9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Now Public on Google

Keep in mind there are a few glitches in this video starting at 40 mins due to upload. Please read the description.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth brings you analysis never seen before regarding the Attack On The Pentagon. Highly technical analysis presented in a way that the layman will appreciate and understand. A 757 reported to have caused the damage at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is analyzed based on topography, obstacles, flight data, physics, and witness statements. In order to accurately determine and understand the nature of the attack, Pilots For 9/11 Truth constructed a 3D scale model of the Arlington area complete with US Geological Survey Topography, obstacles, structures and vehicles. Based on flight data, physics and witness statements, we take you to Arlington on that fateful day, observing through the eyes of those who were there. We let the viewer determine if it is possible for a 757 to navigate such a region and cause the physical damage reported at the Pentagon. Many common arguments made by those who make excuse for and support the government story are also addressed.

video.google.com...

(not sure how to embed on this forum. Mods, please feel free to edit my post for an embed, or if members would like to embed it below.)

For those arguing Arlington National Cemetary Workers perspective for north/south approach, the viewer can readily decide for themselves in the above video.

Enjoy....

Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org

very informative video. If this kind of reaserch is done more, we might actually find out what happend that day. I appriciate the fact that you didn't try to interject theorys of what might have happend after the data you gathered. Just facts. Maybe you could look into the Shanksville thing as well.

Originally posted by network dude
Maybe you could look into the Shanksville thing as well.

At the risk of drifting off topic...

12/22/07
UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS



Regards,
Rob

edit to add: Mods, i know our posts are off topic, but please consider a split before a delete... thank you




[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]

Great job Rob!

This piece focuses on all of the most critical issues surrounding the Pentagon attack.


The true aeronautic anomalies

1. The impossible final descent and contradictions in the NTSB data. (as opposed to the not so impossible final loop or the "ground effect" myth)

The most important physical damage issue

2. The lack of damage to the foundation/first floor slab. (as opposed to the "16 foot hole" myth)

The most definitive and fatal witness anomaly

3. The unanimously reported north side approach. (as opposed to ambiguous and erroneous "small plane" or alleged "missile" reports)

Google Video Link

The point of view comparisons of the north and south path for all of the critical witnesses is absolutely phenomenal and makes it 100% clear how it is impossible for them all to be so drastically mistaken in the exact same way.

Originally posted by johndoex
edit to add: Mods, i know our posts are off topic, but please consider a split before a delete... thank you

You just solved the problem...

Please post another thread with any Off Topic material you introduce.

This thread is for "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Now Public on Google".

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

excellent video, and i don't have many doubts about the claims it makes. I think this video has done an excellent job of presenting the real approach path, basically proving that the official story is bogus. Quite shocking indeed, I think most skeptics will basically do their best to either ignore or side step all the facts this video brings up.

Excellent video. Congratulations on all the hard work. I hope that it pays off in court one day, when various members of the Bush administration and the armed forces and their assistants are finally indicted.

In the mean time I hope that people you know and trust are setting up their networks of safe houses to get you guys out of the country if/when the mass arrests start.

Originally posted by johndoex
A 757 reported to have caused the damage at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is analyzed based on topography, obstacles, flight data, physics, and witness statements.

As has already been repeatedly demonstrated, this poppycock from Balsamo has already been thoroughly flushed down the toilet.

For the record, Balsamo, Ranke, and Aldo have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence whatsoever of a flyover, provide any eyewitnesses or reports from the far side of the Pentagon testifying to a flyover away from the Pentagon, have refused for over two years to interview any of the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon, and refuse to provide any flight path away from the Pentagon.

In sum, P4T and CIT know full well they do not have the evidence necessary to prove a flyover, a deception, nor refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I repeat, they know that.

Having been thoroughly incapable to provide direct positive evidence of a flyover and completely incapable of refuting the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it is now to demand that CIT and P4T to cease and desist from deliberate and intentional misrepresentation of facts and evidence, and either present the required evidence or apologize to families of the victims of 9/11 and leave.

