Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    [Admin: thread moved from here, and renamed]

    Raytheon involved at the Pentagon as well

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5945.html


    UPDATE: Please read: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2014
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Really Oxy, you believe that?
     
  3. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Could you provide some evidence that 1) Flight 77 was shot down and 2) An A-3 crashed into the Pentagon? I don't see anything to debunk (evidence) in your post.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Losing_Flight_77#Air_Traffic_Control_Transcripts

    Here we have a really in depth analysis of the pentagon wreckage.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/s..._myth_of_the_Bushes_as_an_all-American_family

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    On the other hand, how anyone can take these seriously, is way beyond me. Apparently 'people fall for it'... :confused::confused::confused:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/general-gave-ok-for-able-danger/1440
    Basically they may just as well have said: 'We searched for 4 years, using highly trained agents and really clever gadgets like on James Bond and everything, but we couldn't find him... people kept screaming out 'He's behind you but, every time we turned around.... there was no one there... it was really frustrating... '
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think it infinitely more believable than the OS, BS
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But all that transcript says is that they lost radar contact. This happened because the hijackers turned off the transponder. There was then only primary radar, and they were in an area with limited radar coverage.
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  8. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A 767 did not go through that hole, it had broken up by that point. It's the "punch out" hole made by some landing gear and other bits propelled by inertia and explosion, that was simply the last wall that got pierced by a bit of debris. It was a thin brick wall.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  12. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Mick, This is very illustrative of your "whack a mole" theory of conspiracy argumentation. Oxymoron points out that Flight 77 was shot down and the plane that flew into the pentagon was an A-3. I ask him/her to provide evidence which he does. A transcript of air traffic control discussing Flight 77 and a comparison of the wreckage found versus parts of an A-3. You correctly point out that the transcript doesn't support the plane being shot down and the wreckage does in fact look like a Boeing commercial airliner. He drops the Flight 77 and adds the 767 (should have been 757 but your argument still applies) can't get through this hole here argument. I propose that people look at the links provided and come back with a point to discuss.
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, that's why I'm trying to spend more time finding good concise sources, and less time arguing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I am pretty sure that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a 757. Much smaller cross-section than a 767
     
  15. Billzilla

    Billzilla Active Member

    Yes it was a 757. Same fuselage diameter as a 737.
     
  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Are you perchance making a personal attack against me under cover of your 'whack a mole' theory... lol... there certainly are plenty of moles, holes, slithering snakes and maggot infested corpses rotting in the quagmire of lies and skeletons which comprise the OS. Sorry I could not wrap the whole thing up to your standards in a few words and a link.

    So cheer up, there are plenty of moles left to whack.... unless you choose to leave the ones that you have no answers for, as is often the case.

    I do not know that much about this particular incident (flight 77)... just read what others were saying on this site re the subject and thought it was very interesting about the Raytheon execs being on all the alleged hijacked planes and I just added something I found about the exit small hole which I mistakenly thought was meant to portray an entry point... wow, I'm human, not some deranged computer... I am not the author or originator of the idea, I was merely contributing a little bit to the discussion because I like to explore original alternative ideas and theories as I feel politics governs official science.
     
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The technical term for "whack a mole" is Gish Gallop - or for a more succinct view of it see here.

    To complain that it is somehow a personal attack is to be disingenuous - it is a debating technique that relies upon information overload and the inability to people to properly analyse every singe one of a large number of assertions.

    Typically the person making the assertions does not bother with the same level of evidence that s/he demands of the "debunkers", and then claims "victory" if any one assertion has not been completely debunked to the n'th degree.

    To use this technique is insulting to your audience, and any criticism of you for using it is, IMO, entirely appropriate.

    It is not concerned with facts and information - it is solely concerned with scoring "points" - short sound bytes that "prove" the case, often without any relevance to the subject at all - "but you haven't shown that little green men were not piloting the planes - therefore chemtrails exist" or similar specious reasoning - not always - but often.

    So yeah - I think there is a personal criticism there - and it is entirely justified.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    The aircraft on 9/11 were worked by several facilities and by dozens of controllers. Any single controller from any one of the facilities involved in the events of 9/11 cannot have first hand knowledge of every action taken by every aircraft and every other controller involved in the events of 9/11. The Boston controller cannot know first hand whether any or all of the aircraft where continuously monitored via radar. He can only know what he saw first hand and what he read in the official documents.

    I was controlling at Washington Center on 9/11. I can only know what was in front of me on my radar. I cannot know what happened at Boston Center, Boston TRACON/Approach, New York Center, New York TRACON, Cleveland Center, Dulles Approach, Washington Approach, etc.

    I can tell you i did download about 40 gigs of data from The 911Dataset Project. I listened to hours of audio, looked at reams of radar data and read the sworn statements of all the air traffic controllers involved in those days events. As an air traffic controller looking at the data, i can tell you radar was lost on all the aircraft at some point ... especially when the aircraft descended below the coverage range of the radar.

    The air traffic controller that worked flight 77 into the pentagon is a friend of mine on facebook. She would be very interested to know she didn't see what she saw.

