National Security Alert - Sensitive Information

[The Hawk]

Many issues with the official story are not addressed adequately ever.

When looking into "9/11 truth" information versus what the official story people came up with, I had come across most of the same information as posted in that link already.
(9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1)

If the official story is somehow true then those issues which have not been adequately addressed already , definitely won't EVER be adequately addressed because they are confusions, misinterpretations or not adequately documented in the first place.

Everything like "the hole is too small" or "the pilot only took a week of flight school and failed.." etc etc isn't proof of a bigger conspiracy it's just highly questionable and suspicious.

Perhaps the only real solid hard core proof is this:
Bentham Science Publishers

 

[Kieran]

Many issues with the official story are not addressed adequately ever.

When looking into "9/11 truth" information versus what the official story people came up with, I had come across most of the same information as posted in that link already.
(9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1)

If the official story is somehow true then those issues which have not been adequately addressed already , definitely won't EVER be adequately addressed because they are confusions, misinterpretations or not adequately documented in the first place.

Everything like "the hole is too small" or "the pilot only took a week of flight school and failed.." etc etc isn't proof of a bigger conspiracy it's just highly questionable and suspicious.

Perhaps the only real solid hard core proof is this:
Bentham Science Publishers

The hole as been explained already my friend. You can dismiss, it if you like. The proof is there that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. Plenty of wreckage is seen in those Photographs.

You have forgotten we have four pilots, who had the same flight training.

This other pilots had no problem flying this aircraft and reaching there targets.They had more than just a week of flight training. The pilot who flew in to the Pentagon, had applyed to the Saudi Airlines(commercial flights) I think he was turned down fo some reason.

 

[The Hawk]

I'm talking about the pilot that according to the official story flew the plane that hit the pentagon pulling off maneuvers that many pilots say are outrageous. His flight instructor said he was horrible and he had almost no experience. Also he had zero documented experience with a commercial airliner. But nevermind that it's less suspicious than a dozen other things.

 

[pixelsmith]

The hole as been explained already my friend. You can dismiss, it if you like. The proof is there that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. Plenty of wreckage is seen in those Photographs.

sorry, this is NOT proof. have you factored in the claims by people working the pentagon that there was construction going on in the impact area? there were reports of large "parts" being stored in the area as well. furthermore....why would the "plane" circle the pentagon to crash into that specific spot when it could have flown directly into it from its flight path? why perform a dangerous, near impossible, 5g maneuver?

 

[jimbo83478]

sorry, this is NOT proof. have you factored in the claims by people working the pentagon that there was construction going on in the impact area? there were reports of large "parts" being stored in the area as well. furthermore....why would the "plane" circle the pentagon to crash into that specific spot when it could have flown directly into it from its flight path? why perform a dangerous, near impossible, 5g maneuver?

Well furthermore, why confiscate all security cam footage from surrounding buildings? Why show only the few frames from one security camera at the Pent? Something definitely hit the building - maybe it was a 757; maybe not - but there are plenty of aspects about this incident that still need to be cleared up.

 

[Kieran]

sorry, this is NOT proof. have you factored in the claims by people working the pentagon that there was construction going on in the impact area? there were reports of large "parts" being stored in the area as well. furthermore....why would the "plane" circle the pentagon to crash into that specific spot when it could have flown directly into it from its flight path? why perform a dangerous, near impossible, 5g maneuver?

I give up friend. You seem to have not read the link i provided.

I don't understand your point large parts were stored in that area. What are you trying to say? If you want to dismiss the photographs of engine parts and materials which are clearly seen in those photos go right ahead. I am done with this thread. You can not see the evidence right in front of your eyes.Pixel you have interesting things to say, but most of the evidence you present it not evidence.

 

[pixelsmith]

I give up friend. You seem to have not read the link i provided.

I don't understand your point large parts were stored in that area. What are you trying to say? If you want to dismiss the photographs of engine parts and materials which are clearly seen in those photos go right ahead. I am done with this thread. You can not see the evidence right in front of your eyes.Pixel you have interesting things to say, but most of the evidence you present it not evidence.

i DID read your link, so what? we all know nothing on the internet is true. right? i can provide more links proving your link false.
i agree, what i provided is not evidence. but it is possible that aircraft parts were already in the building. evidence is not needed to come to a conclusion anyway. there is plenty of evidence suggesting a cover up but that is ignored.
i never want anyone to believe a word i say. i only want people to doubt what they have been told to believe.

even if it was the plane they say it was, how did it get past the defense systems in place? box cutters are fucking amazing...

