Title: Integrated Consultants Animation
Avenger - December 21, 2007 05:08 AM (GMT)
9-11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 is an animation that was created "to help offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter intuitive outcome". Problem is that it does not offer any reality based explanations, but, deceptive tweaks designed to fool people into believing that the official flight path is in sync with the light pole and building damage. The purpose of this thread is to expose those tweaks and to expose what those tweaks were designed to hide.
Starting with the first pole supposedly struck by Flight 77.
What's wrong with this picture?
There are actually two things wrong. For one, the pole is traveling in TOWARD the slope of the right wing. The animation actually has the pole moving in toward the very thing that supposedly knocked it over. Second, the base end of the pole is moving forward along with top end.
Ironically, it's the base end that travels outward, which is what the top end should have done.
So it can be neatly deposited on the ground. It doesn't bounce off the ground and continue forward. It just stops right where it hits the ground.
Why does it do that? To match the position of that light pole. See, according to the official story, that first light pole traveled to the left of the flight path, so the animation shows the light pole POINTING to the left, while traveling forward. Why did they not show it traveling to the left, instead of just forward? For one, the animation would have looked even crazier than it already looks. Secondly, the engine would've been in the way. Actually, the right wing itself was already in the way, but the engine as a second obstacle would've caused even more of a dilemma, which would've given them (as I see it) only two unacceptable options.
1) Just show the pole passing through the engine like a ghost.
2) Show the pole moving forward to miss the engine and THEN travel to the left, but that would've left them with a dancing light pole.
Then, they just completely left out the part LLoyd England's cab being speared by the pole before coming to rest. That would have just turned the animation into a comedy. So better to just leave that part out, even though they do show a picture of Lloyd's cab next to that great big giant pole.
Next up is light pole 2, which required no real trickery because it was found pretty much where you would expect it to be found.
Which brings us to pole 3.
You will notice that it's shown traveling forward, even though it was found to the right of the flight path. It would've been struck by the right wing so you would've expected it travel to the right. So why do they show it traveling straight?
Because they had to show light pole 4 traveling straight and they wanted those two to match. Why? Because, according to photographic evidence, light pole 4 would've traveled in toward the flight path. Now, remember that they couldn't get the first pole to so blatantly defy physical reality so they already knew they wouldn't be able to do it with any other poles. So they just showed it traveling straight, even though photographic evidence clearly shows that the pole was pointed in toward the flight path.
Next up is pole 5. Same problem. Photographic evidence clearly shows the pole pointing in toward the flight path, but they just show it traveling straight forward because they know they can't pull off matching its ACTUAL position.
Next up is their rendition of what the plane would have looked like hiding behind that platform.
You can see the fuselage in their rendition, even though you can see no fuselage at all in that crappy video still they compare their rendition to.
Next up is a rendition of a picture superimposed over the actual picture.
Look closely and you will see there are two sets of spools in front of the Pentagon. The spools to the right are the animated version. Why are they to the right of the actual spools?
The spools are shifted to the right so you won't see them collide with the computer animated fuselage. Instead, you see them conveniently pass between the engine and the fuselage.
Next, they show you lots of debris and airplane parts.
Very convincing, until they show one piece of debris with a very serious flaw.
The flaw can't be seen in the picture they show you. You need a close-up shot.
The piece is supposed to from the skin of the fuselage but the rivets are missing. You see rows of rivet holes, but no rivets. Now, when rivets are inserted they create indentations in the metal, so if you ever remove those rivets, you should still see the indentations where the rivets used to be.
Now, back to the fuselage piece.
No indentations in any of the holes. In fact, most of the rivet holes have no damage to the at all, even though the skin of this metal seems extremely thin. How is it that rivets fail to create indentations in such thin metal? And how are the rivets removed from this thin metal without tearing most of the holes?
Starting with the first pole supposedly struck by Flight 77.
What's wrong with this picture?
There are actually two things wrong. For one, the pole is traveling in TOWARD the slope of the right wing. The animation actually has the pole moving in toward the very thing that supposedly knocked it over. Second, the base end of the pole is moving forward along with top end.
Ironically, it's the base end that travels outward, which is what the top end should have done.
So it can be neatly deposited on the ground. It doesn't bounce off the ground and continue forward. It just stops right where it hits the ground.
