Ahmadinejad's 9/11 Rant

[Michael-SATX]

rdale, I like you a brother man, but what about what the then secretary of defense is on record saying?

[VE5JL]

Originally Posted by elk2370bruce

Conspiratory theorists base their beliefs on conjecture and numerous false assumptions. Many believe that all that you see on the internet is true and refereed data/fact sets. Next, we'll be reopening the moon landing conspiracy. Guys - get a life! You cannot prove your conspiracy hypothesis objectively.

Speaking of the internet, how long did it take you to find that regurgitate cute and paste response?

[elk2370bruce]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

Speaking of the internet, how long did it take you to find that regurgitate cute and paste response?

About as long as it took you to create the above snide remark. (probably faster)

[VE5JL]

Originally Posted by elk2370bruce

About as long as it took you to create the above snide remark. (probably faster)

Cool. How about if you have anything new, fresh and interesting to add. Saves on the 'repeated it a million times file.'

Oh, here is something new and fresh... Donald Rumsfeld admitting that Flight 93 was shot down?

Or when 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer says a missile / plane hit the pentagon? W is also on the same video talks about 'explosives' going off.

Oh yes and Donald Rumsfeld says he never seen wreckage that resembled an airplane at the Pentagon.

My personal favorite is the owner of building 7 (+ Billions from 9/11) Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was 'pulled' down

Or the BBC saying building 7 fell 20 minutes before it did... Hmmm.......

On their own they many mean nothing.... Together is means we've may have been lied to and we need a new REAL investigation.

[Michael-SATX]

Nice Joe, you always have some GREat information to share with us !!!

OK, I did not mean to Hi-Jack (no punn intended) this thread, I will go back now to the thread I started here:

Let's hear some GREat thoughts about 9-11-01 Events !

[elk2370bruce]

[QUOTE=VE5JL;1862265]Cool. How about if you have anything new, fresh and interesting to add. Saves on the 'repeated it a million times file.'
expand your reading and research. You haven't done your homework. Try changing your meds - it my help your ****ty attitude,

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

What we see on video (only 1 view of 30+cameras ) is the smoke emitting from a cruise missile.

http://www.andrewerickson.com/wp-con...ile_Xinhua.jpg

You may know a lot about aircraft but you apperantly know nothing about how cruise missiles work. Cruise missiles do NOT emit smoke while travling to its target. The solid rocket engine is only used for a short period during land and sea launch. Once the missile reaches the proper altitude wings deploy and a turbo fan engine takes over the rest of the flight to its intended target. There should NOT be any smoke being emitted by the turbo fan engine at this stage of flight.

Looks like I may have just blown a huge hole in your cruise missile theory.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

Looks like I may have just blown a huge hole in your cruise missile theory.

A big bottle rocket, maybe?

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

Or the BBC saying building 7 fell 20 minutes before it did... Hmmm.......

Of all the questionable "truther" claims out there, this one actually has an element of truth to it. But did any of you guys take the time to see just why it was reported before it happened?

Is it REALLY easier for you to believe that the BBC was let in on a huge worldwide conspiracy, rather than jumping the gun when FDNY had in fact been saying for hours that the building was on the verge of collapse, and had evacuated a 3 block area around it at 3 pm?

Have you ignored the news videos of the building teetering precariously while FDNY is stating that it could come down any time, hours before the actual collapse? Could it be possible that word on the street could be be "WTC7 is on the verge of collapse", and translates to "WTC7 has collapsed" by the time it gets to the on-air talent?

Ever play the telephone game? Ever play the telephone game during a real live crisis when EVERYTHING is confused and chaotic?

C'mon. Even in the ONE little snippet of truth in all the conspiracy propaganda, the real story comes out with just a small amount of research. You're hell bent on researching all the minutia of what happened that day. Why don't you finish the job? You've discovered for yourself that the building collapsed 20 minutes after it was reported. Now discover for yourself why. It's out there. Open your eyes. I mean, open them the rest of the way. You've left yourself half blind because you WANT some dark conspiracy.

[VE5JL]

Originally Posted by Michael-SATX

Nice Joe, you always have some GREat information to share with us !!!

OK, I did not mean to Hi-Jack (no punn intended) this thread, I will go back now to the thread I started here:

Let's hear some GREat thoughts about 9-11-01 Events !

I normally don't come here for political discussions I come here for my love of the hobby of radio, this thread caught my eye.

I'm at a time in my life where I know my place. As a Christian my place is to sow seeds. Ultimately it is up to the individual to navigate their own path. If someone wants to believe the governments conspiracy theory I hold no ill will. I won't call them names or denigrate them, there is no point in that.

I'll just bid them good luck and when the noose of the New World Order is around their neck they can't say they weren't told.

Speaking of the hobby of radio I guess to a degree the way I think has to do with radio. I remember when we I took ham radio classes in preparation for the exam and becoming so interested in physics. From that point (1980's) I've learned more and more about physics and how the laws are immutable and irrefutable. 9/11 is a good example of if we objectively observe the events without the preconceived hatred for Arabs the science speaks for itself.