    I'd love to have a conversation with this Boston controller.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Fred259

    Fred259 New Member

    [



    Hi PC... Your post is most interesting.


    Im interested that you say you lost contact with these aircraft on 9/11.

    When you say this we take it you mean secondary radar, but surely you still had primary radar or was that lost as well?


    Regarding Boston Centre.

    Pete_Zalewski.


    This guy is Pete Zalewski. He we understand was the duty controller at Boston Centre on 9/11.


    He was also the duty controller at Boston Centre on 31 October 1999 when at 06.49Z EgyptAir 990 was lost 62 nm S of Nantucket while routing towards N Atlantic Track Zulu. FL330


    The aircraft a B767 lost 14,000feet in 36 seconds and eventually crashed into the sea. All attempts to contact the crew were unsuccessful including passing traffic and selcal. I think they also had a problem with ELT for some reason. The crash was yup you guessed it... the First Officer decided to commit suicide however others suggest that the right side elevator power control unit may have malfunctioned.


    I just wanted to share that....a problem shared is sometimes a problem solved. !
     
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    The technical term for a Gish Gallop is whinging BS.

    In reality you are bemoaning the fact there is a plethora of evidence which points to a false flag operation... it is known as a 'Convergence of Evidence'

    I shall not overuse the term but whenever you bemoan 'whack a mole' or 'gish gallop' know this; you are using contrived terminology, designed to be disingenuous and to counter the fact that the Official Story has so many gaping holes, barefaced lies and nonsensical 'Alice in Wonderland' logic that the only way it can have any traction at all is by constantly repeating the lies from mockingbird source as often as possible and hoping that people are either too brainwashed or too invested to challenge it.

    As usual, your post adds nothing to the debate other than to attempt another ad hominem attack

    Blah blah blah, "little green men, chemtrails", what are you talking about? ... your whole post is a nonsensical personal attack... whinging... no attempt to add substantive, useful or interesting content, merely stifle independent thought in any way possible, stifle objective thinking, requests for information etc etc.... suppress, suppress, suppress.

    Frankly, you do not have a leg to stand on!
     
  21. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Interesting and informative post Mick, thanks.

    I cannot find a picture of the combustor case that looks like that, only the diagram.

    Here is the RB211-535, which does not have the holes in it. It is a bit confusing and the information is not really easily accessible.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  22. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    Designed by who?
     
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned


    Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945, was the originator of the term but others quickly, (I'm not about to research their names etc), cottoned on to it's use in suppressing arguments where Convergence of Evidence was used.
     
  24. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    In order to identify the persons who 'cottoned on' to the use of the term you describe,perhaps we could start a new thread in either people or quotes debunked.
     
  25. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    That's because the design was modified in the early 2000s.

    The original casing was as shown, and the engines in the crash were the first variant. The rotor blade count is unique for that engine. 106.

    So the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon wasn't a Skywarrior: it was a Boeing 757.

    That more or less sums up your position.

    By the way, "it's" is short for "it is", not "belonging to it".

     
  26. Fred259

    Fred259 New Member


    One moment Jazzy, just because they show you a picture of the disc do you jump to the conclusion that the 757 hit the building?


    The disc is just scrap, from the scrapyard..... look at the shaft where is the remainder of engine, where are the other spools?


    We need to clear up the misconception about the A3 Skywarrior later.




    Also www.aerrospaceweb.org is a disinformation site. I have already alerted Mick...
     
  27. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Dozens of eyewitnesses, evidence of a massive kerosine explosion, many small but visible pieces of a 757 on the lawn, an almost complete body count AND those pictures, and a believable computer simulation sort of swung it for me. I must be easy, eh?

    I'm sorry, there was I thinking that this engine had just hit a reinforced concrete building at 500 mph while turning at 20,000 rpm.

    No we don't. It's done already.

    Don't mean a thing. A liar may speak the truth.
     
  28. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member


    All of the aircraft involved on 9/11 lost radar at some point - including no primary radar. At times the loss was intermittent (at the higher altitudes) and other times it was for extended periods (lower altitudes/below coverage). Listening to the audio from Cleveland center talking to flight 93, the controller is asking other aircraft if they see a Boeing 757 because he (the ATC) is uncertain of the aircraft's movement.

    Controllers working high altitude radars (18,000 feet and above) filter out all primary targets on their radars because it's not needed due to all aircraft at those altitudes being required to be in contact with ATC and a functioning transponder is expected. Aircraft below 18,000 feet needn't be in contact with ATC and many don't have transponders.

    Once the aircraft on 9/11 turned off their transponders, the controllers would have had to remove the filters blocking the display of primary targets on their radars. This allowed ATC (in theory) to track the hijacked aircraft via raw radar. But aside from the usual inaccuracies of tracking via raw radar, once you remove the primary target filter, every primary target from the ground up to the moon is displayed on your radar. In congested areas this is the equivalent of suddenly staring at a beehive of dots on your radar. Distinguishing one aircraft from another could quickly become difficult or impossible.

