Friday, March 30, 2007

PM Takes On Rosie

Kind of a weird situation, a magazine for technical enthusiasts takes on an obnoxious talk show host:

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

At 30 March, 2007 20:23, Blogger heffe said...

The OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists) are running scared.

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:25, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:28, Blogger heffe said...

I was never a Rosie fan, until today. All publicity is good is good publicity...

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:44, Blogger CHF said...

The OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists) are running scared.

Yeah, Rosie has us scared shitless.

You people are pathetic.

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:46, Blogger Alex said...

Who the hell are the official conspiracy theorists? I didn't realize the CT movement had defined standards for certification....

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:51, Blogger heffe said...

When PM puts out a hit piece within hours, they show a certain sense of urgency that cannot be denied. Your juvenile name calling (you people are pathetic) displays the same smell of animal desperation.

 
At 30 March, 2007 20:59, Blogger heffe said...

The OCT - 19 third world thugs miraculously commandeer 4 complex aircraft and fly seat-of-the-pants to the targets against the greatest air defenses in the world and sturdy steel buildings disintegate to dust within minutes all on the same city block.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:00, Blogger texasjack said...

We're so sorry that PM is interfering with your fictitious hallucinations by presenting credible facts. Got any?

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:07, Blogger heffe said...

PM presents credible facts? Hearst publications defined the term yellow jounalism and PM follows that fine tradition. One fact: No one was been held accountable for the egrigious failure of out multi-billion dollar defense system.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:10, Blogger texasjack said...

A simple no would have sufficed.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:15, Blogger heffe said...

So that fact was too painful to face. Such is denial. Another fact: Cheney was warned when flight 77 was 50 miles from the Pentagon but took no action.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:27, Blogger texasjack said...

Still no facts, more conspiracy website drivel.

Instead of using the standard PM is owned by Hearst, which means yellow journalism(the way your ilk connects the dots is irresponsible and laughable), please refute with credible, corroborating evidence, the facts PM presents.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:28, Blogger Richard said...

The OCT - 19 third world thugs miraculously commandeer 4 complex aircraft and fly seat-of-the-pants to the targets against the greatest air defenses in the world and sturdy steel buildings disintegate to dust within minutes all on the same city block.

Do you guys even read or think for yourselves? If terrorists somehow evaded ADA batteries and destroyed a few armored battalions then yeah I guess you could say they toppled our billion dollar defenses. In reality, hijacking planes inside the United States and flying said planes into targets was something that we considered highly unlikely. We were to busy thinking that there would be attacks outside the US because that was the method of terrorists back then. Nice to see that truthers are continuing to grossly exaggerate the situation.

If you have something new to bring to the table then by all means let us know. Otherwise I suggest reading up on the issue so you don't look like a total idiot.

 
At 30 March, 2007 21:32, Blogger Alex said...

The OCT - 19 third world thugs miraculously commandeer 4 complex aircraft and fly seat-of-the-pants to the targets against the greatest air defenses in the world and sturdy steel buildings disintegate to dust within minutes all on the same city block.

So which one of you clowns believes in that theory? And why are you bringing it up? What's that got to do with us?

 
At 31 March, 2007 01:15, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

PM presents credible facts? Hearst publications defined the term yellow jounalism and PM follows that fine tradition.

See, when we make fun of someone like Kevin Barrett or Dylan Avery, it's because we've already trashed their feeble 'evidence' and all that remains is to have a laugh at their expense. You seem to have got this the wrong way round - attack the source before refuting a single thing they have to say.

In reality, there's never been a credible counter to Popular Mechanics's work on 9/11, but as any truther knows, if you say something enough times, it becomes true. If you say something enough times, it becomes true. If you say something enough times, it becomes true. If...

 
At 31 March, 2007 05:12, Blogger MarkyX said...


if you say something enough times, it becomes true. If you say something enough times, it becomes true. If you say something enough times, it becomes true. If...


Like a sheep?

 
At 31 March, 2007 05:59, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Your juvenile name calling...

What do you call the outrageous slander you morons put out? You accuse this country of murdering 3K of its own citizens without one shred of proof and you are upset because someone calls you names? Maybe you should fantasize about a different conspiracy theory.

 
At 31 March, 2007 06:12, Blogger Stevew said...

I love the way the toofer's trot out the same bogus BS as a defence and never back it up with facts LOL
They get more desperate every day. Now Rosie is an expert LOL I love it. The toofer clown's have never given anything to counter PM let alone facts. They always use the name calling defense because it is all they have to support their position

 
At 31 March, 2007 06:45, Blogger shawn said...

The OCTs (Official Conspiracy Theorists) are running scared.

I'll eat my hat the day you people realize the difference between a conspiracy (19 men under the guidance of al-Qaeda committing 9/11) and a conspiracy theory (9/11 was an inside job by the government, even though there's zero evidence for this).

greatest air defenses in the world

Air defenses set against outside threats, moron.

Hearst publications defined the term yellow jounalism and PM follows that fine tradition

The cognitive dissonace you people display is unreal. First, you say they delivered a hit piece (destroying illogical and unsupported arguments isn't a hit piece, you child) and then you commit an ad hominem against the publication.

 
At 31 March, 2007 07:15, Blogger texasjack said...

I find it comical how these fools try to make connections. In this case, heffe, parroting Bermas, uses yellow journalism to try to discredit Popular Mechanics. Here is how they operate: "Let's see, who owns Popular Mechanics? Yes! Hearst! That means yellow journalism!"

First, Hearst and yellow journalism occurred over a century ago. Second, Hearst has been dead for over a half century, and finally Popular Mechanics is a scientific and technology magazine. Even if you could connect the dots, how do you apply sensationalism to a scientific publication?

 
At 31 March, 2007 07:23, Blogger Stevew said...

Now they say the National Geographic, Popular Mechanics and Scientific American who have been around for a hunderd years or so and have been some of the primere publications for decades, all of a sudden are liers as well as the NIST, the society of civil engineers but Rosie is an expert.
LOL

 
At 31 March, 2007 08:03, Blogger texasjack said...