 

[Kieran]

i DID read your link, so what? we all know nothing on the internet is true. right? i can provide more links proving your link false.
i agree, what i provided is not evidence. but it is possible that aircraft parts were already in the building. evidence is not needed to come to a conclusion anyway. there is plenty of evidence suggesting a cover up but that is ignored.
i never want anyone to believe a word i say. i only want people to doubt what they have been told to believe.

even if it was the plane they say it was, how did it get past the defense systems in place? box cutters are fucking amazing...

This is going to be my last post and i don't want it to seem i am high and mighty than you.
I am like you. I am human.

I like some of your posts, you have a strong mind. You would hate to be proven wrong.

Your are makeing suggestions to something that could be possible which does not go with the facts. That is your problem. Your makeing stuff up so to make your argument sound more plausible.

Evidence is real. Ufos are real because we have evidence. 9/11 conspiracy is all just based on suggestions no evidence.Photos shown are real.

You can dismiss all you want the evidence provided?

If you are true to yourself.

you can see that link confirms a hell of alot. The more you look at those silly videos on the web the more you go towards that opinion.I provided plenty of evidence take it or leave it. It does not matter to me. I don't no you Pixel personally. Notting will probably change your opinion.

It was a good debate but since we agree on notting. It be best for me not to respond any more to this thread. I have my opinion you have yours.

 

[MrChud]

This is going to be my last post and i don't want it to seem i am high and mighty than you.
I am like you. I am human.

I like some of your posts, you have a strong mind. You would hate to be proven wrong.

Your are makeing suggestions to something that could be possible which does not go with the facts. That is your problem. Your makeing stuff up so to make your argument sound more plausible.

Evidence is real. Ufos are real because we have evidence. 9/11 conspiracy is all just based on suggestions no evidence.Photos shown are real.

You can dismiss all you want the evidence provided?

If you are true to yourself.

you can see that link confirms a hell of alot. The more you look at those silly videos on the web the more you go towards that opinion.I provided plenty of evidence take it or leave it. It does not matter to me. I don't no you Pixel personally. Notting will probably change your opinion.

It was a good debate but since we agree on notting. It be best for me not to respond any more to this thread. I have my opinion you have yours.

May this be a lesson for you. Never argue with a truther, they will just ignore reality. The best way to respond to their silly arguments and nonexistant evidence is to ignore them. Laughter and ridicule work well too.

 

[pixelsmith]

This is going to be my last post and i don't want it to seem i am high and mighty than you.
I am like you. I am human.

I like some of your posts, you have a strong mind. You would hate to be proven wrong.

Your are makeing suggestions to something that could be possible which does not go with the facts. That is your problem. Your makeing stuff up so to make your argument sound more plausible.

Evidence is real. Ufos are real because we have evidence. 9/11 conspiracy is all just based on suggestions no evidence.Photos shown are real.

You can dismiss all you want the evidence provided?

If you are true to yourself.

you can see that link confirms a hell of alot. The more you look at those silly videos on the web the more you go towards that opinion.I provided plenty of evidence take it or leave it. It does not matter to me. I don't no you Pixel personally. Notting will probably change your opinion.

It was a good debate but since we agree on notting. It be best for me not to respond any more to this thread. I have my opinion you have yours.

ahh... here is where you are dead wrong. at first i totally bought the "official" story on 9/11 until i researched it for several years. now i know something is wrong with the story. btw- i read every word of your link. if everything is true that "they" say... why not show us every bit of the video footage at the Pentagon? instead we see 5 frames that btw had 2 frames missing from the sequence.

 

[pixelsmith]

May this be a lesson for you. Never argue with a truther, they will just ignore reality. The best way to respond to their silly arguments and nonexistant evidence is to ignore them. Laughter and ridicule work well too.

nice attempt at getting this thread locked. you have proven nothing except that you are an expert at trolling.
like i said, i too bought the official story until i looked at the bigger picture.

