NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[The Big Dog]

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.

Ten years? That is generous. He still thinks that a bomb in the Pentagon caused the clock in the Helipad Control Tower to stop six minutes before the plane crashed, and at the same time relies upon the testimony of Sean Boger who was in the Helipad control tower and watched the plane impact the building. Hmm, cognitive dissonance much?

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Deets, When confronted with hard evidence you cannot refute you poison the well. Unless you can proove the evidence was fabricated, it stands. I find it amusing that when PFT and you thought the FDR data supported a flyover, It was good enough for you to use to show as evidence of conspiracy. The other logical fallacy you are committing is the one of demanding impossible perfection. We all know it was flight 77 which plowed into the Pentagon, The radar data supports it, The DNA of the passengers on site supports it, The wreckage supports it. Yet you attempt to hand wave it off because a serial number cannot be provided to a collection of incompetent grounded pilots and a weak minded retired "engineer".

 

[DGM]

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

So as a critical thinker (I assume you think you are) how do you justify all the accounts of responders, ATC, crew that planted the poles and plane debris, people that had to see these crews <insert the hundreds of others> that according to you have to be lies?

NWO get to them all?

 

[Reheat]

So as a critical thinker (I assume you think you are) how do you justify all the accounts of responders, ATC, crew that planted the poles and plane debris, people that had to see these crews <insert the hundreds of others> that according to you have to be lies?

NWO get to them all?

Not only those, but he's included dozens if not well into the hundreds more who were "in on it". That includes folks from all of the different Radar Sites that tracked AA 77, as well as the uniformed folks at 84th RADES. All of the both uniformed and civilian Doctors, Dentists, Pathologists, and lab technicians at the Defense Institude of Pathology who examined and certified the DNA. In addition, dozens from the NTSB, FBI, the First Responders, and the Army Units from Fort Meade who helped clean up the mess. I've probably omitted some, but this is enough to illustrate the point.

These accusations are coming from a person who is very likely still on the Federal Government payroll. Yet, he does what most toofers do; post tripe on Internet sites and apparently expects rational people to trust his credibility. Ha!

 

[Josarhus]

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)

My comments on #6 and Barbara Honegger:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150423

 

[leftysergeant]

Cheap Skilkraft clocks don't stand up well to shock. The minute hand tends to drop when jarred hard enough.

I don't know what kind of watch Gallop was wearing, but a shoick sufficient to break it would probably breat her arm, too.

We know for a fact that the damage inside the building was not caused by a bomb inside. Only those windows in the path of the incoming aircraft were broken out, and there is no mention anywhere of broken glass on the lawn.

Aslo, that the damage occurs in a funnel-shped pattern with the narrowest point innward is proof that the explosion occurred in the wall that the aircraft hit. All the visible damage to that wall is of a crushing sort. The damage occurs along two slanting lines.

Aint an explosive charge in the world that would do that. No soldier with any applicable training would see anything else. I have the training, Honneger, Gallop and Kwiatkowski do not.

Don't quote Stubblebine. He obviously never did have all his headbolts torqued right. His psychic program and his divorce papers show that.

 

[pgimeno]

Thanks, Josarhus, that leaves one of the stories perfectly clear. Interesting point raised by Gravy in that thread too:

Honegger also omits, um, the necessary testimony of the thousands of people who would have noticed the enormous explosion nearly six minutes before the actual impact. Radar data, FDR data, video data, radio calls, and calls for aid, establish within seconds or fractions of a second the time of the impact. Nothing to see here but unadulterated lunacy.

 

[dadeets]

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.

I'm well aware of Gage's retraction of his endorsement.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he applied the same level of objective reasoning to this question of the strength and credibility of witnesses as he has done to the WTC highrise buildings.

 

[DGM]

I'm well aware of Gage's retraction of his endorsement.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he applied the same level of objective reasoning to this question of the strength and credibility of witnesses as he has done to the WTC highrise buildings.

