| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: Another Lightpoles Witness... |
 |
|
I thought this would be clearer in its own thread. There's been an on/off discussion on this forum about the lightpoles, and specifically who saw them hit as the plane approached the pentagon. I was quite shocked to discover today that one of the witnesses who saw the lightpoles hit was...
Chadwick Brooks.
He is one of the police officers interviewed in the Pentacon video, who claims that the plane flew in on a different flightpath to the official theory. Now there's a problem here - Brooks is claiming a flightpath that didn't take the plane on a trajectory where it could have hit the lightpoles, yet he claims to have seen the plane clip a lightpole as it flew towards the pentagon.
Three suggestions...
1) NWO LAMP-POLE REPAIR. The same men in black who planted the lamp-poles in the taxi and on the fake OT flightpath, also came in and REPAIRED the ones that were really hit by the plane.
2) BROOKS IS A LIAR. An NWO agent perhaps, or a cultist liar like the priest McGraw. Another one to add to the list.
3) HE IS MISTAKEN. About the lamp-pole? About the plane hitting the pentagon? Or ABOUT THE FLIGHTPATH?
The basic question - How did he see the plane hit a lamp-pole if the plane was on a flightpath that couldn't hit them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex,
If I remember rightly he's pressed about this in the Pentacon film and admits he said that it clipped a light pole because he'd knew (heard) that it did. He admits he didn't actually see it.
My mind is far from mad up about the Pentagon and what happened there, but this does serve of an example of how eye witness testimoney works - people add what they heard happened to the very sketchy split second perception they actually went through...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What about the F77 black box data, does it square with the light pole route? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but this does serve of an example of how eye witness testimoney works - people add what they heard happened to the very sketchy split second perception they actually went through... |
I agree 100%.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | If I remember rightly he's pressed about this in the Pentacon film and admits he said that it clipped a light pole because he'd knew (heard) that it did. He admits he didn't actually see it. |
You're right that he doesn't mention the plane clipping the lightpoles in the pentacon video, but he does in the interview for the American Memory Project. If he contradicts himself from one interview to the next, what are we to make of his 'smoking gun' evidence on the flightpath?
Even weirder is the other police officer, Lagasse, an even more key witness for conspiracy theorists. He places the hit lightpoles in TOTALLY the wrong place, yet the interviewer doesn't even bring it up at the time. And he is to be trusted on the flightpath of the plane?
| Quote: | | My mind is far from mad up about the Pentagon and what happened there, but this does serve of an example of how eye witness testimoney works - people add what they heard happened to the very sketchy split second perception they actually went through... |
I think you're right there actually, but of course your comment cuts both ways. I agree that asking witnesses 5 years after the event to precisely recount what they saw at the time is a problematic way to try and establish facts.
At the same time, ALL the witnesses agree that they saw the plane hit the pentagon. Exactly how unequivocal do the witnesses have to be on this point before a basic truth is accepted - THAT THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Was there no DU contamination at the Pentagon 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | What about the F77 black box data, does it square with the light pole route? |
That's about the fifth time that I've been asked to shed light on the black box data on this forum.
This is presumably because the truthers don't even know what they know about the black box data. I must admit that I don't know what truthers even think they know about the black box data.
If you have a specific point about it to bring up, then do so. Just mentioning 'black box data' does not prove or insinuate a conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you the only person on earth who has not heard of Calum Douglas's Pentagon research Pilots for 9/11 truth??? please keep up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Are you the only person on earth who has not heard of Calum Douglas's Pentagon research Pilots for 9/11 truth??? please keep up! |
Pilots for Truth suggest that the NTSB flight animation working copy that they were sent is wrong - I agree. Unfortunately there is no indication to how accurately prepared the animation was, and I don't think it has ever been used to prove anything to anyone. Presumably because it is inaccurate.
They also make suggestions based on data in the CSV file in the black box - the response that I have seen is that the CSV provides data so that the course of a plane can be plotted, but is not accurate to the degree that it could provide the information that PilotsForTruth would like to suggest.
Critics also suggest that because of the delay in data being added to the CSV file in-flight, that the data could lag by up to two seconds. This may explain why the descending plane is considered to be too high to strike the Pentagon, when in fact the data could refer to its position far earlier in its approach to the Pentagon.
In short there is debate over the black box, and I think enough debate for me to cast reasonable doubt on PfT's findings, even before we consider the accuracy of the instruments on the plane, or the way PfT's findings dispute both the physical evidence and all of the witnesses to the approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Are you the only person on earth who has not heard of Calum Douglas's Pentagon research Pilots for 9/11 truth??? please keep up! |
Is Calum "snowygrouch" here ?
