GORDON DUFF: THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE LIES
PROPOSED SITE IN LOWER MANHATTAN
ISRAEL’S PRE-ELECTION ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior EditorThere never were plans for a mosque at “ground zero.” The entire story is made up by a public relations agency working with the Israeli government and the GOP. There are plans for an Islamic center in an old Burlington Coat Factory store blocks away. That far down the island of Manhattan, a couple blocks away is “across town.” The idea that Israel is financing the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy when Mossad agents were arrested, dancing in the streets on 9/11, is an obscenity.
Let’s get some facts straight. Since 2001 alot has happened, none of it reported widely in the press. It has been categorically proven that the supposed hijackers could never have flown any of the planes on 9/11. Start with a reality check. This is why “9/11″ as people are still being misinformed simply never happened:
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot. There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.When professional airline pilots, the majority trained by the United States Air Force, were asked to recreate the New York 9/11 attack in a flight simulator, two thirds failed entirely. None could duplicate the Pentagon attack at all. This is what the pilots had to say:
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.
In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.
The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.
But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.
“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”Then again, we might as well deal with the silliness of the Pentagon crash as well. Instead of dealing with conspiracy theory, lets try some aeronautical engineering instead. If you wonder why the internet conspiracy sites have talked about military planes crashing into the Pentagon, it is because they read the engineering reports, the ones the 9/11 Commission was not allowed to examine. You, however, are lucky. You can read the facts and make up your own mind:
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. (Editor’s note: Grass on the lawn of the Pentagon was intact.)
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.Forgetting all the conspiracy theories, we can stick to the facts. The Pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches high. The lowest possible altitude a Boeing 757 aircraft can fly at, 400 mph, is 62 feet 5 inches, and that is with a top Air Force fighter jock at the controls. Had their been real simulations it is likely we would have been subjected to two possible scenarios:
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
- The Boeing 757 would have struck the top half of the upper floor of the Pentagon and tumbled over the building while disintegrating. At 400 mph, some sections of fuselage would have landed as far as a half mile away.
- The aircraft would have skipped across the top of the Pentagon like a stone on a pond, shedding its engines and would have left a debris field extending as much as a mile from the initial impact.
The imaginary hijackers certainly didn’t fly these planes anywhere, it was technically impossible. Something else happened, we all saw it. If we can prove, and we have, that the “9/11 hijackers” were not flying the planes then who was?
With the anniversary of 9/11, 9 years of lies, coming up, the continual attempts to stop investigations called for by pilots, engineers, military and intelligence officers has been resisted.
Nobody has to prove how 9/11 was accomplished. We can only prove that it wasn’t done by Arab hijackers.
WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11?
With 9 years of history behind us, there are so many more possibilities. 9/11 made alot of things possible, looting the American economy, two wars, building a narcotics empire in South Asia and over 2 trillion dollars in missing Pentagon funds over 9 years. More money has been stolen because of 9/11 than from all the wars in history combined. Does this tell us who did it?
WHY THE MOSQUE ISSUE, WHY NOW?
If Wikileaks has proven one thing, it has shown that the internet has made it impossible to control information. What had been, at one time, a choice of “conspiracy” sites or “legitimate news sources” has now become less clear. Top journalists are now joining websites that aren’t afraid to ask hard questions and that don’t answer to corporate ownership and many of these sites have readership comparable to major news bureaus. Some have more influence and others have caused so much stir that the US government has sought power to shut down the internet at will.
9/11 is a story the government can’t kill.
Thus, the only protection from speculation about who is really responsible for 9/11, speculation that invariably leads to Israel and the Mossad, is a renewal of fear-mongering, racism and Islamophobia. Supporting these efforts is the Republican Party, slaughtered during the last election, now hoping to drum up a frenzy of fear and hate while soaking in hundreds of millions in contributions from Israel, the Wall Street “banksters” and “big Pharma.”