Radio also played a major roll in my realizing that art of propaganda. If you remember Korean Air 007 I was at that time getting into Shortwave radio. Instead of listening to the local news, I turned on the Shortwave radio. Much to my surprise the story being spun by the VOA was far different from the Voice of China or Radio Moscow (and others). How could the same story with 1 truth have 3 different points of view with the Russians blaming the Americans and the Americans blaming the Russians?

That was my first realization that not everything told to us by the government was true. The rest is history as they say.

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

Lets look at the data from the FDR. [/FONT]
To paraphrase what is said the data supplied from the NTSB supposedly from flight 77 indicates that the AC was 480 above sea level (+- 75 feet) making the light poles 440 tall.

Originally Posted by VE5JL

According to their animation, the AC was at 180 feet. That's 140 over street poles and about 70 feet over the Pentagon. So even without the altimeter correction (29.92 - 30.22) it was too high.

Im confused....what altitude was the aircraft at 480' or 180'???

[VE5JL]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

Im confused....what altitude was the aircraft at 480' or 180'???

There is no confusion. Pilots for 9/11 truth have corrected the altitude of the ac according to the correct altimeter setting. The setting would have been 29.92 if flight 77 went over transition altitude (18K) I don't know what altitude they were at when they were 'hijacked' The neophyte pilot wouldn't have reset the altimeter to the correct setting, or listened to ATIS to get it so it was out.

Here is the full explanation American 77 (Pentagon) @ pilotsfor911truth.org

This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. For detailed presentation and analysis, please see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77.

I was asked what the NTSB said and NOT what pilots for 9/11 truth said. So, you then have the animation that said 180 feet which is still about 100 + feet over a light pole and 75 or so feet over the Pentagon.

Comprende amigo?

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

I was asked what the NTSB said and NOT what pilots for 9/11 truth said. So, you then have the animation that said 180 feet which is still about 100 + feet over a light pole and 75 or so feet over the Pentagon.

Comprende amigo?

Do any of these assessments or analysis place the aircraft in the vicinity of the Pentagon at or around the time of impact? Where was the aircraft when this data was recorded? Was the aircraft's position recorded on the FDR? Was ATC tracking the aircraft at the time that this data was recorded?

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by zz0468

A big bottle rocket, maybe?

With a turbo fan engine!

[zz0468]

So, given two sets of conflicting data... FDR data indicating an altitude that's subject to calibration and interpretation error, vs. light poles (that are not subject to calibration or interpretation error) knocked off their stands, yet you chose to base your conclusions on the FDR data?

Can you explain why, exactly, you chose to give more weight to electronic data over physical evidence that the airplane knocked down those light poles?

I just don't get it. You have airplane wreckage strewn throughout the Pentagon. You have a missing aircraft. You have families missing their airline passenger loved ones. You have a smoking hole in the side of the Pentagon. You have witnesses who saw the airplane fly into the Pentagon. You have light poles knocked down by the airplane in the Pentagon parking lot.

But your questionable data and some wild assumptions are throwing all that out the window?

Absolutely nothing you "truthers" are saying makes any sense what so ever.

I still think you're fishing for publicity for your book.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

With a turbo fan engine!

Hey, it's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for once!

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by zz0468

Hey, it's nice to be on the same side of an argument with you for once!

I agree! Just imagine if we joined forces ZZ....WOW!!!!

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by zz0468

So, given two sets of conflicting data... FDR data indicating an altitude that's subject to calibration and interpretation error, vs. light poles (that are not subject to calibration or interpretation error) knocked off their stands, yet you chose to base your conclusions on the FDR data?

I still think you're fishing for publicity for your book.

It must be a science fiction novel!

[VE5JL]

[QUOTE=elk2370bruce;1862378]

Originally Posted by VE5JL

Cool. How about if you have anything new, fresh and interesting to add. Saves on the 'repeated it a million times file.'
expand your reading and research. You haven't done your homework. Try changing your meds - it my help your ****ty attitude,

Bring on the name calling... Again... something original PLEASE

[VE5JL]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

You may know a lot about aircraft but you apperantly know nothing about how cruise missiles work. Cruise missiles do NOT emit smoke while travling to its target. The solid rocket engine is only used for a short period during land and sea launch. Once the missile reaches the proper altitude wings deploy and a turbo fan engine takes over the rest of the flight to its intended target. There should NOT be any smoke being emitted by the turbo fan engine at this stage of flight.

Looks like I may have just blown a huge hole in your cruise missile theory.

You may be right about that however have you considered that a missile was shot from an airplane that was painted in AA colors as it flew over the pentagon at about 400 feet so it didn't have time to "deploy a turbo fan engine"?

Would that not explain the reports of the smell of explosives by people who were at the Pentagon?