Do you plan to publicly try to change his mind on this?

 

[dadeets]

Aslo, that the damage occurs in a funnel-shped pattern with the narrowest point innward is proof that the explosion occurred in the wall that the aircraft hit.

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

 

[beachnut]

I'm well aware of Gage's retraction of his endorsement.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he applied the same level of objective reasoning to this question of the strength and credibility of witnesses as he has done to the WTC highrise buildings.

You are right, Gage is a fraud, it does not matter he dropped the dope smoking idiots at CIT; too high to think rationally CIT call everyone in the government liars. Is NASA part of the government? Are you blaming your government for doing 911? Are you saying your fellow government workers faked 77 crash?

You are trying to spread lies using other people false information, you should try using physics instead of lies.

Gage tells lies and begs for money, he earned 70k last year by spreading delusions on 911.

 

[dadeets]

Do you plan to publicly try to change his mind on this?

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

 

[The Big Dog]

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

Uh, no, Dwain. That is wrong, that is not what she claims at all. Are you sure you know what you are talking about??

In fact her commentary about the damage to the C ring is just another example of where she disagrees/contradicts CIT.

You are not very good at this whole truth thing, are you?

 

[DGM]

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

Pressure? I thought you guys were the united front for truth. Who would be pressuring him if you're all for truth? Is there different versions of truth?

 

[The Big Dog]

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

Technical case??? What the Sam hell?

Dwain, CIT prides themselves on not bothering with the technical merits of their fantasy theory. Hell their bank, descent, pull up and over theory is "technically" impossible

 

[WildCat]

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

Why would you reference Honegger if it's from the WaPo? Shouldn't you cite the date and issue of the WaPo it was in, so others coulod confirm?

 

[tsig]

At this point in time, no. It's pretty clear to me an awful lot of pressure was applied to get him to retract his endorsement. Therefore, I don't think he will publicly change his position back again, no matter how strong a technical case is presented to him.

Dr. Gage, Dr Gage, you're wanted under the bus.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/11/know-your-conspiracies.html
12. 9/11 was an inside job.
The truthers, holdovers from the Bush days, just won't go away. They argue that the physics of the World Trade Center collapse doesn't add up, and that the attacks were an excuse for the U.S. to launch wars abroad and enrich defense contractors. Either the government planned and executed them or it knew they were coming and turned a blind eye.
Proponents:Alex Jones, retired religion professor David Ray Griffin, Reagan administration policy analyst Barbara Honegger, British journalist Robert Fisk.
Kernel of Truth? Not even the staunchest mainstream George W. Bush bashers believe this one. Enough said.

Barbara Honegger identified as a proponent with no truth. Reading her work, she has nothing to support her claims, save ignorance and failed opinions.

 

[dadeets]

Uh, no, Dwain. That is wrong, that is not what she claims at all. Are you sure you know what you are talking about??

Yes, I'm sure as far as the 3 holes.

Now, as to what caused the holes. I didn't go into her views on that, but lets just say it wasn't from an impactor air-vehicle.

In fact her commentary about the damage to the C ring is just another example of where she disagrees/contradicts CIT.

How can this contradict CIT? The North side witnesses don't say anything about the hole(s) in the C RING. If there is a difference of opinion between Honegger and CIT on C-RING hole, it can't be a very significant difference.

 

[R.Mackey]

You may not be aware of this leftysergeant, but the "pointed end" of your funnel-shaped pattern was not a single "exit" hole in the C RING. It was three identical 9' diameter holes spaced along the C RING wall. The Washington Post published a graphic immediately after (maybe the next day) indicating where each of the three holes were, showing them with color-coded dots.

(This information available in Barbra Honegger's "The Pentagon Attack Papers.")

This is wrong. There was only one hole into AE Drive.

Reference, Pentagon Building Performance Report, ASCE. Read it here.

This is not a subjective matter. You are simply telling lies -- very obvious ones.