I've said it before--the troothers will latch onto anything that moves, as long as they agree with their hallucinations. I mean if Fred Flintstone said 911 was an inside job, they would treat him like a national hero.

 
At 31 March, 2007 09:16, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Popular Mechanics being owned by Hearst Publications somehow means that everything the say must be a lie but on the other hand it's perfectly OK to cites holocaust deniers and other cranks as credible sources.

 
At 31 March, 2007 09:37, Blogger CHF said...

One fact: No one was been held accountable for the egrigious failure of out multi-billion dollar defense system.

Rubbish. No Chinese or Russian bomber got hrough on 9/11.

Cheney was warned when flight 77 was 50 miles from the Pentagon but took no action.

Here again we see the twoofer cycle in action. They all seem to have a list of discredided talking points that they can dust off and present.

The flight in question was the projected path of Flight 93. Mineta's testimony was off by 20 minutes.

Get over it.

 
At 31 March, 2007 09:59, Blogger heffe said...

I was just reading about the recently released NTSB Flight Path Animation which shows the flight 77 approach to the Pentagon. 2 interesting aspects of it. First, the approach path passes north of the light poles which were knocked down. Second, the angle of descent does not match the video frames released by the Pentagon. This seems like a more relevant post than ranting about Alex Jones expressing his first amendment rights.

 
At 31 March, 2007 10:09, Blogger heffe said...

>>>The flight in question was the projected path of Flight 93.<<<

Flight 93 crashed 175 miles from Washington. The testimony was that the plane "is 10 miles out" not "will be 10 miles out". It was flight 77.

 
At 31 March, 2007 10:13, Blogger James B. said...

Only in truther reality does, "blatantly lying about historical fact" translate into "expressing his first ammendment rights".

I am not aware of any NTSB Flight Path Animation, I am only aware of some 9/11 denial group's interpretation of what they think it is.

Apparently the New World Order is cunning enough to fly a cruise missile into the Pentagon cleverly disguised as a 100 ton twin engine jetliner, knock down a bunch of lightpoles in broad daylight, disperse engine parts, plant body parts, and a black box... but they weren't smart enough to use Google Maps correctly!

I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darned kids!

 
At 31 March, 2007 10:35, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

To be fair, making shit up does fall within your first ammendment rights.

 
At 31 March, 2007 11:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Texasjack

Let me help you here...
One of PM more famous facts is that "Pull it" is not associated with the CD industry.
Remember when they claimed that fact, Texas?
And then a truther called them up and made them eat crow? Ever hear about that fact?

 
At 31 March, 2007 11:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

OS outright lie:

The flight in question was the projected path of Flight 93. Mineta's testimony was off by 20 minutes.

When will you stop repeating lies?

 
At 31 March, 2007 11:41, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

What facts will you guys recognize as lies?

Uhh EPA air quality report? That a lie or a fact?

SH and 9/11, that lie or is that still fact?

Was the 9/11 Commission set up to fail? Is that a lie or a fact?

DOD lying to the 9/11 Commission or is that a fact and Hamilton was lying?

Hamilton stating 100 people have something to hide? Is that a lie or a fact or fact that was a lie?

The plane that hit the Pentagon flying around after the first hijacking without intercept? Is that a lie or a fact?

How many airforce bases did those planes fly over? Or is that a lie or is that fact?

The problem is you have become so clouded by the constant lies that you have now been Orwellized. Truth is fiction and fiction is truth.

 
At 31 March, 2007 12:03, Blogger Stevew said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl

 
At 31 March, 2007 12:11, Blogger Alex said...

Swing, when you start asking relevant questions, maybe I'll bother to give you some anwers. As it stands, your entire 3-comment-rant has absolutely nothing to do with...well, anything. You're simply pulling the old "god of the gaps" logical fallacy, along with asking a whole bunch of questions that wouldn't prove your theories no matter what answers we go with. For instance, who gives a shit how many airforce bases the jetliners flew over? What's that got to do with anything? Let's say they flew over 500 bases. So what?

 
At 31 March, 2007 12:34, Blogger texasjack said...

Let me help you here...
One of PM more famous facts is that "Pull it" is not associated with the CD industry.
Remember when they claimed that fact, Texas?
And then a truther called them up and made them eat crow? Ever hear about that fact?


You mean the this lame video Swing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULRQCgvsdE
Where they get a receptionist on the phone and she says "pull it down," not "pull it." That one. Pretty weak if that's the one Swing, even for your low standards.

Swing, pay attention here, I asked for credible, corroborating evidence, a quote from a receptionist from an unnamed demolition company, who says "pull it down," is hardly credible, and hardly relevant to refuting the PM articles.

In the future, will you please cite your evidence when you are asked to present it, or are you just too lazy?

BTW, have you contacted those engineers yet?

 
At 31 March, 2007 13:02, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

PM didn't say that "pull it" wasn't used in any branch the of the demolition industry, they said that it wasn't used with regards to demolition by explosives.

What's more they confirmed that by asking people in the profession and they confirmed that the phrase was only use with regards to physically pulling a structure down with cables.

If you really want to dispute that you need to ask some people in the demolition business like they did and make to be specific about what kind of demolition you're refering to.

 
At 31 March, 2007 13:37, Blogger heffe said...

The disturbing aspect of that youTube Pentagon video is watching people who should know better caught removing evidence from the scene. For both crime or accident scenes, it seems highly unusual to start carting off the evidence before the events have been documented in detail. Just as with the WTC.

 
At 31 March, 2007 13:58, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Wow, and you know a lot about evidence removal procedures do you?

 
At 31 March, 2007 14:03, Blogger texasjack said...

heffe, what youtube video are you referring to?

 
At 31 March, 2007 14:39, Blogger heffe said...

This one posted by stevew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl

 
At 31 March, 2007 14:53, Blogger heffe said...