It is long past time for Balsamo, Ranke, and Marquis to put up or shut up.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Excellent video. Congratulations on all the hard work. I hope that it pays off in court one day, when various members of the Bush administration and the armed forces and their assistants are finally indicted.

In the mean time I hope that people you know and trust are setting up their networks of safe houses to get you guys out of the country if/when the mass arrests start.

Great point. I wonder if Cafe Press allows for anonymous management of their hoodie and boffo hat and spaghetti-stringed nightie products with the stylish PfT logo emblazoned on it for that cute little conspiriacist or co-pilot in your life.

After all, when they Boys take this to court, they'll need that anonymity to keep from being caught up in the ensuing Police State.

Such brave people.

And yes, it was a fine cartoon. Most any first year Animation Grad student would indeed be proud. Too bad it isn't verified or validated as correct or has any of the other elements of a professional model or simulation that is used for discovery, analysis or demonstration purposes. But who cares? It looks good!

[edit on 11-10-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by pinch
Too bad it isn't verified or validated as correct or has any of the other elements of a professional model or simulation that is used for discovery, analysis or demonstration purposes.

I hope that knowledgeable people on this forum will give that a try. I hope we get some solid stuff, no ad hominems, no jailhouse lawyer smarm.

But who cares? It looks good!

Certainly no one in law enforcement seems to care.

Originally posted by jthomas
have refused for over two years to interview any of the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon,

Could any of those alleged 1,000 people positively identify the wreckage and prove that it was the alleged Flight AA77?

If they did so, please post their reports that proves what the alleged wreckage was.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I hope that knowledgeable people on this forum will give that a try. I hope we get some solid stuff, no ad hominems, no jailhouse lawyer smarm.

That would indeed help, but what Captain Bob really needs to do is have the organization that is responsible for the data verify and validate his usage/interpretation of the data in his simulation.

This quote exemplifies something I have been talking about for a while regarding this simulation:

One area affecting the potential return on investment in M&S is credibility. Lack of M&S credibility can severely constrain M&S uses - and hence limit the possible payoff from using M&S. Many people consider computer models a new plateau in the art of deception. Brian Arthur, an economist from Stanford University, captures a common perception by noting that, early in his career, he believed "by and large people who couldn't think analytically resorted to computer simulations...[and] that you could prove anything you wanted by tweaking the assumptions deep in your model." Computer M&S are permeating every discipline and are being accepted as necessary tools, but the use of those M&S must be watched carefully.

Bold mine.

Anyone can take any data from anything and build a simulation. How that data is used and interpreted and afterward, what the simulation says/does is the core of Captain Bob's dilemma, which boils down to professional "credibility".

It has been established that the data in the flight data recorder stopped at a specific point before impact. Anything after that point in time is speculation, and that speculation can be twisted or shaped to fit anyone's desires. In addition, I haven't seen anything anywhere that states with authority that this data is indeed the final, unambiguous and definitive data set from the AA77 FDR. PffT has provided no documentation, no official correspondence, nothing with the stamp of legitimacy regarding the data.

Further, I am in no way, shape or form prepared to accept Captain Bob's nor his group of aviation "professionals" assurance that his interpretation of the data is accurate.

If Captain Bob was serious about this "simulation" being an accurate and credible representation of events, he would submit the sim to an outside professional organization that is experienced in FDR particulars and simulation development from same. Staying within his own coterie of aviation "professionals" for verification and validation of this sim is nothing but pure nepotism.

This simulation, however, is not designed for professional analysis, for the above reasons. What it is designed for is the un-aviation-educated layman, using slick graphics and images with a haunting melody playing in the background with the intention of trying to sway people towards his line of thinking. The fact that some here on ATS have gushed over this thing with compliments such as "Excellent video!" and "Great Job, Rob!" is prima facie evidence of this.This sim wouldn't make it past the first day in court is it were to be introduced as a valid and verified simulation of what happened.

