this consideration becomes irrelevant.

3. Since the plane is flying well beyond the design limits, I wonder at the primary control surfaces power actuators ability to respond to the pilot’s more abrupt commands (which would be coming if the deviations from nominal became quite large.) Can the hinge moments possibly demanded by the pilot’s commands be met by the power actuators (which were designed under the assumption the plane would not be flown that far beyond its design limits.)

There was zero problem with the actuators providing all the authority required.

This is proven, with zero doubt, by the fact that AA175 banked left & pulled elevator pitch to correct a slight drift to the right. No problem with the control actuators.

Your baseless speculation is proven wrong by simple examination of the evidence.

4. Is there what traditionally has been called a pilot induced oscillation (PIO) possibility? This is where the pilot’s commands, usually to correct a deviation, couple with the airplane such that the airplane at first seems slow in responding, but then overshoots. The pilot then commands in the opposite direction which becomes out of sync, and an oscillation grows in amplitude, with the pilot inadvertently driving it. This can happen even to an experienced pilot when well outside the design envelope, in that the flight condition would not have been anticipated by the control system and airframe designers.

Your evidence for a PIO is nonexistent.
The evidence against a PIO is conclusive: about 100 crystal clear video recordings of a non-oscillating plane on final approach to the south tower.

Your argument speculative, baseless Grasp at Straws is irrelevant.

Flight training simulators are often not able to reproduce all the factors that bring out these conditions, such as those leading to PIO. The further beyond the design envelop, the less likely the effort has been put in to validate the simulator at the extremes.

I flew the F/A-18 Hornet WTT (Weapons & Tactics Trainer) simulator up at Lemoore NAS just about the time of its first deployment. There was a noticeable PIO on short final in trapped landing configuration.

One of the instructor pilots explained that this was a real PIO, that existed in the planes, that the simulator accurately reproduced. And that it had been eliminated in the latest block of planes by a control chip update. But the update hadn't yet been incorporated in the simulator's F18 chip.

Simulators have no problem replicating PIOs. (Granted this one was within the planes flight envelope.)

But PIOs are irrelevant.

The proof that a PIO is your baseless red herring is 100 videos of a non-oscillating Ft. 175 as it approached the towers.

Why do you bring up this nonsense?

A lot depends on how precisely the targets were intended to be struck. I believe the precision desired was much greater than apparently you believe. We can’t resolve that easily, since it deals with intent.

Nonsense.

AA11 hit dead center.
AA175 hit off center. With LESS precision.

The building that AA175 hit (off center) collapsed quicker than the virtually identical building that AA11 hit (dead center), in part precisely BECAUSE AA175 hit it OFF center. (Higher speed & lower impact point also played a part.)

But the lack of precision increased the damage.

What level of precision was required again?

 

[dadeets]

I would like to give you the opportunity to respond to your detractors in the Truth Movement regarding your opinion that No Plane crashed into the Pentagon, which was recently featured on Jesse Ventura's television show.

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

2. The CIT NoC witnesses do not provide information on the time of day. However their testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible on that point. The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles. Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path couldn’t have caused that damage. I have heard one explanation that the plane struck the Pentagon at a different angle than the damage path, with not much damage, thus the damage that was there along the lengthy path was staged. (That has a major problem in that the light poles along that path were not stuck). This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon.

3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

4. In any case, the official story relative to the Pentagon is not credible.

 

[apathoid]

All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

That's certainly a new twist.

Have you watched the Judicial Watch videos(2) of the impact? I sure saw no big explosion beforehand. Care to cite the time stamp that this happens? Thanks in advance.

As to the flyover, which I believe is the one of the most insane theories I've ever heard - where are they eyewitness accounts describing it? Perhaps you can cite them for us? A multitude of eyewitnesses describe an impact; do you see the problem here? You can't cite certain eyewitnesses(assuming you do provide some) and then ignore the vast majority. It's dishonest and it reeks of confirmation bias.