American 77 Final Maneuver -
This video is an NTSB created Flight Path Animation recently released. Great illustration of the descending loop flight 77 performed before leveling off to hit the Pentagon low. Why would Hani Hanjour expose the mission to 3+ extra minutes of intercept time only to hit the Pentagon low? The obvious choice for this inexperienced pilot would be to crash into the target when it is directly in front of him. Hani was not flying the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0&mode=related&search=

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:08, Blogger Alex said...

Why the hell would he worry about intercept? You think someone on a suicide mission is going to be worried about being shot down???

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:21, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

So do you have any actual knowledge of evidence retrival procedures? Or have you just watched a lot of CSI?

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:34, Blogger heffe said...

>>>You think someone on a suicide mission is going to be worried about being shot down???<<<

Well, yes. 911 is your one shot at glory. Ending up in a field near Shanskville does not carry the cache of hitting the White House.

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:39, Blogger heffe said...

>>>So do you have any actual knowledge of evidence retrival procedures?<<<

It is obvious even to the feeble minded that accident/crime scene 101 would dictate 'do not touch anything'. That is not rocket science.

Time for some hoops. OSU all the way.

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:41, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Heffe
http://www.triaxialdesign.com/
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
Qualifications
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911
Advanced knowledge of CAD and solid modeling software selection, implementation, training, supervision, and customization in real world environments.
Efficient and economical designs due to a practical understanding of machining, fabrication, and manufacturing process.
20 years of experience in the engineering, design, analysis, optimization, drafting, and documentation of mechanical components combined with an extensively applied engineering education.
Our team includes Certified SolidWorks Instructors, Certified SolidWorks Support Technicians, and Certified SolidWorks Professionals (CSWP)
TriAxial Design and Analysis have been in business since 1996. We have completed over 400 projects for over 90 different customers.
These people are far more qualified than any of the toofer's people.
By superimposing the actual piks over the animation clearly shows the animation to be acurate but the toofer's simply do not have the knowledge to understand
What he does not realize is that Mike used a satilite shot of the pent to show the posotion of everything so the lite pole position is 100%.

Sw, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. These programs have been used around the world and are well known for their accruacy.

The 787, some of the 777, the A380, the Sea Wolf and Virginia class subs, supertankers, buildings and many other major things that we see in our world of today were designed with these programs. They are the primere tools used today.

There are things called Addins that allow these programs to input the actual flight profile into the animation so that the model will follow it exactly. The non technical people have no clue about these things so all they do is post mindless babble and lies. Get a Solidworks expert to prove it wrong and some one might believe it. As a Solidworks user I know they are full of crap. Can they explain in detail how it is wrong? No

http://www.solidworks.com/
http://www.ptc.com/
http://www.3ds.com/products-solutions/plm-solutions/catia/overview/
Mike will be updating his animation now that SW2007 is released, it has many more capabilities than 2006. I am useing it as we speak and it is more amazing than ever.

If you want to knock something, back it up with facts of your own.
Mikes email is there for you or anybody else to write and ask him about it.
Do you know anything about Solidworks?

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:45, Blogger texasjack said...

The disturbing aspect of that youTube Pentagon video is watching people who should know better caught removing evidence from the scene.

heffe, who's removing evidence in that video? That video is a simulated flight path of Flight 77.

You want to connect the dots for us, or are we left to interpret your wild imagination?

 
At 31 March, 2007 15:51, Blogger Alex said...

Well, yes. 911 is your one shot at glory. Ending up in a field near Shanskville does not carry the cache of hitting the White House.

You are truly twisted. If you asked Osama about it, I'm quite sure he'd consider an airliner full of innocent civilians crashing into an open field to be a success.

It is obvious even to the feeble minded that accident/crime scene 101 would dictate 'do not touch anything'. That is not rocket science.

It's obvious to the feeble-minded, yes. To the rest of us, it's wrong.

First step in dealing with any accident scene is to asses the situation, and eliminate further danger. Second is to rescue and treat any victims who may still be alive. Preserving evidence comes in dead last on our list of priorities, and is entirely unnecessary in an incident like the crash of flight 77.

 
At 31 March, 2007 16:33, Blogger heffe said...

>>>entirely unnecessary in an incident like the crash of flight 77. <<<

Unless you want as much physical evidence as possible to recreate the sequence of events. That includes documenting the position of all aircraft parts.

 
At 31 March, 2007 16:56, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I take back my remark about watching CSI, if you had ever watched the show you would know that it is standard procedure to photograph physical evidence in the position you find it before moving it. They moved the evidence out of the way quickly because they knew it could be disturbed by the rescue workers.

Like you said, it's not rocket science.

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:06, Blogger Alex said...

Unless you want as much physical evidence as possible to recreate the sequence of events.

That's the point - in an incident like the pentagon strike we don't need to "recreate the sequence of events" since we already knew exactly what happened. That's what makes 77 different from other crashes - in most air accidents, the events are recreated in order to figure out what happened, and prevent it from happening in the future.

Regardless, even in actual accidents safety and medical assistance always come first, with evidence gathering being the last concern. Emergency response crews disturb evidence on a regular basis. Responses to major disasters are much different than a typical response to a crime scene. Unfortunately, watching CSI won't give you enough info to understand this.

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:17, Blogger Stevew said...

When the wings struck the light poles which are designed to break off, it most likely hit the wing spars. Wings have closely spaced spars going perpendicular to the wing for strength. If the explosion started when it hit the generator, it would have had maybe 1/4 second before it hit the Pent. The plane was traveling at 600-800 feet per second and the generatop was 100 or so feet from the Pent so you do the math.

At 400 MPH the plane would carry a shock wave with it that would tend to pull things along with it. When a car passess close at 60 it pulls you quite a bit, the same is true with a large plane except it would knock you ass over tea kettle. The fire ball followed the plane away from the lawn. Mythbusters did a show on this, they used a train going at 60 to show just how this effect works, truley amazing. Can you imagine what the vortex of an airliner at 400mph would do?

