At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 :

reply to post by Nola213


Nola213, I already did give my opinion :

The most IMPORTANT TASK from now on will be to find paper trails from that plane that departed gate D18 on 9/11, because it is quite illogical that a false FDR has been constructed during so many years and based on so many tiny details; with such a blatantly wrong departure gate in its subframes datapoints. It looks as if one or more still patriotic Americans who were ordered (or compliant) to construct that false FDR, have left that HUGE indicator of tampering with evidence inside that false FDR.

And that is one of the reasons why I from this point in time on, strongly distrust Balsamo as a genuine honest 9/11 investigator, because he really made a far too strong illogical effort to set his members off on a wrong investigation trail, to a wrong departure gate at Dulles, thus to a fully wrong plane to investigate. And did not hesitate to ban a newly posting older member like me, who came too close to the true departure gate.

Another strong reason to distrust him is that I also see him as the main influence on the CIT team, to wrongfully connect the best 9/11 effort ever, namely their finding and videotaping of all those Flight AA77 North of CITGO flight path witnesses, with such an illogic theory as a fly-over over the Pentagon roofs by Flight 77.

Yes, I also invite everybody from P49/11T to this thread here, to defend or doubt that fly-over theory.

reply to post by LaBTop


Disagree. The most important task is to get over wasting time chasing planes that didn't exist.

reply to post by LaBTop


ok I got ya, thanks for the reply Labtop. Like I said there's was alot to read and I kinda thought that this was your feelings on the matter. But I just wanted to make sure.

again nice thread, I'm gonna have to read it in much more detail (rather than skimming over it) when I have some extra time.

Originally posted by LaBTop

files.abovetopsecret.com...




How on earth Balsamo ever could conclude to Gate D9 or D11 as the departure gate for the plane depicted in those false flight data from the FOIA requests, is a complete mystery for me.

It seems to be a mystery for you, because Balsamo never made such a claim. Your photo above does not show the data at D9 or D11.

Here it is clearly laid out in a concise and easy to understand manner.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Seems to me you just have a stick up your butt for Pilots For 911 Truth because you were suspended. And if your OP is any indication, I'm not surprised why you were.

Originally posted by CherryV
reply to post by LaBTop

 

You have put so much work into this post i am almost ashamed to comment, as it contains much of which I have never heard of, such Pilot's forums and suchlike. It is not for my lack of interest, as one interview in particular I saw on that day stuck in my mind that I saw on that day and has remained with me ever since....so I have had my own suspicions about that. It is just there is so much to take in, it will take days rather than hours. What can be done about this though? If this is concrete proof, who will act on it? Or is it destined to stay on ATS for ever more and be debated over.

Well, when for example, you follow the timeline of my seismic evidence postings already years ago, you will see that nothing at all happened, only a few seismologists took parts of my thesis, reworded it and wrote some of their own pieces.
But nothing of it ever got to the masses, while it is solid evidence of human intervention at especially WTC 7, that collapsed at about 17:30 in the afternoon of 9/11.
You, in the USA, are depleted of any solid 9/11 truth in the public media, already all these years, which is evidence in itself, how controlled your public media in fact are. Only the Internet is still free enough, but for how long?


There was a huge seismic peak recorded in the nearest seismic station at Palisades State of New York station, at least 3 seconds before in the city of New York, any movement was recorded on video and photo, of the start of a global collapse of that WTC 7 building.
I was able to connect the time lines of the seismic institute which was 17 seconds behind in recording the seismic events in New York, and the events in New York, because NIST published a photograph of the onset of the WTC 7 global collapse in their reports. That photo had a time stamp over it, which was connected to an atomic clock, as NIST explained.
So, suddenly I was able to very precisely compare recordings at LDEO Palisades seismic station to real time events in New York, with great accuracy. Note that seismic events can be and are recorded with an accuracy of 10th of thousands of a second normally.

The peak recorded 17 seconds later in Palisades, but in New York real time, 3 seconds before that Cianca atomic clocked photo was shot in New York, and was magnitudes greater than all the seismic peaks following, which were recorded 3 seconds later while the whole 47 floors high steel and concrete building totally collapsed.
Which of course weighted 100,000s of tons.
The seismologists at Palisades had found over many decades of registering seismic events, that it took 17 seconds for seismic signals from Manhattan to reach their seismograph at Palisades.

That means there must have been a huge explosion somewhere in the bottom floors, 3 seconds before first global collapse signs were photographed or video graphed, with a power many times more exceeding the total collapse of a 47 story high building, on the bedrock under WTC 7, so 3 seconds before that photo of the first dent occurring in the WTC 7 roof east penthouse was shot.

