Nice to see you in here, QntD...

Please be sure to visit the actual youtube page and get those ratings up!

Here is a link to our forums with the link to youtube.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=375

Also, be sure to sign up over at Pilots For Truth forums and check out our new look and new forum boards.

We have gone more "mainstream" 9/11.

For those calling me a fake and a liar, its obvious you cannot debate the facts. Many people know who i am on a personal level including my background and resume. Eventually.. you will too. You would be wise to check your facts prior to making absurd claims.

Cheers all!

Rob
"JDX"

LOL... Thanks to The Decider.

and JDX.

!

Slamming into the leading edge, or ripping under the cord (likely spraying highly ignitable, aerated fuel) WOULD have immediately caused a noticeable alteration in flight path (and registered in the FDR at the very first pole) sending the aircraft into SOME kind of measurable erratic behavior... even within the last hundred yards of its mass's general trajectory.

But no such thing is logged in the FDR released by the NTSB.... makes a thinking person wonder.

If someone thinks I'm incorrect about this... please comment: http://911blogger.com/node/3600

e

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

be knocked over, I believe anyway. Slower the blane flies, the more the or a pole touched by the plane would tend to bend.

If correct, then it's related to impact, the amount or magnitude of it, along with how fast, instantaeous it occurs. The greater the speed of the plane, the greater and more instantaneous, or fast the impact occurs on the pole, and this then travels down to the bolts holding the pole in place. The greater the side-wise stress on those, the more easily they'll be broken, snapped, which'll make it all the easier for the pole to appear to neatly fall or get knocked over.

And you can probably rig yourself up an experimental test to verify this for yourself. You don't need an aeroplane for this.

There are probably examples from hurricanes of various velocities hitting trees; the lower the speed, the less a tree is likely to be uprooted and knocked over; the faster the wind, the more likely the tree'll be uprooted and knocked over; and with increasing speed, I suppose the few the branches that'll be broken or ripped off, before the tree itself becomes uprooted and knocked over.

You can still rig yourself an experiment like in your backyard, without needing an aeroplane or wind.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something in this, but believe to have the general idea or physics right.

Mike Corbeil
Quebec, Ca

You are American, spent only one year in Britain, and you think that this makes you an authority on BBC?

Come again?

You're kidding, right?

You should be.

Mike Corbeil
Quebec, Canada

The aircraft in the video is stationary with its engines blaring. Not to mention the vehicle it blew over was relatively lightweight.

As we all know, American Airlines Flight 77 was in motion, traveling over 350 miles per hour above various sized automobiles. Due to these factors, the airliner's jet blast wouldn't have created any significant damage.

Now quick, this is where you "truth seekers" spin it.

I am familiar with videos of cars in jet wake. I am also familiar with the physical evidence at the Pentagon. (and also "what the TV says happened") Do you have any examples of large wake aircraft travelling at high speed near ground level?

If you wish to prove something we'll need more than your opinion.

As I see it (IMHO) the light poles, cars being present, and witnesses not being deafened (or even hearing much noise) are just more evidence to add to the huge pile of stuff that doesn't match the official alibi.

b_smart,

please be smart, and read the subtitle: "Staged Demonstration". Staged. Staged!

You know what the "staged" portion of the demo consists of?

* The plane is not moving. Which means that the ejected jet stream is full speed relative to the ground (and the car).

* The car affected is relatively light-weight.

As soon as you have a moving plane (flying low above ground), it does not have the same effect from its ejected jet stream upon objects on the ground. Basic physics.

It's called "actio et reactio". And just take into account the relative speed of the plane and the ejected jet stream....

Whatever happened at the Pentagon with light poles, cars and other stuff -- this video is no proof that cars should have been blown off the road.

Don't use fake arguments, please.

Notwithstanding, stagged really doesn't mean we should consider absolute simularity. I think b_smart might have found a better example. However, I am sure he was only trying to bring to question certain invisible forces at work. More discussion on this at:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm


I still feel that one of the sources is to listen to qualified pilots. Moreover, and totally aside from jet blasts and the like, how does a commercial jetliner "squawk" (on their transponder) a military code?
All of my reading seems to point out that unless you are US military, Pentagon defenses are automatic and ready to take you out. Not squawking is even more questionable since radar would still receive a Doppler image.
So, if you are in "P" airspace, not squawking US Military or you have the transponder off, shouldn't this illicit a response?