Why does it do that? To match the position of that light pole. See, according to the official story, that first light pole traveled to the left of the flight path, so the animation shows the light pole POINTING to the left, while traveling forward. Why did they not show it traveling to the left, instead of just forward? For one, the animation would have looked even crazier than it already looks. Secondly, the engine would've been in the way. Actually, the right wing itself was already in the way, but the engine as a second obstacle would've caused even more of a dilemma, which would've given them (as I see it) only two unacceptable options.
1) Just show the pole passing through the engine like a ghost.
2) Show the pole moving forward to miss the engine and THEN travel to the left, but that would've left them with a dancing light pole.
Then, they just completely left out the part LLoyd England's cab being speared by the pole before coming to rest. That would have just turned the animation into a comedy. So better to just leave that part out, even though they do show a picture of Lloyd's cab next to that great big giant pole.
Next up is light pole 2, which required no real trickery because it was found pretty much where you would expect it to be found.
Which brings us to pole 3.
You will notice that it's shown traveling forward, even though it was found to the right of the flight path. It would've been struck by the right wing so you would've expected it travel to the right. So why do they show it traveling straight?
Because they had to show light pole 4 traveling straight and they wanted those two to match. Why? Because, according to photographic evidence, light pole 4 would've traveled in toward the flight path. Now, remember that they couldn't get the first pole to so blatantly defy physical reality so they already knew they wouldn't be able to do it with any other poles. So they just showed it traveling straight, even though photographic evidence clearly shows that the pole was pointed in toward the flight path.
Next up is pole 5. Same problem. Photographic evidence clearly shows the pole pointing in toward the flight path, but they just show it traveling straight forward because they know they can't pull off matching its ACTUAL position.
Next up is their rendition of what the plane would have looked like hiding behind that platform.
You can see the fuselage in their rendition, even though you can see no fuselage at all in that crappy video still they compare their rendition to.
Next up is a rendition of a picture superimposed over the actual picture.
Look closely and you will see there are two sets of spools in front of the Pentagon. The spools to the right are the animated version. Why are they to the right of the actual spools?
The spools are shifted to the right so you won't see them collide with the computer animated fuselage. Instead, you see them conveniently pass between the engine and the fuselage.
Next, they show you lots of debris and airplane parts.
Very convincing, until they show one piece of debris with a very serious flaw.
The flaw can't be seen in the picture they show you. You need a close-up shot.
The piece is supposed to from the skin of the fuselage but the rivets are missing. You see rows of rivet holes, but no rivets. Now, when rivets are inserted they create indentations in the metal, so if you ever remove those rivets, you should still see the indentations where the rivets used to be.
Now, back to the fuselage piece.
No indentations in any of the holes. In fact, most of the rivet holes have no damage to the at all, even though the skin of this metal seems extremely thin. How is it that rivets fail to create indentations in such thin metal? And how are the rivets removed from this thin metal without tearing most of the holes?
PHARAOH1133 - December 22, 2007 01:48 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Avenger @ Dec 21 2007, 12:08 AM) |
| 9-11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 is an animation that was created "to help offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter intuitive outcome". Problem is that it does not offer any reality based explanations, but, deceptive tweaks designed to fool people into believing that the official flight path is in sync with the light pole and building damage. The purpose of this thread is to expose those tweaks and to expose what those tweaks were designed to hide. Starting with the first pole supposedly struck by Flight 77. What's wrong with this picture? There are actually two things wrong. For one, the pole is traveling in TOWARD the slope of the right wing. The animation actually has the pole moving in toward the very thing that supposedly knocked it over. Second, the base end of the pole is moving forward along with top end. Ironically, it's the base end that travels outward, which is what the top end should have done. So it can be neatly deposited on the ground. It doesn't bounce off the ground and continue forward. It just stops right where it hits the ground. Why does it do that? To match the position of that light pole. See, according to the official story, that first light pole traveled to the left of the flight path, so the animation shows the light pole POINTING to the left, while traveling forward. Why did they not show it traveling to the left, instead of just forward? For one, the animation would have looked even crazier than it already looks. Secondly, the engine would've been in the way. Actually, the right wing itself was already in the way, but the engine as a second obstacle would've caused even more of a dilemma, which would've given them (as I see it) only two unacceptable options. 1) Just show the pole passing through the engine like a ghost. 2) Show the pole moving forward to miss the engine and THEN travel to the left, but that would've left them with a dancing light pole. Then, they just completely left out the part LLoyd England's cab being speared by the pole before coming to rest. That would have just turned the animation into a comedy. So better to just leave that part out, even though they do show a picture of Lloyd's cab next to that great big giant pole. Next up is light pole 2, which required no real trickery because it was found pretty much where you would expect it to be found. Which brings us to pole 3. You will notice that it's shown traveling forward, even though it was found to the right of the flight path. It would've been struck by the right wing so you would've expected it travel to the right. So why do they show it traveling straight? Because they had to show light pole 4 traveling straight and they wanted those two to match. Why? Because, according to photographic evidence, light pole 4 would've traveled in toward the flight path. Now, remember that they couldn't get the first pole to so blatantly defy physical reality so they already knew they wouldn't be able to do it with any other poles. So they just showed it traveling straight, even though photographic evidence clearly shows that the pole was pointed in toward the flight path. Next up is pole 5. Same problem. Photographic evidence clearly shows the pole pointing in toward the flight path, but they just show it traveling straight forward because they know they can't pull off matching its ACTUAL position. Next up is their rendition of what the plane would have looked like hiding behind that platform. You can see the fuselage in their rendition, even though you can see no fuselage at all in that crappy video still they compare their rendition to. Next up is a rendition of a picture superimposed over the actual picture. Look closely and you will see there are two sets of spools in front of the Pentagon. The spools to the right are the animated version. Why are they to the right of the actual spools? The spools are shifted to the right so you won't see them collide with the computer animated fuselage. Instead, you see them conveniently pass between the engine and the fuselage. Next, they show you lots of debris and airplane parts. Very convincing, until they show one piece of debris with a very serious flaw. The flaw can't be seen in the picture they show you. You need a close-up shot. The piece is supposed to from the skin of the fuselage but the rivets are missing. You see rows of rivet holes, but no rivets. Now, when rivets are inserted they create indentations in the metal, so if you ever remove those rivets, you should still see the indentations where the rivets used to be. Now, back to the fuselage piece. No indentations in any of the holes. In fact, most of the rivet holes have no damage to the at all, even though the skin of this metal seems extremely thin. How is it that rivets fail to create indentations in such thin metal? And how are the rivets removed from this thin metal without tearing most of the holes? |
You have some good points here. What popped into my head was this:
If the planes that flew into the towers sliced through the massive I-beams like butter, why didn't it slice through the light poles? I believe those poles are constructed in two pieces, vertical pole horizonal top piece, wouldn't it just snap off and break, with all that impact speed, verses leaving intact?
PHARAOH1133 - December 22, 2007 01:52 AM (GMT)
About the rivit holes, looks like it might of been where rivits were but just popped off. maybe it was just some thin skin type covering to camoflage a missel?
The metal looks real thin almost like a soda can.
the only thing else I can say it it was "Created Debris" dropped there and made to look like it was actually from the plane.
The metal looks real thin almost like a soda can.
the only thing else I can say it it was "Created Debris" dropped there and made to look like it was actually from the plane.
PHARAOH1133 - December 22, 2007 02:01 AM (GMT)
Another thing that just popped into my head is this.
Was there any damage to the concrete floor of where the so-called plane hit.
If the plane crashed through there, it would of hit the ground, and broke the concrete floor inside the building, do we have any clips of the inside concrete floor where it hit
Was there any damage to the concrete floor of where the so-called plane hit.
If the plane crashed through there, it would of hit the ground, and broke the concrete floor inside the building, do we have any clips of the inside concrete floor where it hit
Pentagon reality check - December 22, 2007 09:12 AM (GMT)
IMO, as a believer this is roughly what happened, too much is made of the exact or supposed accuracy of this animation. I't basically Wilson showing he can make an animation of something for you. It's not done to be scentifically comprehensive, just an animated version of someone showing how the light poles match up with a 757 wingspan, basically. I don't think he was trying to explain all aspects, and I think he got a few points flat wrong. (I think the white stuff in the vdeo is THE PLANE, not its smoke)
However, good post Avenger.
Pharoah: The foundation damage issue has been discussed and looked at in-depth by me.
Foundation Damage?
Update
If there's visible damage it's right here - the alleged impact spot of the left engine, at column line 11. Whaddayou think? Pile of rubble on the slab, or where a bit of the slab had been? The rest of the foundation would have suffered only glancing damage in any one spot, IMO, and the whole scene was flooded, covered with debris, ash, etc... covered in mud it's not clear if there are any minor gouges or cracks - but in all interior photos I've seen there is one chipped spot I've seen and otherwise nothing visible.
A good cache here (many pages of them)
However, good post Avenger.
Pharoah: The foundation damage issue has been discussed and looked at in-depth by me.
Foundation Damage?
Update
If there's visible damage it's right here - the alleged impact spot of the left engine, at column line 11. Whaddayou think? Pile of rubble on the slab, or where a bit of the slab had been? The rest of the foundation would have suffered only glancing damage in any one spot, IMO, and the whole scene was flooded, covered with debris, ash, etc... covered in mud it's not clear if there are any minor gouges or cracks - but in all interior photos I've seen there is one chipped spot I've seen and otherwise nothing visible.
A good cache here (many pages of them)
Avenger - December 23, 2007 12:34 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| IMO, as a believer this is roughly what happened, too much is made of the exact or supposed accuracy of this animation. |
I'm not complaining about the fact that it's not perfect. I'm complaining about the fact that it was tweaked to make things seem possible that are not possible. The purpose of this thread, again, is to point out those tweaks and to expose what those tweaks were designed to hide.
| QUOTE |
| I't basically Wilson showing he can make an animation of something for you. It's not done to be scentifically comprehensive, just an animated version of someone showing how the light poles match up with a 757 wingspan, basically. I don't think he was trying to explain all aspects, and I think he got a few points flat wrong. (I think the white stuff in the vdeo is THE PLANE, not its smoke) |
See, the light pole DAMAGE does NOT match up with a 757 wingspan because the wings are sloped back. There's no way to create an animation that matches the official story for this reason.
fedzcametogetme - December 24, 2007 04:18 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Pentagon reality check @ Dec 22 2007, 04:12 AM) |
| "IMO, as a believer this is roughly what happened, too much is made of the exact or supposed accuracy of this animation. I't basically Wilson showing he can make an animation of something for you. It's not done to be scentifically comprehensive, just an animated version of someone showing how the light poles match up with a 757 wingspan, basically. I don't think he was trying to explain all aspects..." |
ahem, i wish that were true. one cant help but appreciate how now that someone has picked the video apart, skeptics would like to minimize or dismiss the substantive value of the "animation" (its actually a psyop). i remember just last year however, skeptics were quik to present this "animation" as an answer to the "conspiracy theorists".
so are we making "too much is made of the exact or supposed accuracy of this animation"? lets see the intro to the psyop mindfuk:
design to what? REALITY. and chek it - over half a million views.
note the words "newtonian physics" and "offer forensics dispute RESOLUTION".
lol. i cant believe they actually admit its a mindfuk.
the video uses certain key words in an authoritative voice over and over while the animation plays, in attempt to pass off its very OFFICIALNESS. over an over the voice says "newtonian physics" with a certain smug arrogance as it tries its best to appear "scientifically comprehensive". but in case my take on it is skewed, then chek mikey's only other vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2-44wCwsIs
u still wanna tell me this video was NOT pretending to be FACT? i can take many quotes from that video but how about: "calibrate the assumption and the FACTS seem to fit".
and this one:
CNN VOICE: "enter mike wilson... he sees something else in the videos, a way to DEBUNK THE DOUBTERS".
or mike himself: "here im starting my crime scene investigation of the lamp poles..."
mike wilson should get a jref award and a chek from the gov for his work. i must have missed when he became a selfappointed DEBUNKER of ALL pentagon conspiracies. he does afterall address almost each and every one of them, debunking them along the way, as if he is an expert.
but i thought he was a graphic artist? when did he become the authority on all the other aspects of the pentagon? and why? and note that he does not leave the door open to the possibility of ANY conspiracy? he is OCT all the way. funny how CNN found him and gave him the time to air all of his views. funny they never do that with anyone who contradicts the official story. so to minimize this video and to act like it wasnt meant to swindle and subvert the viewers is not by any means an accurate assesment.
furthermore its yet another example of ur (pentrealitchek) ability to skew everything you see and hear into some sort of supporting evidence for your many "debunks". just like misquoting and mistating the context of mcgraw's account, u again attempt here to subversively undermine the truth of actual events. the "animation", its release (posted june29,2006), the mere existence of a "mike wilson", and mike wilson's cnn piece (posted sept 13,2006) were collectively meant to be PROOF to the many inquiring minds who have had questions and suspicions.