WATCHING IT PLAY OUT
Two phony stories are now competing for the ignorance and fear of Americans. The democrats are claiming that the GOP will bankrupt social security with their privatization schemes. Story after story fills the news. Senior citizens are voters and starvation is a good motivation for bringing people to the polls.
Republicans are still stuck with the Bush era “war on terror.” Their hopes are that millions of Americans will hide under their beds, frightened of suicide bombers and cartoon terrorists. Expect to see Islamophobia on nearly every TV series this fall. Also, expect, not only terror scares but maybe a very suspicious terror attack not long before the election. Would the GOP actually do that? Think about it. Remember Iraq? WMD’s? What do you think, especially with Israel behind them?
SCUMBAG CITY
If you want to make a list of Americans who should be put in quarantine, kept away from decent people, the Ground Zero Mosque ploy will be a great help. Start making a list. See what kind of manipulation you hear, see and read. See who is making all the noise. If you want to know how to tell who Americas biggest enemies are, they will all come out now, all will be screaming bloody murder over the “desecration of Ground Zero” by those evil Muslims.
While they are doing that, many more of us will be wondering what really happened on 9/11 now that we know for sure that what we were told was all a lie.
Wednesday, 16 September 2015 00:00
9/11: Even the frames from the Pentagon were faked Featured
Written
by Vince Giesbrecht
Dear Jim,
I just finished listening to the Stubblebine interview, which was truly remarkable. Once again, it impressed on me how LITTLE some of these top Generals probably know in general(!) ... about what is really going on ... because they just blindly trust their government. He's done pretty good though, all things considered.
Now, you two were discussing the Pentagon surveillance videos and I was just looking at these again in the last couple of days so it was rather co-incidental that some of my recent observations fit in so well with what you were talking about.
I'd like to share these with you to add to your general comprehension.
Stubblebine suggested that the object in the video would likely be a missile, which is what I'd been thinking, too ... until now. Just an assumption which I'd never really bothered to analyze.
When I looked closely at the video again, several things really stood out. Here are the frame sequences from the 2 selected cameras which were released to the public.
On the top is the "#2" video and on the bottom is the other one. I've
highlighted the "smoke trail" on the top and the "nose" of the plane at
the bottom.
Well, here's the thing...
If it was a plane, it's kind of "low" for a 757 ... isn't it? Is there some kind of hill between? Not likely.
So maybe it's a missile?
"But stop and think, Vince," (I said to myself) ...
This plane was supposed to be going at about 490 mph ... which is 725 feet per second. That's about half the speed of a rifle bullet.
If it was a missile, it would probably be moving about as fast as a bullet.
To CATCH a clearly defined nose of the device or even the vapor trail (so clearly delineated on the top video) ... the camera would have needed to utilize an incredibly fast shutter speed to stop the action. Surveillance cameras of the time didn't use shutters at all; they scanned continually. Any motion of that speed then ... would have created an indistinguishable blur on the scene.
As far as I know, those cameras took a picture every second or so ... but they had no shutters. They simply scanned the sensor from top to bottom like you read a book: left to right and down on each line. That means .... as the object moved to the left and the scan was progressing downward, the bottom of the image would appear to be further left than the top of the image ... a kind of diagonal distortion.
This is a rough example of the effect, but taken with a vertical slide shutter camera in the old days.
The bottom of the wheels appear to be "ahead" of the top of the wheels ... because the race car is moving fast to the left and the shutter slit on the camera is moving downwards. Same effect as a moving, scanning spot on an old CRT television screen.
To make matters worse on an old surveillance camera system (using tape recording and analog TV) ...
The analog TV system used raster interlacing ... to reduce flicker. There were 525 lines in total on the screen with 30 frames per second, consisting of two consecutive fields, each containing 262.5 lines, produced at 60 times a second. Field one would scan odd lines -1,3,5 etc. to the bottom and then go back to the top and scan field 2 ... the even lines 2,4,6 etc to the bottom. So each frame was scanned twice from top to bottom with the scan lines interlacing.
Well ...