This simulation is tailor-made for You Tube or Google Video. spinning a web to catch aviation-challenged souls in its slick production values.

In this video, at 8:30, you say "this scale presentation is available at the end of this video" but I see no reference to it or any location for it?

I am no 3d expert, but I have friends who are able to use such tools. Is your scale model available or do I have to pay you for access to it?

Originally posted by pinch
In addition, I haven't seen anything anywhere that states with authority that this data is indeed the final, unambiguous and definitive data set from the AA77 FDR. PffT has provided no documentation, no official correspondence, nothing with the stamp of legitimacy regarding the data.

Can you see the hypocrisy in this statement?

You're asking PFT to provide documentation about the data from the alleged FDR to prove that it is authentic. Yet at the same time you don't require any documented proof from the government to prove that the alleged wreckage belongs to AA77?

Did you ask the government for documented proof that the data from the alleged FDR of AA77 was final, definitive and unambiguous? Where is that proof located?

Originally posted by pinch
That would indeed help, but what Captain Bob really needs to do is have the organization that is responsible for the data verify and validate his usage/interpretation of the data in his simulation.

This goes to the heart of the problem. In the video it is stated that neither the NTSB nor the FBI will comment on the questions raised by Pilots for Truth or CIT. This reinforces the widely held view that the government is hiding something. Some people even go so far as to think that people within the NTSB released inconsistent data intentionally to alert the public that something nefarious happened on 9/11, something more than the advertised assault on America by foreign terrorists.

We are down to the classic problem here of who investigates the investigators. There is very low confidence in the Bush administration and in law enforcement on the Bush watch. Are you suggesting that the aviation authorities in a country like France or Germany or Japan or Sweden be brought into the problem to look at the issues? That would be a neat trick if it could be done, but realpolitik argues against anything like that happening.

This quote exemplifies something I have been talking about for a while regarding this simulation:

One area affecting the potential return on investment in M&S is credibility. Lack of M&S credibility can severely constrain M&S uses - and hence limit the possible payoff from using M&S. Many people consider computer models a new plateau in the art of deception. Brian Arthur, an economist from Stanford University, captures a common perception by noting that, early in his career, he believed "by and large people who couldn't think analytically resorted to computer simulations...[and] that you could prove anything you wanted by tweaking the assumptions deep in your model." Computer M&S are permeating every discipline and are being accepted as necessary tools, but the use of those M&S must be watched carefully.

Bold mine.

Couldn't agree more. There are some very unconvincing computer simulations arguing that the WTC wasn't brought down by controlled demolition. Where are we when that kind of thing comes from the engineering department of a university and is still shot full of holes by laymen on ATS?

Anyone can take any data from anything and build a simulation. How that data is used and interpreted and afterward, what the simulation says/does is the core of Captain Bob's dilemma, which boils down to professional "credibility".

No one has any credibility anymore. That is one of the most disturbing things about 9/11.

It has been established that the data in the flight data recorder stopped at a specific point before impact. Anything after that point in time is speculation, and that speculation can be twisted or shaped to fit anyone's desires. In addition, I haven't seen anything anywhere that states with authority that this data is indeed the final, unambiguous and definitive data set from the AA77 FDR. PffT has provided no documentation, no official correspondence, nothing with the stamp of legitimacy regarding the data.

Because there is such a crisis of credibility around these issues, the only thing that could possibly clarify things now is the release of all the video footage of the Pentagon incident.

Further, I am in no way, shape or form prepared to accept Captain Bob's nor his group of aviation "professionals" assurance that his interpretation of the data is accurate.

I agree. We are way past that stage. Nobody is taking anybody's word for anything anymore, nor should they, in a situation like 9/11.

If Captain Bob was serious about this "simulation" being an accurate and credible representation of events, he would submit the sim to an outside professional organization that is experienced in FDR particulars and simulation development from same.

Can you suggest an organization that could be expected to issue a report free from pressure of any sort? I'd like to know the name of that group.