If so (stressing if so) didn't he claim to have got hold of the raw flight data - from an inside source, but previously unavailable - many months ago and promised an accurate analysis? What happened to that? Did it get posted somewhere?
My apologies in advance if I'm mixing up my Calum's with my snowygrouches.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | ...didn't he claim to have got hold of the raw flight data - from an inside source, but previously unavailable - many months ago and promised an accurate analysis? What happened to that? Did it get posted somewhere? |
I think he sums it up in this talk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522
The flightpath in the raw file confirms the official theory (very honest of him to admit that tbh). The altitude is still questionable for the plane to have hit the pentagon. 21 mins-ish is where he discusses that in the video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ...but the alleged F77 altitude was wrong to hit the light poles, then there's the defendants repeatedly obfuscating, prevaracating and plain changing their story (in contempt of court?) about photos or film of whatever hit the Pentagon 9/11...then there's the making of the salvaged F77 B757 component serial numbers classified information...and the DU contamination at the Pentagon?...the tiny hole piercing three rings of the facility cruise missile stylie...the black box allegedly turning up three days later at 4am (when doesn't the thing give off a 'ping' to help find it?)...then there's the hitting this obscure side of the edifice after looping the loop...the laughable shiny unscratched uncorched piece of fuselage that kept turning up as post crash 'evidence'...but, of couse, the big question is ...HOW DID THIS 'HIJACKED PLANE' EVADE STANDARD SECURITY PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST PLACE? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | HOW DID THIS 'HIJACKED PLANE' EVADE STANDARD SECURITY PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST PLACE? |
What, the missile batteries that according to evidence free truthers, protected the Pentagon? I'll wager that most UK truthers have never left their home towns, let alone been anywhere near the '911 locations'.
Or did you read about what 'standard security procedures' whatever they were/are on a truther website? Must be so then.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Even weirder is the other police officer, Lagasse, an even more key witness for conspiracy theorists. He places the hit lightpoles in TOTALLY the wrong place, yet the interviewer doesn't even bring it up at the time. And he is to be trusted on the flightpath of the plane?
At the same time, ALL the witnesses agree that they saw the plane hit the pentagon. Exactly how unequivocal do the witnesses have to be on this point before a basic truth is accepted - THAT THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON? |
Lagasse's problem is that the lightpoles cannot be hit if the plane flew on the flightpath that he recalls. He knew lightpoles were hit so is trying, in his own mind, to reconcile 2 conflicting events. He chooses to stick with the north of Citgo flightpath. If he was the only one who saw that flightpath then you would go "hmmm" but luckily he is backed up by more witnesses from more locations who all come to the same conclusion - a flightpath which does not match the official story flightpath.
If the flightpath is incorrect, it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | If the flightpath is incorrect, it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
What's bizarre about it? Are you saying that proving the plane flying north of the Citgo station is not proof of an inside job? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | I'll wager that most UK truthers have never left their home towns, let alone been anywhere near the '911 locations'. |
Does Aldi in Swindon count?
p.s. I don't live in Swindon
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
Good idea - they might be able to talk you through the physics of the taxi driver's story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Does Aldi in Swindon count? |
Yes, but we aren't allowed to explain why.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
When you are able to think more logically, you may realise your faux pas by noticing that the claim about an inside job was predicated upon the truth of the northern approach of the plane by the Citgo gas station. If you don't think a northern approach that made hitting poles impossible does not prove the falsity of the official scenario about Flight 77 hitting light poles (and - by implication - that 9/11 was an inside job), then I fear that you are beyond recovery of your lost sense of logic.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | sam wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
When you are able to think more logically, you may realise your faux pas by noticing that the claim about an inside job was predicated upon the truth of the northern approach of the plane by the Citgo gas station. If you don't think a northern approach that made hitting poles impossible does not prove the falsity of the official scenario about Flight 77 hitting light poles (and - by implication - that 9/11 was an inside job), then I fear that you are beyond recovery of your lost sense of logic. |
Dear oh dear. I'm well aware that a NoC approach would (if true) prove the "inside job". No argument from me about that. The NoC approach, however, is scientifically impossible. The plane couldn't travel at any plausible speed NoC and make the turn into the Pentagon. The calculations provided by sceptics even allow for an impossibly short time to bank in and bank out of the turn. How fair is that eh?
