View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Film Reveals Smoking Gun in Pentagon Crash, MUST SEE!

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Sep 2009, 02:35

A great article about the film "National Security Alert":

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voi ... show-monst

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information
August 30th, 2009 7:42 AM Print

PRLog

Image
Witness flight path vs official flight path

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie"

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

"There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government's story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day," Ranke explains. "The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both."

"We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place", says Marquis of the project's genesis. "We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw."


NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT from Citizen Investigation Team on Vimeo.

When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers.

"To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path."

It wasn't just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however.

"We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion", says Marquis. "We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation."

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that "criminal elements within the U.S. government" were complicit in the attacks.

"If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you," reads a note on the front page of their website, CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. "We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did."

Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind it.

Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements on the CitizenInvestigationTeam.com website includes praise from a wide array of distinguished and well-respected Americans.

Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild, Ed Asner, calls the film a "reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th".

Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film "successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77's flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon".

"If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001", says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo.

Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is "pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm", while scholar, author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves "that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet."

Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says "The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11".

Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a coalition of over 700 professional architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade Center 7), calls the film "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and says that it "deserves serious attention".

Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National Security Alert "the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time" and "a must see for every citizen in our country".

"Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril", warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303 combat missions.

The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at here.

National Security Alert can be viewed for free online here.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Sep 2009, 02:51

soldiergirl wrote:Scecop,

Why don't you show a little respect on this date. Is it that hard for you to be respectful to people who have lost loved ones and to those still making sacrafices in Iraq and Afghanistan.



You've got things backward. YOU are the ones not honoring the victims by trying to suppress the truth about them and a proper investigation. The 9/11 Truth movement was STARTED by the victim's families. You forget that.

Some of the first responders are slowly dying cause they were lied to. Don't you even care? Where is your respect for that? Where is your outrage that the EPA's lie cost so many lives?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Sep 2009, 02:55

Nostradamus,
So where is your explanation for why Sgt. Lassee swears 100 percent that he saw the flight path on the North side, which directly contradicts the official story?

Simply saying "he's mistaken" doesn't debunk that. His story has remained consistent since 2001.

Hamlyn,
Why did you have a prejudice against Truthers before? Isn't their hard evidence what really matters and what you should look at, rather than dismissing them?

Have you heard of the "thermite" evidence? It's hard evidence and been in two scientific journals.

I invite you to see this film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" and post your feedback on here. It's the best one and contains hard evidence and smoking guns. 800 architects and engineers have already endorsed it. That should tell you something.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6903609314
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Sep 2009, 02:59

Hamlyn,
If the official 9/11 story were "obviously true" as Nostradamus (who by the way is making slanderous statements when he accuses Gage of being a fraud without proof) and faith based believers think, then can you explain why so many professional structural engineers doubt and challenge it?

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Danny Jowenko - Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

* Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com



Ali Mojahid, BS CE, MS CE, PhD Civil and Architectural Engineering, PE, SI - Licensed Professional Engineer, States of Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Licensed Special Inspector / Threshold Inspector, State of Florida. Licensed Building Inspector, Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). Extensive experience in structural design, structural analysis and structural building elements combined actions under severe weather, torsional loads, windloads for numerous projects including sport arenas, airport concourse and cargo buildings, hotels, condominiums, high-end residential and commercial buildings. Extensive forensic engineering experience on numerous projects after hurricanes Andrew, Charlie, Frances, and Katrina. Over 20 years of experience as a structural and forensic engineer.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Just another conspiracy against some groups of people for the US administration to beat the war drums. How can a building just collapse onto itself without having controlled explosions inside the building?

Let me ask a few questions pertaining to if it was not a controlled demolition.

Most of high-rises are designed such that the lower frame members take most of the loads of the building above them. So as we go down on any building the frame members get stiffer and bulkier. So what happened in WTC? The lower frame members were not taking the loads of building above them or what. Secondly the designs normally carries an F.S of 1.44-2.5 depending on the material used, meaning the members will not yield under 1.44-2.5 times the loads it is designed for. What happened here...can the government explain?

The high-rise when properly designed have a lateral stability and are braced properly which redistribute the loads if some members even fail.

In this case , from the videos of crash we have seen, it is clear that the airplanes hit one side of the tower, which could have caused serious damage to structural members, The member forces must have been redistributed unless the plastic yield point was reached and the members gave in. Again then since the accident was a non-symmetrical, so the top portion of WTC must show leaning on the weak side before collapse. Which is not the case.