Now aside from NOC witnesses, there has to be some physical evidence which you feel strongly about which supports a flyover. Perhaps you could start off by telling us why the aircraft went below radar in the area of the Pentagon and never reappeared? Tell us how passenger DNA and 757 specific parts got into and around the Pentagon. Go back and look at the Judicial Watch videos I alluded to. You can see rather large pieces of debris land after the impact, they weren't planted. How do you explain this?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

2. The CIT NoC witnesses do not provide information on the time of day. However their testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible on that point. The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles. Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path couldn’t have caused that damage. I have heard one explanation that the plane struck the Pentagon at a different angle than the damage path, with not much damage, thus the damage that was there along the lengthy path was staged. (That has a major problem in that the light poles along that path were not stuck). This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon.

3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

4. In any case, the official story relative to the Pentagon is not credible.

One has a tendency to doubt someone who claims something is corroborated yet fails to provide the corroboration. What evidence do you have to support this?

The pre-strike hole in the Pentagon is certainly a new one. Do you find it odd that your NoC witnesses also did not mention the hole in the Pentagon? I mean, Sean Boger, for one, was actually in the Pentagon, you'd have thought he's have noticed it, right?

 

[triforcharity]

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

Then WHY does April claim in her 2007 lawsuit against American Airlines that the injuries she received were from the AIRPLANE? Then, in 2008, she changes her story. Maybe you can help explain this. How is it both? Did she lie in 2007, or in 2008.

2. The CIT NoC witnesses do not provide information on the time of day. However their testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible on that point. The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles. Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path couldn’t have caused that damage. I have heard one explanation that the plane struck the Pentagon at a different angle than the damage path, with not much damage, thus the damage that was there along the lengthy path was staged. (That has a major problem in that the light poles along that path were not stuck). This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Why do ALL of CIT's eyewitnesses terminate their "flight path lines" at the EXACT spot that the plane impacted, and NONE of them say it flew over? HUmmmm....interesting, isn't it?

3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

LOL!!! Funny!!

4. In any case, the official story relative to the Pentagon is not credible.

Ok. You go right ahead with that. As my Nana would say when someone does/says something really stupid. "Bless your heart..." (Southern drawl included)

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time.

Wrong.
Your evidence for this absurd claim, please.

A hole in the face opened at that time,

No. It did not.
Your evidence for this absurd claim, please.

… and April Gallop, for one walked out.

No. She did not.
She walked out of the one & only hole in the Pentagon: the one created by UA77.

An explosion inside is independently corroborated.

Evidence please.

2. The CIT NoC witnesses do not provide information on the time of day.

Each & every one of the CIT witnesses' statements prove 2 things:
1. the plane that they all saw, with zero doubt, struck the Pentagon.
2. no extremely low flying plane pulled up at the last moment & flew over the Pentagon (They did see Lt. Col. O'Brien's C130 circle over the building at moderate altitude.)

Why are you calling this distinguished officer a liar?

However their testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible on that point.

No, they aren't.
There is zero proof that any plane flew on the NoC path.
There are LITERALLY tons of evidence that it flew the "official path".

Your idea of "credible" is incredible.

The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles.

True. Thanks for proving that the plane was really on the "official" path.

Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path couldn’t have caused that damage.

Nope. There was only one plane that impacted.
There was only one explosion.
There was only one flight path.
We know, with zero doubt, that the one plane that impacted was on the "official" flight path.
There was no plane available to be on any other flight path. Including the NoC flight path.

QED.

I have heard one explanation that the plane struck the Pentagon at a different angle than the damage path, with not much damage, thus the damage that was there along the lengthy path was staged. (That has a major problem in that the light poles along that path were not stuck). This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE

Why are you calling Lt. Col. O'Brien a liar.
Is it your intention to be as arrogant, as ignorant & as buffoonish as Mr. Fetzer, or is this an accidental artifact of an inability to sort out simple facts?

3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

Option B: Your story about "a preexisting hole in the side of a burning Pentagon is ludicrous.

Just thought you should acknowledge an alternative narrative.

Thank you for providing this bunch of nonsense.
It provides very valuable calibration on your (woeful) reasoning & epistemological abilities.

 

[beachnut]

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time. A hole in the face opened at that time, and April Gallop, for one walked out. An explosion inside is independently corroborated. ...

This is false information based on zero evidence because there is no evidence.

