There's a number of old researchers who have inspired me, who have all brought areas regarding the planes to the table. WoodyBox is definitely one of those. Also, 9/11 Maps is another along with Serge 911 ACARS, 911Shoestring, Gerrard Holmgren, John Lear and Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and many more. The list is endless regarding ascertaining the good information. The problem is, all these people's research is fractured, and doesn't complete a picture of what really happened. What I have tried to do, is pull all the people's relevant and valid research together to help me find out what really happened with the 4 9/11 planes. I also, have a large collection of books, which help me to do that also, where information is not available on the internet anymore. If you checkout my original blog, you will a side bar in Desktop version, which lists a lot of those like WoodyBox etc in the side bar. They will all be credited in my book, or books.
Missile looking for target then someone gave a series of radio marks till impact on the accounting section?
Missile Guidance is an extensive term which represents the range of means of guiding a missile to its objective. There are lots of guidance methods to accomplish “Single Shot Probability of a Kill” (SSPK), which is the common way of measuring of success. The precision and accuracy of the missile is crucial in its efficiency at producing an excellent SSPK. Tracking additionally provides a significant function. High-quality tracking data can greatly influence SSPK. As soon as a missile is launched the primary handover errors at launch are propagated for the entire flight of the missile. These errors are either recovered by Missile Guidance or they continually build over the entire flight. Missile Guidance is divided into two broad categories of guidance systems Go-Into-Location-In-Space (GOLIS) and Go-Onto-Target (GOT).
Go-Onto-Target Systems (GOT) may pursue both moving and constant targets and also always consist of three subsystems: Target tracker, Missile tracker, along with a Guidance computer. For Remote Control Guidance the guidance computer and target tracker are set on the launching platform. Updates, like more recent radar position are relayed by means of radio. Command Guidance controls the missile entirely from the launch platform by transmitting all controls instantly to the missile. The two variants are Command to Line-Of-Sight (CLOS) and Command off Line-Of-Sight (COLOS).
Also, a missile wouldn't topple five light poles and create a 90+ ft. wide impact hole on the ground-floor exterior façade of the Pentagon. Only a wide-bodied airborne object such as a plane (or a 3D volumetric plane projection, if that's your cup of tea) could do the type of damage seen, and would also account for the dozens of witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane crash there.
But in any case, it's clearly not the same AA77 that was seen flying in the Midwest during and after the Pentagon attack as shown in the DCC radar data and other contradictory official sources.
Thanks for your comment. Very interesting. Could you help me by breaking it down, of how the info you shared applies to the "loop". This would be helpful, and I could use it in a future follow up article perhaps. Many thanks!
- Me, 9/11 Revisionist and then 9/11 Planes research...
So, pray tell - What is so irrelevant when it comes to 9/11, when you follow 4 substacks that are pointing out the falsehoods of the US Government's conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11, AS WELL AS the so called 9/11 "truth" movement that seems to be a cointelpro operation.
Are you a CGI planes, bomb, thermite or nuke brainwashed follower?
Have you been hoodwinked out of money over the years, buying into their bullshit and now your critical thinking skills have gone out the window?
After all, I've written extensively on the 3D Volumetric Projection tech, aka Project Blue Beam that was used to fool people in Manhattan on 9/11.
I'm also proving just how disingenuous the 9/11 "truth" movement is...
I can't recall you trying to be all high and mighty in my comment sections...
So, in the comfort of your chair, with your keyboard warrior opinions, what have you actually done to enlighten other people about 9/11?
Very on point with your comment. I cannot believe he subscribes to all those people and is attempting to shut down what I am writing about in the article. This guy also thinks he is best placed to give me advice of what is and isn't relevant to write about. I'd like to see his research to see what qualifies him to give me advice on this subject. He seems to think he's an expert on this subject about the planes/no planes.
What does Flight 77's flight path have to do with whether or not planes hit the WTC, Morten? This article is not about what happened in Lower Manhattan. What do you think is a relevant aspect of 9/11 that should be looked into if you have something worthwhile to say?
I doubt you will get a reply from him. He lurks around our 9/11 Fake Planes Facebook group, and will not study any evidence which we put in front of him about Simon Shack and his lies. He'd rather believe a liar like Shack and Ace Baker, than to study the work I did exposing how deceptive they was to push the CGI planes and video fakery.
No offense, but I see that you get plenty of inspiration from WoodyBox's work on the 9/11 flights. I'm curious to know why that's so.
Hi Jane,
There's a number of old researchers who have inspired me, who have all brought areas regarding the planes to the table. WoodyBox is definitely one of those. Also, 9/11 Maps is another along with Serge 911 ACARS, 911Shoestring, Gerrard Holmgren, John Lear and Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and many more. The list is endless regarding ascertaining the good information. The problem is, all these people's research is fractured, and doesn't complete a picture of what really happened. What I have tried to do, is pull all the people's relevant and valid research together to help me find out what really happened with the 4 9/11 planes. I also, have a large collection of books, which help me to do that also, where information is not available on the internet anymore. If you checkout my original blog, you will a side bar in Desktop version, which lists a lot of those like WoodyBox etc in the side bar. They will all be credited in my book, or books.
I hope that answers your question!
Regards,
Mark.
Missile looking for target then someone gave a series of radio marks till impact on the accounting section?
Missile Guidance is an extensive term which represents the range of means of guiding a missile to its objective. There are lots of guidance methods to accomplish “Single Shot Probability of a Kill” (SSPK), which is the common way of measuring of success. The precision and accuracy of the missile is crucial in its efficiency at producing an excellent SSPK. Tracking additionally provides a significant function. High-quality tracking data can greatly influence SSPK. As soon as a missile is launched the primary handover errors at launch are propagated for the entire flight of the missile. These errors are either recovered by Missile Guidance or they continually build over the entire flight. Missile Guidance is divided into two broad categories of guidance systems Go-Into-Location-In-Space (GOLIS) and Go-Onto-Target (GOT).
Go-Onto-Target Systems (GOT) may pursue both moving and constant targets and also always consist of three subsystems: Target tracker, Missile tracker, along with a Guidance computer. For Remote Control Guidance the guidance computer and target tracker are set on the launching platform. Updates, like more recent radar position are relayed by means of radio. Command Guidance controls the missile entirely from the launch platform by transmitting all controls instantly to the missile. The two variants are Command to Line-Of-Sight (CLOS) and Command off Line-Of-Sight (COLOS).
Also, a missile wouldn't topple five light poles and create a 90+ ft. wide impact hole on the ground-floor exterior façade of the Pentagon. Only a wide-bodied airborne object such as a plane (or a 3D volumetric plane projection, if that's your cup of tea) could do the type of damage seen, and would also account for the dozens of witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane crash there.
But in any case, it's clearly not the same AA77 that was seen flying in the Midwest during and after the Pentagon attack as shown in the DCC radar data and other contradictory official sources.
The PentaCon on 9/11
When a missile AND a plane did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
I don't think it was a missile, but anything is possible, I guess.
I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon either. But the same remain open minded.
Hi,
Thanks for your comment. Very interesting. Could you help me by breaking it down, of how the info you shared applies to the "loop". This would be helpful, and I could use it in a future follow up article perhaps. Many thanks!
Morten, you comment is rather interesting...
You subscribe to:
- Andrew Johnson - Check the Evidence
- MES, Mathe Easy Solutions
- Me, 9/11 Revisionist and then 9/11 Planes research...
So, pray tell - What is so irrelevant when it comes to 9/11, when you follow 4 substacks that are pointing out the falsehoods of the US Government's conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11, AS WELL AS the so called 9/11 "truth" movement that seems to be a cointelpro operation.
Are you a CGI planes, bomb, thermite or nuke brainwashed follower?
Have you been hoodwinked out of money over the years, buying into their bullshit and now your critical thinking skills have gone out the window?
After all, I've written extensively on the 3D Volumetric Projection tech, aka Project Blue Beam that was used to fool people in Manhattan on 9/11.
I'm also proving just how disingenuous the 9/11 "truth" movement is...
I can't recall you trying to be all high and mighty in my comment sections...
So, in the comfort of your chair, with your keyboard warrior opinions, what have you actually done to enlighten other people about 9/11?
You seem to be the irrelevant one...
Hi Norman,
Very on point with your comment. I cannot believe he subscribes to all those people and is attempting to shut down what I am writing about in the article. This guy also thinks he is best placed to give me advice of what is and isn't relevant to write about. I'd like to see his research to see what qualifies him to give me advice on this subject. He seems to think he's an expert on this subject about the planes/no planes.
What does Flight 77's flight path have to do with whether or not planes hit the WTC, Morten? This article is not about what happened in Lower Manhattan. What do you think is a relevant aspect of 9/11 that should be looked into if you have something worthwhile to say?
I doubt you will get a reply from him. He lurks around our 9/11 Fake Planes Facebook group, and will not study any evidence which we put in front of him about Simon Shack and his lies. He'd rather believe a liar like Shack and Ace Baker, than to study the work I did exposing how deceptive they was to push the CGI planes and video fakery.