 

[WWu777]

For argument sake... How do you suggest they planted the dynamite, C4, What ever they used. In two separate buildings withount anyone ever seeing them?
Surely,there was cameras, security personal monitoring the building at the time.

You take very big risk in doing something like that if you are caught.

Another point, they would have to have know were the Aircraft were going to strike and when. For this plan to work. Withount the strike on the twin towers the rest of the plan is useless.

There is no evidence. If that is the scenario you comeing to. You have to produce a least one piece of evidence that people will look at and say yes definately, something other the planes crashing into the twin towers caused the collapse.I dont see it, honestly dont.

I think the pressure of the heat inside the buildings and everything burning up.Just caused the floors to give way and it fell down from top to bottom.

In fact underneath, the rubble when the fireman and construction crews were digging for survivors. They found that some of the basement was intact. Were one fireman siad even, you could have actually drove out some of the cars from the garage below they were so perfect. And some of the shops were ok even. It was just that there was so much rubble from the Collapse you wouldnt have not known until you got underneath.

If someone came and showed me, were someone found a piece of explosive from the twin tower ruins. Then i might change my mind. Then i say' How did that get there. That is interesting..

It sounds like you haven't done much research into the vast material available on this topic.

Watch these two films, available for free on YouTube and Google Video (Google Videos), and they will answer a lot of your questions.

"9/11 Blueprint for Truth" by Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org
"National Security Alert" (recommended in this thread already)

Just type those titles in the search box of google video or youtube.

If you watch them with even a slightly open mind, I guarantee you will rethink 9/11 completely. They contain some major smoking guns. For example:

1. Thermite residue in the WTC dust, confirmed by several scientists and published in two scientific peer reviewed journals. Thermite is an explosive incindiarary and not a natural element. This is considered scientific hard evidence.

2. Building 7 which collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint in the path of greatest resistance (which a fire induced collapse wouldn't do)

3. Multiple eyewitnesses from 5 vantage points which describe (and swear to) a completely different trajectory of AA77 than what the official story and NTSB describe. The film "National Security Alert" explains it in great detail, step by step.

For more on the Pentagon crash, see:

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT
and
The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed

For more info on why all the features of the WTC and Building 7 collapse fit the controlled demolition hypothesis and not a fire induced hypothesis, see AE911Truth and watch their film I recommended "9/11 Blueprint for Truth".

You'll notice that over 800 architects and engineers now endorse them.

See their full names and statements here:

Petition Signer Supporters of AE911Truth.org
Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

In the site Patriotsquestion911.com, click on Pilots and see all the professional experienced pilots who doubt or disbelieve the Pentagon Crash Story. Some of them have 3 decades of flying experience in the air force and airline industry.

If you have more time and interest, see the new Italian film "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11" that debunks the Pentagon crash in incredible detail. A Boston air traffic controller explains the process step by step with authoritative detail.

The film is available for free on YouTube or Google Video too. Just type in the title in the search box.

Here's a great article I found about the film "National Security Alert":

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Please watch it. It's a must see film! It took them three years to make, so the least you could do is watch it.

 

[WWu777]

Irishseeker and other faith based believers in the official story:

Listen to what real highly experienced pilots have to say about the Pentagon crash and maneuver. Unless you have 3 decades of flying experience, you are not qualified to argue with them!

OpEdNews - Article: U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

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?

So, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?

Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years? What are YOUR qualifications against his?

Also, here is a similar statement from another experienced season pilot with 35 years experience flying commercial airlines and been on 100 combat missions for the Air Force. He explains below why Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible, even for the best pilots. Again, are you more qualified than he is about the plausibility of Flight 77's maneuvers on 9/11?! Pay attention to his words in bold below.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

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.

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." American Buddhist Net | Buddhist News & Forum

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." Investigative Journal

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." Index of /911/underground

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.

And listen to this pilot who won 17 medals!

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

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." Google Videos

 

[skunkape]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZGzXcnkKdE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZGzXcnkKdE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[pixelsmith]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZGzXcnkKdE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZGzXcnkKdE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

are you one of those ex military guys hired to cruise forums and try and divert attention from FACTS?

 

[skunkape]

are you one of those ex military guys hired to cruise forums and try and divert attention from FACTS?

Damn, my cover is blown.
Just for the record, the official story of how 911 "really" went down stinks like the biggest rat on the planet to me.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">