A building never collapses like this under this phenomenon. Even a finite element method analysis of the building collapse does not show that the building will collapse within few minutes of such a catastrophe.

The building must have been designed to take the lateral sway forces of wind and redistribute the loads to other members, so why did it not happen in the case of this accident?

Seeing various video footage make me think that the controlled demolition started from top to bottom, as if it would have started from bottom, the building collapse pattern would be different than the current." http://www.ae911truth.org



William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE - Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. Worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nation's largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years.

* Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. http://www.vermontguardian.com


* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"About a year ago I became aware of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers at free-fall speed. Professor Steven Jones' video lecture was a stunning revelation and a wake-up call. My experience and further research confirmed the uncomfortable facts as presented by Professor Jones.

I also found it disturbing that most politicians seem to have little interest in exploring any theory other than the official jetliners / fires-caused-the-collapses theory. I was told the following in a response letter from one of our representatives in Washington: "Regarding conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, a number of theories questioning the events that occurred on and before September 11, 2001 have circulated. They are patently false. Several videos have been posted on the internet on this subject, and they too are false."... "The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group of nationally respected individuals, evaluated all relevant testimony and documents related to the events and provided a detailed account of what actually happened on that fateful morning." However, this "nationally respected" 9/11 Commission failed to include some very important facts and testimonies in their report even though they had to have been aware of them. For example, the 9/11 Commission Report completely omitted the unprecedented collapse of Building 7.

Many of the facts and theories that engineers have learned in such courses as structures, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc., have held true for longer than the hundred-year history of structural-steel-framed high-rise buildings and they held true on 9/11/01. Only controlled demolition could have provided the types of building collapses displayed three times on that fateful day." http://www.ae911truth.org



Hans De Jonge - Mechanical engineer (diploma 1966), structural engineer and civil engineer concrete and steel (diploma 1972). 20 years experience as a structural engineer. Currently adviser and technical controller on a house-building project.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"In January 1970 I visited the Twin Towers under construction as a student structural engineering and was impressed by the sophisticated design and the new (for me) building philosophy of the huge inner columns and the outside steel frame leaving an enormous office space without any column on every floor. The impact of one airplane cannot damage this large structure very much because the support is instantly re-arranged to the undamaged support system. The total collapse is therefore technically impossible." http://www.ae911truth.org



Mathew T. Stackpole, B.Arch - Architectural Consultant. Over ten years experience with much experience in structural analysis and building integrity studies.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I have been pondering for several years how the buildings could have fallen in the manner they did, given an explosion so far from the foundations of the building, I find it hard to believe the given explanations. How does jet fuel leak down the cavities of the building all the way to the footings of these building to provide such a clean free fall. If a truck hits a house, it may fall to the ground, however portions of it will remain splintered and fragmented, however not obliterated......." http://www.ae911truth.org



Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE - Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?" http://www.ae911truth.org



Joseph Testa, BS CE, PE - Former Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation, State of New York. Former Licensed Professional Engineer, State of New York. Experienced with Highway Design, Drainage Design, Pedestrian access Design, Metals Engineering and Structural Steel Quality Assurance. Provided quality assurance for structural steel used in New York State bridges, and analyzing and designing repairs for deteriorated and otherwise damaged metal bridges.

* Comment 2/6/06: " I've worked in structural steel for years and I've studied major structural collapses. I don't believe the collapse witnessed was possible due to the planes and ensuing fires alone. I don't believe the core verticals would have buckled as they apparently did, unless first taken out from below. I don't claim to know who might have been responsible, but a preponderance of eyewitness testimony supports secondary [explosive] devices.

IMO, nobody knows what really happened, despite countless claims of certainty on both sides of the aisle. ...

Ideally, we need to see an accurate scale model, or at the minimum, an accurate detailed computer simulation & recreation to show that such a complete instantaneous failure of the central vertical columns is even possible." http://www.dailykos.com


* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"The speed at which the buildings fell implied that the central cores provided virtually no vertical resistance at any point during the collapses. When the live television commenter stated that there must have been tons of explosives on site to cause such a collapse, I found myself in agreement and assumed it would all come out during the investigation.