plus the noobs to 911 truth who didnt/dont know shit about the specifics of the light poles (and inconsistencies contained therein), might watch the video and end up convinced that what they saw is exactly what happened. so like wilson's erroneous video, ur assessment and subsequent minimization of the vid's intentions is just more psyop bullshit.
fedzcametogetme - December 29, 2007 10:25 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE ( posted by "in need of a Pentagon Reality Chek" in santacon thread) |
| Yoy've illustrated that Mike Wilson's half-relevant non-scientific animation does not explain everything is all... |
so is that ur answer? u dare call it "half-relevant, non-scientific animation"? in spite of the proof to contrary (above)? u can keep claiming victory in other threads, yet this thread is waiting for ur response first. mike wilson clearly attempts to be scientific, CNN doing the gov's dirty work, clearly attempts to legitimize wilson's findings as forensically accurate (as does wilson himself). wilson's direct quote (one of many relevant quotes thru-out his cnn presentation):
| QUOTE |
| "here im starting my crime scene investigation of the lamp poles..." |
is in every way suggesting that his findings and animation are scientifically/forensically accurate. the fact that they arent is seperate from his intentions and ur claims that this video was NOT meant to come off as "scientifically comprehensive" to the unwary or less informed viewers. it was and is designed to be a psyop/mindfuk, and u know it. and it isnt some random couch-editor on youtube, its a guy who has CNN working with him. note the cnn presentation includes a CNN voice presenting some of wilson's "evidence"? they dont just show his animation, they graciously cover all the bases with him, at length.
i wouldnt doubt if wilson was paid directly by the gov (or by proxy/front) to create this animation and to "debunk" the other "conspiracies" he addresses. either that or he is so loyal to the official story that he voluntarily took it upon himself to devote time, effort, and possibly money to address these "paranoid doubts" that CT's have expressed. to be sure i looked deeper, but first:
description as presented on mikewilson's site:
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
| QUOTE |
| "911 Case Study: Flight 77 **NEW** A short movie illustrating the final moments of American Airlines flight 77. Key points include lamp pole evidence, security cam view analysis, generator damage and actual photos. Witness new video and photos never seen before until just recently." |
more from mrwilson:
| QUOTE |
| "Pentagon 3D Models (2004) Reconstructed from dozens of photos and official documents, this highly detailed assembly is an accurate reconstruction. Few photo/video evidence exists, fueling conspiracy websites claiming no plane. Open the files, draw your own conclusions." |
here is how Integrated Consultants officially preface/present the animation on their own site:
http://www.integratedconsultants.com/parasolid.htm
| QUOTE |
| "Parametric Modeling Parametrics: A method of linking dimensions and variables to geometry in such a way that when the values change, the geometric item changes accordingly. Integrated Consultants, Inc. specializes in unique technical processes and forensic engineering services to Government and Industry. Our technical breath is applied in the illustration design and analysis of the 911 Case Study Flight 77 parametric model video. One of our staff design engineer animators prepared the illustration to highlight the resolution of fact that can be brought to a forensic analysis within a SolidWORKS medium. Then utilizing multiple finite element analysis techniques apply Newtonian Physics based forces to virtual solids and record the scientific results in a sequential video format. Surveillance and or random candid photos of individual specific detail of a chain of events can fuel incorrect hypothesis of the entire incident, especially when counter intuitive evidence remains. Results are counter intuitive when controlling factors of large scale events are not considered. The horrific images shown in virtual form is an unvarnished depiction of plausible fact applied to the forensic evidence of the terrorism brought upon the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. " |
who are some of "integrated consultants" normal "customers"? all defense/military:
http://www.integratedconsultants.com/contracts.htm
the ownership/management of the company and the rewards of being there for uncle sam:
http://www.integratedconsultants.com/newssept803.htm
| QUOTE |
