Comments for The Science of 9/11 http://scienceof911.com.au A SCIENTIFIC STUDY of the best HARD EVIDENCE Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:05:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Debris witnesses by Flegge http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/debris-witnesses/#comment-1488 Flegge Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:05:22 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=703#comment-1488 Hi Mark, thanks for the comment. You are right that we should be looking into the fact that much evidence about the Pentagon attack has been withheld. That is very sinister. However I do not agree that Jeff Maynor's testimony is without value simply because his observation started the next day. He says: "I remember making paths though all the wreckage – twisted metal everywhere...thoughts of it not being a plane never crossed my mind." Can you imagine enough plane debris being trucked in to fool all the workers without anyone noticing? It would be about 8 loads of a ten ton truck. And it is not as though there was any shortage of debris in videos taken within minutes of the attack. Your use of the word "explosion" rather than "event" suggests you have a preconceived idea of what happened. I am writing a letter setting out the hard evidence we have available to refute the plane overfly claims. I will send you a draft shortly. I would appreciate your comments on it. Anyone else interested can have a copy if they send me a request. Regards Frank Hi Mark, thanks for the comment. You are right that we should be looking into the fact that much evidence about the Pentagon attack has been withheld. That is very sinister. However I do not agree that Jeff Maynor’s testimony is without value simply because his observation started the next day. He says: “I remember making paths though all the wreckage – twisted metal everywhere…thoughts of it not being a plane never crossed my mind.” Can you imagine enough plane debris being trucked in to fool all the workers without anyone noticing? It would be about 8 loads of a ten ton truck. And it is not as though there was any shortage of debris in videos taken within minutes of the attack.

Your use of the word “explosion” rather than “event” suggests you have a preconceived idea of what happened. I am writing a letter setting out the hard evidence we have available to refute the plane overfly claims. I will send you a draft shortly. I would appreciate your comments on it. Anyone else interested can have a copy if they send me a request.

Regards
Frank

]]> Comment on Debris witnesses by Mark Snyder http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/debris-witnesses/#comment-1483 Mark Snyder Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:16:55 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=703#comment-1483 Mr Maynor's email, being presented here as "debris witness" testimony, by virtue of his not being on the location on Sept. 11, 2001, but rather on the following day, leaves an awful lot to speculation as to what could have occurred from the time of the explosion at the Pentagon and the time when this witness was actually on the scene. To say he saw plane parts on the following day does not verify in any way the presence of those parts on the day before. Whether the parts were planted or not, Mr Maynor would not have been there to see it. Mr Maynor's question regarding the release of the many videos confiscated from around the Pentagon immediately following the alleged plane impact is extremely valid and needs to be answered. Mr Maynor’s email, being presented here as “debris witness” testimony, by virtue of his not being on the location on Sept. 11, 2001, but rather on the following day, leaves an awful lot to speculation as to what could have occurred from the time of the explosion at the Pentagon and the time when this witness was actually on the scene. To say he saw plane parts on the following day does not verify in any way the presence of those parts on the day before. Whether the parts were planted or not, Mr Maynor would not have been there to see it. Mr Maynor’s question regarding the release of the many videos confiscated from around the Pentagon immediately following the alleged plane impact is extremely valid and needs to be answered.

]]> Comment on News by Mark Snyder http://scienceof911.com.au/news/#comment-1481 Mark Snyder Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:56:54 +0000 http://localhost:8888/911/?page_id=22#comment-1481 This is to announce the release of a new DVD featuring Dr David Ray Griffin speaking in Seattle, 2011. The title of the talk and DVD is "9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?". For more details please visit http://911ts.org Please post this announcement on your website. Thank you for your time and efforts to reveal the truth. This is to announce the release of a new DVD featuring Dr David Ray Griffin speaking in Seattle, 2011. The title of the talk and DVD is “9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?”. For more details please visit http://911ts.org
Please post this announcement on your website.
Thank you for your time and efforts to reveal the truth.

]]> Comment on Response to Rob Balsamo by For Clarification… « http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal/#comment-10 For Clarification… « Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:38:50 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=619#comment-10 [...] 10 Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...] [...] 10 Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...]

]]> Comment on Response to Rob Balsamo by The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the “Flyover Hypothesis” | The Global Realm http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal/#comment-9 The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the “Flyover Hypothesis” | The Global Realm Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:42:10 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=619#comment-9 [...] 10 Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...] [...] 10 Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...]

]]> Comment on Response to Rob Balsamo by The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the “Flyover Hypothesis” « http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal/#comment-8 The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the “Flyover Hypothesis” « Sun, 04 Sep 2011 19:55:42 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=619#comment-8 [...] [10] Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...] [...] [10] Legge F., Science of 9/11 website, http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal [...]

]]> Comment on Pentagon by Roll rate - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/#comment-3 Roll rate - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:43:20 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=503#comment-3 [...] There is of course no doubt the plane hit the Pentagon. There are many witnesses included three of their star north-of-Citgo witnesses, Lagasse, Turcios and Brooks - they all said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Sean Boger from the Control tower at the Pentagon Heliport watched it all the way into the Pentagon. Albert Hemphill at the Navy Annex said it was to his right, and flew straight over the bridge into the Pentagon. There is not one witness to the plane flying over the Pentagon though there were hundreds of cars stuck in traffic around the area. There is radar data from four installations all leading directly to the Pentagon impact site. Now there is also the FDR file, which has recently been fully decoded, showing the plane flying straight, at the same track angle as the radar, and descending. The last radio height is 4 feet. Add 6 feet for the offset and 16 feet for the height of the wings above the wheels and you get a height that matches the length of the chopped off light poles. So all the evidence shows the plane hit the Pentagon. Its mass is sufficient to smash the wall. Most of it went inside. There is enough debris outside to account for the parts that were too light to penetrate. The claim the plane flew north-of-citgo is a claim based on no evidence other than a few who were mistaken about something that would not seem important to remember at the time. You can read about this here: The Science of 9/11| Pentagon [...] [...] There is of course no doubt the plane hit the Pentagon. There are many witnesses included three of their star north-of-Citgo witnesses, Lagasse, Turcios and Brooks – they all said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Sean Boger from the Control tower at the Pentagon Heliport watched it all the way into the Pentagon. Albert Hemphill at the Navy Annex said it was to his right, and flew straight over the bridge into the Pentagon. There is not one witness to the plane flying over the Pentagon though there were hundreds of cars stuck in traffic around the area. There is radar data from four installations all leading directly to the Pentagon impact site. Now there is also the FDR file, which has recently been fully decoded, showing the plane flying straight, at the same track angle as the radar, and descending. The last radio height is 4 feet. Add 6 feet for the offset and 16 feet for the height of the wings above the wheels and you get a height that matches the length of the chopped off light poles. So all the evidence shows the plane hit the Pentagon. Its mass is sufficient to smash the wall. Most of it went inside. There is enough debris outside to account for the parts that were too light to penetrate. The claim the plane flew north-of-citgo is a claim based on no evidence other than a few who were mistaken about something that would not seem important to remember at the time. You can read about this here: The Science of 9/11| Pentagon [...]

]]> Comment on Response to Rob Balsamo by Michael Wolsey's Blog on Visibility 9-11, the Longest-running Podcast of 9/11 News & Information, Interviews, and Activism & Outreach for the Truth About the Terror Attacks of September 11th, 2001 » Blog Archive » Critique of Davi http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal/#comment-7 Michael Wolsey's Blog on Visibility 9-11, the Longest-running Podcast of 9/11 News & Information, Interviews, and Activism & Outreach for the Truth About the Terror Attacks of September 11th, 2001 » Blog Archive » Critique of Davi Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:06:28 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=619#comment-7 [...] at the Pentagon, PFT is insisting the FDR can’t be linked to N644AA, in addition to making false claims of mistakes in the Legge-Stutt paper, and leveling insults and innuendo at Legge and Stutt (see the forum thread for more insults and [...] [...] at the Pentagon, PFT is insisting the FDR can’t be linked to N644AA, in addition to making false claims of mistakes in the Legge-Stutt paper, and leveling insults and innuendo at Legge and Stutt (see the forum thread for more insults and [...]

]]> Comment on Response to Rob Balsamo by Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory « 9/11 Reports http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal/#comment-5 Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory « 9/11 Reports Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:19:35 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=619#comment-5 [...] at the Pentagon, PFT is insisting the FDR can’t be linked to N644AA, in addition to making false claims of mistakes in the Legge-Stutt paper, and leveling insults and innuendo at Legge and Stutt (see the forum thread for more insults and [...] [...] at the Pentagon, PFT is insisting the FDR can’t be linked to N644AA, in addition to making false claims of mistakes in the Legge-Stutt paper, and leveling insults and innuendo at Legge and Stutt (see the forum thread for more insults and [...]

]]> Comment on Introduction: Notes on NIST by Unanswered questions - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum http://scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/introduction/#comment-2 Unanswered questions - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:14:52 +0000 http://www.scienceof911.com.au/?page_id=332#comment-2 [...] the collapse. If they had done so they would have demonstrated that collapse was impossible. The Science of 9/11| Introduction __________________ Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit [...] [...] the collapse. If they had done so they would have demonstrated that collapse was impossible. The Science of 9/11| Introduction __________________ Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit [...]

]]>