I know the toofers have never watched what happens to the air in wind tunnel tests and these were straight on not banking. Ever wonder why the ATC's never let small planes fly close behind a big jet, it is usually a few miles. Do the toofers know what jet wash is? LOL Where does the lift come from?
Jet wash happens when air is disturbed around a plane's wings or other flight control surfaces, it is also known as wake turbulence. The larger the aircraft the more wake turbulence it creates.
If a trailing plane flies into jet wash it can cause the plane to shake violently. If the wake turbulence is strong enough and the effected aircraft small enough it can flip an aeroplane whilst it is still on the ground. This disturbance of the air actually sinks down towards earth so a small aircraft following a larger aircraft needs to fly higher than the first to prevent flying into the wake turbulence. At many controlled airports around the world there is a waiting time that must be allowed between the takeoff of different size aircraft to ensure the wake turbulence has sunk below the take off path of the following aircraft.
While the FAA recommends a four-mile separation between planes to avoid wake turbulence caused by such vortices, the unseen dangers can lurk and drift in the air for some time. In tests, engineers have measured vortices stretching 8 miles long, said CNN's Miles O'Brien.
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/183095-1.html

Where is the plane?" they want to know.
Well. IT'S IN A TEN THOUSAND PIECES.

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:19, Blogger texasjack said...

Hani was not flying the plane.

OK heffe, tell us, who was flying the plane?

 
At 31 March, 2007 17:37, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Texas
How does he know this?

 
At 31 March, 2007 18:07, Blogger texasjack said...

Hey Texas
How does he know this?


Steve, he sure does have quite an imagination, doesn't he? He thinks the youtube video you posted shows unethical evidence collecting.

 
At 31 March, 2007 18:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No Texas wrong video but of course it only supports the pull it term. Anyway, what were PM sources again especially in their book?
Ohhh that is right, there were no cited sources, just anyonmous folk cited by PM. Nice work there!

Sorry for not citing the source.
www.pumpitout.com
Phone interview sections...

1)Also Chertof from PM states Flight 11 wings hit the ground first-wrong/lie.

2)And then the plane literally distengrated and yet later on in the interview states they found the plane compacted further into the building.-Wrong/lie

3)Coburn, research editor with PM-
"The term 'pull it' is not a demolition term."

But then Chertoff says it is a demolition term. And you guys want to use this to debunk 9/11 truth? LOL!
http://www.shure.proboards19.com
/index.cgi?board=ben2

Why the hell would he worry about intercept? You think someone on a suicide mission is going to be worried about being shot down

Geez, Alex, if your shot down, doesn't that mean mission failure, you don't hit your target, and not complete the plan from 'A to Z'.
What does flying over '500 air bases' have any relevance? You are really asking this question? LOL!

If you asked Osama about it, I'm quite sure he'd consider an airliner full of innocent civilians crashing into an open field to be a success.
Now wait just one second, I thought it was Ali who was the mastermind?

Intercept debunked-NORAD Spokesman for public relations, Major Douglas Martin-U.S. fighters launched 67 between Sept. 2000 and June 2001 on intercepts.
Confirmed by the NORAD historian. This also debunks PM again, why do you all keep insisting there was only 1, Payne Stewart?

The NORAD historian also states that if they were alerted they would be able to intercept 'anywhere'.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/
debunking_popular_mechanics.mp3


Is that to continue to support the OS or is fiction truth and truth fiction to you?

Lets add more to the NORAD intercept issue:
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.
From 9/11 Commission Testimony.

With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing U.S. airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release Aug/9/02; AP Aug13/02]

Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks
by Glen Johnson
The Boston Globe
September 15, 2001

Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.
"We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10 minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Fact is fiction and fiction is fact at SLC!

 
At 31 March, 2007 18:49, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 March, 2007 19:26, Blogger texasjack said...

Anyway, what were PM sources again

You mean these sources:

Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology

And Swing has "Shure" from pumpitout.com

LOL!

 
At 31 March, 2007 20:45, Blogger Alex said...

Geez, Alex, if your shot down, doesn't that mean mission failure, you don't hit your target, and not complete the plan from 'A to Z'.

Sure, if you're a fighter pilot on a bombing run. On the other hand, if you're a terrorist scumbag on a suicide mission flying a plane full of civilians, even crashing means success.

What does flying over '500 air bases' have any relevance? You are really asking this question?

Yep. You planning on answering?

Now wait just one second, I thought it was Ali who was the mastermind?

Even you can't be THAT retarded.

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:07, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

In the CD industry, "pull" refers to pulling down down a building with cables.

Unless that's what you think happened to WTC7 Silverstein's remark is of no use to you.

BTW, have you contacted those engineers yet?

Of course not, ya big chicken shit.

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:10, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:13, Blogger CHF said...

Just in case you can't find my other posts:

You'll find plenty of engineers at these engineering departments:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.abdn.ac.uk/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/esbe/about/depeng.shtml
http://www.liv.ac.uk/engdept/
http://www.swan.ac.uk/engineering/
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/civileng/

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/
http://www.ce.ksu.edu/
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cee/
http://www.ce.clemson.edu/
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/
http://cee.mit.edu/
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/

Civil engineering department for a university in Venezuela:
http://www.une.edu.ve/civil/

Chinese civil engineering website:
http://www.cbw.com/company/ccecc/index.html

Apparently Swing's a complete coward, so I encourage other twoofers to contact engineers.

Jenny...you game?

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF, I was hoping you would list engineering firms, not educational establishments with that list I can talk to professors and maybe some students.

Do you have any firms that I can contact?

Texas, can you show me in the book and at their website where those sources were used?

I mean even the Historian of NORAD stated their 'source' for the 1 intercept was wrong. I was hoping to see where exactly those sources were used in the 'debunking' part.

Geez, even SLC can post a number of people and call them sources without actually sourcing them.

 
At 31 March, 2007 21:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh and Texas, you might listen to the interviews with the PM guys, the NORAD historian, etc. It is the primary source material big guy.

 
At 31 March, 2007 22:07, Blogger CHF said...

Do you have any firms that I can contact?

First hit from an "engineering firms" google search:

www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Engineering firms
and consulting engineers in any state, phone numbers and all. I suggest you click on "structural."

Pretty sad that you're only even considering this at my urging, isn't it?

A real 9/11 truthseeker would have done this himself ages ago.

 
At 31 March, 2007 22:57, Blogger texasjack said...

Oh and Texas, you might listen to the interviews with the PM guys, the NORAD historian, etc. It is the primary source material big guy.

LOL! When this "Shure" guy gets on the phone does he say that the calls are recorded? Does he ask who he is talking to? Does he say who he is representing? No. Does he ask leading questions? Yes. Do we know if these calls were edited? We don't.
What is the NORAD historians name? Nice source there Swing. This is a joke, and is not evidence that would be accepted anywhere other than a CT's world. When he finally gets someone on the phone with a name, Dr. Fuller, he reveals nothing. You can't seriously say this is evidence.
What's your sources name? I don't know, he's the Norad "historian" and I have no idea what he is qualified to talk about. LOL.

The "pull it" phone calls are irrelevant, because they are not refuting anything in the article.


If you have a problem with any of the sources PM used in its article, contact them! Please quit being lazy. I doubt you will contact any expert, because you are afraid they will give you the answers you don't want to hear.
The article is right here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

 
At 01 April, 2007 05:30, Blogger Stevew said...

Analysts defend NORAD’s 9/ 11 role
By Pam Zubeck
The international command that monitors incoming airstrikes shouldn’t be blamed for being unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks because no one could have foreseen the strikes, defense policy analysts said Wednesday. Their comments came in response to a New York Times report that the independent government panel investigating the attacks is expected to harshly criticize the Colorado Springsbased North American Aerospace Defense Command. The analysts said the inability of the Air Force to launch fighter jets in time to shoot down the hijacked planes was more a result of the Cold War’s end than neglect. "If bin Laden had attacked us when Ike was president, it would have been a different response. We were locked and loaded back then, and we were twitchy," said John Pike, executive director of the defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. "Under the circumstances I think it would have been difficult for them (fighter jets) to have made a difference," he said. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States is expected to accuse NORAD, a joint United States and Canadian command, of being slow and confused on that day. "On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen," the report will say, according to a Wednesday New York Times account. "What ensued was a hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
The report also will suggest that a more organized response by NORAD might have allowed fighter pilots to reach one jetliner and shoot it down before it flew into the Pentagon, nearly an hour after the first of the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, the Times reported. Instead, the commission reportedly has concluded, an emergency order from Vice President Dick Cheney authorizing the hijacked planes to be shot down did not reach pilots until the last of the four commandeered jetliners had crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania. NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhart and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testify today at the commission’s last hearing before it reports its findings late next month. NORAD officials did not address the commission’s reported findings Wednesday, saying in a statement they did not want to "pre-empt Gen. Eberhart’s testimony before the commission."
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#norads-drills
While some criticize the Air Force for not having fighters on alert close to likely targets such as Washington, D.C., and New York, defense analysts aren’t surprised. After the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, continental air defense was turned over to the Air National Guard, Pike said, noting that the days of planes being fueled, armed and ready on the tarmac ended long ago. "Given the prevailing attitudes at the time, it would have been an uphill struggle" to have fighters on alert for a homeland attack, Pike said. As it was, fighters that responded to Washington, D.C., came from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, and those sent to New York City flew from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass. The Air Force has closer bases where fighters could have been placed but weren’t, said Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Washington, D.C., think tank Lexington Institute. "Nobody took the continental air defense mission seriously before 9/11," Thompson said. "It was the bottom of the list for the Air Force. Neither NORAD or the Air force assigned a high priority to the mission. Most of the aircraft that were on alert weren’t even armed."
No one had attacked the continental United States from the air since the Japanese tried to drop incendiary weapons on the West Coast from balloons in World War II. Even if fighters had been based in the right place and ready for deployment, however, it’s sheer guesswork whether they could have shot down the airliners in time, said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C. "The more important factor is no one anticipated this," Carpenter said. "The danger is much more evident in retrospect than it was at the time." Carpenter said NORAD’s mission was to monitor threats from outside the borders, not from within. "To me, this illustrates one of the problems with the 9/11 commission trying to assess blame for a situation that would have been very difficult to anticipate," Carpenter said. Pike said the commission’s findings are of interest only in terms of identifying changes. After Sept. 11, the Air Force launched Operation Noble Eagle, which sent fighters patrolling over select targets. It continues today. NORAD has expanded its mission to monitor threats from within the United States and has taken steps to enhance communication with other agencies. In addition, the military has been given authority to shoot down aircraft under certain circumstances without seeking presidential approval.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911panel_statement17.pdf
It explanes why the air defence did not respond and much more. the whakos think we and the world should have known they were going to fly into the towers etc. I still think these conspiricy kooks do it for hate of W, to make themselves feel important and give their pitiful lives meaning. The fact it would have taken thousands of people and they would of had to keep it secret, is just silly. People screwed up but I was is shock and I am good in a crunch. People involved in this must have been going nuts and there was very little time to do anything. I watched it live and it seemed like it only was a few min's when the sceond hit. when dealing with a stiualtion that was unthinkable, people hesitate before they react and it doesn't take much to cause a domino effect. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground. I wonder how all these critic's would do if they were in the position of these folks but most are not qualified. The first and formost thing you have to take in to concideration is that the pilots had no rules for engagement which means that the pilots could do nothing till they have rules of engagement. There were no rules for the airforce to shoot down Amercian civilian planes. This alone could have taken more time than they had and were not given til after 10:00.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm
Doesnt' everyone know where most of the blame for 9/11 should go by now?
"9/11 Commission to Question Air Defense Cutbacks
For its final public hearing on Thursday, the Sept. 11 Commission will focus on
Why U.S. air defenses were unprepared to stop an airborne attack on America, a topic that could raise questions about the decision by the Clinton administration to abolish the New Jersey Air National Guard wing that had been designated to protect New York City airspace.
When the Sept. 11 terrorists struck, the entire continent of North America was defended by just 20 fighter aircraft, arrayed in pairs in 10 locations.

Of the U.S.-based fighters, two were in Massachusetts, two in Virginia and two in Florida.
But before Clinton-era military cutbacks, the nation's air defense system also included an Air National Guard fighter wing that was stationed in Atlantic City, which had two F-16s ready to scramble 24 hours a day.
Eleven days after the attacks, former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler told the New York Times that the Atlantic City base was shut down in 1999, leaving New York City airspace defenseless.
'Up until a few years ago we had an F-16 fighter wing here in New Jersey that would be capable of intercepting one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center,' Schundler said in a follow-up interview with WABC Radio.
'They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts.'
Two F-16s had scrambled out of Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod after American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into World Trade Center Tower 1, but didn't arrive in New York airspace until 15 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC Tower 2.
http://calan8.livejournal.com/
'They could not"
There were thousands of planes in the air at the time. Where do you shoot them down, over the city? Prior to 911 the continental US was not part of NORAD's mission. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground.

 
At 01 April, 2007 06:26, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

It's easier on the poor dears that way--basically they just want any excuse to not ever have to do anything OUT THERE in the scary world.

So what are you doing again, Jenny? When can I take a look at the reams of research you've been doing, the hours of vox pop interviews you've conducted, the experts you've contacted, all the things that would make your feeble little insult there actually hold water?

Shite, James couldn't even be arsed to ask people what they thought about 911--his bleeding hobby--when he visited China.

Maybe... just maybe... he has a life outside this blog? We're not all John Conner, you know, going around with a megaphone harrassing every passing stranger to give us their thoughts about 9/11. Some of us even go whole hours without thinking about the subject! Fancy!

Incidentally, I've never heard a British person use "shite" as anything other than an adjective.

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:48, Blogger heffe said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 10:49, Blogger heffe said...

>>>The international command that monitors incoming airstrikes shouldn’t be blamed for being unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks because no one could have foreseen the strikes, defense policy analysts said<<<

A report prepared by policy analysts for their paymasters. No suprises about their conclusion. The idea the government "had no idea" planes could be used as weapons has been discredited numerous times. If not, why is the military seeking billions to track and destroy missles traveling 1000s of mph at the edge of space when they cannot track few slow moving commerical jets? The air defense was intentionally hindered by war games, central command foot dragging, and Dick "of course the order still stands" Cheney at the helm.

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:09, Blogger heffe said...

>>>who was flying the plane?<<<

According to Boeing "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." So Boeing says that a computer flys the plane. Whoever controls the computer, controls the plane. The flight deck controls are not connected directly to the rudder, flaps, etc by wires or hydraulics. The flight controls are no different (albeit more complex) than a gameboy console and are merely inputs to computer which can be ignored by the computer if it so instructed. The computer was either controlled remotely by one of the C-130s reported in the area or the computer ran a preset fight path program.

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:27, Blogger Richard said...

What would stop a terrorist from say getting Microsoft Flight Simulator and learning to use that system? They don't need to worry about taking off or landing so what they need to do is totally within the realm of possibility for that system.

What the hell does CENTCOM have to do with NORAD? Stop throwing around military terms like you know them.

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:48, Blogger heffe said...

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, not real flight training. By all accounts from his flight intructors, Hani Hanjour was incompetent. The final looping descent into the Pentagon was a complex turn according to the air traffic controllers who witnessed it on radar. The final descent also needlessly exposed the mission to additional minutes of intercept time solely to align the flight trajectory to impact the newly reinforced section of the Pentgon. Crashing directly into the roof would have been the easy and obvious choice.

 
At 01 April, 2007 11:54, Blogger texasjack said...

According to Boeing "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."

But according to Boeing, this can be overridden:
"The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.

"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

Again, if Hani is not the pilot, who is?

 
At 01 April, 2007 12:15, Blogger heffe said...

Boeing believes pilots should have the ultimate say and thus Boeing programs the onboard computer to allow override of their built-in soft limits. However, it seems unlikely that the men behind 9-11 shared Boeing's belief. If the computer can be programmed to allow override, it can be programmed to disallow it.

 
At 01 April, 2007 12:29, Blogger texasjack said...

The tale you're weaving is rather amusing, heffe. Couple of more questions. If it was remote controlled, why the complicated turn you describe? Do you believe there was ever a pilot on board? Do you believe the plane was hijacked?

 
At 01 April, 2007 12:54, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Anyway, what were PM sources again especially in their book?
Ohhh that is right, there were no cited sources, just anyonmous folk cited by PM. Nice work there!


That has to be the most blatant lie I've seen you make and it just goes to show you haven't even bothered reading what they have to say.

Remember that a true sceptic listens to both sides.

 
At 01 April, 2007 13:00, Blogger Stevew said...

And your expertise is heffe?
Why are you trying to mix the ABM with 911?
Are you an expert on the ABM?

There is always a simple way to to over ride a computer flight control system, to think other wise is just plain stupid.

How old were each of the planes and what system on each?

Were the systems on yet?

Do you know what Rev. software was on each plane?

The most difficult part of flying is take off and landing. Once you are up it is very easy to fly a plane, I know because I have done it. I suppose you are now going to tell us that you know what went on in the terrorist minds

You are makeing all these claims, where is your proof, were you there or are you just a mon. morn QB with 20/20 hind sight?

How do you know it was intentionally hindered?

Flight control system -> maneuvers the airplane. controllable by: pilot, autopilot.

Autopilot: commands the flight control system. controllable by: pilot (selected flight), fms (managed flight).

Fms: navigates the airplane according to a specified flight plan. controllable by: pilot.

http://calan8.livejournal.com/

We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm

I listened to the tapes, did you? Most of these people reacted like most people when comfronted by the unthinkable, then grounding 4700 planes, something else that has never happened before. Once they got their wits about themselfs they did an excellent job.

When dealing with a stiualtion that was unthinkable, people hesitate before they react and it doesn't take much to cause a domino effect. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground. Trying to cordinate the FAA, the Airforce and Norad is a daunting task

I wonder how the whaks would do if you were in the position of these folks but most are not qualified. The first and formost thing you have to take in to concideration is that the pilots had no rules for engagement which means that the pilots could do nothing till they have rules of engagement. There were no rules for the airforce to shoot down Amercian civilian planes.

 
At 01 April, 2007 14:51, Blogger heffe said...

>>>If it was remote controlled, why the complicated turn you describe?<<<
In order to make a straight on hit to the section of the Pentgon that had been recently reinforced for such an event.

>>>Do you believe there was ever a pilot on board?<<<
Yes, during takeoff and ascent the pilots controlled the plane.

>>>Do you believe the plane was hijacked?<<<
Obviously it was hijacked. Unless you are saying something other than flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:05, Blogger Richard said...

In order to make a straight on hit to the section of the Pentagon that had been recently reinforced for such an event.

If your going to murder 3000+ people and cause millions in collateral damage what's the point of hitting that side? Obviously you don't care about people so why care suddenly? Hitting that side also brings people like you out of the woodworks. If "they" hit another side of the pentagon that's one less talking point for you guys. That's the problem with your theories, the perp's have to be simultaneously brilliant and stupid at the same time.


Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, not real flight training. By all accounts from his flight intructors, Hani Hanjour was incompetent.

No, but it can familiarize you to the controls pretty damn well. Some instructors feel that its an unfair advantage to some students because of how realistic it is. Also, according to one of Hanjour's instructors once the plane was in the air he would have had no problem hitting his target. Either you didn't read up on that or your willfully leaving it out.

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:07, Blogger Stevew said...

What a pantsload heffe
And your expertise is heffe?
How about some proof and not your uninformed opinion. You whaks really need to do better

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:10, Blogger heffe said...

>>>Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.<<<

Patently false.

In 1995 Phillippine police recovered an al-Qaeda computer with a plan called Project Bojinka which called for flying planes into the WTC, White House, and Pentagon.

In 1999 the National Inteligence Council published a report on terrorism which said al-Qaeda retaliation for the 1998 cruise missle attack may include flying planes into the Pentagon, White House, and CIA headquarters.

In any case, the is an air force base 10 miles from the Pentagon. They had plenty of warning as testified by Norman Mineta and the fact it was obviouly an attack by 9:03 when the second plane hit.

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:16, Blogger heffe said...

>>>How about some proof<<<

Where is your proof of the OTC? All you have is the information spoon fed to you by the very people who orchestrated the crime and their lackey minions.

Let's have a completely independent investigation. Not investigations run by adminstration cronies and technical experts beholden to the cash flow of their paymasters.

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:36, Blogger Stevew said...

Horse crap I gave you links that were independent. Globalsecurity is one of the formost experts in the world on subjects like this. Why is it that you cowards always answer a question with a question and never bother to give your qualifications to post crap.

Two F-16s had scrambled out of Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod after American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into World Trade Center Tower 1, but didn't arrive in New York airspace until 15 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC Tower 2.

http://calan8.livejournal.com/
John Pike, executive director of the defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. "Under the circumstances I think it would have been difficult for them (fighter jets) to have made a difference," he said. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States is expected to accuse NORAD, a joint United States and Canadian command, of being slow and confused on that day. "On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen," the report will say, according to a Wednesday New York Times account. "What ensued was a hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040617-norad-9-11-2.htm

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#norads-drills

While some criticize the Air Force for not having fighters on alert close to likely targets such as Washington, D.C., and New York, defense analysts aren’t surprised. After the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, continental air defense was turned over to the Air National Guard, Pike said, noting that the days of planes being fueled, armed and ready on the tarmac ended long ago. "Given the prevailing attitudes at the time, it would have been an uphill struggle" to have fighters on alert for a homeland attack, Pike said. As it was, fighters that responded to Washington, D.C., came from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, and those sent to New York City flew from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Mass. The Air Force has closer bases where fighters could have been placed but weren’t, said Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Washington, D.C., think tank Lexington Institute. "Nobody took the continental air defense mission seriously before 9/11," Thompson said. "It was the bottom of the list for the Air Force. Neither NORAD or the Air force assigned a high priority to the mission. Most of the aircraft that were on alert weren’t even armed."

And your expertise is heffe?

 
At 01 April, 2007 15:40, Blogger heffe said...

>>>If your going to murder 3000+ people and cause millions in collateral damage what's the point of hitting that side?<<<

Just because SOME people will die, there is no reason to be gratuitous. Salve for the soul. That side of the Pentagon was relatively empty due to the remodel and many of the victims were construction and low level Pentagon workers. Clearly expendable low lifes. That side was directly opposite Rummy's suite and his people.

 
At 01 April, 2007 16:04, Blogger Stevew said...

The remodeling was almost done and people were working in the remodeled section. 125 people died in the area so there had to be atleast 2-3 times as many people working in that section Plus many more in the undamaged parts

 
At 01 April, 2007 16:12, Blogger heffe said...

>>>"Nobody took the continental air defense mission seriously before 9/11," said Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Washington, D.C., think tank Lexington Institute.<<<

A disgusting insult to the dedicated working folks at FAA, NORAD, and the Air Force from some ivory tower tink tank wonk.

 
At 01 April, 2007 16:36, Blogger heffe said...

The fact only 125 died is a miracle and indicates that section was mostly empty. This Pentagon publication says more than 4600 people normally occupy that section of the Pentagon.

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/Press%20Archive/02-09-03_CNSNews.mht

 
At 01 April, 2007 16:45, Blogger Stevew said...

NORAD was to protect against threats from outside our borders prior to 911, that has since changed and they were not tied into the FAA computers.

I have read every report out there and I guessed. That indicates nothing as far as how many were in there. The renovation provided a great deal more protection than the old section.
How many were there do you know?
The whole wedge was being renovated and the plane took out about a 3rd so there could have been a couple thousand.

Do you bother ever to read?
And your expertise is heffe?
You still avoid my questions. You guys are really big at asking questions but never give answers. Why is that?

 
At 01 April, 2007 17:48, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 19:04, Blogger Richard said...

A disgusting insult to the dedicated working folks at FAA, NORAD, and the Air Force

...and low level Pentagon workers. Clearly expendable low lifes

Wow, way to be a total hypocrite. I happen to know and have worked with some of those "low life's."

You never did answer my question by the way. Why discriminate only in one attack which would then in turn further expose a conspiracy?

 
At 01 April, 2007 21:15, Blogger James B. said...

In order to make a straight on hit to the section of the Pentagon that had been recently reinforced for such an event.


AA77 was facing the same side of the Pentagon (west) both before and after Hanjour made his loop. The purpose of the loop was to burn altitude, so that he could make a nice easy descent into his target a much easier maneuver that he would be more familiar with, rather than trying to divebomb a 767, which would probably result in him overshooting.

 
At 01 April, 2007 21:23, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 21:43, Blogger James B. said...

Hey genius, he was a licensed commercial pilot. In fact he was actually the only one of the 4 pilots who had his license before the plot was hatched.

In fact do you know what the instructor you are referring to in your "struggling with a Cessna" reference said about him?

O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.


For some reason that quote is left out of all the 9/11 conspiracy movies, even though it was broadcast on CNN. Do you happen to know why? Is it just oversight?

I don't recall ever having done any posts on Nico, I believe you are confusing me with Pat. There are two of us if you haven't noticed.

 
At 01 April, 2007 22:58, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 April, 2007 23:06, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 April, 2007 00:04, Blogger James B. said...

You described it as a news aggregator. I know what that is without having to visit the site.

Wow, two posts, and you avoided my question in both of them that was the subject of the conversation. That is impressive dancing.

 
At 02 April, 2007 06:54, Blogger Stevew said...

James this is 100% true. The most difficult part of flying is take off and landing. Once you are up it is very easy to fly a plane, I know because I have done it. I went up with a friend, I had never flown. He put it into a climb and when it began to stall he said to me, OK you take over LOL I did not know whither to crap or turn green but after him telling me what to do, I flew the plane for about 30 min. and I had never had my hands on a plane before, granted it was a small private plane but with a little training I have no dought I could fly a 757, maybe not land but I could fly it.

 
At 02 April, 2007 07:49, Blogger heffe said...

Richard,
The "low lifes" commentary was an attempt to speak from the mind of the perpetrators, not my mind.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that Rumsfeld and the top brass were on the other side of the Penatgon. So hitting low on the reinforced side minimized the actual danger to them and their own. You are probably correct that they did not care about the fatality count.

Rummy displayed super clairvoyant powers of prediction with regard to the Pentagon strike.

After the WTC strikes, but before the Pentagon strike, Rumsfeld said "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

After the Pentagon strike, Rumsfeld ran immediately to help (take a photo op) at the crash scene. This is odd because there was no reason to believe the attack was over, unless you had inside information. As Secretary of Defense, he was a high value target and should have been running to hide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wbush16.xml&page=4

 
At 02 April, 2007 13:18, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Where is your proof of the OTC? All you have is the information spoon fed to you by the very people who orchestrated the crime and their lackey minions.

Oh shit so all the world's structural engineers, demolition experts, fire experts, firefighters, metallurgists, air traffic controllers and air craft crash specialists were in on the plan too?

 
At 02 April, 2007 17:49, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 April, 2007 17:50, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 April, 2007 12:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Prior to 911 the continental US was not part of NORAD's mission. NORAD was not tied into the FAA computer system before 911 making it difficult if not impossible to positivly identify aircraft till most were on the ground.

Wow! You are sure hammering out the disinfo. Better update your research pal.

AA77 was facing the same side of the Pentagon (west) both before and after Hanjour made his loop. The purpose of the loop was to burn altitude,(did you talk to the terrorist?) so that he could make a nice easy descent into his target a much easier maneuver that he would be more familiar with, rather than trying to divebomb a 767, which would probably result in him overshooting.
ROFLMAO!

A nice easy decent would have been to do that in a straight line while reducing throttle as well, and then throttle up. Go watch the pilots animation. It is perfectly plausible and should have been what old Hani should have done. It would have been much easier hitting the building head on in a manner to cause the most destruction.

SLC, where fact is fiction and fiction is fact!

 
At 04 April, 2007 12:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh and Texas, your critique of the tape recorded phone calls can be dismissed as the "Style over Substance" fallacy. So try again big guy, keep rejecting the facts.

 
At 04 April, 2007 16:08, Blogger Stevew said...

sd
The only dissinformation here is what you and your ilk try and passoff as the truth but as usual you take a tiny part of what was said, spin it, offer no proof and were suppose to just believe you. I think not.
BTW sd where is the list of engineers that support you?
Ever going to post it?

 
At 04 April, 2007 20:42, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 April, 2007 20:44, Blogger pomeroo said...

Wow. Swing Dumpster has a well-earned reputation as one of the dumbest conspiracy liars around, but he seems to have suffered some sort of breakdown. First, he pretends that PM's huge list of contributing experts doesn't exist and then he attempts to revive the hopeless "pull it" canard. When you're reduced to making a complete horse's ass of yourself, Swingie, why not just pull the plug on your deranged fantasy.

The new moron on the block, heffe, is priceless. This fool is ignorant of everything that has written about the jihadist attacks of 9/11 and yet he proudly parades his near-total ignorance.

What else is new?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home