Go to my media page to find much more seismic photos and diagrams :
media.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is my seismic diagram, which costs me months to construct, of that special seismic 9/11 moment :
890px × 766px :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Downscaled to 640 px x 550 px to fit in an ATS post :




There should be a new website erected, solely dedicated to bring all the already known solid evidence of 9/11 wrongdoing under the attention of a much broader public, by means of law suits, buying advertising time at the big TV-Networks, getting ads in the biggest newspapers, the smaller will follow automatically. Writing articles for the weekly's and monthly's, etc.

Effectively the biggest 9/11 lawsuit fund raising campaign, ever.

Based on all that extra solid evidence our colleague in one of the last posts will hopefully also come up with, if he can and will.

Go, ATS owners, contemplate on it....

OK, so now I've read a bit more of this... you are claiming that a false flight 77 hit the pentagon? I am still waiting for evidence that a boeing hit the pentagon, not a small drone. All the physical evidence is completely against a 757 hitting the pentagon, and there are plenty of posts in ATS to show that.
If you are a 911 OS skeptic, why not start with the simple indisputable physical evidence, the towers at free-fall (all THREE) and the damage to pentacon (tiny hole - no damage where wings would be etc).
These are simple proven facts, everything else is distortion. Get over those, then the mountain of circumstantial evidence will make you simple laugh at the OS.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


The simplest way to eliminate planes from the mix is to examine the damage.

The C-ring punch out hole at the pentagon eliminates a plane. It was a rapid wall breaching kit.

It's anyone's guess what caused the entry hole...explosives, missile, or truck bomb. Sure as hell wasn't a jet.

reply to post by mrwiffler


I get what your saying. If 911 was the governments doing there would be a never ending cycle of fake info. I just figure, past is past no reason to dwell, youll never get anywhere. Its not like the government is going to come out and say sorry.

reply to post by otie1


I think the point is to reach the people who believe the government-that-won't-say-they're-sorry.

Originally posted by Yankee451
The most important task is to get over wasting time chasing planes that didn't exist.

The "no-planer" threads are in the HOAX bin. That's where your "no-planer" comments belong. Thank you.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


How to tell when you're being led down a dead end by shysters:

www.rbs0.com...

reply to post by LaBTop


I think you are taking what I stated a bit too harshly. I am not criticizing your research....I am not as well versed in that particular area of the 9/11 story....so I can't give a really honest critique of it without doing some of my own research into that area.

Basically all I am suggesting is that this doesn't qualify as a 'Watergate' style of bombshell. I said there was much more conclusive evidence of some conspiracy. An example much more conclusive evidence would be the way the Twin Towers fell, which are not consistent with multiple floors pancaking down upon one another. The fact that building 7 fell at all is much more conclusive evidence. The fact that various authorities acted as if they knew they were bringing down building 7 at a specified time is more conclusive. The fact that the very authors of the official 9/11 story have come out suggesting that they were lied to, and that much of their investigation was hampered by the Government is more conclusive evidence......Even so, none of this evidence equals a 'Watergate' style of bombshell either. A Watergate style bombshell evidence would be something like an official document describing a false flag incident to be carried out on American Soil on 9/11, signed by George Bush.

'Watergate' level of evidence needs to be conclusive with no other possible explanation, other than the guilty parties being caught in the (or planning the) act. Nothing you presented reaches that criteria. The data from the planes themselves could be a computer screw up.....Or the result of an electrical failure in the instruments. That's only two possible scenarios. If this ever went to court there would be a myriad of excuses trying to explain it away. Even evidence you've presented that seems to prove that the Government covered up the evidence could be explained away as the result of poor management by the investigating agency. Or they could admit to covering it up...but they could say that it simply didn't match their other data, so they concluded it was the result of some faulty instrument or something (linking it to the explanations of why the evidence doesn't match in the first place)...and they could say they simply ignored it because of that.

Again...I am not criticizing your research....only the label you used to present it, that's all. Without examining it in great detail it would appear from my first impression of it, that you have done a fine job of investigating all of this.

LaBToP, a couple of things.

Can you quote where Rob Balsamo stated that the gate was D9 or D11? I've read his clarification on the P4T forum and he refutes your claim that he stated Gate D9 or Gate D11 was the definite departure point.

So far:
Official story: Gate D26
Stutt and Legge: Gate D26
You: Gate D18
Balsamo: Gate D19 or 21 maybe from a North push gate?

Also, to keep your own thread on topic, you're far better off not discussing the seismic spikes at the WTC. It completely detracts your focus and the focus of people trying to read the thread.

If you really want to try and show that the alleged Flight 77 data was fake, then keep your thread clean of all other distractions and nail home the point in a crisp, concise manner. I have to admit, your OP was very redundant with lots of restated opinions about Balsamo's actions. You should have edited a lot of the chaff and just stuck to the guts of your claim.

