Wednesday, December 08, 2010

David Griscom's Latest Hypothesis

You can tell David L. Griscom's a serious scientist, because he's careful to call it a hypothesis and not a theory.

Is he a CIT-head?
I have previously prepared a PowerPoint (available on request) based on eyewitness reports and the officially released Pentagon-security-camera frames that supports a hypothesis proposed by others that the Pentagon was struck on 9/11 by a smallish twin engine aircraft superficially resembling the a Boeing 737, 757, or 767. Most probably the specific aircraft type was Cold-War-era Navy A-3 converted to an unmanned air vehicle (UAV). UAVs are commonly referred to as “drones.” According to eyewitness reports, this second aircraft arrived at the Pentagon simultaneously with American Airlines Flight 77 (AA-77) but from a different quarter, at higher speed, and at lower altitude. Thus, most witnesses caught a glimpse of one or the other of the two planes, but not both. The expanding fireball of the A-3 impact then distracted everyone from noting (or correctly interpreting) the escape of the Boeing 757. In this analysis of the Pentagon attack, the passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77 (AA-77) would have escaped unscathed.


Is he a pod person?
So I reasoned that that both UA-175 (#N612UA) and AA-11 (#N334AA) took off on the morning of 11 September 2001 as unmodified Boeing 767s that had been continuously in the possession of their original owners. However, the plane that actually struck WTC2 was captured on film and digital video cameras by many dozens of individuals – and widely-published frames from these films (some even appearing on magazine covers) show the impacting aircraft to have unmistakable external modifications.


Or is he a bumbler?
Returning to the proposed ruse, I asked myself: Would it have been possible to fool the radars into missing two aircraft swapping places? Actually, the answer might have been “No” ...were it not for one thing: AA-11 turned off its transponder at a convenient time to cover up its possible substitution for a drone not possessing a transponder. This switchoff was done at point and time D on Slides 2 and 3, respectively – i.e., just before the two aircraft would have met near point E in my scenario. An aircraft’s transponder sends high-strength signals (so-called “mode C returns”) back the radar installations with encoded data specifically identifying the aircraft in terms of a four-digit number assigned by the air traffic controllers and giving its precise altitude based on an on-board airpressure altimeter. The “primary returns” (small triangles in Slide 3) represent reflections of the radar pulses off the skin of the aircraft, which bounce back to the radar receiver as signals very much weaker than those from the aircraft’s transponder ...and carrying no information about the aircraft’s identity. These weak primary returns are susceptible to large statistical errors when an attempt is made to extract altitude data from them (note scatter in triangles in Slide 3).

Nevertheless, as suggested by the bold arrows that I have added in Slide 3, the NTSB primary-return data appear consistent with actual detection of an unknown aircraft climbing to 30,400 ft and there meeting AA-11, which in turn promptly begins to descend.


Well, actually he's all of the above, and more. Believe it or not, Steven Jones' favorite peer reviewer believes in a CIT-like hypothesis for Flight 175:
Specifically, what I see in this film is a super-fast aircraft much nearer the camera than to the WTC, which pulls out of a steep dive practically simultaneously with the 767 attacker seen striking WTC2, banks sharply to its right, and disappears going away from the camera (in the general direction of the WTC). The object I am describing here has been widely noted but is generally spoken of as being a bird. However, no bird known to man is capable of flying laterally into our field of view and then turning away and disappearing in the distance in a total elapsed time of less than a second! Yet this is exactly what we see in Slide 6! It seems quite possible that this may be the very same “bird” as the one captured flying west to east just north of the World Trade Center just 14 seconds later (see the following video and Slide 7):


Good news for the family members: Griscom no longer believes that all the passengers survived.
In earlier versions of this hypothesis, I supposed that all passengers were co-conspirators, who would have been sent on their separate ways to tropical islands or mountaintop retreats of their choices. Subsequently, it was suggested to me that the head conspirators might not have had complete trust in everyone privy to the conspiracy. Thus, while promising a cushy “witness protection program” to every co-conspirator ordered to board one of these flights on the morning of 9/11/01, it seems very possible that the leaders shunted aside and murdered those they considered less trustworthy. Moreover, on study of the occupations and travel priorities of some of the people on the passenger and cabincrew lists of the 9/11 “hijacked” jetliners, I now believe that a number of innocent people were allowed to board these flights as well ...and that all of these innocents were murdered.

(Italics in original)

Well, as you can see, David Griscom is a very serious and diligent researcher. I can readily believe that his 12 pages of comments and suggestions on the nanothermite paper improved it immeasurably. Note to commenters: Don't talk about the microspheres! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Labels:

14 Comments:

At 08 December, 2010 10:36, Blogger TroyFromWV said...

At least this America Hater got the F out and resides in Mexico.

The other twoofnuts should follow his example.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:00, Blogger Billman said...

I still believe troofers should all move to Iran, since they love it so much.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:36, Blogger Bill said...

So lets get this straight, there were 2 planes at the Pentagon even though everyone only saw 1, and 1 of them crashed while the other flew away even though people only saw the crash?

Wow...indeed we are dealing with a scholar of the highest magnitude.

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Truth is there were two aircraft near the crash site, A military C130 was asked to spot the fast moving radar signal from flight 77. The crew witnessed the 757 hit the Pentagon and reported it as such. Later the same crew saw the smoke form the Pennsylvania crash as it resumed it's flight to Minnesota.

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:51, Blogger TV said...

"his 12 pages of comments and suggestions on the nanothermite paper improved it immeasurably"

That is most certainly true - provided you understand immeasurably as "below detection limit".

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So as far as the Pentagon goes, it was the second plane on the grassy knoll that did it?

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:06, Blogger paul w said...

From the man himself:

"Despite the absence of any visible fire at the time of collapse, the government report alleges WTC Building 7 is the first and only steel-framed high-rise building in the history of mankind to collapse simply as the result of a fire."

Absence of visible fire?

Add 'liar' to the list.

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Absence of visible fire?

This is one of those things that anyone with a good memory of that day can refute. Watching the news, I remember they kept saying that WTC 7 was on fire and in danger of collapse. I had never heard of WTC 7 and didn't know which building it was, but there was one building just north of the WTC that looked like it was pouring smoke. That smoking building was indeed WTC 7.

But of course there were no fires, the truthers say so.

 
At 08 December, 2010 17:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Pat posted a link to a video shot by a guy who actually went into WTC7. There was fire, and the fire alarm was blasting too.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Don't talk about the microspheres! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

:)

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation."
-Patastrophic Failure

Source?

 
At 08 December, 2010 20:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Andrew Bernstein (aka "Pat Cowardly") whines, "...Source?"

Again dufus, for the 120th time, this is a link to the RJ Lee Report:

Source: WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank.

Cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres. A simple cut-and-paste from the RJ Lee Report will suffice.

You can't cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres?

Then STFU.

 
At 08 December, 2010 21:19, Blogger James B. said...

Gee, how could we doubt the scientific mind of a man who would write this?

Possible solutions to Skarlet’s riddles:
• A high-wing aircraft like an A-3, seen directly from behind and flying parallel to
the ground might appear like a helicopter – at least for a split second...
• The DoD has been working for more than a decade on “cloaking” technologies
capable of making objects become nearly invisible at the flick of a switch.


Well I guess cloaking devices would be a possible answer to many questions!

 
At 09 December, 2010 12:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"8 years since my uncle was MURDERED and I get some dumb ass piece of shit bitch insulting me because I dare to question the circumstances under which he was murdered?" - YT

Source?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home