Combined with the reports of "molten metal", inexplicably high temperatures recorded even by satellite, rapid removal and destruction of the structural evidence, the finding of tiny fragments of human bone thrown laterally from the structures, the missing pentagon trillions on 9/10; I am very concerned about the kind of world we are leaving to the next generations. 9/11 and the ensuing cover up is a big part of that concern." http://www.ae911truth.org



David Scott, AMICE, CEng, MIStructE - Consulting Structural Engineer. Founding director of a structural and architectural design practice in Perthshire, Scotland. 20 years experience in building design.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode. Lack of aircraft debris at Pentagon site leaves official story in tatters." http://www.ae911truth.org



Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE - Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho. Experience ranges from custom residential to heavy industrial structures. Major project involvements include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million project for the U.S. Air Force; structural design engineer for a 41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a 550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Member, American Concrete Institute (ACI). Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). Professional Member, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 39 years experience.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. "If" you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and "if" you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures. " http://www.ae911truth.org



Dennis J. Kollar, PE - Structural Engineer. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Wisconsin.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today." http://www.ae911truth.org



David C. Avina, BS ME - Project Construction Manager. 15 years of heavy utility and industrial construction experience. 5 years of operations experience. 10 years of project engineer experience in the construction of large utility power plants and industrial process facilities. Experienced with all phases of construction practices and procedures from demolition, civil, structural, mechanical electrical controls, and through startup and commissioning.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"Based upon the analysis of the telecast video reports, interviews of on site personnel and witness testimony, including that of the building lease holder and also those other reports provided by independent engineering observations, I am of the firm understanding that the collapse of the World Trade buildings 1, 2, and 7 were not caused by a plane impact, nor was this collapse caused by a fire from the fuel from the alleged plane impacts." http://www.ae911truth.org



Erwin De Jong, MS Mechanical and Structural Eng - Aerospace and Structural Engineer.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: "From a technical point of view it is not explainable that a steel structure sinks down into its own footprint with obviously no resistance after intense fires or even a plane crash." http://www.ae911truth.org



Edward S. Munyak, BS ME, MS Eng. Mgmt., PE – Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer, State of California. 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities. Member, Board of Directors, Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Currently Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, CA, 10th largest city in the U.S.

* Presentation at the 2007 National Fire Protection Association World Fire Safety Conference "High Rise Buildings and Large Fires - Structural loads & thermal strain - What can happen" 6/4/07:

"We will find that the government investigations into building collapse [at the World Trade Center] must consider controlled demolition as far more probable since fire effects collapse could never be duplicated. ...

- The concentric nearly freefall speed exhibited by each building was identical to most controlled demolitions.

- The aircraft impact and fire severity effects were magnified in the NIST reports.

- Collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were not caused by fire effects. ...

The NIST fire results proved that the fire loading in WTC was consistent with all building code assumptions and that the steel frame temperatures were not even close to the critical temperature of steel 593 degree Centigrade. Analysis also showed that the fire in WTC 2 [South Tower] was almost under control and running out of fuel when it suddenly and totally failed in less than one hour. Analysis further shows that the fire was oxygen starved hence not nearly at hot as other high rise fires. The official reports and conclusions had many technical distortions and obfuscations of the excellent research input in arriving at a flawed, politically driven conclusion of building performance."


* Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.


* Presentation to the Northern California - Nevada Chapter, Society of Fire Protection Engineers 4/21/06: "A steel frame building with the mass of WTC 1 or 2 could have partial structural collapse after aircraft impact only if the heat output was at least 100 times the heat release rate of the accountable fuel load and ventilation conditions in the south tower.

This fire would need to involve every floor from impact floor to the roof with most windows broken and providing plenty of oxygen as in the Edificio Windsor fire in Madrid.

This most severe fire would need to burn for at least 12 hours before loss of strength from heat; and thermal strains from expansion and contraction caused partial collapse." http://www.ncnsfpe.org


* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I have collaborated with a research chemical engineer (P.E. in CA also) and he has worked with NIST reports that positively show that the jet fuel contributed very little to the duration of the fires and that in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke. If you dig deeper into the NIST reports they confirm that steel temperatures were low.

I presented for continuing education credits at the NFPA World Safety Conference in Boston, MA 6/4/2007. My presentation showed that all three WTC "collapses" have no resemblance to any previous high rise fire, full scale fire tests in the UK involving much higher steel temperatures, or computer simulations using finite element analysis. " http://www.ae911truth.org



Mikos S. Fabersunne, BS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of California. Hazardous Substances Engineer with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (oversight of seismic hazard study of industrial wastewater treatment plant; design of piping system; construction oversight, database development). Formerly Mechanical Engineer with the California Energy Commission. Over 25 years as Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The nearly free-fall velocity and the symmetrical path of collapse of Building 7, the confined footprint of the building's debris, the lack of any external force applied to the building's exterior are suspicious. Coupled with these factors, a visual comparison of the collapse with that of buildings being leveled by professional, controlled demolition suggests that the cause officially attributed to the failure (weakening of the structural members due to fire) is exceedingly unlikely. The true cause was likely an intentional, controlled demolition using explosive thermal charges typically employed for such purposes.

The failures of WTC Buildings 1 and 2, likewise, are suspicious due to the inherent design strength of the buildings' cores to withstand aircraft impact; the relatively low temperature of a kerosene fire v. the temperature required for structural steel failure; the presence of subterranean molten steel, suggesting that a high-temperature cutting material was employed ("thermate" or a derivative); the debris cloud, which resembled that from an explosion; and like Building 7, the near free-fall velocity of collapse.

Together these factors suggest that the cause of collapse was an intentional deployment of a professionally designed and executed demolition process utilizing systematically and remotely detonated, thermal cutting charges strategically situated throughout the buildings on key structural support members and their joints." http://www.ae911truth.org
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Sep 2009, 03:04

Hamlyn,
Can you also explain why, if the Pentagon Crash was easily feasible, that top experienced pilots like these say it wasn't?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!


He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?



Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

Image

Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
http://911underground.com

Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.



Image

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career.

* Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07: Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ...

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...

You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there. [The film he refers to is the video documentary, Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ...

And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." http://video.google.com
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Sep 2009, 05:29

The video by CIT is a ridiculous video that misrepresents the facts and has no bearing on what actually happened. The video uses old testimony to show that witnesses are unreliable, and that recollections are unreliable.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Sep 2009, 05:32

Have you heard of the "thermite" evidence? It's hard evidence and been in two scientific journals.


The so-called journals it has appeared in are poor journals as I've shown elsewhere in the forum. As the author has said, the response to the articles has been "roaring silence." No one cares about bad science posted in bad journals.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Sep 2009, 10:40

If the official 9/11 story were "obviously true" as Nostradamus (who by the way is making slanderous statements when he accuses Gage of being a fraud without proof)and faith based believers think, then can you explain why so many professional structural engineers doubt and challenge it?


I believe Gage is a fraud. Evidence supported that position has been put forward in the appropriate thread.

The list of structural engineers supporting the Twoofers point of view is small. In particular Scepcop you come up with a list of people that have no experience in high rise steel. Isn't this the list of 29?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Sep 2009, 11:47

and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.


This is the telling part isn't it. Kolstad was told that the 330 degree descending turn was done at 530. It was actually done at half that speed. As many other experts on the other side of the fence, the side opposite twoofers, have stated - the maneuver done by the pilot was doing a basic maneuver taught to novices.

" I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." Capt. Russ Wittenberg


Wittenberg is working off of bad information. The flight data recorder showed a small bank, slow speed, and low Gs.

This baloney has been repeated shown to be of no substance.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Sep 2009, 11:49

Why did you have a prejudice against Truthers before? Isn't their hard evidence what really matters and what you should look at, rather than dismissing them?


No amount of hand waving and repetition will ever elevate nothingness and chicanery to the level of evidence.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2009, 19:46

Scepcop wrote:Hamlyn,
If the official 9/11 story were "obviously true" as Nostradamus (who by the way is making slanderous statements when he accuses Gage of being a fraud without proof) and faith based believers think, then can you explain why so many professional structural engineers doubt and challenge it?


Oh Yoo Hoo! Scepcop! Over here. (Picture to yourself a small boy in the back of the classroom waving his hand high in the air)
I say he's a fraud as well and both Nostradamus and I have provided our evidence which is quite clear.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New Film Proves Pentagon Crash False, Smoking Gun, MUST SEE!

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Sep 2009, 06:01

So where is your explanation for why Sgt. Lassee swears 100 percent that he saw the flight path on the North side, which directly contradicts the official story?

Simply saying "he's mistaken" doesn't debunk that. His story has remained consistent since 2001.


The man's name is Lagasse, not Lassee. We are referring to the same individual I trust.

"It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it." "I didn't hear anything, but I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. I realized what it was doing."


Listen to Lagasse' personal account from Dec 4, 2001.
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc20 ... 342a01.mp3

The sargent saw the plane hit the building. End of story for the CIT that appears to have purposely avoided the early statements by both Brooks and Lagasse. Brooks says the plane hit the lamp posts.

The only smoking gun here is the purposeful spreading of misinformation and rubbish by CIT and their ilk.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron