A new video put out by Pilots for 9/11 Truth- NTSB interview

A new video just released by Piots for 9/11 Truth documenting an interview conducted with the NTSB's Jim Ritter about the flight data recording for Flight 77 and the NTSB simulation based on it. Please watch, recommend and spread the word on this one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4



Where's the edit function here, LOL


Click on the headline of your blog, then click EDIT.

Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Website: myspace.com/911thebiglie


Much obliged. It's always hard for me to get used to a new format. It seems like almost everywhere I go (forums, blog hosting sites, etc.) there are little differences.

... NTSB gets a good

... NTSB gets a good grilling! :)

Will the Military Commissions Act have to be used to convince

you to.....Protect OCEANIA and believe the 9/11 Commission's true story.

The TELESCREENS have told you the true story of what happened on 9/11.

The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has given you all you need to know about 9/11.


The PARTY knows what is best and the information you have about 9/11 is completely accurate - INCLUDING what you have been told about World Trade Center 7.

Will THE MINISTRY OF LOVE have to use the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to convince you otherwise?


“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Caller "Jeff" ?

If the caller doesn't have the integrity to identify himself othe than
"Jeff", why should the NTSB official be obligated to say much of anything. 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' are presenting themselves as some High School kids. They need to do better.

Jeff "shure" Hill

The caller identified himself in full including gibing his number (how do you think they called him back?). It was edited out for privacy purposes.


gibing = giving

More obfuscation

Same old bullshit. It's all a big lie anyway.

Work Product

Awesome. The NTSB analysis was not an "investigation", it was a "work product".

Isn't it stunning what you can get away with when there's no accountability?

It seems the light poles were taken down with small explosives

to give the false impression that a commercial airliner with a large wingspan hit the Pentagon.

Analysis of flight recorder should show REMOTE CONTROL

Well, I've never been a "no plane hit the Pentagon" supporter, but whether or not remote control was used after putting everyone to sleep remains a testable hypothesis.

I would think that if you have the Flight Recorder data, that the way a human would bank a plane through a 270 degree turn and the way a remote controller would do it might be different, although it depends on how the remote control was being initiated. But a smooth, flawless turn might indicate remote control.

Any analysis of the flight data recording with this in mind?
Was the turn jerky or smooth?