| "Integrated Consultants is a woman-owned business that maintains a certified Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) office in National City, CA. The emerging small business specializes in the Applied Mechanics of Rugged Prototype Apparatus, and Forensic Engineering Services." Integrated Consultants is owned and operated by Debra (Hamlin) Aberizk, a former Carson City, NV native, and David K. Aberizk, a former Lawrence, MA native. They resided together in the Greater Lawrence Area for 18 years before relocating to San Diego, CA in 1999. "We are honored and appreciative of the collective endorsement action taken by the many individuals within the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and ARINC Corporation, to further support the growth of our technical capabilities to become a valued supplier to the Navy for engineered contract activities." "For a husband and wife team to be identified by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, as a program suitable emerging small business, is such a significant milestone for Debra, myself, and Integrated Consultants. With our core engineering capabilities, deemed adequate to build on, we look forward to developmental assistance from ARINC, to mature our managerial, contractual, and technical capabilities." |
david aberzik is in charge of Publicity/Public Affairs for the NDIA (national DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL association):
http://ndia-sd.org/pocs.html
more about NDIA:
http://www.sdbj.com/PDF/Supps_9_24_07.pdf
| QUOTE |
| The National Defense Industrial Association’s mission is to provide a legal and ethical forum for the interchange of ideas between the government and industry to resolve industrial problems of joint concern. Our primary areas of interest are the business and technical aspects of the government industry relationship, encompassing government policies and practices in the entire acquisition process, including research and development, procurement, logistics support, and many technical areas. |
areas of work of integrated consultants inc., according to the Defense industry.(DE Technologies Inc.-KM Systems Group LLC)(Directory):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-68...logies-Inc.html
| QUOTE |
| Acquisition Policy; Air Defense; Air Traffic Control; Airframes; Antennas; Anti-Terrorism; Armor; Automatic Test Equipment; Avionics; C4ISR; Combat Vehicles; Composites; Construction/Construction Equipment; Consulting Services; Contract Management; Cost Accounting; Cyber Security; Demilitarization; Design/Engineering Services; Display Systems; Electronics; EMI Shielding; Engines/Turbines and Components; Guidance Systems/Seekers; High-Speed Assembly Automation; Homeland Defense; Information Technology; Infrared Systems; Intelligence (TACTICAL ISR); Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals; Laser Systems; Load, Assembly, and Packing; Logistics Support/Management; Machine Tools; Manufacturing Technology; Marketing/Advertising; Metal Work; Missiles and Rockets; Navigation Systems (Including GPS); Networking/Data Links; Non-Lethal Technologies; Nuclear Ordnance; Precision Munitions; Propellants/Motors; Quality, Reliability, & Assurance; Robotics; Satellites; Security Devices/Services; Sensors; Shipbuilding; Shipping/Handling/Containers; Simulation and Modeling; Small Arms/Crew Served Weapons; Software; Space Systems; Standards Development; Statistical Process Control; Systems Engineering; Tactical Communications; Tactical Vehicles/Trucks; Targets (Air, Ground, Sea); Test and Evaluation; Training; Transportation Security (air, sea, rail, highway); Underwater Systems/Weapons; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; Unmanned Ground Vehicles; Unmanned Undersea Vehicles; Weapons |
more david aberzik background:
Ph.D. Eng or MSME (8 yrs exp), BSME (10 yrs exp) engineering and design of Naval WEAPON SYSTEMS
http://www.teamseaporte.com/AS_SZ_Zone7_FAE.aspx
about teamseaporte:
| QUOTE |
| "In 2002, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) promulgated Sea Power 21. It provides a framework to align, organize, and integrate the U.S. Navy to meet the wide variety of challenges that lie ahead. The CNO called upon the entire Navy, including the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the Warfare Centers (WCs), to find ways to become more efficient and effective. To meet Sea Power 21 objectives and to increase efficiency, the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) have aligned to provide seamless integrated support for 12 core Product Area Directorates. " |
david thanked by the Exec., VP - Henry Johnson of the *AFCEA:
http://www.afcea-sd.org/docs/newsletters/2004/may2004.pdf
| QUOTE |
| But one thing was very clear, the symposium volunteers each provided an element which made the whole event successful. My hat is off to the following folks: David Aberizk |
| QUOTE |
| *The Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) is one of the world's premier C4I professional societies. With over 33,000 members on four continents, AFCEA is comprised of political, military and industry leaders. There are 135 different AFCEA chapters in over 30 countries. The Association is widely recognized for excellence, high ethical standards and the quality of its events. It is considered by top decision makers to be the pre-eminent association in its field. AFCEA serves as an ethical bridge between government requirements and industry's capabilities, representing the top government, industry, and military professionals. |
aaa mobile notary service: area code 619
435-0040
435-0081
http://coronadotelephonebook.com/2007-2008_White_Pages.pdf