    Under normal circumstances (ATC is in contact with a cooperative pilot) we can radar identify a primary-only aircraft by having the pilot make a series of turns in conjunction with their self-reported position. We put together the pilot's reported location with a visual witnessing of the turns on our radar and we can declare an aircraft "radar contact" even when they don't have a transponder. (PRIMARY RADAR IDENTIFICATION METHODS)

    Under the conditions of 9/11 the ATCers didn't have the cooperation of the pilots so nobody knew if they changed their altitude or changed their heading (all the aircraft on 9/11 did both). This would cause confusion.

    As i'm typing this i'm trying to remember if i heard any of the ATCers involved declare "Radar contact lost" on the audio tapes. This would be standard procedure "used by ATC to inform a pilot that radar data used to determine the aircraft's position is no longer being received, or is no longer reliable and radar service is no longer being provided" (source). But that would be standard procedure in a normal situation. In a hijack/emergency situation i don't think it would have been a good idea to publicly broadcast to the hijackers that we no longer knew their whereabouts.

    One last point …

    In your post you said, "you say you lost contact with these aircraft on 9/11." I must emphasize my information and interpretation of the events of that day is from my reading of transcripts, sworn ATC statements, listening to the audio and reviewing the radar printouts that i got from the 9/11 site mentioned earlier. No one controller has first hand knowledge of what any other controller experienced that day. In my facility alone we have 44 radar screens. I'm working one of those screens. I cannot know for sure what is happening on the other 43 radar screens in my facility, i cannot sign a sworn statement of witness to what happens on those 43 other radars. The same is true for the Boston ATCer, he cannot say he knows more than he could have known first hand. He was probably misunderstood. I'm sure he's done what i've done - reviewed the information and applied his own ATC experience to form an opinion.

    Okay, i'm done. :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Ok, do you have a picture of the relevant engine?

    That is something we are looking at... you have made a decision... others are still undecided and awaiting your evidence.



    Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  30. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Not now. But I have seen it, and scanned the parts catalog. Do you?

    It isn't my evidence. It's in the public domain. Let your fingers do the walking.

    You're as inaccurate as you wish to be, I guess.
     
  31. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned


    I have tried to find it, that was the best I could come up with and it does not match.

    There are claims that the Pentagon Jet Engine is Identified? - A 727 JT8D

    http://rense.com/general63/ident.htm

    Here is a frame of the craft silhouette just before impact

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307126.shtml

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  32. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The website www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml has all the images plus a jpg of the Boeing 757 parts catalog which shows engine. In addition, the site claims that the JT8D was not used on the A-3.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  33. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    That diagram is on of many on this page - perhaps your misconceptions will be cleared up by it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  34. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    That isn't the first time science appears to be "disinformation", by any means. It is the final stage of the debunking process, this rubbing up against science.

    It's like patriotism - a last resort.

    As a matter of interest, the best discussions as to the origin of components and fragments are to be found on specialist websites, airlines, the air industry, pilots and engineers, where the people know what they're looking at. To them it's no mystery at all.

    You would never find it in Rense...
     
  35. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    Please provide information supporting this claim for those following this thread.
     
  36. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    307128.

     
  37. Mat

    Mat Member

    What I have never got is why there is no conclusive image evidence of the plane near the pentagon. That just seems odd, now I know odd aint conclusion, but still, it confirms the conspiracy rather than dis-confirms it.

    :)
     
  38. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    It seems unlikely that anything doing 800 ft/sec (that's a mile in less than seven seconds) could be spotted by anyone when it's only feet above the ground. No matter what size it is.

    Let alone dragging up a camera to snap it.
     
  39. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Wikipedia also claims the JT8D was not used on the A3.

    So does the A3 Association.

    Both of them claim the J57 was the engine on the a/c. The J57 is a turbo JET - ie it does not have a fan bypass.

    The JT8D is a turbo FAN - ie it has a fan bypass that sends some air around the core of the engine so that air is not available for combustion. The JT8D is a "low bypass ration" engine - about 1/2 the air is bypassed, giving a "bypass ratio" of about 1:1

    It (the JT8D) was developed from the J52 engine, as used in the A6 Intruder, and also some A-4's, and the AGM-24 Houndog missile..

    Here's some comparative pictures:

    J57:
    Pratt_&_Whitney_J57_turbojet.
    JT8D
    engine1.
    J52
    J52-P-408.
     
  40. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

    Got any links? That would be good.

    The Aerospacewebsite simply shows information which could be interpreted to back up the OS or a number of other options. There is no conclusive proof.

    If there were conclusive proof that it was a RB211-535 engine, do you not think TPTB would have splashed it all over the media for the last 11 years?

    Why are Raytheon so quiet or Rolls Royce for that matter, they are old engines, not secret... why have they been removed from the internet?

    That was a very interesting flight simulation that you posted. I was impressed by the pilot's flying skill, i.e flying a couple of feet above the ground at 350 to 600mph for such a long distance without crashing into the ground or catching a wing into the ground... Very skillful, expert flying.

    Below is also interesting... like the trajectory of the left engine and how the wings folded in so nicely.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.