...
2. The CIT NoC witnesses do not provide information on the time of day. However their testimonies of a plane flying on the NoC light path are highly credible on that point. The NoC flight path was not in alignment with the path of damage inside the Pentagon, nor the path of the five downed light poles. Thus, the airplane on the NoC flight path could’t have caused that damage. I have heard one explanation that the plane struck the Pentagon at a different angle than the damage path, with not much damage, thus the damage that was there along the lengthy path was staged. (That has a major problem in that the light poles along that path were not stuck). This leaves only one remaining possibility; the plane flew over the Pentagon. ...

Oops, passenger DNA found in the Pentagon and the FDR. The funniest part, all the NoC witness point to the SoC flight path on CIT videos. Directionally challenged CIT failed to make a case. Another reality based evidence has flight 77 impacting the Pentagon, and the FDR shows the final course and refutes the made up non-flight path of CIT. The flight path found in the FDR is exactly the course where the lampposts were knocked down, and witnesses by people. Even the CIT witnesses say Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. Oops, should have asked them before believing CIT.

...
3. All of the witnesses who say they saw an airplane strike the Pentagon either are not credible because they didn’t mention that the Pentagon was already on fire with a hole in the side, or, they saw an air-vehicle strike the Pentagon that was earlier than the airplane reported on in the official story.

...

The Pentagon was not on fire, that is a lie. Who made up this nonsense? Where is your evidence to support this nonsense?

...4. In any case, the official story relative to the Pentagon is not credible.

In any case the Official Stoy of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon is backed up with reality based evidence: RADAR, DNA, FDR and all witnesses when interpreted by TRAINED aircraft accident investigators. CIT make up delusional lies and some people believe them out of ignorance and failure to use reality based evidence.

 

[dadeets]

dadeets quote:

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time.

Mr. Deets,



Wrong.
Your evidence for this absurd claim, please.

Source #1: Ms. April Gallop

Former US Army Executive Administrative Assistant with Top Security Clearance

Location: First floor in the west section of the Pentagon.

Statement (paraphrased*): ‘When I turned on my computer the place blew up. I heard a huge boom which sounded like a bomb - then another - and flames shot out of my computer. The same thing happened to my co-workers. There were flames coming out of all the computers. The walls crumbled, the ceiling fell and I was knocked unconscious.’

Time: Just after 9:30 AM. Ms. Gallop explains how she knows: ‘My watch stopped. I’ve kept it all these years in a safe deposit box. And there were some Pentagon clocks from the area where the bombs went off that stopped just after 9:30 as well – one of them was on display in the Smithsonian Museum.’

Source #2: Mr. Robert Andrews

Former Green Beret – CIA Liaison to the White House and Department of Defense (on 9/11/01, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations)

Location: In the Counterterrorism Center (near where Ms. Gallop was located).

Statement (paraphrased**): ‘Some kind of huge explosion [occurred] - ceiling tiles began falling and smoke started to fill the room.’

Time: ‘I looked at my watch and it said 9:35 – but it was probably closer to 9:32 because I keep it set ahead a bit so I can get to meetings on time.’

* single quotes indicates paraphrase from testimony taken under oath and videotaped by Barbara Honegger, and documented in “The Pentagon Attack Papers (Updated Nov 2010)” by Honegger. [This version of “The Pentagon Attack Papers” will be published as an appendix in The Terror Conspiracy (Second Ed.) by Jim Marrs.]

** single quotes indicates paraphrase of interview of Mr. Andrews by Barbara Honegger, also documented by Honegger (ibid.)

 

[Sabretooth]

Mr. Deets: Your argument for April Gallop is a complete waste of time. She is nothing but a sue-happy, money-grabbing liar. If you had taken any amount of time to bother researching her beyond a single CT source, you would know this already. Simple type her name into a Google search and you'll see what I mean. This guy at the ATS forums has a rather comprehensive post with facts and evidence to show the Ms. Gallop is a sham.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread424507/pg1

At this point, using Ms. Gallop to further any argument toward "explosions" prior to the impact of FL77 at the Pentagon is just a big joke.

 

[beachnut]

dadeets quote:

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time.

Oh? Were the watches set by the official time, US Naval Observatory Master Clock Time? No, you are basing your false information on time set by humans, and testomoney after a jet fuel fire ball blasted though the Pentagon from Flight 77. If Ms. Gallop has been in an explosion 6 minutes before 77 impacted, then when 77 did impact she would be dead. Since she was only in one explosion, the kinetic energy impact and jet fuel fireball from 77, your opinion is wrong.

Checking with CSI, they concluded you got nothing Mr Deets. Based on clocks in this castle, is it 9:30, 9:35, or close to 9:36? What time is it?

Did you find proof Ms Gallop and Mr Andrews set their clocks so they are not late in the morning. Look it is 9:30, let me turn on my computer since I am "ON TIME" at 9:30, not late at 9:36! I feel better I am early and not late for work! Do Ms Gallop and Mr Andrews then set their clocks forward so they can feel good about going home early? Looks like you may of discovered fraud in the work place, or the fact these people have no clue what the correct time is. That is all you have, nothing.

Source #1: Ms. April Gallop

Former US Army Executive Administrative Assistant with Top Security Clearance

Location: First floor in the west section of the Pentagon.

...
Time: Just after 9:30 AM. Ms. Gallop explains how she knows: ‘My watch stopped. I’ve kept it all these years in a safe deposit box. And there were some Pentagon clocks from the area where the bombs went off that stopped just after 9:30 as well – one of them was on display in the Smithsonian Museum.’

Clocks set by humans. It was just after 9:30! BTW, 9:37 is just after 9:30, and what here watch stopped at means nothing since it was not investigated and we know here injuries were from Flight 77 kinetic energy impact. What is your purpose making up false information about explosions based on humans setting clocks?

It is good your number 1 source is Ms Gallop! She has a tack record on issues like this.

"Judge Chin has just dismissed the Gallop case. He said that the allegations are frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion. "

Her allegations were found by a Judge to be frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion. You picked a witness worthy of your claims. You want to guess what the Judge will say about your allegations?

Ms. Gallop had a Top Secret clearance allegedly, so did I, BIG DEAL; not.
Was Ms Gallop knocked out?

Source #2: Mr. Robert Andrews

Former Green Beret – CIA Liaison to the White House and Department of Defense (on 9/11/01, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations)

Location: In the Counterterrorism Center (near where Ms. Gallop was located).

Statement (paraphrased**): ‘Some kind of huge explosion [occurred] - ceiling tiles began falling and smoke started to fill the room.’

Time: ‘I looked at my watch and it said 9:35 – but it was probably closer to 9:32 because I keep it set ahead a bit so I can get to meetings on time.’

This guy sets his watch set to the wrong time? He tells us he sets it to the wrong time. It looks like if he was right about reading his watch, he might of set it the wrong direction! LOL, this is great, your number 2 source for time sets his watch to the WRONG time. Wow.

The FDR has 9:37:48 at impact time for 77. Based on your false explosion, the Pentagon should have been evacuated in 6 minutes and no one would die from 77's impact. Big hole in your claim using watches and clocks set by people and some set wrong on purpose.

What do you think a kinetic energy impact of a 181,520 pound aircraft going over 800 feet per second would be reported as when it has the kinetic energy equal to 1200 pounds of TNT? An explosion is the proper answer. Where did the fire Ms Gallop saw come from? JET FUEL, BINGO

If explosives had gone off and done the damage in Ms. Gallop's office, she would be dead. The kinetic energy impact does much damage, but unlike an explosive there is no supersonic blast which turns your brain to mush.

Based on real investigations, all the damage at the Pentagon was caused by Flight 77's impact and fires. Those are the facts and they have not been refuted. You presented evidence for people who set watches and clocks wrong, and verified Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon after 9:30. Excellent work.

 

[The Big Dog]

dadeets quote:

* single quotes indicates paraphrase from testimony taken under oath and videotaped by Barbara Honegger, and documented in “The Pentagon Attack Papers (Updated Nov 2010)” by Honegger. [This version of “The Pentagon Attack Papers” will be published as an appendix in The Terror Conspiracy (Second Ed.) by Jim Marrs.]

** single quotes indicates paraphrase of interview of Mr. Andrews by Barbara Honegger, also documented by Honegger (ibid.)

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?

 

[triforcharity]

dadeets quote:

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time.




Source #1: Ms. April Gallop

Former US Army Executive Administrative Assistant with Top Security Clearance

Location: First floor in the west section of the Pentagon.

Statement (paraphrased*): ‘When I turned on my computer the place blew up. I heard a huge boom which sounded like a bomb - then another - and flames shot out of my computer. The same thing happened to my co-workers. There were flames coming out of all the computers. The walls crumbled, the ceiling fell and I was knocked unconscious.’

Time: Just after 9:30 AM. Ms. Gallop explains how she knows: ‘My watch stopped. I’ve kept it all these years in a safe deposit box. And there were some Pentagon clocks from the area where the bombs went off that stopped just after 9:30 as well – one of them was on display in the Smithsonian Museum.’

You mean the same Ms. April Gallop that successfully sued American Airlines for injuries sustained on September 11th, 2001?

THAT April Gallop?

 

[shure]

I can't believe...

I can't believe I'm posting here, but Mr. Deets admitted to me in our conversation that he had not looked into the Pentagon. A few months later he is presented on Jesse Ventura's fraudulent show as an experert telling Jesse What happened at the pentagon.

He also admitted that the speed of UA175 wasn't impossible!

I'd post a link to the conversation, but can't post links here. Knowing you people from past experience I'm shure you'll be able to find it if you want to hear what Deets had to say.




.

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

1. There was an explosion (or two) inside the Pentagon about 6 minutes before the “official” plane-strike time.

There are two possible interpretations of your (intentionally) nebulous statement.

1. There is some discrepancy about the actual time of impact.
2. There were multiple explosions, and the jet impact was NOT the first one.

Re: discrepant times.

The first "objection" is irrelevant. To any rational person, there is no significant difference whether the impact happened at 9:30 or 9:37?

The discrepancy is explained in its entirety by an old proverb: "A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."

With (my guess) approximately 50,000 clocks in the Pentagon (between wrist watches & wall, desk & computer clocks), it is an absolute certainty that there were clocks that were incorrect by seconds, minutes & even hours.

The "correct" time of the impact was supplied by clocks that were automatically sync'ed to NIST atomic clocks, such as GPS systems. All manually set clocks & watches were wrong by some small (or not so small) amounts.

A 6 minute error in a clock's setting is a surprise only to children & fools.
__

Re: multiple explosions.

You have strongly implied that you believe that there were two (or more) explosions "about 6 minutes before the 'official' plane strike time."

This possibility is zero.

Based on the distance from the impact site, there was a continuum of awareness of the impact (i.e., the one & only "explosion") from "knocked unconscious" to "thrown around" to "terrified" to "startled" to "heard something" to "didn't hear a thing" that was experienced by the ~25,000 people working in the Pentagon that day.

The number of eyewitness (earwitness?) reports that would have been recorded if two massive explosions had really happened 6 minutes apart = thousands.

The number of reports from people who were NOT knocked senseless who heard multiple massive explosions separated by 6 minutes = ZERO.

Clear, unambiguous conclusion from the evidence = there was one, and only one, massive explosion. Not two. Not three.
___

The percent of reports from people who were not knocked senseless and reported the strong smell of jet fuel IMMEDIATELY after the "first (& only) explosion" = virtually all of them.

Clear, unambiguous conclusion from the evidence = the explosion & the jet fuel arrived simultaneously.
___

Source #1: Ms. April Gallop

Former US Army Executive Administrative Assistant with Top Security Clearance

Location: First floor in the west section of the Pentagon.

Statement (paraphrased*): ‘When I turned on my computer the place blew up. I heard a huge boom which sounded like a bomb - then another - and flames shot out of my computer. The same thing happened to my co-workers. There were flames coming out of all the computers. The walls crumbled, the ceiling fell and I was knocked unconscious.’

"huge boom which sounded like a bomb": almost all "huge booms" are described as "sounding like bombs". Including car crashes, building collapses, avalanches, sonic booms, and bombs.

"… then another": the plane & its debris did not come to an instantaneous halt.

"… flames coming out of all the computers.": simply wrong. There was nothing that generated flames in the computers or monitors.

Time: Just after 9:30 AM. Ms. Gallop explains how she knows: ‘My watch stopped. I’ve kept it all these years in a safe deposit box. And there were some Pentagon clocks from the area where the bombs went off that stopped just after 9:30 as well – one of them was on display in the Smithsonian Museum.’

"… just after 9:30."

Is 9:37 "just after 9:30"?

It is to me.

Source #2: Mr. Robert Andrews

Former Green Beret – CIA Liaison to the White House and Department of Defense (on 9/11/01, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations)

Location: In the Counterterrorism Center (near where Ms. Gallop was located).

Statement (paraphrased**): ‘Some kind of huge explosion [occurred] - ceiling tiles began falling and smoke started to fill the room.’

Time: ‘I looked at my watch and it said 9:35 – but it was probably closer to 9:32 because I keep it set ahead a bit so I can get to meetings on time.’

How many "huge explosions" does Mr. Andrews report? One.
So much for your "multiple explosions" nonsense.

I believe that Mr. Andrews is an honest, honorable man. I believe that this is his exact memory.

What silly person would suggest that only dishonest or dishonorable people have less-than-perfect memories? Especially in the midst of an extreme event, such as, say, a jet plane crashing very nearby.

So, the honest & honorable Mr. Andrews believes that the event happened at approximately 9:32, and GPS linked, atomic clock synched data states that the event happened at 9:37.

There is no mystery here. The honest & honorable Mr. Andrews is off by a few minutes in his recollection of an extreme event. For any one of 100 possible reasons.
___

Once again, thank you for providing unequivocal proof that you are utterly incompetent at the task of objectively analyzing the simplest possible situation.

It helps bring the rest of your "observations & conclusions" into stark, sad focus.

tfk

PS. In this thread, I've asked you about 100 very specific questions. You've ignored about 90% of those questions.

In this one post, I asked you to expand on 13 separate points. You commented on one.

Why are you so evasive?

 

[The Big Dog]

I can't believe I'm posting here, but Mr. Deets admitted to me in our conversation that he had not looked into the Pentagon. A few months later he is presented on Jesse Ventura's fraudulent show as an experert telling Jesse What happened at the pentagon.

He also admitted that the speed of UA175 wasn't impossible!

I'd post a link to the conversation, but can't post links here. Knowing you people from past experience I'm shure you'll be able to find it if you want to hear what Deets had to say.



.

Here is the link that was mentioned above.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/1/

 

[dadeets]

Oh? Were the watches set by the official time, US Naval Observatory Master Clock Time? No, you are basing your false information on time set by humans, and testomoney after a jet fuel fire ball blasted though the Pentagon from Flight 77. If Ms. Gallop has been in an explosion 6 minutes before 77 impacted, then when 77 did impact she would be dead. Since she was only in one explosion, the kinetic energy impact and jet fuel fireball from 77, your opinion is wrong.

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)

 

[beachnut]

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

... )

You posted proof a bunch of people have no clue what time Flight 77 impacted because their clocks were set wrong or moved during a massive kinetic energy event equal in energy to 1600 pounds of TNT. Bet the explosion sounds were exactly what you get when a 757 crashes into the Pentagon; want to bet? I will bet all your money on it.

RADAR data, from mulitple sources, have an estimated time of 13:37:52, why are all the clocks in your "evidence" not set to Universal Standard Time? Can you prove any of the limited set of clocks and personal watches you have presented were set to the correct time on 911? NO (reality based engineers answer questions and don't make up nonsnese about events, esspecially when lives were lost)

Multiple independent RADAR sites confirm estimated impact time at 13:37:52, FDR verifies this time. More then 5 independent time sources from locations and devices known to be set to the proper time, verifiable, unlike your sources.

The time keeping devices you present, are not set to the right time or the hands moved during impact. That is a fact, since they are wrong. Proved wrong by real time of impact.


Oh noes, the Hotel video has 9:34:12 for impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeTdrQhqyc And this was evidence for? Better get working on refuting the DNA and FDR; all found in the Pentagon scattered around the true track of 61.2 degrees. 19 terrorist did the complex plot of taking 4 aircraft and hitting large buildings, or crashing when being attacked. Terrorists 75 percent, and your clock and watch evidence means people don't set their watch to the correct time, even the hotel video was set wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

So, you still haven't figured out how many clock could be off by a few minutes? Hell, my watch is 10 minutes fast ever other month, and have to correct it.

It must be a conspiracy.