phone number search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=619-435-0040
zaba:
http://www.zabasearch.com/reverse_search/r...ne=619-435-0081
267 J AVE CORONADO CA 92118 (david aberizk)
and
NAS NORTH IS CORONADO CA 92118 (peter smith)
more zaba phone number search:
http://www.zabasearch.com/reverse_search/r...ne=619-435-0040
410 6TH ST CORONADO CA 92118
integrated's "business" address:
http://www.integratedconsultants.com/contact.htm
721 Tolita Avenue
San Diego, CA 92118-2823
all 3 (4 if u include the peter smith one) addresses are at "north island nas" a navy base. their site:
http://www.nbc.navy.mil/
http://www.nbc.navy.mil/index.asp?fuseacti...allations.NASNI
history and info of that location:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_North_Island
| QUOTE |
| "Naval Air Station North Island or NAS North Island (IATA: NZY, ICAO: KNZY, FAA LID: NZY) is located at the north end of Coronado Island in San Diego Bay and is the home port of several aircraft carriers of the United States Navy. It is part of the largest aerospace-industrial complex in the United States Navy, the 57,000-acre (230 km²) Naval Base Coronado in San Diego County, California." |
***
do u get it yet? do u see who was behind the animation? do u see that the typical content of their work is indeed "scientifically comprehensive"? do u understand whats really going on here? do u need a pentagon reality check? nevermind proxies or fronts, mike wilson was directly paid by the government by way of integrated consultants (whose name appears on the video) to make this allegedly accurate recreation of "newtonian physics" of the crash of american airlines flight 77 on september 11th of 2001. of course u would want to undermine the significance of the psyop and instead focus on the inaccuracies of the vid, but the reality is that this disinfo is being disseminated, and at least some unaware people are being systematically brainwashed by it.
lets say that 33% of its viewers, thats over 250,000 people, saw the animation and thought: "CASE CLOSED" and moved on. i meet them often, people who have seen a few pieces of "evidence" on fox or cnn (or sometimes youtube) - who have no idea there are so many inconsistencies and improbabilities associated with said "evidence". they watch the animation vid (or some other similar form of "debunking" or falsehood pretending to be de facto) and are convinced that some "official" body with some "qualified background" has debunked the CT's and thats all she wrote. thus they become conditioned to perceive truth seekers as a buncha tinfoilhat wearing nutzos, thanx to wilson by way of integrated consultants by way military industrial complex by way of usa government.
so of course the evidence wilson presents is crap, but only someone who has taken the time to dig deeper would know that. besides, the overall majority of his assertions arent exactly much different than yours (if u include the CNN piece - watch it and compare notes).
anyway, this video was horseshit but it served (and may still serve) its psyop purpose for at least some portion of its viewing audience. so ur rather lame minimization of it is a gross distortion of reality.
hence the need for u to have a pentagon reality check. i resisted calling u out for ur chickenshit santacon attempt at character assassination, but i have to call u out for not responding to this thread while somehow re-asserting (in the other thread) the same basic (now debunked) assertion that the animation was never pretending to be "relevant and/or scientific."
***
one last note about wilson that might be worthy of mention:
http://archives.digitalperformance.org/arc...04/KataGame.htm
| QUOTE |
| "Michael Wilson is currently living in sunny Los Angeles and telecommuting to eHigherEducation as an Interaction Programmer. Michael also considers himself a digital artist and avant-garde electronisist. In his varied and sundry career he has been a resident researcher in interactive 3D media at NYU, a multimedia design professor at City College, a 7th grade social studies teacher in LA's South Central, a traveling children's theatre actor, a wedding videographer, a gardener, and a clown. He is actively seeking his next profession, and is open to suggestions. " |
he sure gets around huh?
:blink:
Avenger - December 29, 2007 05:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| of course u would want to undermine the significance of the psyop and instead focus on the inaccuracies of the vid, but the reality is that this disinfo is being disseminated, and at least some unaware people are being systematically brainwashed by it. |
Notice he has never pointed out any of these inaccuracies. The last thing he wants is to get into specifics. Because the fact is if you correct every flaw in that animation, then the whole case falls apart.
| QUOTE (MikeJWilson) |
| Pentagon 3D Models (2004) Reconstructed from dozens of photos and official documents, this highly detailed assembly is an accurate reconstruction. |
An accurate reconstruction! :lol: Please! His "accurate reconstruction" doesn't even match the photos he put in his own animation!
Avenger - January 5, 2008 04:52 PM (GMT)
Bump. :)