This simulation, however, is not designed for professional analysis, for the above reasons. What it is designed for is the un-aviation-educated layman, using slick graphics and images with a haunting melody playing in the background with the intention of trying to sway people towards his line of thinking. The fact that some here on ATS have gushed over this thing with compliments such as "Excellent video!" and "Great Job, Rob!" is prima facie evidence of this.This sim wouldn't make it past the first day in court is it were to be introduced as a valid and verified simulation of what happened.

Like it or not, these issues are in the court of public opinion because that is where the Bush administration chose to make it's case. In that court the Bush team is getting shellacked.





[edit on 12-10-2008 by ipsedixit]

ipsedixit
Like it or not, these issues are in the court of public opinion because that is where the Bush administration chose to make it's case. In that court the Bush team is getting shellacked.

Indeed. The Bush Regime is an administration based on lie after lie after lie. Every person in the entire world has the right to suspect that anything coming out of the Bush Regime is a lie.

Who investigates the investigator? Does the primary suspect have the right to investigate itself and pronounce itself innocent? Should the public trust such a sorry investigation? Of course not.

reply to post by SPreston

One of the facts that people have to face when discussing any aspect of 9/11 is that, while we might, for the purposes of a particular conversation, focus our attention on this or that isolated aspect of what happened that day, there is an 800 hundred pound gorilla hanging around in the backround of every discussion.

The 800 pound gorilla is the preponderance of evidence that the administration's version of 9/11 just doesn't add up. This evidence takes the form of outright lies, changes in the story, failures of accountability or acceptance of responsibility (Richard Clarke and a couple of others excepted), failure to dismiss or demote those who were derelict in duty, the sudden extinction of the most endangered species on earth, the honest American journalist, the complete failure of the media mainstream to ask the most fundamental questions about 9/11 . . . etc, etc.

With that kind of backround behind every discussion, there is a strong temptation to resolve every question of doubt in favour of an omnipresent conspiracy. Every level of US officialdom is now tarred with this suspicion because there has never been an honest national examination of legitimate areas of concern.

Worse yet, people are starting to talk militantly about this situation. This pot is not going to stop simmering until it is taken off the burner. The issues are too serious.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yet at the same time you don't require any documented proof from the government to prove that the alleged wreckage belongs to AA77?

Give us a reason and proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and that the over 1,000 people who had access to the wreckage believe it is "alleged" wreckage.

You see, none of you believers in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale will take any responsibility for your claims when you have every opportunity in the world to demonstrate that hundreds of people are available for YOU to interview.

When CIT and P4T have been asked for over 2 years why they won't take that fundamental step, they make every lame excuse in the world not to. Is it any wonder that after seven years NO ONE takes your claims seriously?

The 9/11 Truth Movement is in its waning days, a failed political movement that self-imploded.

Originally posted by SPreston

ipsedixit
Like it or not, these issues are in the court of public opinion because that is where the Bush administration chose to make it's case. In that court the Bush team is getting shellacked.

Indeed. The Bush Regime is an administration based on lie after lie after lie. Every person in the entire world has the right to suspect that anything coming out of the Bush Regime is a lie.

You've been whining for seven years and have been shown repeatedly to be dishing out lie after lie about 9/11. Give us a good reason why you think anyone should trust you and your 9/11 Denial Movement.

reply to post by jthomas


Not everyone fits into your classification of truther. Some folks just don't think the official STORY adds up. There are too many holes. And not enough holes in the pentagon. The video presented only shows that the official flight path as reported was wrong. That is all it has to prove. You nor I will ever know the real story untill someone releases the videos from all the CCTV cameras pointed at the pentagon wall on that day. 4 frames just don't cut it. If it was a plane as you believe, then what could the possible harm be in releasing these videos? There are no more trials to be held in this reguard. And I am pretty sure that if I asked you if you trust the Bush administration 100%, you and everyone else with a hint of a brain would say no.