GREAT INFO! Thanks for sharing!

All your "evidence" is circumstantial. It's time to accept the cold hard reality that there are people out there who are evil and wish to do you harm. Maybe you have to tell yourselves that the GOV is out to get you because your mind can't except that fanatical religious psychopaths want to slaughter as many infidels as they can. Time to grow up people.

I haven't posted consistently in the 9/11 forum for quite a while, so please excuse me if my "rust" is showing a little in this post.

LaBTop, you have said that you believe a plane impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 in contrast to people like Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo, who believe that a "flyover" took place.

Anyone who has followed this controversy knows that there are witnesses who say that they did not see large amounts of aircraft wreckage or large numbers of bodies, and others who say that they did see bodies strapped into seats and did see wreckage. Both sets of testimony have been argued for and against and both sets of witnesses have been "ad hominem'd".

I personally believe that a large airliner or equivalent aircraft did not impact the Pentagon. To this point I have been convinced by the CIT presentations and those of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This is a very technical area and you are a technical guy and I am at best an intelligent dabbler, but my strength, such as it is, lies more in the non technical area of criminal investigation, stage management, the psychology of the perps, logic, probability, possibility and intangibles that come from experience and gut instinct.

Which leads me to this. If I were trying to convince the public that an aircraft had crashed into a building which had actually been damaged in another way, job one would be to simulate a jet fuel fire.

As a corollary to that, if, at the scene, I saw a simulated jet fuel fire burning, in isolation, just in front of the building, with virtually no evidence of a jet fuel fire having burned inside the building, I would consider that a "smoking gun" at the very least, and perhaps as proof positive that no jet fuel fire had occurred in the building.

If you go to archive.org and look at the Fox footage for the relevant time slot you will see some dark smoke coming from the building, but mostly grey smoke and you will see large volumes of black smoke coming from a small fuel fire contained in the portable generator which was parked just to one side of the alleged impact area.

This small fire, which could have been put out in a few minutes with a hand held extinguisher, was allowed to burn for a long period of time, generating the familiar billowing black smoke that people associate with the scene at the Pentagon. Virtually all of the black smoke associated with the scene at the Pentagon came from that small fire, outside the building.

I did some research for another thread on this subject and found out that those generators burn a fuel which is very close to the type of kerosene based fuel used in airliners.

This kind of thing is too slick, too convenient, too Hollywood, too show biz and worst of all, it dovetails with so much of the other "handwriting" of 9/11. There is too much "show biz" in the operation. Too many phony photo ops. Once you start noticing it, it just jumps out at you.

I still think there was a flyover, but I do commend you for your hard work in this thread and others that you have been involved in.

I must say I have not read everything, it is just way too much text, but how do we know those "corrected" flight paths are in fact correct? When I look at the pictures I can think of a correction where the plane both started at gate D26 and ends up at the runway, without hitting any grass.

Originally posted by tezzajw
LaBToP, a couple of things.

Can you quote where Rob Balsamo stated that the gate was D9 or D11? I've read his clarification on the P4T forum and he refutes your claim that he stated Gate D9 or Gate D11 was the definite departure point.

So far:
Official story: Gate D26
Stutt and Legge: Gate D26
You: Gate D18
Balsamo: Gate D19 or 21 maybe from a North push gate?

I've read through the work, and it was never stated by anyone other than Jan Zelman (aka tumetuestumefaisdubien) that the push may have been from D9 or D11. This is why Labtop was unable to source Balsamo making such a statement and could only offer a pic from the Pilots For 911 Truth article, which in fact doesn't even line up to the claims made by Labtop of Balsamo. It is apparent LaBTop has a bug up his butt for Pilots For 911 Truth due to the fact he was suspended.

Labtop may also want to review this latest on eye altitude and elevation as well.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The desperation is certainly apparent when people like Labtop have to resort to blatant lies in order to attempt to discredit Pilots For 911 Truth. They only end up further discrediting themselves.

I took a look on Google Earth, it gives a very high resolution overview of the airport. When you zoom in a bit more you can with almost complete certainty say that the "corrected" flight path is wrong. The plane would have been driving on a lane meant for luggage wagons, and would have driven right through a building. The path I had figured out myself is a perfect fit without any consistencies.

It kind of amazes me how I figured this out in 5 minutes while those pilots for 911 missed it. (ok, not really)

Originally posted by TigerTracks
I've read through the work, and it was never stated by anyone other than Jan Zelman (aka tumetuestumefaisdubien) that the push may have been from D9 or D11. This is why Labtop was unable to source Balsamo making such a statement...

LaBTop, any response to this?

If Balsamo made the definite claim that the pushback gate was D9 or D11, then it shouldn't be too hard to link the quote.