Any rapid motion then would not only pull to the direction of movement diagonally but ... on field two, the image would already be shifted and would shift again ... creating the effect of a double image on the screen ... diagonally pulled and hopelessly blurred!
So it would be impossible to catch anything but an indistinguishable blur on any surveillance camera of the analog type ... with anything moving that fast ... regardless of how MUCH of the image was captured.
But here are a few more things I noticed while examining the videos again.
Here's a sequence of 4 consecutive frames from camera 2:
Notice how the bottom left frame -the one ostensibly showing the strike (with a vapor trail still behind it)- shows the corner edges of the lens much larger than the other frames. Now how is that possible if all of these frames come from the same camera in the same time frame as the others?
Look at the top left of this frame and you see a "cloud" and sky ... where the other frames show building. Why is the ground blued up? And why is there an additional shadow in the shade of the Pentagon, not present in the other frames? (And why didn't the tower strike create a similarly bright flash when that plane hit?)
This had to be one brilliant flash ... to light up the Pentagon like that!! I'd kept thinking previously that the white flash was likely caused by some magnesium tip or depleted uranium tip on a missile ... but now I'm convinced that this isn't even real video at all.
Here's why ...
1) Frame 3 has the larger dark corners. It has to be a frame from another video, inserted and doctored up.
2) The white flash produces a red "shadow" on the structure in front of it??
3) The orange fireball is totally symmetric, enveloping a large part of the building, but no debris is flying out of that explosion.
4) In subsequent frames ... taken 1 second apart -- in the space of 4 seconds -- the fireball immediately vanishes and a small amount of smoke begins to wisp out and then turns to massive smoke. This is totally unreal.
5) Look carefully where that vapor trail was going on frame 2. On frame 3 you see a black line to the left of the garbage can in the foreground and then in frame 4, you see the black line extending all the way to the right.
But that line isn't in the first two frames. I'm guessing that this is where the gouge of the plane hitting the ground ... was supposed to be!
Only problem with that is ... there was no gouge on the ground, right?
And then ... go a few frames forward from this last one and ... suddenly the entire scene goes blindingly white!
Looks like they got this frame out of sequence because the smoke is already pouring out of the structure! I reckon this is where the initial impact was supposed to show a blindingly white flash ... but it comes a bit too late.
So I now believe that the entire thing was photoshopped and shows NOTHING that was really happening. This is why they're not releasing the other 80+ videos: it's just TOO MUCH WORK to doctor them all.
-Vince Giesbrecht
Dear Jim,
I just finished listening to the Stubblebine interview, which was truly remarkable. Once again, it impressed on me how LITTLE some of these top Generals probably know in general(!) ... about what is really going on ... because they just blindly trust their government. He's done pretty good though, all things considered.
Now, you two were discussing the Pentagon surveillance videos and I was just looking at these again in the last couple of days so it was rather co-incidental that some of my recent observations fit in so well with what you were talking about.
I'd like to share these with you to add to your general comprehension.
Stubblebine suggested that the object in the video would likely be a missile, which is what I'd been thinking, too ... until now. Just an assumption which I'd never really bothered to analyze.
When I looked closely at the video again, several things really stood out. Here are the frame sequences from the 2 selected cameras which were released to the public.
Well, here's the thing...
If it was a plane, it's kind of "low" for a 757 ... isn't it? Is there some kind of hill between? Not likely.
So maybe it's a missile?
"But stop and think, Vince," (I said to myself) ...
This plane was supposed to be going at about 490 mph ... which is 725 feet per second. That's about half the speed of a rifle bullet.
If it was a missile, it would probably be moving about as fast as a bullet.
To CATCH a clearly defined nose of the device or even the vapor trail (so clearly delineated on the top video) ... the camera would have needed to utilize an incredibly fast shutter speed to stop the action. Surveillance cameras of the time didn't use shutters at all; they scanned continually. Any motion of that speed then ... would have created an indistinguishable blur on the scene.