Your whole point revolves around the phrase "predicated upon". Nice words. Do you actually know what they mean?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's recap shall we?
| KP50 wrote: | | If the flightpath is incorrect, it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
| pepik wrote: | | Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
| sam wrote: | | No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
| sam wrote: | | I'm well aware that a NoC approach would (if true) prove the "inside job". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | Quote: | | HOW DID THIS 'HIJACKED PLANE' EVADE STANDARD SECURITY PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST PLACE? |
What, the missile batteries that according to evidence free truthers, protected the Pentagon? I'll wager that most UK truthers have never left their home towns, let alone been anywhere near the '911 locations'.
Or did you read about what 'standard security procedures' whatever they were/are on a truther website? Must be so then. |
No, I'm talking about intercepts that popular mechanics magazine wrongly claimed only happened once in the ten years prior to 9/11, I suspect you knew that when you went off on that rant.You also ignored 80%appx of what I wrote for some reason better known to your good self!
..did you watch the youtube of the NIST egineer in denial about WTC molten metal in the basements weeks post 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | No, I'm talking about intercepts that popular mechanics magazine wrongly claimed only happened once in the ten years prior to 9/11... |
This is the bit you are referring to.
| Popular Mechanics wrote: | | In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. |
Which bit of it is wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | Let's recap shall we?
| KP50 wrote: | | If the flightpath is incorrect, it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
| pepik wrote: | | Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
| sam wrote: | | No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
| sam wrote: | | I'm well aware that a NoC approach would (if true) prove the "inside job". |
|
KP50, the laugh resides in the first few words of your post .. "If the flightpath is incorrect..."
p.s. did you read Russell Pickering's demolition of "faked flight path" over in that other thread? Shall we talk about MiB pruning trees and scattering leaves over the road?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: |
I think he sums it up in this talk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522
The flightpath in the raw file confirms the official theory (very honest of him to admit that tbh). The altitude is still questionable for the plane to have hit the pentagon. 21 mins-ish is where he discusses that in the video. |
What a strange video. He cant seem to make up his mind and contradicts himself a few times. The points to not are is his analysis confirms the OT flight path. The only thing he disagrees on is the altitude. But, a big but!!! He mentions that the FDR stores error margins and uses this on the range rings for the beacons from the airport. So were is the error margin for the fad alt? There must be one so where is it? Rad Alt are not that accurate and dont need to be that accurate on a an airliner. So his whole argument is blown out of the water for not mentioning this error margin. Could this possible be deliberate? Could the Truth movement hide the truth? I thought only governments lied?
Also, were is the proof of calibration of the maps? How accurate is google earth in terms of lat and long etc? Also the mapping on the FDR software?
Finally, for now, the 2 phone calls. Who did they actually ring? Did the honestly expect to be put through to the correct person who would have the correct file open on their desk ready to answer? Of course they would not be able to answer straight away. They probably get nut jobs calls everyday.
In summary, nothing new, speculation mainly and what evidence is presented agrees with the OT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | No, I'm talking about intercepts that popular mechanics magazine wrongly claimed only happened once in the ten years prior to 9/11... |
This is the bit you are referring to.
| Popular Mechanics wrote: | | In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. |
Which bit of it is wrong? |
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html#intercepts
What's your spin on the NIST 'engineer' in molten metal denial youtube??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | Let's recap shall we?
| KP50 wrote: | | If the flightpath is incorrect, it is an inside job whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not - unless you are the sort of person who is comfortable with lightpoles toppling by themselves. |
| pepik wrote: | | Am I the only person who finds this completely bizarre? |
| sam wrote: | | No. I went a bit dizzy reading it and thought about phoning the BSPLT (British Society for the Promotion of Logical Thought). Might have to leave this till tomorrow when I'm feeling better. |
| sam wrote: | | I'm well aware that a NoC approach would (if true) prove the "inside job". |
|
KP50, the laugh resides in the first few words of your post .. "If the flightpath is incorrect..."
p.s. did you read Russell Pickering's demolition of "faked flight path" over in that other thread? Shall we talk about MiB pruning trees and scattering leaves over the road? |
Oh you mean the laugh lies in the part of the quote that pepik left out and I put back in? I don't see the humour there but then I was raised on Dad's Army and Porridge, not this modern "alternative" humour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html#intercepts |
There's no indication that the 67 scrambles in the period before 9/11 are inside or outside the ADIZ (which is the crucial point), or if the planes actually intercepted planes as part of these scrambles. So the information does not contradict the point made by the Popular Mechanics article.
| Quote: | | What's your spin on the NIST 'engineer' in molten metal denial youtube??? |
I haven't seen the clip for a long time - can you link to it? As I remember a NIST guy is asked in a talk about molten metal, and is unaware of the issue. I don't know what relevance to put on it really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