As far as I know, those cameras took a picture every second or so ... but they had no shutters. They simply scanned the sensor from top to bottom like you read a book: left to right and down on each line. That means .... as the object moved to the left and the scan was progressing downward, the bottom of the image would appear to be further left than the top of the image ... a kind of diagonal distortion.
This is a rough example of the effect, but taken with a vertical slide shutter camera in the old days.
The bottom of the wheels appear to be "ahead" of the top of the wheels ... because the race car is moving fast to the left and the shutter slit on the camera is moving downwards. Same effect as a moving, scanning spot on an old CRT television screen.
To make matters worse on an old surveillance camera system (using tape recording and analog TV) ...
The analog TV system used raster interlacing ... to reduce flicker. There were 525 lines in total on the screen with 30 frames per second, consisting of two consecutive fields, each containing 262.5 lines, produced at 60 times a second. Field one would scan odd lines -1,3,5 etc. to the bottom and then go back to the top and scan field 2 ... the even lines 2,4,6 etc to the bottom. So each frame was scanned twice from top to bottom with the scan lines interlacing.
Well ...
Any rapid motion then would not only pull to the direction of movement diagonally but ... on field two, the image would already be shifted and would shift again ... creating the effect of a double image on the screen ... diagonally pulled and hopelessly blurred!
So it would be impossible to catch anything but an indistinguishable blur on any surveillance camera of the analog type ... with anything moving that fast ... regardless of how MUCH of the image was captured.
But here are a few more things I noticed while examining the videos again.
Here's a sequence of 4 consecutive frames from camera 2:
Notice how the bottom left frame -the one ostensibly showing the strike (with a vapor trail still behind it)- shows the corner edges of the lens much larger than the other frames. Now how is that possible if all of these frames come from the same camera in the same time frame as the others?
Look at the top left of this frame and you see a "cloud" and sky ... where the other frames show building. Why is the ground blued up? And why is there an additional shadow in the shade of the Pentagon, not present in the other frames? (And why didn't the tower strike create a similarly bright flash when that plane hit?)
This had to be one brilliant flash ... to light up the Pentagon like that!! I'd kept thinking previously that the white flash was likely caused by some magnesium tip or depleted uranium tip on a missile ... but now I'm convinced that this isn't even real video at all.
Here's why ...
1) Frame 3 has the larger dark corners. It has to be a frame from another video, inserted and doctored up.
2) The white flash produces a red "shadow" on the structure in front of it??
3) The orange fireball is totally symmetric, enveloping a large part of the building, but no debris is flying out of that explosion.
4) In subsequent frames ... taken 1 second apart -- in the space of 4 seconds -- the fireball immediately vanishes and a small amount of smoke begins to wisp out and then turns to massive smoke. This is totally unreal.
5) Look carefully where that vapor trail was going on frame 2. On frame 3 you see a black line to the left of the garbage can in the foreground and then in frame 4, you see the black line extending all the way to the right.
But that line isn't in the first two frames. I'm guessing that this is where the gouge of the plane hitting the ground ... was supposed to be!
Only problem with that is ... there was no gouge on the ground, right?
And then ... go a few frames forward from this last one and ... suddenly the entire scene goes blindingly white!
Looks like they got this frame out of sequence because the smoke is already pouring out of the structure! I reckon this is where the initial impact was supposed to show a blindingly white flash ... but it comes a bit too late.
So I now believe that the entire thing was photoshopped and shows NOTHING that was really happening. This is why they're not releasing the other 80+ videos: it's just TOO MUCH WORK to doctor them all.
-Vince Giesbrecht
Pentagon
surveillance videos??? Where? Where? Where?
Pentagon NEVER had any
surveillance video camaras at all!
Had they had any would we still be
talking about them today?
The US military does not need any
surveillance cameras at all! They fake literally everything and the
STUPID masses ALWAYS believe them!
When we see them confiscate all the
videos available and theaten and blackmail all who would dare show any,
who gives a damn about the fakeries they then release for the
consumption of the Zombies?
Long Live US-ISRAEL!
BAFS
Thursday 17 September 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment