Pentagon 757 Parts Myth Exposed

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c70e0575...@news.buckeye-express.com:

> In article <42068068$0$34196$91ce...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>,
> claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at says...
>> flash player needed:
>> http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Why do you whackjobs keep posting this stuff?
>
> Don't you ever get tired of making fools of yourself?
>
> There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit the
> pentagon.

False.

> A ton of people saw it hit

False.

> so why do you continue with this
> horseshit?

> Do you lie being ridiculed??

Nice freudian slip, ridiculous liar.

> BDK
>

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.ht
ml

Special Report

Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble
Part 5: Exploding the myth of the Bushes as an all-American family

By Karl W. B. Schwarz
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

February 2, 2005裕he Bushes are many things, but an All-American family
they are not. There is something fundamentally wrong with these people and
it goes past elitism and just basic snobbery. They might have "Oil on the
Brain" to the point they are not even very human any more and we already
know they are not humane at all.

They like to market "points of light" while they are lying to us and out
snuffing out points of light all over the globe, especially those that
could expose the sleaze that the family has come to represent. Now that
Bush cannot find any WMD he likes to point to the "mass graves" without
elaborating that about three of every five of those 500,000 dead Iraqis got
into those mass graves when George H.W. Bush urged the Shiites and Kurds to
rise up in 1991-1992 against Saddam and Bush 41 stood idly by while 300,000
or so of the 500,000 "excuse graves" were being filled, and now George W.
points to them as a good reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Back during the Reagan Administration, Neocons Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush,
George Shultz, Bechtel and others dreamed up a scheme to take over the
Iraqi oil and install the Aqaba Pipeline. That matter lay dormant until
April 11, 2003, when New York Times columnist Bob Herbert contacted Jock
Covey, director of external communications (a euphemism and high-sounding
title for "spin doctor") at Bechtel. A recent piece written by me addressed
that Aqaba Pipeline and the fax Covey sent to Shultz to spin the response
to Bob Herbert and the article he was writing and that appeared in print on
April 14, 2003.

Mr. Covey's name comes up again in the next Part VI article, as does 9-11
Commission member John F. Lehman耀o please pay attention.

We have been told by the Bush administration that American Airline Flight
77 was flown into the Pentagon by a "crack pilot" who was a marginal car
driver. Hmm, I did not buy that story for even a second. That the Pentagon
fire was so hot it vaporized most of a 60-ton airplane including cobalt jet
engine parts that would not evaporate in the temperatures of a normal
building fire, but they got enough human DNA to prove who was on the
flight. Hmm, if it were hot enough to melt a plane including a cobalt heat
resistant jet engine, human DNA recovery would have been impossible so I
don't buy that fable either.

So, how do we prove that the "Official Bush Story" is actually the
"Official Bush Lie?"

That has not been easy and we have had many working on this night and day
for three years to get to the bottom of the matter.

After the Pentagon attack, the video cameras and tapes at a nearby CITGO,
the Sheraton Hotel along I-395 and Virginia DOT cameras were all
confiscated by the FBI and they have yet to disclose any of the contents
that were recorded by those cameras. Those cameras would have recorded what
came in to hit the Pentagon and if viewed by the public, all the world
would know that it was not a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, as we
were told. All the world would know that Bush's assertion is in fact a huge
lie.

They cannot disclose those tapes without indicting themselves that it was
the U.S. government and select "private sector outsourcing" that did the
alleged terrorist attacks of 9-11. In short, our government would have to
admit that it is al Qaeda and that this GWOT (Global War on Terror) is
fabrication made up to provide excuses for a despicable U.S. energy and war
policy.

The post-attack cleanup at the Pentagon shed some light on the fact that it
was not a 757, but exactly what the part recovered was has not been easy to
find or locate.

It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a "turbojet" component from
an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on
just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes.

There was one credible witness found that saw "a two-engine jet airplane,
the engines were under the wings." That is a visual description of a 737,
757, or 767, but it is also a description of an A-3 Skywarrior.

It was very difficult to find the exact FAA certified company that is
equipped, tooled or certified to work on the jet engines that were used in
the A-3 Skywarrior. However, since the USAF and Raytheon still have some
of the A-3s in flying order, we knew that there had to be a plant somewhere
that was doing the repairs on what was otherwise a "decommissioned
aircraft" such as the A-3.

By their own admission and website advertising propaganda, Praxair Surface
Technologies is the only company FAA certified to work and rehabilitate
worn out or corroded components of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbojet engine
in question

.

"Your reliable source for Turbine Engine Fan Blade repairs is now
providing total overhaul capability of JT8D Fan Hub Assembly repairs.
Praxair is the only approved source to overhaul both blades and hub
assemblies."

For those of you that do not pay attention to such things, 9-11 Commission
member Jamie Gorelick sits on the board of directors of United Technologies
and Pratt & Whitney is now owned by United Technologies. Former Bush EPA
secretary Christine Todd Whitman also sits on the United Technologies
board, and that is a company that is raking in big bucks due to Bush War
Policy.

The front fan hub and compressor assembly of the Allison J33, J71 (now
owned by Rolls Royce), and the Pratt & Whitney J57 and Pratt & Whitney JT8D
as shown above are all fairly similar but they also have something else in
common. There was just one conflict of interest on top of another on that
9-11 Omission Commission.

The bent out of shape piece shown on the FEMA photos is the front shaft
bearing housing. What you are seeing above is a "balance test assembly,"
since jet engines do spin fast and have to be very accurately balanced. Jet
engines do in fact have a "center shaft" and it must be balanced and it
must have bearing seals front and back. The FEMA photo shows such a front
seal and a rotor hub missing its fan blades. The key is the cleats on the
outer perimeter that the fan blades attach to and these particular blades
are easy to knock off in a collision such as that at the Pentagon.

The roll of masking tape in the background will give you an idea of scale,
and then compare to the A-3 photos and the much larger fan needed for the
757 type of high bypass jet engine. In short, the Pentagon part is not from
a 757, period.

Some of the team kept digging and they finally found what might be the
actual type of part that was at the Pentagon. The part that is visible in
the left of this photo could well be the exact part, and I can assure all
that what you are looking at is not the front fan of a 757 jet engine. That
is a 737 type of "turbojet" power plant and might well be in the "modified
A-3 Skywarriors." I bet that jet mechanic from Evergreen Air (a known CIA
affiliated company) can tell us where that fan blade comes from and do so
in front of a Spitzer or Morganthau grand jury.

There is the "mystery part" and no, it is not part of a 757 jet engine and
never has been. Oops!

They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior
twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has
a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft,
now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet
engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of
plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an
auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the
conversation as disinformation.

What has been interesting is the level of "content blocking" that there is
on the Internet where specific information regarding certain "jet engine
components" such as those shown at the Pentagon have definitely been
blocked. Our team had to take steps to go around the content blocks to get
at the photos you are seeing regarding these rotor hub components.

That part has a specific UPN (Universal Part Number) and it cannot be found
by looking for that UPN. Other measures were needed to find what you are
seeing in these photos to circumvent what is apparently intentional content
blocking. Someone has gone to considerable lengths to make sure that the
actual components that were found at the Pentagon could not be found and it
took my team over two years to hammer through such blocks to find three of
these photos (Praxair and Evergreen) to verify the component.

Yes, Hughes aircraft had a fleet of them and was bought out by Raytheon.
Hmm, that company is doing well for two reasons that I know of due to Bush
war policy and even the move from Mode 4 to Mode 5 technology since the PRC
got its hands on our top secret Mode 4 technology with that little Hainan
Island incident and our Navy EP-3 that was forced down in April of 2001. As
of Sept. 11, 2001, most air traffic controllers and National Air Guard
units were not upgraded after the PRC got their hands on some of our most
sensitive military technology.

Just stop and consider, if we can attack other nations with impunity and at
will, we can attack ourselves too and cloak it from commercial operations
just like we do in other nations.

The above photo is a launch of an AIM-54 Phoenix Missile, air-to-air
missile. Making this launch an air-to-surface missile would not be a great
feat and Hughes/Raytheon manufactures several such missiles that would blow
a 16-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon with ease.

Type: AGM-65B (Air Force), AGM-65D (Air Force), AGM-65E (Marines), AGM-65F
(Navy), AGM-65G (Air Force).

Contractors: Hughes Aircraft Co., Raytheon Co.
Propulsion: Thiokol TX-481 solid-propellant rocket motor (hint肪urns white
and leaves a white smoke trail at all altitudes and jet engines do not do
that)
Service: Air Force, Marines, Navy
First Flight: 1984
IOC: 1994

This type of air-to-ground missile (AGM) is what is used to hit buildings
and blow big holes in them, like the 16-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon.
Note that 737s and 757 do not come equipped with such fire control systems
or the mounting pods for the missiles, however, the A-3 Skywarrior is built
to support the firing of such systems. The photo below of a modified A-3
landing clearly shows the missile-launching platform under the wing.

As you can tell from the above photo the A-3 Skywarrior is already
configured for the AIM and AGM missiles and another hint is the change from
the older nose design to the F16 nose design which includes "fire control
systems" and a few other high tech devices.

Also note that jet engine fuel burning does not leave a white trail at sea
level, only at higher and much colder altitudes. However, AGM type missiles
burn solid rocket fuel and it leaves a white trail at all altitudes.

If you have seen the Pentagon photos that have been released regarding the
jet engine part inside the Pentagon, the following is also a photo that is
not part of a 757 engine that we have found, even in physically inspecting
one inside a jet engine maintenance shop.

This following part is also not a 757 component; it is a component from the
types of "dual chamber" turbojets represented by the Allison J33, J71,
Pratt & Whitney J57 and JT8D.

They are called in the jet industry a "diffuser case" and the UPN content
numbers on this particular item have been blocked and otherwise scrubbed on
the Internet.

However, the following is the diffuser case design for the 757 jet engines
and it is quite different from that shown at the Pentagon. That is due to
the difference between "dual-chamber turbojet" versus the newer "high
bypass jet fan" designs found on the 757 and 767 jet airplanes.

Note the triangular bezels around the openings and then note that the
Pentagon diffuser case has no such openings or reinforcing points. The
diffuser is built into a much larger component and not a separate component
in the newer 757 type jet engines. This is a very large component within
the 757 type of jet engine and there are two of them on every 757. Note,
not a single one of these was found at the Pentagon and this is not a
component that would have melted or evaporated in any manner at all.

Another component was found at the Pentagon in the form of a wheel hub. It
did not take much to confirm that the particular wheel shown below is the
type made by B.F. Goodrich in their aerospace division. They also made the
wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter
will easily show that the below photo is not of a wheel hub from a 757,
which has a much larger radius than width. This radius being about the same
as the width of the wheel hub is also another clue that the 757 story is a
Bush Lie.

In fact, if one looks very closely at the diameter versus width of the tire
that was found at the Pentagon, this is the type of tire used for carrier
based and general rear wheels of smaller military planes, not commercial
airliners. This is the type of wheel hub one would expect to find as one of
the two rear wheels on an A-3 refitted with current equipment rather than
equipment that is no longer being manufactured.

The information in this article has been hand-delivered to New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

This entire "American soldiers blood for oil" formula the Bush Family has
stuck in their heads is about the lowest thing I have ever seen. Most
Americans notice that they care not a bit, a common characteristic for
nitwits, about the death and maiming of our soldiers or how many bogus
enemies they are killing in the process. All they think about is oil and
money, influence pimping and looking good for the cameras, while behind the
scenes is a draconian and Machiavellian attitude towards all Americans that
do not fit the Bush Family standards of wealth and elitism.

Ever wonder why this family seems to think sending people to die is just
"another day at the office?" I wondered about that too and as I assembled
One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas the answer became plenty clear to see. If
one is a wealthy snob like them, it just doesn't matter if a person comes
home dead, or alive, or maimed just as long as the big bucks keep flowing
to the Bush Family and the Bush Cabal members (i.e. their wealthy elite
friends).

Didn't you get the memo? This is all about the greater glory of the Bush
Family and Big Oil and Big Military. They are better than other Americans.
Don't believe me; just ask them. They and their friends think they can
attack this nation and walk off scot-free and richer due to all of the
chaos and plunder they created for Big Oil, Big Defense and Homeland
Security expenditures that are mostly for their friends, not for you or me.

They do not see anything wrong at all with being so arrogant or despicable
that they use military force when they and their commercially abusive
"Financial Terrorist" friends cannot get certain foreign nations to do
business with them. It does not seem to occur to them that "good US
policy" might go a long way towards other nations wanting to do business
with the U.S. and the "friends" they send over there to do such deals.

There is a big difference in an "insurgent enemy" and someone shooting at
us because the Bush Family and their friends are thieves. If this were the
1800s, the Bush Family would be lynched and strung up in "hang 'em high"
fashion for "rustling" what belongs to others.

Please sign the Justicefor9-11.org petition if you too demand the truth and
justice regarding September 11, 2001. There is much truth to be found and
we have a national capital that is filled with people that have an aversion
to the truth. It is time that we as American citizens get to the bottom of
what they fear so much and why they fear the truth. Also, sign the Sibel
Edmonds petition, so that we can all know what names surfaced in what she
translated at the FBI.

It is time for all Americans to wake up. Both of those petitions should
have millions of signatures but Americans are asleep at the switch, wheel,
TV, whatever.

It is time for the truth to be on the table for all to see. You can trust
that you will not like the truth when you finally see them for what they
are.

I do not buy their mythology because they are flat out lying to all of us.
You can suffer that in silence or do something about it.

Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, AR and is the author of "One-Way
Ticket to Crawford, Texas, a Conservative Republican Speaks Out." He is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC and
I-nets Security Systems, a designer of intelligence and communications UAV
systems. You can email him here.

Part 1: The 9-11 Commission
Part 2: 9/11 Commission and Bridas
Part 3: 9-11 served a multitude of purposes
Part 4: More reasons to not investigate 9-11

--
Tell Them the King of Brawl Hall Sent You
http://brawl-hall.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=71

You need to BeDoper
http://www.bedoper.com

[King of Brawl Hall]

Here's a better formatted PDF:
http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

VI: THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, 2,
AND 7
We now reach the center of the tragedy, the hecatomb of innocent airline
passengers and
office workers occasioned by the unprecedented and inexplicable collapse of
the two
World Trade Center towers. Here is where vast numbers of ordinary persons
were
immolated by the terrorist controllers for the sake of their insane
geopolitical plans.
Coming from a family which lived in New York for six decades after about
1910, having
lived in New York City (Flushing, Queens) from the age of 4 to the age of
16, having
attended New York City public schools from the first grade through the
twelfth (PS 23,
PS 20, JHS 185, Flushing High School), having worked in the city for a year
as an adult
living in Brooklyn, and having had an uncle who was a New York City
policeman, the
author is as much of a New Yorker as anyone. 9/11 has marked a decisive new
step
downward in the city’s decline, and the bitter recognition of this tragic
situation can only
spur on the exposure of the actual process involved in 9/11.
THE KEY: SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS
According to the official version, which the 9/11 commission hardly
comments on, the
twin towers fell because of the impact of the planes and of the effects of
the subsequent
fires. The problem is that this is physically impossible, as we will show.
The fall of the
towers thus depends on some other cause: controlled demolition of some kind
is the only
possible hypothesis. The key to seeing beyond the official version is to
chronicle the
presence of secondary explosions, since these are the tell-tale signs of
controlled
demolition. When we examine the literature, we find a multitude of
references to such
secondary explosions.
Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47,
based
uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the
plane struck,”
Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to
the twentyfourth
floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb
went off.
We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in an
elevator but
was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly,
September 24,
2001)
Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview
with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower
Manhattan
during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that
many New
York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the
World Trade
Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the
buildings,” he
revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the
higher-ups forbid
discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”
Among those
suppressing real discussion about what had happened, Isaac cited the neocon
heavy
James Woolsey, who had been CIA Director under Clinton, who had become the
New
York Fire Department’s antiterrorism consultant. (Marrs 34)
Teresa Veliz was a manager for a software development firm. She was on the
47th floor
of the North Tower when American 11 struck. Veliz was able to reach the
ground level at
about the same time that the South Tower collapsed. Flung to the ground in
total
darkness, Veliz and a colleague followed another person who happened to
have a
flashlight. As she narrated later: “The flashlight led us into Borders
bookstore, up an
escalator, and out to Church Street. The explosions were going off
everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was
sitting at a
control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church
Street towards
Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another
explosion.
And another. I didn’t know which way to run.” (Murphy; Marrs 34)
Ross Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22nd floor of a nearby building.
He reported
seeing “small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that
was left of the
buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail
shape. The structure
was just completely gone.” (America at War; Marrs 34)
Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that
morning. “I
was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he
reported. “There
was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the
building shook.
I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and
then there was
a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind
of human
damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press;
www.zeitenschrift.com/news/wtc/_wahrheit.ihtml)
Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a
large white
cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman
commented: “There
is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom
…something
has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion. Another
building in
the World Trade Center complex….” (Marrs 35)
Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the
103rd floor of the
South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to
leave the
building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At
the 70th
floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on
the public
address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached
the 67th
floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later
told a
reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its
spectacularly televised
impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an
explosion had come
from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook
the building
and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall
came flying up the
stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott
recounted. Elliott
was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor,
September
17, 2001)
At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson
summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY.
Terry had
told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings
at around 9 AM.
Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind of secondary explosion. Dawson:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the
two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade
Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry
told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the
events
that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of Safety
of
the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he
had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some
of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word
of
a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his
men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the
first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took
place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the initial
impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the
towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted
in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is
the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me
that just moments ago. (Wisnewski 135-136)
Proponents of the official version have attempted to explain some of these
explosions as
having been caused by gas escaping from leaks in gas mains, but this cannot
account for
the phenomena described by Terry. Nor can such other explanations as
exploding
transformers, etc.
Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner of
Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning when
she heard
an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a
building. When
she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen
warned her about
another explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)
The eyewitness Michael Benfante told a German TV camera team: “As I was
leaving, I
heard it. I looked back, and the top of the North Tower was exploding. And
even then I
did not believe that the whole tower could fall. I thought, only the top
exploded and is
now going to fall on me. I turned around again and ran away. I felt the
rumble of the
explosions, the thunder of the collapsing building.” (German ARD network,
“Tag des
Terrors – Anschlag aus heiterem Himmel,” August 30, 2002, Wisnewski 136)
A reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but was
interrupted
by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade
Center. Here
you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI officers,
and you see
the two towers – A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!”
(“Verbrechen
gegen die Menschheit,” West German Television, Cologne, July 24, 2002;
Wisnewski
136)
Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything
got black.
Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them.
It was a big
explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the
building, a horrible
nightmare.” “I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody
when I heard
an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the ground,
screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower came
down, and
all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias
Fernandes,
NTV, September 11, 2001)
Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a
hospital bed
who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and
then three
unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13, 2001)
An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his
experiences to a
reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church
Street,
about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South
Tower
collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from
inside the building
between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the
same time heard a
“a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (Christopher Bollyn,
American Free
Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewksi 137)
Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another
eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building
shook, then
it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on,” she told People
magazine. “We
got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we
all thought it was a
fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another
explosion.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001)
A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust
and ashes told
the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown
back by a
huge explosion.” (Wisnewski 138)
The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also
were talking
about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan,
was cut off
in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was
speaking, and
hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)
NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS
In his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on
German
television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC
News
cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what are
almost
certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape,
we see the
two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame
131 of the
tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of
the 79th floor
of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the
dimensions of
the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition
charges
would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up,
contrasting sharply
with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of
white-grey smoke
emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This
represents decisive
photographic evidence of controlled demolition charges being triggered in
the World
Trade Center. (Wisnewski 216)
Andreas von Bülow, the former Social Democratic Technology Minister of
Germany
under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, noted in his study of 9/11 that news tapes
show
smoke being forced out of the hermetically sealed windows of both towers in
the minute
or so just before they fell. (Von Buelow 146-147) This is very likely also
evidence of
controlled demolition charges or other artificial processes going on inside
the buildings.
FIREMEN WERE CONFIDENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE
The Guiliani administration in New York City, and its successor, the
Bloomberg
administration, refused for a long time to allow the public to hear tapes
of the radio
conversations among the FDNY firemen on the scene at the WTC. In the summer
of
2002, press accounts surfaced which indicated that firemen had been able to
climb to the
Sky Lobby on the 78nd floor and been able to survey the extent of the fire
from there. The
fuselage of United 175 had struck the 80th floor, and one of its wings had
clipped the 78th
floor itself. The FDNY officers describe a situation with only two pockets
of fire, and
they express confidence that they will be able to fight the fire
successfully with two hose
lines. Two officials who are mentioned by name on the tape are Battalion
Chief Orio J.
Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom died when the South
Tower
collapsed. “Once they got there,” the Times says, “they had a coherent plan
for putting
out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.” According
to the New
York Times summary, the two officers “showed no panic, no sense that events
were
racing beyond their control…. At that point, the building would be standing
for just a few
more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above
him. Even so,
Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of
engine companies
to fight them….
The limited transcripts made available on the internet were as follows:
Battalion Seven…Ladder Fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire.
We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor
numerous Code Ones.
The audio tape has never been released to the public. The Justice
Department claims that
it is evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussawi in Alexandria, Virginia.
(New York Times,
August 4, 2002) Christopher Bollyn, already cited, commented: “The fact
that veteran
firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of
fire’ indicates they
judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the
crash provide
crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-
melting inferno
led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39)
Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus
the highestranking
uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save
everybody
below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first
tower.” (Giuliani
8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day.
THE CASE OF WTC 6
CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the base
of Building
6, the Customs House. This video footage had originated at 9:04, about one
minute after
United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north
side of the
north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been
generated by the
impact to the South Tower. A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a
cloud of
gas and debris 170 meters high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t figure
it out.”
(Marrs 36) This incident was soon eclipsed by the collapse of the South
Tower, and has
tended to be forgotten. The various official reports have had precious
little to say about
WTC 6. Overhead views of the ruins later showed a large crater in the steel
structure of
WTC 6; it was clear that this crater could not have been caused by fire.
(Von Bülow 163-
164)
THE AGONY OF THE FDNY
FDNY lost 343 firefighters that day, more than their casualties in the
previous hundred
years. It is worth asking why this came about. In the case of fires in
high-rise skyscrapers,
outside ladders cannot be used above a certain level. Therefore, the
firemen are trained to
use staircases to climb up to the fire and fight it within the building.
They could do this
with a certain degree of confidence because no modern, steel-framed,
fireproof building
had ever collapsed as a result of fire. On 9/11, three of them – WTC 1, WTC
2, and WTC
7, all collapsed. Veteran firefighters knew what they were doing. Their
losses are not
attributable to any mistake on their part, but, in all probability, to the
fact that the twin
towers and WTC 7 were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.
The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia had burned lustily for many hours
in 1991, but
came nowhere near collapsing. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours,
leaping from
floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. On
May 4-5, 1988,
the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles – a structure
that was more or
less comparable to the twin towers – burned for more than three hours, with
bright,
intense flames licking up the sides of the building. In a post-blaze
assessment, Iklim Ltd.,
a company that specializes in building inspections and structural analyses
after fires,
concluded: “In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there
was no damage to
the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and
a small
number of floor pans.”
These comparisons were noted with some discomfort by the New York Times,
which
commented that “High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a
fire, even if the
fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel
support structures are
strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way
in the time it
takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn. In
major high-rise
fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in
Philadelphia in 1991
and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach
has worked. But
the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never
burned out, and
in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop
fighting the
blazes.” One can sense the acute embarrassment of the mythographs; this is
all just
absurd. “What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire
Department
would be afraid to fight it?” said one member of the investigation team
quoted in this
same article. (New York Times, March 2, 2002)
THE ROMERO ANALYSIS
An important early contribution to the discrediting of the official version
regarding the
WTC came in an interview with a New Mexico expert in mining technology
which
appeared a few days after 9/11. This highly realistic analysis appeared in
the Albuquerque
Journal of September 14, 2001 under the headline “Explosives Planted in
Towers, New
Mexico Tech Expert Says,” the byline belonged to Olivier Uyttebrouck.
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that
explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech
explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too
methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the
structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology.
“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the
World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a
former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at
Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on
buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television
broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of
controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be
difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,”
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washingtonarea
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny
Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to
an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research
programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have
been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. “It could have been a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in
each of the towers, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would
have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common
terrorist strategy, Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are
noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device,” Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts
emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he
said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack
would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
(http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm -removed from archive;
see http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm)
Here was an honest appraisal from a qualified expert. Romero successfully
identified
some of the main anomalies presented by the spectacle of collapse, and
proceeded from
there to the only tenable hypothesis: controlled demolition. He was also
acutely
perceptive in seeing that the aircraft impacts could not in themselves have
been the cause
of the fall of the twin towers; they rather had to be regarded as a
diversion or cover story
to make the fall of the buildings plausible to public opinion. However, the
America of
late September 2001 was marked by a climate of neo-McCarthyite hysteria
wholly
antithetical to public truth; Van Romero later retracted his highly
insightful remarks, and
is rumored to have since found preferment from the federal government.
But numerous foreign experts arrived independently at similar conclusions.
Steffen Kretz,
the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the
World Trade
Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of this
same
network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an
additional
explosion. (Wisnewski 138) On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview
with Jens
Claus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His
view was:
“Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise
they
would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the
former NATO
General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been
installed
in the buildings.” (Wisnewski 138) The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende,
the
leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the
explosives
expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the
collapse of
the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have
exploded inside
the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende,
September
12, 2001; Wisnewski 138)
THE VIEW OF A SWISS ENGINEER
Another leading authority who raised the issue of sabotage from within the
towers was
Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake
engineering at
the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich –
where
Einstein had taught. As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on
September
13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall
of the towers. The
first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had
an alternative:
“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused
the collapse of
the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World
Trade center
can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to
say that
“Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on
key supports
in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office
space, then these
“explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the
vulnerable parts
of the building “without having anyone notice.” Bachmann thought that it
was less likely
that explosives in the below ground parts of the building could have caused
the collapse.
Here the logistic problems would be harder to solve in order to put the
charges in the
right places, and the foundations were probably of more stable construction
than the steel
towers. Bachmann commented that “the question of whether in fact one of
these two
scenarios is applicable cannot be answered at this time.” But he felt it
was a central issue
that the second scenario should get more attention, whether or not it
applied to the WTC.
Bachmann observed that anyone who had enough knowledge of static structures
and
explosives technology could in principle destroy any building, since every
structure has
its Achilles heel. An attack aimed at that weak point would be relatively
easy to carry out,
but would require careful and time-consuming planning. Not all buildings
were equally
vulnerable, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in
Bachmann’s opinion
probably among the more sensitive targets. (Wisnewski 141-143)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAMPERING
There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting
strange and
unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before
their
destruction. One New York businessman told me in an interview three years
after the fact
that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during the
months
preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were out
of service.
Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a
firm which
was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven
employees of
Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported
that over the
weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower
experienced a
“power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36
hours. The
reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were
being upgraded.
Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s
computer
network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him
to shut
down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went
out. After
the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore
service on the
network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor,
there were also no
security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside
engineering
personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend.
Forbes lived in
Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the
conflagration
on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the
previous weekend.
(www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)
SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and
measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson
River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two
shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two
spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists
at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before
the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower
began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast
majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake
proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any
previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck
bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20
local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7,
also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur
Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented
that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the
towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing
other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to
draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the
9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of
what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the
buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other
steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel
was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.
GIULIANI OBLITERATES THE WTC CRIME SCENE
Mayor Giuliani, by pedigree, was a creature of the highly repressive
bureaucraticauthoritarian
apparatus which had consolidated itself in the Justice Department during
the
Reagan years. He now performed yeoman service in defense of the 9/11 myth,
a myth
which had its most obvious vulnerability in its most spectacular point: the
unprecedented
and physically inexplicable collapse of the twin towers. Giuliani used the
pretext that his
term was ending on December 31, 2001 to organize the massive obliteration
of the WTC
as a crime scene. Parallel to this, Giuliani engineered a confrontation
with the New York
firemen, both to divert public attention from his tampering with the
evidence, and also to
neutralize the potential of the firemen, the one group which might have
denounced the
presence of controlled demolition charges in WTC 1, 2, and 7, of which, as
we have seen,
they were well aware.
During the crisis, Giuliani had been eager to exploit for his own political
image the
immense admiration and gratitude which had been expressed around the nation
and the
world for the epic feats of the New York firefighters. The firemen were now
the most
revered symbols in the country: typical was the cover of Newsweek’s post-
9/11 issue,
which showed some firemen raising a flag over the ruins, with an evident
allusion to the
flag raising on Iwo Jima. Giuliani made a practice of appearing in public
wearing a
baseball cap emblazoned with the letters “FDNY.” The police he relegated to
his
windbreaker, which bore the legend “NYPD.” Giuliani proved to be
treacherous in
practice to both, and he did this by playing the firefighters against the
police, and vice
versa – all in the service of the 9/11 coverup. The firemen, once revered,
would soon be
“inexcusable,” according to Giuliani.
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AGAIN
Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm
which had
finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in
1995, and
which had disposed of the evidence there in the process.
This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and
empowered
Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center.
Giuliani has not a
word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices
for the steel;
the priority was to make it disappear fast. Trucks hauling the steel away
were equipped
with $1,000 Global Positioning System locators to ensure that none of them
went astray,
and that no suspect steel ended up in the back yard of a maverick 9/11
researcher. All
investigators, in fact, were banned from ground zero. Now Controlled
Demolition would
eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in
“the pile,” as the
mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a scene
out of Kafka
– it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the
destruction of the
evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world war.
Giuliani, along with ghostwriter Ken Kurson, has produced a relentlessly
self-laudatory
and self-promoting autobiography entitled Leadership. This work constitutes
a monument
of hypocrisy. During one of his visits to the WTC site, the Mayor noticed
that many
visitors were taking pictures of the site. Because there was so much to
hide, he found this
troubling: “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon – hundreds of people carrying
disposable
cameras and handheld video cameras. I understood the impulse – this was a
historic
event, and experiencing it up close had a tremendous impact. At the same
time, this was a
crime scene, and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt, or to
damage
evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots. If we
didn’t do something
about it immediately, it would soon be out of control, a voyeur’s paradise,
and we risked
the site developing a distasteful freak show aspect.” (Giuliani 49) An
independent
photographic documentation of the crime scene, one the FBI would not be
able to
confiscate? Horrors! Giuliani promulgated his infamous order that all
photos were illegal
in the area around the WTC complex. Those who risked a snapshot also risked
going to
jail.
When it was a question of preventing public scrutiny, Giuliani considered
the WTC pile a
crime scene where there was evidence that had to be preserved. But when it
was a
question of sending the crucial evidence to the other end of the world,
Giuliani’s motto
became “scoop and dump” – with the help of Controlled Demolition. As Thomas
Van
Essen, Giuliani’s fawning appointee as Fire Commissioner, described the
scene: “…a
full-blown recovery operation was under way, and the site had become an
enormous
construction zone. Trucks and plows rolled around everywhere. Giant cranes
lofted
massive steel beams over the heads of the men below.” (Van Essen 263) The
steel was
being sent to a city land fill at Fresh Kills, Staten Island.
According to Van Essen, by the end of October Giuliani was filled with
humanitarian
concern about the danger of accidents to those working on the pile. One of
the main
groups present there were firefighters who were seeking the bodies or other
remains of
their hundreds of fallen comrades. According to the literary provocateur
Langewiesche,
“there were some among the construction workers and the police who grew
unreasonably
impatient with the firemen, and became overeager to repeat the obvious – in
polite terms,
that these so-called heroes were just ordinary men. On the other hand, the
firemen
seemed to become steadily more self-absorbed and isolated from the larger
cleanup
efforts underway. “ (Langewiesche 158) “Firemen were said to prefer watches
from the
Tourneau store, policemen to opt for kitchen appliances, and construction
workers (who
were at a disadvantage here) to enjoy picking through whatever leftovers
they came upon
– for instance, wine under the ruins of the Marriott hotel, and cases of
contraband
cigarettes that spilled from the US Customs vault in the Building Six
debris.”
(Langewiesche 159) Langewiesche reported with great gusto the discovery of
evidence
that the firemen had been looting even before the towers came down. “Fifty
feet below
the level of the street they began to uncover the hulk of a fire truck that
had been driven
deep by the collapse.” According to Langewiesche, the field superintendent
who only
wanted to get on with the job at hand felt “delight, then, after the hulk
of the fire truck
appeared, that rather than containing bodies (which would have required
decorum), its
crew cab was filled with dozens of new pairs of jeans from The Gap, a Trade
Center
store. When a grappler pulled off the roof, the jeans were strewn about for
all to see. It
was exactly the sort of evidence the field superintendent had been waiting
for. While a
group of initially bewildered firemen looked on, the construction workers
went wild.”
(Langewiesche 161) The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew most
about
the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also the
group most
likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps the
greatest
immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so
much. The
obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore,
was of worldhistorical
importance. Given the stakes, it would be impossible to exclude that the
dungaree incident which Langewiesche found so delightful had been cynically
staged as a
means of keeping the angry and rebellious firemen off-balance, distracted
and confused.
The jeans could easily have been planted at a quiet moment during the
graveyard shift.
Langewiesche’s reporting came out during the fall in the Atlantic Monthly,
and rankled
deeply among the angry firemen and the bereaved families.
On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful
consultation that
there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC
pile, along with
25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon “the
rescue workers
were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on finding
bodies; that
the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he
left office; that
we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn’t care about anything
else….Union
officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking
everything to Fresh
Kills – a ‘scoop and dump’ operation.” (Van Essen 265)
Langewiesche defends the Mayor’s justification of cutting the firemen’s
representation
on the pile: “when Giuliani gave ‘safety’ as the reason for reducing their
presence on the
pile, he was completely sincere.” (Langewiesche 161) In his view, the big
problem on the
pile was “firemen running wild.” (Langewiesche 162) In mid-October, an
audience of
firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of the
Giuliani
administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic
politician. (Van
Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the results
of his
provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at the
WTC. Their
chants included: “Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!”, “Do
the right
thing!”, “Rudy must go!”, and “Tom must go!”, a reference to Fire
Commissioner
Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, “Mayor Giuliani,
let us bring
our brothers home.” Speakers denounced Giuliani’s hasty carting off of
wreckage and
remains to Fresh Kills as a “scoop and dump” operation. One well-respected
former
captain appealed to the crowd: “My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet!
Don’t
abandon him!” This was met with a cry of “Bring Tommy home!” from the
assembled
throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the
firefighters and the
police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve
firefighters were taken to
jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed the
9/11 myth of
national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare
and
provocations against the firemen. It was All Souls Day, the day of the
dead, November 2,
2001.
At a press conference that same day, Giuliani hypocritically condemned the
actions of the
firemen as inexcusable. The police wanted to make more arrests, and were
scanning
videotapes of the riot to identify firefighters. The city was appalled by
what had
happened; many newspapers were anti-Giuliani this time. One trade union
leader,
Gorman, called Giuliani a “fascist,” and referred to the Police
Commissioner and the Fire
Commissioner as Giuliani’s “goons.”
On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted by
200 angry
firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused again
and again of
running a “scoop and dump” operation. One widow protested: “Last week my
husband
was memorialized as a hero, and this week he’s thought of as landfill?”
When Van Essen
stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied, “Stop
saying
you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my husband
is
dead!” Dr. Hirsch of the “biological stain” theory discussed below tried to
defend
Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being found
any longer,
but he was shouted down by firemen who knew from their experience on the
pile that this
was not so. Van Essen was forced to concede that, based on photographic
evidence he
personally examined, remains were indeed still be found that had to be
“considered intact
bodies.” (Van Essen 270-271)
Giuliani’s rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the
preservation of human
remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much
pertinent
evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive
and playing
them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups. He
was able to
split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots
emotionally, and
were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their
heroic fallen
comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue
of the
indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World Trade
Center
complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani: at
the 9/11
commission’s last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and
other line
departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former Navy
Secretary
John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was inferior
to that of a
Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a
challenge to the
9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of
their heroism and
huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story of
controlled
demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly
recognized.
Giuliani’s memoir is mainly for self-aggrandizement, but it also attempts
to shore up the
official version at certain key vulnerable points, since the Giuliani
legend and the 9/11
myth are now inextricably intertwined. The following remarks are attributed
to Dr.
Charles S. Hirsch, the Medical Examiner of New York City in the late
afternoon of 9/11:
“Most of the bodies will be vaporized. We’re going to end up with
biological stains,
where the tissue has become shapeless, amorphous masses of matter.”
According to
Giuliani, Hirsch estimated that the temperature inside the building had
reached 2,000
degrees (presumably Fahrenheit). Such a temperature is impossible in the
physical
universe as we otherwise know it to be constituted. (Giuliani 22)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS: “BORDERLINE CRIMINAL”
The scandalous eradication of the WTC crime scene was one of the main
themes of
hearings held by the House Science Committee on March 2, 2002. Congressman
Anthony
D. Weiner, a New York Democrat, led off by contrasting the businesslike
handling of the
crash scene of Flight 186 on November 12, 2001 with the chaos and disdain
for the
integrity of evidence that had prevailed on the WTC pile under Giuliani’s
management:
“Within literally moments of that plane crash, the National Transportation
Safety Board
was on the ground sequestering evidence, interviewing witnesses,
subpoenaing
information, if necessary, and since then, they have offered periodic
reports. One month
and a day earlier, when the World Trade Center collapsed, nothing could
have been
further from the truth. According to reports that we have heard since,
there has been no
comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that
there was
virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven’t examined any aspects of
the collapse
that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month.
Second,
reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80
percent of the
steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling,
much of it, if
not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the
information.”
Weiner pointed out that at the flight 186 Rockaway crash scene on November
11, he had
been able to “watch the National Transportation Safety Board point to
pieces of evidence,
[and] say to local law enforcement, don’t touch this or it is going to be a
felony if you
do.” (House March 104) That had been the procedure before 9/11, and it had
become
procedure once again after 9/11; only in regard to the 9/11 events did
these methods,
mandated by federal law, go out the window. It was a massive breakdown of
the rule of
law, and all in the service of the coverup.
Weiner pointed out that there was also plenty of blame to go around for the
federal
government as well. This centered on inter-agency turf wars, always a
favorite means
used by moles to disguise the scope and motivation of what they are really
doing: “…we
have allowed this investigation to become woefully bogged down and in
fighting and
lack of cooperation among agencies. Researchers from FEMA did not get
timely access
to the designs of the building. News accounts have said there has been
friction between
engineers in FEMA because of concerns about where the information would
wind up.
Even the National Science Foundation, which has awarded grants to several
scientists to
study the collapse, but didn’t coordinate these efforts with FEMA or the
American
Society of Civil Engineers.”
The reality was even worse. FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT)
was carried out not by full-time government officials, but rather by a
group of volunteer
investigators, with a budget of just $600,000. (Ken Starr’s budget for
hounding Clinton:
more than $40 million.) FEMA volunteers had no subpoena power, and could
not stay the
hand of steel recyclers or confiscate evidence if they required it. They
were denied the
blueprints of the buildings. They generally could not enter ground zero,
apart from an
early walking tour. They never saw a piece of steel wreckage until October.
Out of
millions of fragments, the FEMA BPAT was able to save only 156 from the
recyclers.
Weiner also deplored the parsimonious budget that had been granted to the
investigation:
“…finally, we have seen and noted the painfully that the financial
commitment to this
investigation simply is not there. It is not uncommon to spend tens of
millions of dollars
investigating why a plane crashed. But we have yet to spend even a million
dollars on
this investigation, and the Bush Administration has refused to commit to
release the full
funding necessary.” (House March 48)
In a later hearing, Weiner elaborated that “thousands of tons of steel were
carted away
and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been telltale
clues.
Support trusses, fireproofing fragments, and even burned-out electrical
switches that
might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever even
before an
investigation was underway. (House May 20-21)
Weiner was also well aware that the Giuliani administration, just like the
Bush regime in
Washington, was behaving with implacable hostility towards any and all
investigations.
“We just heard testimony that the city was the opposite of cooperative.
That they had
refused to provide basic information,” said Congressman Weiner at the March
hearings.
He told the government witnesses from FEMA and other agencies: “The idea
that there
was some level of cooperation, I have to tell you, the anecdotal record is
replete with
stories of people having cameras confiscated from them, being stopped at
checkpoints.
You are officials of the United States Government. The idea that this
should have to be a
subject of a long negotiation over what information would be at your
disposal, to me is
most troubling.” (House March 133) Indeed, the FEMA’s Building Performance
Assessment Team (BPAT) was not even allowed on the scene until October.
Weiner’s concerns were shared by Virginia Republican J. Randy Forbes, who
complained that he was “disappointed to learn that investigators were
unable to examine
recovered pieces of steel from the Twin Towers before they were recycled. I
am also
troubled that investigators had difficulty in obtaining blueprints, design
drawings, and
maintenance records because of liability concerns from the buildings’
owners. (House
March 55) It even turned out that, despite repeated urgent requests, the
investigators were
being denied the out-takes of the video tapes shot by the various
television networks
operating around the WTC on 9-11. This is a reminder that moles are
sometimes just as
necessary in the private sector as they are in government.
Glenn P. Corbett, Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
reminded the
committee that “handling the collapse study as an assessment has allowed
valuable
evidence—the steel building components—to be destroyed. The steel holds the
primary
key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting
in the collapse.
The collapse of the world Trade Center towers were the largest structural
collapses in
world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully
resource a
comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT
with part-time
engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.” (House March 78) Corbett
called for a
World Trade Center Disaster Commission, but the Bush administration was not
interested.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a Berkeley professor of civil engineering, related
his own shock
in discovering that the structural steel was simply being shipped out: “I
believe I was the
first one to find out that the steel was being recycled. New York Times
reporter Jim Glanz
told me two weeks after the quake—after the collapse. And I tried to
contact the city and
also the New York Times reporters tried to make sure we could have access
to the steel to
do the research. It was not happening. And I went myself—directly contacted
the
recycling plant and made the arrangement.” (House March 128) Even so, most
of the
steel was soon gone.
Congressman Crowley of New York correctly suggested that the flagrant
illegalities and
abuses of the crime scene would permanently undercut whatever explanation
the
government was seeking to purvey: “I do believe that conspiracy theorists
are going to
have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission
look like a
walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of
Congress who are
trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are
listening very
carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are
saying. And I just
think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we
can never go
back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline
criminal.” (House
March 129)
Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a liberal Republican like
Giuliani, ran
interference for the Mayor. He rejected the idea that the WTC was a crime
scene where
there was still something to be discovered, something to be proven: Shays
said he had “a
particular bias that the actions against us weren’t criminal acts, they
were acts of war,
acts of terror. And I kind of bristle when I think of our treating this as
a criminal act in
which we have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone did it and
they were
at the scene or whatever you need to deal with in a crime.” (House May 115)
This
chauvinistic rhetoric was a cover for the urgent need of annihilating the
evidence. For this
school of thought, there was no need for evidence because there was nothing
to prove and
nothing to learn; they thought they knew what happened a priori thanks to
CNN and
Bush. The supposed government of laws was in eclipse.
Small wonder, all in all, that the august, 125-year old fireman’s trade
paper Fire
Engineering blasted the entire inadequate investigation process in January
2002 editorial.
Editor Bill Manning wrote that “for more than three months, structural
steel from the
World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap.
Crucial
evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design
practices and
performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, perhaps never
to be seen
again in America until you buy your next car.” Manning charged that “Fire
Engineering
has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by
FEMA and run by
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that
may already
have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put
it mildly, lie
far afield of full disclosure.” “The destruction and removal of evidence
must stop
immediately,” Manning demanded. Elsewhere in the same issue, a fire
official deplored
that “we are literally treating the steel removed from the site like
garbage, not like crucial
fire scene evidence.” (Fire Engineering, January 2002)
An extremely serious aspect of the botched investigation of the World Trade
Center
events involved the issue of the four black boxes from the two planes
(American 11 and
United 175) – a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data reporter from each
plane. The
official version, as codified by the 9/11 commission, claims that not one
of these black
boxes was ever found. But a New York City firefighter named Nicholas De
Masi claimed
that he escorted FBI agents into the WTC ruins and helped them to find and
recover three
of the four missing black boxes. DeMasi’s account is supported by the WTC
volunteer
Mike Bellone, who said that he had seen at least one black box being taken
from the
wreckage. The three black boxes were removed from the wreckage with the
help of
DeMasi’s all terrain vehicle, according to this account. Then the three
black boxes were
taken away by the FBI, and have never been heard of again. The black boxes
of the two
planes that apparently hit the WTC are the only cases in which black boxes
from jetliners
have not been recovered. DeMasi wrote about this experience in his book
Ground Zero:
Behind the Scenes, which was published by Trauma Recovery and Assistance
for
Children (TRAC Team) in 2003. Here DeMasi recalls: “There were a total of
four black
boxes. We found three.” DeMasi’s story has been denied by the FBI and the
FDNY. It
has been largely ignored by the controlled corporate media, except for an
article in the
neocon New York Post which alleged that TRAC team was heavily in debt.
(Philadelphia
News, October 28, 2004)
THE FEMA BPAT REPORT OF MAY 2002: “A HALF-BAKED FARCE”
The worthy culmination of this “half-baked farce” was the FEMA BPAT report
issued in
May 2002. A key section is the one entitled “Structural Response to Fire
Loading,” where
the central tenets are developed in all their intimate poverty. According
to the
FEMA/ASCE experts:
• As fire spread and raised the temperature of structural members, the
structure was further stressed and weakened, until it eventually was unable
to support its immense weight. Although the specific chain of events that
led to the eventual collapse will probably never be identified, the
following effects of fire on structures may each have contributed to the
collapse in some way. Appendix A presents a more detailed discussion of
the structural effects of fire.
• As floor framing and supported slabs above and in a fire arm are heated,
they expand. As a structure expands, it can develop additional, potentially
large, stresses in some elements. If the resulting stress state exceeds the
capacity of some members or their connections, this can initiate a series
of
failures.
• As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these
elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action
progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile
elements, which can cause failure of end connections and allow supported
floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of
debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more
susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors below,
and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors,
local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally
unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin. As indicated
in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have
been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the
vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be
even more likely to occur in a fire that involves several adjacent floor
levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral
support over several stories.
• As the temperature of column steel increases, the yield strength and
modulus of elasticity degrade and the critical buckling strength of the
columns will decrease, potentially initiating buckling, even if lateral
support is maintained. This effect is most likely to have been significant
in
the failure of the interior core columns.
Concerning the twin towers FEMA, had only agnostic conclusions to offer:
“With the
information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the
collapse of each
tower could not be definitively determined.” Concerning WTC 7: “The
specifics of the
fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown
at this
time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive
potential energy,
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
(911research.wtc7.net) The
World Trade Center disaster was the centerpiece of an event which the Bush
administration had seized on to start what may well turn out to be a world
war, but that
main event could not be explained, many months after the fact.
The FEMA report is redolent of conscious distortion and of fraud. The
illustrations in the
spring 2002 FEMA report do everything possible to make the twin towers look
like
flimsy, unstable structures. In one cross-section (Figure 2-1), the core
columns are
depicted in about one third of their actual dimensions. FEMA gives short
shrift or no
shrift at all to the cross-bracing core beams and the core columns. One
picture (D-13)
shows what is purportedly a core column with a construction hard hat on it
to convey its
dimensions, but this column is about half the size of the real core
columns.
FEMA’s illustrations offered in support of their theory of truss failure
(2-20, 21, 22)
show no steel columns in the core of the building at all. These fake
diagrams duly
impressed the radical empiricists at the New York Times, who quickly
reported that the
interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, not 47 massive
steel box columns.
The heart of the FEMA argument is that the astronomical temperatures
allegedly reached
by the fires weakened the floor trusses, leading to each floor pancaking
onto the one
below. As the floors fell away, the columns in the façade as well as the
core columns
remained standing, but they then quickly buckled at the points where they
were bolted
together, and came crashing down. This theory is not based on observation,
but on pure
speculation. It is a purely cinematic explanation of what happened – it
tries to account for
the phenomenon of collapse, but takes no notice of whether such a process
could occur in
the real world. In fact, the floor truss/pancake theory cannot function in
the real world.
Even if the floors failed, the strong structure of the 47 central columns,
minus a very few
which might have been severed by the impact of the airlines (even fewer in
the South
Tower) would have remained standing. That would have left a 110-floor steel
spine
intact, and this is not what was observed. Many of the deceptive drawings
contained in
the FEMA report then became the inspiration for the graphics used in the
NOVA
documentary program on this subject which was aired on PBS.
Because of the difficulties of the pancake theory, busy academics have
whipped up new
theories to try to meet obvious objections. Apologists for the official
version start with
the notion of killer fires – fires which, even though they are fed by
carpets, paper, and
office furniture, are able to melt steel. From here they develop the notion
of progressive
total collapse – the buildings do not fall to one side, but simply collapse
in place upon
their own foundations. Since no modern steel framed skyscraper had ever
succumbed to
fire, the attempted coverup then required new pseudo-theoretical
constructs. One of these
was the column failure, or wet noodle, theory. This suggested that fires
melted the core
columns, and that was that. Of course, even the coverup cannot change the
fact that the
fires were not hot enough to melt the core columns. Steel is a very
effective conductor of
heat, meaning that a serious hot spot on one floor is likely to be
dissipated up and down
the columns that pass through that hot spot. The internal and external
columns, that is to
say, act as cooling ribs. According to a study by Corus Construction cited
at
www.911research.wtc7.net, the highest temperature reached by steel in the
presence of
hydrocarbon fires was logged at about 360 degrees Fahrenheit – far below
what is needed
to weaken steel.
Given the disadvantages of the column failure theory, the truss failure
theory was
advanced. The trusses were relatively lightweight metal structures which
attached the
metal decks bearing the concrete slabs of each floor to the core columns
and the columns
in the façade. The trusses offered the added advantage of being invisible
from the outside,
so that it was possible to assert without fear of being refuted that they
had gotten
extremely hot.
MIT Professor Thomas Eagar is one who has rushed into the many breaches of
the
FEMA report in an attempt to shore up its credibility. Not content with
trusses and
pancakes, Eagar has propounded the zipper theory, which he has judiciously
combined
with the domino effect. Eagar’s argument is that if the angle on one side
of the building
had given way, then the unbearable load on the other angle clips would have
caused the
entire floor to become totally unzipped in just a few seconds. According to
Eagar, “If it
had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trash can caught on fire,
you might have
had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn’t have come
crashing down. The
problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this
domino effect.”
(www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusseseagar.html) In reality, the
buildings had
been designed to resist a Boeing 707, not just a trash can fire.
FACT CHECK
The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees
Fahrenheit,
although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But the
absolute
maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like
mixture
used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the
mixture is
pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in
this case it
could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed by
inadequate
oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the towers
were burning at a
temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the towers
through the
effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility.
LOIZEAUX PREDICTED THE COLLAPSE
In the March hearings of the House Science Committee, Robert F. Shea, the
Acting
Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration noted
that “the
World Trade Center was a tragedy. And, frankly, it was an anomaly. No one
who
viewed it that day, including myself, believed that those tower would fall.
Our collective
thought process for laymen and engineers and firefighters changed that day
forever.”
(House March 60)
At those same hearings, a leaflet was distributed by the Skyscraper Safety
Campaign, an
organization which included many members of the victims’ families. Here the
Congressmen were reminded: “The collapse of the Twin towers caused the
biggest loss
of life in a single incident on U.S. soil since the Civil War. Their
collapse constituted the
first failures of high-rise protected steel structures in history. Not a
single structural
engineer, including those working for the firm that built the Twin Towers
and those
working in the Fire Department of New York, seems to have anticipated their
collapse,
even when those individuals saw the extent of the fires raging in the
buildings. The Twin
Towers were designed to withstand the impact of the largest passenger jets
of their day, a
Boeing 707….” (House March 167)
However, it turned out that there was at least one expert who claimed that
he had
immediately intuited that the towers could collapse. As John Seabrook wrote
in the New
Yorker, “among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are
experts in the
construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of
September 11th
as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning,
from TV, of
the planes hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This
was Mark
Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-
based family
business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces
of rubble.
‘Within a nanosecond,’ he told me. ‘I said, “It’s coming down.” And the
second tower
will fall first, because it was hit lower down.’” Loizeaux was billed as a
“structural
undertaker” whose job was to destroy old buildings. Here is Loizeaux’
version of how he
foresaw the disaster:
I thought, “Somebody’s got to tell the Fire Department to get out of
there….I picked up the phone, dialed 411, got the number, and tried it –
busy. So I called the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management” – which
was in 7 World Trade. “All circuits were busy. I couldn’t get through.”
But how could Loizeaux know what no other expert claimed to know, and which
went
against a hundred years accumulated by civil engineers in building
skyscrapers? If
suspects are those who had the means, the motive and the opportunity, then
Loizeaux
may well have had the means. According to the demolitions man:
First of all, you’ve got the obvious damage to the exterior frame from the
airplane – if you count the number of external columns missing from the
sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the
buildings are still standing, which is amazing – even with all those
columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K.,
but you’ve got fires – jet-fueled fires, which the building is not designed
for, and you’ve also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A paper
fire is like a coal-mine fire, it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to
it.
And you’re high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So
you’ve got a hot fire. And you’ve got these floor trusses, made of fairly
thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the
impact. And you have all this open space – clear span from perimeter to
core – with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid
right through that space to the core, which doesn’t have any reinforced
concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to
spread
everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working – the
sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are
likely cut. So what’s going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor
B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the
weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below –
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of
impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot.
It has to fall.” (The New Yorker, November 19, 2001)
Naturally, the pancake theory was original neither to Loizeaux nor to FEMA.
The
pancake theory had been advanced by “Osama Bin Laden” in the remarks
attributed to
him, allegedly made in mid-November 2001, and widely publicized by the US
government in December 2001. Here Bin Laden is alleged to have commented:
“We
calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be
killed
based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would
be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (Inaudible)
Due to my
experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the
plane would melt
the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane
hit and all the
floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.” But there are
indications that the
stocky figure shown on the tape may not be the supposedly ascetic Bin Laden
at all, but a
double or ham actor. (Meyssan 2002 192)
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: WTC 7
In the May House Science Committee W. Gene Corley, the American Society of
Civil
Engineers representative on the BPAT, conceded that “Building 7, which was
across the
street from the main towers, also collapsed and provided us with the first
example that we
recognized of a building collapsing as a result of fire.” (House May 30)
WTC 7 presents
the image of a classical controlled demolition. Whereas the twin towers are
seen to
explode, WTC 7 implodes – it falls in upon itself with none of the
spectacular mushroom
plumes of smoke and powder which had marked the demise of the larger twin
towers.
The foundations collapse before the façade, the middle of the building
collapses before
the outer walls, and streamers of smoke are emitted from the façade. WTC 7
did imitate
the twin towers by collapsing almost exclusively upon its own foundations.
WTC 7
contained electrical generators and a supply for diesel fuel to operate
these, and
apologists of the official version like Gerald Posner have seized on this
circumstance to
make the collapse of this building plausible. But there has been no sign of
raging diesel
fuel fires, as can be seen from the photos of the fall of WTC 7, so the
apologists are
grasping at straws.
The owner of the WTC complex was Larry Silverstein, who recounted the fall
of WTC 7
in the September 2002 PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, complete with this
astounding revelation: “I remember getting a call from the…fire department
commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain
the fire, and I
said, ‘we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to
pull it. And they
made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” “To pull”
would appear
to be the jargon term in controlled demolition circles for the deliberate
detonation of
charges leading to the destruction of a building. And if WTC 7 was pulled,
why not WTC
1 and 2? (Marrs 43)
ANOMALIES OF THE WTC COLLAPSE
The twin towers did not simply collapse as a result of gravity; they were
violently
pulverized in mid-air in an explosive process which hurled debris hundreds
of meters in
all directions – they were vaporized by an explosive force. Anomalies
abound. The North
Tower was hit first, was hit hardest in its core columns, and had more jet
fuel burn inside
its structure than the South Tower – but the North Tower exploded later.
The South
Tower was hit later, with a more glancing blow which had less impact on its
core
columns, and which also caused more jet fuel to be consumed outside of the
building in a
spectacular plume; the South Tower’s fires were less severe – but the South
Tower fell
first. WTC 7 was never hit by anything, and had fires only on two floors
(there are no
photos of WTC 7 enveloped in flames and smoke) – but WTC 7 fell anyway. WTC
6
witnessed an explosion and fire which has never been explained or even
addressed.
Finally, we have the embarrassing fact that steel frame skyscrapers are
virtually
indestructible by fire. The official version of events argues that, at
least as far as the
towers are concerned, it was the combined effect of crash impact plus fire
which caused
the collapses. But even the South Tower collapsed well after most of the
jet fuel had
burned away, and a fire based on paper, rugs, and furniture melts steel
even less than one
based on jet fuel. By all indications, the South Tower began the collapse
sequence
precisely at the moment when, well after the impact had been absorbed, the
fires too were
subsiding. The hole made in the North Tower by American 11 had cooled so
much that,
just before the collapse of the North Tower, survivors were observed
looking out through
the gash in the side of the building. (Marr 41)
The upper floors of both towers, after showing symptoms of high pressure
which forced
smoke out through the widows, exploded into spectacular mushroom clouds.
Debris and
other ejecta were thrown at speeds of 200 feet per second to distances of
up to 500 feet in
all directions. The clouds then descended, always emanating from the towers
as these fell.
The mushroom clouds had expanded to two or three times the diameter of the
towers
after five seconds, and had expanded to five times the diameter of the
towers after 15
seconds. Blast waves broke windows in buildings over 400 feet away. In the
thick
mushroom clouds, solid objects were hurled out ahead of the dust, another
telltale sign of
explosive demolition.
One might have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at
the points where
they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as it falls towards the
side where it has
been most chopped, but instead they did not topple and there were no
stumps; apart from
some initial asymmetry in the top of the South Tower, the two towers both
collapsed
down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way – a suspicious sign,
since this is one
of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.
The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of
the buildings
reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse
process had
begun. A weight in a vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the same
distance.
This meant that air resistance and little else had slowed the fall of the
upper stories. This
indicates that the lower floors must have been demolished and pulverized
before the
upper stories fell on them. The building, in other words, had been
pulverized, and in
many areas vaporized, in mid-air. No gravity collapse could have created
this
phenomenon.
The non-metallic elements of the twin towers, especially the cement slabs
which formed
the horizontal surface of each floor, were pulverized into a fine dust,
with particles of less
than 100 microns in diameter. This was the dust which pervaded lower
Manhattan as the
explosive clouds spread from hundreds of yards in all directions. This dust
took a long
time to settle, but the Giuliani administration tried to convince office
workers in the area
that there was no danger. All the steel in the building superstructures was
simply
shredded. The exceptionally strong central core columns were neatly diced
into 10 or 20
floor segments – something which has never been explained.
According to Jim Hoffman, the leading expert on the collapse of the World
Trade Center
and the source heavily relied on here, the energy necessary to create the
mushroom
clouds and expand them to the extraordinary dimensions actually observed to
pulverize
virtually all the concrete in the towers, and to chop the steel into
segments is far greater
than the gravitational energy represented by the buildings in the first
place. According to
Hoffman, there must have been powerful additional energy sources at work.
When
prodded to do so at recent conferences, Hoffman has been willing to
speculate that these
energy sources might have been unconventional ones. High energy microwave
interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and destructive
interference might be
a possibility, but this would require so much energy that, if it had to be
delivered as
conventional electric current, it would necessitate a cable about half a
meter in diameter –
and there is no evidence of this. So the problem remains intractable.
THE TWIN TOWERS WERE ROBUST STRUCTURES
The twin towers were robust structures. The structure of the twin towers
was represented
first of all by an internal core of 47 steel box columns which measured 36
by 90
centimeters; the steel was thickest near the base, where it attained a
thickness of 10
centimeters (about four inches), and tapered gradually down to 6
centimeters on the upper
floors. There were 236 exterior columns in the buildings’ facades; these
were 10
centimeters thick at the base, but only 6 millimeters thick in the highest
floors. Each floor
was a steel plate into which concrete had been poured. In the center of the
building was a
reinforced core featuring four steel columns encased in concrete. The
structure is
abundantly cross-braced, so that stress in one sector could be efficiently
shifted to other
parts of the structure. All steel columns rested directly on the bedrock
under Manhattan.
This structures had been designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds, and
had resisted
them successfully for more than thirty years. They had been designed by Lee
Robertson,
the structural engineer who built the towers to absorb the impact of a
Boeing 707, an
aircraft roughly comparable in size and fuel capacity to the aircraft that
appear to have
struck the towers on 9/11.
In the case of the twin towers, the technical problem of how to account for
the immense
quantities of energy released would seem to point to an energy source
beyond the
capabilities of conventional controlled demolition. For a possible
explanation of what
kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention
to the realm of
new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed energy weapons
which are
probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President
Reagan’s socalled
star wars speech of March 23, 1983. We may be dealing here with high energy
microwave interferometry using coaxial beams for constructive and
destructive
interference. The inherent problem with this conjecture, as engineer Ken
Jenkins has
pointed out, is that such a device would require a power cable half a meter
in diameter,
and the presence of such a power cable has not been demonstrated. The
solution to this
problem will indeed require more time and research.

Remember, shills: Just make a pithy comment and ignore the facts presented
above...

[King of Brawl Hall]

http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm

9-11: Holes in the Radar
Frank Levi and Team 8+ (Feb 2005)
www.the-movement.com

They cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US
Military and the FAA should have been aware of.

Read more about:
Flight 77 Did it reappear to the West?

Flight 11 Was it in two places at once?

Flight 175 (COMING SOON)

Flight 93 (COMING SOON)

US Military please note: this text is not intended to offend the good
people in the US Military. The implications of the article are that 9-11
was staged by elements of the US Government/Military but it is very
unlikely that it involved the normal people in the military whose only
intention is to protect their country.

Since 9-11, many people have wondered how it was possible that the four
hijacked planes on 9-11 were able to cause such confusion and chaos without
any significant response from America's air defences (NORAD). Even more
amazing is the fact that a hijacked plane was able to both penetrate and
attack within the protected air space around Washington DC.

It is already well established that the planners of 9-11 were aware of and
possibly taking advantage of the military exercises and terror drills
taking place on and around that day. (See War Games and Terror Drills under
additional reading)

What we have discovered is that whoever planned and implemented 9-11 must
have had detailed knowledge of both the NORAD and FAA radar coverage. They
cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US Military
and the FAA should have been aware of. The 9-11 commission only skimmed the
surface of these issues, using them as a means to draw blame away from the
FAA and NORAD.

Another important question is why the hijackers took such long illogical
routes to get to their targets. Why, for example, was Flight 93 not crashed
into the World Trade Centre, which was in sight of the airport?

Analysis of the flight paths reveals the possibility that the planes were
switched for substitute "drone" planes, operated by remote control and
loaded with explosives to cause maximum damage. Although this is somewhat
speculative, it is important to point out the anomalies in the flight paths
that might lead us to consider this scenario. If you are unfamiliar with
"plane-swapping" and "remote controlled plane" theories, please refer to
Appendix C (Operation Northwoods and Remote Controlled Planes)

Before reading on, you may wish to review the appendices for an explanation
of technical terms and some notes on the graphical techniques used
throughout this piece.

It is also well worth reading the following article from the Washington
Post. They explain in detail about why Flight 77 disappeared from the radar
screen, leading the air traffic controller to believe that this flight had
crashed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

Sources showing radar sites and coverage

(Click thumbnails for a larger image)

Surveillance Implications of 9/11 is an FAA analysis of the radar coverage
on 9-11 and ways of dealing with future potential threats. The document
contains a map of the United States showing internal ATC primary radar
coverage (orange) and NORAD radar coverage (maroon)
Flight Explorer Personal Edition. A demo version of this flight tracking
software is available to download from the Flight Explorer site. It allows
you to view various map overlays including the locations of radar sites,
ATC centre and sector boundaries and the locations of airports. Notice the
different types of radar site e.g. ALB-T is an Airport Surveillance Radar
(ASR) used for Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). Sites starting
with Q are Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR). Some of these ARSR sites do
not appear on the FAA map above. These are low power secondary only (or
beacon only) sites that depend on a plane's transponder signal to show its
location.

Sources of Flight Path data

Chapter one of the 9-11 Commission Report gives some diagrams showing the
reconstructed radar data from the hijacked planes.
Flight Explorer is a publicly available program for tracking commercial
flights. The data comes directly from the FAA and shows any commercial
flight being tracked by Air Traffic Control as it progresses. The paths of
the hijacked flights were automatically archived and the results made
available to the mainstream media. (USAToday - animated Flight paths)
Flytecomm is another flight tracker. They also released archived footage
of the hijacked planes but this time in the form of AVI video clips. Read
the press release. These video clips show an EST clock in the bottom right
hand corner. They feature some radar footage ignored by the other sources.
We originally discovered the AVI clips here:
http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashother.avi.

http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashnyc.avi

Jack Locutus of letsroll911.org recently confirmed their authenticity by
contacting Flytecomm support. They forwarded the same video clips back to
him.

The Scenario

This map shows the 9-11 flight paths copied onto part of the FAA radar map
(see above). The orange areas are FAA primary radar coverage, the maroon
areas are NORAD radar (also used by FAA).

The areas with no primary radar coverage are emphasised in white. The
"hijackers" clearly knew where the vulnerabilities in the radar system
were. How?

Unless otherwise specified, the times and events in this sequence are taken
from the 9-11 Commission Report or directly from the Flight Explorer/
Flytecomm data.

7: 59 Flight 11 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 United Airlines Flight 175 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 Hijacking of Flight 11 apparently begins. It may have been a staged
hijacking or part of a terror drill.
8:21 Flight 11 switches off its transponder at the edge of an area that
just happens to have no primary radar coverage. Two "drone" flights (remote
controlled plane bombs) fly in from this no-radar zone and creep into the
radar shadow above Flight 11. These drone flights may have been using
Operation Vigilant Guardian as additional cover. Operation Vigilant
Guardian was a huge military exercise taking place that week featuring
Russian planes flying over the Arctic Circle to attack America. Meanwhile,
Flight 11 begins to reduce its altitude.
8:27 Flight 11 appears to turn very close to Schenectady county airport.
What really happens is that Flight 11 flies down towards the Mohawk river
valley towards Griffiss Air Base (6) and the two drones, still flying in
formation, continue down the Hudson river towards New York City.
Flight 11 either lands at Griffiss Air Base (home of NEADS, the North
Eastern base for NORAD) or flies on to be shot down or destroyed over the
great lakes.
8:39-8:43 At this point, Drone Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175
come very close together. The remaining drone peels off from formation to
rendezvous with Flight 175 over Stewart International airport.
8:46:40 Flight 11(drone) crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade
Center.
8:42 Just before the crash, Flight 93 is taking off from Newark, around 42
minutes late.
8:47 Flight 175 switches off its transponder, right at the same time that
Flight 93 makes a little unexplained detour to meet it. Both these planes
are in the same place at the same time and Flight 175 disappears.
Coincidence? No, Flight 175 flies West in Flight 93's radar shadow. Flight
175 goes on to land, possibly at Cleveland or Pittsburgh airport under
cover of diversion. 8:51 Flight 175 deviates from its assigned cruising
altitude.
(Time not available) Air traffic controllers spot an "intruder over
Allentown" (Washington Post, Sept 17th 2001). This is a plane flying with
an unidentified transponder code and is later assumed to be Flight 175.
9:03 It is, in fact, a drone flight that goes on to crash into the South
Tower of the World Trade Center.
9:41 Flight 93, also in the midst of a staged hijacking or terror drill
turns off its transponder and drops down low. A drone plane flying in
through another hole in the primary radar coverage slips in to take its
place on the radar.
10:03 Just before it is shot down, flight 93 is approaching Johnstown
Airport. Coincidentally there was a meeting of the Local Emergency Planning
Agency (LEPA) in the control tower of Johnstown Airport the day before (See
The Johnstown "Terror Team" Cover-up). Was this plane supposed to be part
of a terrorist attack drill? The drone, a white unmarked plane, is seen by
numerous witnesses circling the crash site. Its presence is never properly
explained
8:20 Flight 77 takes off from Dulles Airport (Washington D.C.)
8:39 Flight 77 makes a small detour to the north in an area with no primary
radar coverage. At this point it meets the drone, which has flown down from
the north through an area with no radar coverage.
8:51 Flight 77 makes its last radio contact. 8:56 It then switches off its
transponder and disappears from ATC radar scopes. This is due to the fact
that the radar tracking it at the time is a "Secondary only" radar site
that depends on responses from the plane's transponder to give a location
for the plane. The plane also turns at the weak centre-point between the
two primary radars.
9:07 The Flytecomm video shows Flight 77 reappearing again and flying
onwards to the west. The presence of this plane was confirmed by Col. Alan
Scott at the 2nd hearing of the Commission (9-11 commission hearing, 23rd
May 2003). It still appears to be in the air after 10:00.
(Time not available) Once again the plane exploits vulnerabilities in the
radar coverage to avoid being shot down as it enters restricted D.C. air
space. Dulles controllers raise the alarm that an unidentified plane is
approaching Washington at about 9:29 (Washington Post, Nov 3, 2001)
9:37 The official time that Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
Notice the precision timing involved. We frequently see two or more events
happening at the same time, like a magician distracting the audience.

8:14 Flight 11 is hijacked; Flight 175 takes off.
8:39 Flight 11 and Flight 175 nearly meet; Flight 77 deviates from its
path.
8:46/47 Flight 11 crashes; Flights 175 and 93 meet each other
8:51 Flight 77 makes last radio contact; Flight 175 deviates from its
assigned altitude
The Witness

http://www.timesreporter.com/archive/printable.php?ID=1490

Did Bolivar man spot Flight 93?

By RENEE BROWN, T-R Staff Writer

A Bolivar man thinks he saw the ill-fated fourth hijacked airliner Tuesday
morning shortly before it crashed south of Pittsburgh.

Tim Hacquard, who lives in the Hunter’s Green allotment off county Rd. 92,
said he was watching the television coverage of the terrorist attacks in
New York City and Washington D.C. and stepped outside.

“I witnessed a large plane that seemed to be flying low, very loud and not
level,” Hacquard said. “I didn’t think there were supposed to be any planes
in the air and I couldn’t understand why this plane was flying.

“There is not a plane in sight and then there’s a big old plane over my
house. On an average day you don’t see those types of planes near Bolivar.

“If it’s a large plane, you can’t hear it or make it out because it’s too
high. If it’s a normal plane, it would have stayed at a local airport.”

According to aviation officials, United Airlines Flight 93 was a Boeing 757
that left Newark, N.J., at 8:01 a.m. en route to San Francisco.

It crashed about 10 a.m. southeast of Pittsburgh, presumably killing all 45
aboard. Flight 93 was the fourth plane to crash Tuesday.

“Now I am wondering if this was the plane,” Hacquard said. He said he has
some experience with planes, having served in the Air Force – but not as a
pilot - for several years.

“It was way too low for that size plane,” he continued. “I was scratching
my head. It wasn’t level and was flying somewhat erratic.

“I was thinking maybe it was a plane that had been directed to land, but
then I found out a plane crashed in Pennsylvania and I saw the flight plan
on the news. How far south did he come?”

Hacquard admitted he didn’t look at his watch to check the time, but he
said he watched the large, commercial jet for 15 to 20 seconds.

“I just couldn’t tell if it was a United plane,” he said. “I was thinking,
why would it be over Bolivar, why would it be in Ohio? Someone else had to
see that plane.”

An FBI spokesperson in Washington D.C. said Wednesday she could not confirm
or deny what Hacquard saw.

“I have no specific information on specific flight patterns,” she said.

However Fred Krum, director of aviation at Akron-Canton Regional Airport,
acknowledged that the plane could have been close to the area at that time
but he doesn’t think it was Flight 93 that Hacquard saw since “it would
have been fairly high at that time.”

Another representative of the airport said Hacquard may have seen a
military plane or a commercial plane ordered to land at the nearest
airport.

Hacquard said the plane seemed to be flying away from the Akron-Canton
airport, heading in a more easterly direction. He now also wonders whether
the plane was being tracked by government officials.

What happened to the passengers?

Now the tricky part, if plane swapping took place, what happened to the
real planes and the passengers? Unfortunately this is where we currently
have to resort to educated speculation.

In Operation Northwoods we saw the original "plane swapping" scenario. In
this case, the military planners at the pentagon were confident that they
could fabricate passengers by creating non-existent IDs for the people on
the plane. They were also noticeably confident that no-one would blow the
whistle.

However, you can be sure that the 9-11 passengers are not on a desert
island somewhere.

Perhaps a number of planes were shot down that day. This is where you get
"layers within layers" of the cover-up. Picture this fictional officer
speaking: "Listen guys, we accidentally shot down another plane that was
conducting an emergency drill today. What really hit the North Tower was a
jet that the hijackers chartered from Schenectady County Airport. You
understand that the public don't need to know about this, right?"

There are many other possibilities, perhaps the passengers were killed
before the plane landed at some remote location.

Conclusions and Summary

These are absolute facts that cannot be ignored:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no
primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no
primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-
hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175
(not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)
Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches
in air defence were located?

Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby
airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away?

Appendix A: Technical Information

What are Primary and Secondary Radar? What is a transponder?

Read a detailed technical explanation

A primary radar site simply detects the location of a plane. Air traffic
control systems can calculate the direction and speed by measuring its
movement over time.

Commercial flights (and most others) use a device called a transponder that
relays back detailed information about the flight when it detects a radar
sweep. The transponder provides the controllers with additional information
such as altitude and flight number. If the transponder is switched off, the
flight effectively becomes an unidentified blip on the radar, although ATC
can place a data tag (or block) on the blip for easier identification.

How do Flight Trackers work?

Microsoft provide a simple explanation:

Several years ago, the FAA made radar feeds available to commercial users.
These feeds track the status of all aircraft under positive control from
FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) centers throughout the United
States—including both scheduled airline flights and business jets.

Simply put, the radar data received by Air Traffic Control can be seen in a
slightly more visually pleasing format on a flight tracker.

Appendix B: Graphical techniques

Macromedia Fireworks was used to convert flight path graphics into
transparent gif format. All background colours were changed to transparent
leaving only the state boundaries and plane icons as opaque.

These transparent gifs can then be pasted as a new layer onto another map.
The transparent layer is stretched, rotated and skewed as necessary to
align the state boundaries. This gives a very accurate representation of a
flight path on top of an alternative backdrop.

Appendix C: Operation Northwoods and Remote Controlled Planes

Operation Northwoods is a document discovered through the Freedom of
Information Act which proved conclusively that high ranking members of the
US military have planned in the past to use fake terror attacks to justify
war. This particular plan was to justify an invasion of Cuba by carrying
out numerous acts of violence and trickery.

A full scanned copy of Operation Northwoods can be seen at:

http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm

The matter-of-fact way in which this memo is presented is quite shocking.

"We could blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba"

"We could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in
other Florida cities or even in Washington".

For the purpose of this article we will be focusing on one particular
section:

http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm

This section deals with a mock shoot-down of a passenger plane with the
intention of blaming Cuba. The basic points follow:

A plane at Eglin Air Force base would be painted up to be an exact replica
of a registered plane belonging to a "CIA proprietary organisation" in
Miami.
This painted plane would be secretly swapped with the real aircraft and
loaded with passengers using fake identities. The real craft would be
converted into a remote controlled drone. During the flight, the real
aircraft (drone) would rendezvous with the fake aircraft. The plane with
the fake passengers on board would fly very low and land in the base.
Passengers and plane would then return to normal and the drone flight would
continue on its way
As the plane flew over Cuba a fake distress message would be broadcast
indicating an attack by a Cuban MIG fighter. This would be interrupted by
the remote detonation of explosives on board the plane.
A few other points to note:

http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm casualty lists in the US
papers would create a wave of righteous indignation
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm "(10) Sabotage ships in
harbour; large fires--naphthalene." Naphthalene is used by Hollywood
special effects people to create enormous "fuel-tank explosion" effects.
Frequently used for plane crashes.
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-11.htm deals with a fake shoot
down of USAF plane and the distribution of fake plane parts in that
location
Modifying planes to be flown by remote control is not a new idea. Read
about Operation Aphrodite which goes right back to WWII.

NASA have also test-crashed remotely controlled passenger planes

Appendix D: The BTS data

www.bts.gov is the website for the "Bureau of Traffic Statistics". There is
a searchable database which shows, for example, the departure times of all
major passenger planes in USA. You will see listed below the conflicts
between the official story and the data on this site.

7: 59 Flight 11 officially takes off from Logan
airport, though BTS database notes that it didn't
depart at all. (no wheels-off time)

2. 8:14 United Airlines Flight 175 officially takes off
from Logan airport, though BTS notes it departed at
8:23 (wheels-off time)

9. 8:42 Just before the crash, Flight 93 is officially
taking off from Newark, around 42 minutes late, though
BTS notes that it actually already departed at 08:28
(wheels-off)

15.8:20 Flight 77 officially takes off from Dulles
Airport (Washington D.C.), though BTS notes that the
flight didn't exist at all on that day.

Further Reading

Some very interesting reading about radar and Air Traffic Control by Tom
Lusch.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/rtudslide01.html

This will give you a better understanding of why Flight 77 disappeared from
the radar screen.

War Games and Terror Drills

Here are some sample articles on this subject

The lost "terror drill"? Pt.11 (A) (Nico Haupt)

The lost terror drill- Pt.11 B

Additional notes by Nico Haupt

Michael Kane: "9/11 War Games – No Coincidence"

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

THE GREAT 9/11 COINCIDENCE

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

> US Military please note: this text is not intended to offend the good
> people in the US Military. The implications of the article are that 9-11
> was staged by elements of the US Government/Military but it is very
> unlikely that it involved the normal people in the military

...Or, indeed, by anyone in the US government or military, or anyone
else who exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of your
fantasies.

[King of Brawl Hall]

spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
news:MPG.1c7143f04...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

Thank you, Jeffery. Your pithy, empty statement was right on cue.

That was an excellent refutation of the pertinent facts.

[King of Brawl Hall]

It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps, identification
numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on this site that I
would LOVE to have explained to me.

http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm

But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <Xns95F65C835D5EEs...@207.14.113.17>,
mas...@mason.snuh says...

> spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
> news:MPG.1c7143f04...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> >
> >> US Military please note: this text is not intended to offend the good
> >> people in the US Military. The implications of the article are that 9-11
> >> was staged by elements of the US Government/Military but it is very
> >> unlikely that it involved the normal people in the military
> >
> > ...Or, indeed, by anyone in the US government or military, or anyone
> > else who exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of your
> > fantasies.
> >
>
> Thank you, Jeffery. Your pithy, empty statement was right on cue.
>
> That was an excellent refutation of the pertinent facts.

You seem to be a little confused; the sane world defines "facts" as
"that which really happened."

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <Xns95F65D0A7A98Fs...@207.14.113.17>,
mas...@mason.snuh says...

> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.

To accompany your pithy, empty "logic"?

[King of Brawl Hall]

spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in

news:MPG.1c7152472...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

I invite you to point out the discrepancies for us.

[King of Brawl Hall]

spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in

news:MPG.1c71533d4...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

What are you referring to, Jeffery? I point out some pictures, and you claim
bad logic?

Please start backing up your assertions if you want to be taken semi-
seriously.

[King of Brawl Hall]

King of Brawl Hall <mas...@mason.snuh> wrote in
news:Xns95F65D0A7A98Fs...@207.14.113.17:

>
> It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps,
> identification numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on
> this site that I would LOVE to have explained to me.
>
> http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
>
>
>
> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
>
>

Jeffery, please point out any logic errors you encountered in this post...

[Owamanga]

On 7 Feb 2005 15:10:50 GMT, King of Brawl Hall <mas...@mason.snuh>
wrote:

>
>It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps, identification
>numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on this site that I
>would LOVE to have explained to me.
>
>http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm

This guy is complaining that a $40 game from Microsoft makes the plane
look slightly different to real life...

...wow.

It's was a 767 not a 757, so maybe that explains a lot for you.

Let me give you one example of why, when a loon spends so much time
trying to prove something, he will blind himself to the obvious.

Scroll about half way down or search to:
CNN Brooklyn Heights Photograph

The animated gif picture 'image016.gif' shows how in real life, the
wings of a 767 operating at 100mph in excess of it's designed flight
envelope suffers extensive wing flex. It is not a 'swept wing' as the
loony claims. Many GMax models in FS2004 do not simulate wing-flex,
and those that do are built to be somewhat accurate *within normal
flight envelopes*.

The models used in the simulation were provided by groups of hobbyists
who make the models available free for gaming use. In that respect
they do an excellent job, but it is still a *GAME* and these people
don't have good access to flight characteristics that would be needed
to make their models perfect. The simulation engine isn't perfect
either - it has 'Microsoft' written all over it :-)

Under no stretch of imagination should anyone seriously argue the
existence of a hoax based on the results of a simulation run in a
game.

Same goes for "Der Spiegel Image", it's a flexible wing, and they are
flexed 'up' in these photos (as one would expect).

This is extremely obvious in the "Anthony Cotsifas Image", but he
ignores it totally.

The dynamic shine argument is totally bogus, this is not even a ray
traced process, it's a fast'n'dirty way of getting the planes to look
more real - but they fail dismally as anyone with FS2004 experience
can attest. Such comparison would at least require the use of
photo-realistic landscape of NY (which he doesn't use) and a ray
tracing engine (which FS2004 doesn't use), and the ability to exactly
re-create the cloud patterns and other atmospheric conditions at the
time (which you can't to any degree of accuracy in FS2004), and the
ability to simulate the various camera setups (lens, aperture, shutter
speeds, film speed, film type etc) which you can't do in FS2004 . A
scenery kit of NY just isn't good enough.

FS2004 is a high frame-rate game, not a CSI tool.

But, for this loon, the game comparison is evidence enough that he
concludes every photograph of the incident were taken by government
employees and then (quickly, given that we watched the second plane
'live' so these fuckers must work fast) doctored to look like a 767.

Oh, he claims the planes were holograms too. Disappointingly there is
no mention of space aliens or Nazi mind controllers.

--
Owamanga!

[khobar]

"Owamanga" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oc3f0112oe8seoo78...@4ax.com...

> On 7 Feb 2005 15:10:50 GMT, King of Brawl Hall <mas...@mason.snuh>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps,
identification
> >numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on this site that I
> >would LOVE to have explained to me.
> >
> >http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
>
> This guy is complaining that a $40 game from Microsoft makes the plane
> look slightly different to real life...
>
> ...wow.
>
> It's was a 767 not a 757, so maybe that explains a lot for you.
>
>

<snip>

> FS2004 is a high frame-rate game, not a CSI tool.
>
> But, for this loon, the game comparison is evidence enough that he
> concludes every photograph of the incident were taken by government
> employees and then (quickly, given that we watched the second plane
> 'live' so these fuckers must work fast) doctored to look like a 767.
>
> Oh, he claims the planes were holograms too. Disappointingly there is
> no mention of space aliens or Nazi mind controllers.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

"Dammit man, where are the flaps? You know I can't hit the broadside of a
barn without proper flaps!"

I liked the hologram bit, and the "FS proof" - priceless.

Paul Nixon

[Bill Gamelson]

>"Dammit man, where are the flaps? You know I can't hit the broadside of a
>barn without proper flaps!"

Hey maybe they were ripped off when the idiot student pilots tried to deploy
them at 500 MPH.

[Cmd Buzz Corey]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

> spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
> news:MPG.1c7143f04...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>
>>>US Military please note: this text is not intended to offend the good
>>>people in the US Military. The implications of the article are that 9-11
>>>was staged by elements of the US Government/Military but it is very
>>>unlikely that it involved the normal people in the military
>>
>>...Or, indeed, by anyone in the US government or military, or anyone
>>else who exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of your
>>fantasies.
>>
>
>
> Thank you, Jeffery. Your pithy, empty statement was right on cue.
>
> That was an excellent refutation of the pertinent facts.
>

There are on pertinent facts in the nut-case consparicies theories.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Cmd Buzz Corey <u...@that.net> wrote in news:quCdnUgC_f08ZprfRVn-
g...@gbronline.com:

Eloquently stated, dear fucktard.

[TOliver]

"King of Brawl Hall" <mas...@mason.snuh> wrote in message
news:Xns95F6654A9FF6Cs...@207.14.113.17...

> King of Brawl Hall <mas...@mason.snuh> wrote in
> news:Xns95F65D0A7A98Fs...@207.14.113.17:
>
>>
>> It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps,
>> identification numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on
>> this site that I would LOVE to have explained to me.
>>
>> http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
>>
>>
>
> Jeffery, please point out any logic errors you encountered in this post...
>
>

Describing or defining the errors in logic in a post composed by one whose
cerebral discombobulation is so readily obvious requires description on a
plane not readily available here. To say that you are "Full of Shit" is
simpistic and inadequately descriptive of the state of confusion in which
you obviously exist. Get a grip, lad. Ask for mo' or betta' medication.
Enter group therapy (if the local chimps can tolerate your illness). But
depart from this place forthwith, 'afore old returning regulars choose to
bash you about with unceasing and rare candor.

Olivers sends....

[Paul H. Lemmen]

"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iFUNd.27913$uL5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...

What he said. Additionally, you are obviously a poltroon of the first water
and as such, please flush yourself from my AO before I am tempted to descend
from Mt. Olympus and deal with you myself.
BTW, good to see you TMO.
--
Paul H. Lemmen
Just because I act civilised does not mean I am.

[King of Brawl Hall]

"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in news:iFUNd.27913$uL5.22245
@fe2.texas.rr.com:

So you have nothing but hot air, basically.

Splendid.

[King of Brawl Hall]

"Paul H. Lemmen" <ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:RpydnbGw6c6...@giganews.com:

What froup are you cats slurping each other from?

[Billzz]

"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iFUNd.27913$uL5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>

I particularly like, "...description on a plane not readily available here."
It is rare to find an aeronautical double-entendre.

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F64B71B92FAs...@207.14.113.17>,
mas...@mason.snuh says...

> BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c70e0575...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>
> > In article <42068068$0$34196$91ce...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>,
> > claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at says...
> >> flash player needed:
> >> http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why do you whackjobs keep posting this stuff?
> >
> > Don't you ever get tired of making fools of yourself?
> >
> > There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit the
> > pentagon.
>
> False.

Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!

>
> > A ton of people saw it hit

All those people on the freeway are liars?? LOL, you are pretty
desperate to convince people of this supposed conspiracy, aren't you?
I suppose they are all in on it, huh? Pitiful.

You need a new hobby/obsession.

>
> False.
>
> > so why do you continue with this
> > horseshit?
>
> > Do you lie being ridiculed??
>
> Nice freudian slip, ridiculous liar.

LOL, you see things in a simple typo too! You're a mess, get some help.

>
> > BDK
> >
>
> http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.ht
> ml
>
> Special Report
>
>

BZZT!

The following snipped bullshit should be called "Ravings about the Bush
family"...

BDK

[BDK]

In article <MPG.1c71533d4...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
spammer...@volcanomail.com says...

LOL, the only thing he knows about "logic" is that Spock said it on Star
Trek a lot.

BDK

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c71fbc14...@news.buckeye-express.com:

>> .ht ml

>>
>> Special Report
>>
>>
>
> BZZT!
>
> The following snipped bullshit should be called "Ravings about the Bush
> family"...
>
>
> BDK
>

Now I remember why you were killfiled.

Please get back to me when you can support your assertions.

[<SmirkS>]

BDK posted:

>> > There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit the
>> > pentagon.
>>
>> False.
>
> Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!
>

post one photo of the plane about to hit or hitting the pentagon.

it's the pentagon, for heaven's sake. there must be one photo.

--
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines
flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building
and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

[Cmd Buzz Corey]

BDK wrote:

> In article <Xns95F64B71B92FAs...@207.14.113.17>,
> mas...@mason.snuh says...
>
>>BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
>>news:MPG.1c70e0575...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>>
>>
>>>In article <42068068$0$34196$91ce...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>,
>>>claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at says...
>>>
>>>>flash player needed:
>>>>http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you whackjobs keep posting this stuff?
>>>
>>>Don't you ever get tired of making fools of yourself?
>>>
>>>There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit the
>>>pentagon.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!
>
>
>>>A ton of people saw it hit
>
>
> All those people on the freeway are liars?? LOL, you are pretty
> desperate to convince people of this supposed conspiracy, aren't you?
> I suppose they are all in on it, huh? Pitiful.

Don't you know, all those first hand eyewitnesses, many who were very
close to the crash, and actually saw the AA plane hit the Pentagon
really didn't know what they were seeing. Yet some yo-yo two miles away
actually saw either a fighter jet or a missile hit the Pentagon and he
can certainly be believed...at least in the minds of the dipwitted
nut-case conspiracy morons. Let the little simple minded conspiracy
loons have their fun, they can dig up all sorts of stupid claims in a
lame attempt to defend their silly theories, if it makes them happy then
let them play, but no person with more than three working brain cells
takes them even mildy seriously.

[Pooh Bear]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

> It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps, identification
> numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on this site that I
> would LOVE to have explained to me.
>
> http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
>
> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.

For an attempt to replicate the event using a simple program like FS - all I
can say is that you have proven that it really did actually happen as reported
and indeed seen by multiple witnesses !

The flaws in FS models at extreme angles of incidence are hardly surprising
since the planes aren't meant to be flown like that in revenue service ! They
aren't *perfect* models outside their design limits you moron.

When will you clown conspiracary fuckwits get the clue that it really happened
?

Graham

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F6DAC334D2Es...@207.14.113.17>,

LOL, since nothing has changed on my end, I guess you missed me, huh?

Awwwwwwwww.

BDK

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F6C948D...@130.133.1.4>, m...@privacy.net
says...

Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are literally
hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or from outside
and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's sister saw it
from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a big
passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of
other people did. Why would you think they are all lying? What would
possibly be the point? How would you convince all of them to lie about
it so quickly that the local news had some of them on a short time later
telling this supposed lie? It doesn't compute...

I don't really care if there are pics or not, enough people, both
connected in some way to the govt, and more importantly, not connected
(my friend's sister is a 40+ year old stay at home mom) to the govt THAT
SAW THE SAME DAMN THING. It happened. Accept it.

BDK

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
kingrat...@buckeye-express.com says...

> Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are literally
> hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or from outside
> and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's sister saw it
> from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a big
> passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of
> other people did. Why would you think they are all lying?

Because the voices in his head told him they were.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42085D89...@hotmail.com:

Of course, that's not the question I had at all.

Why are the photos in Der Speigel entirely without flaps or call letters?

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c71fc23...@news.buckeye-express.com:

What a stinging geek rejoinder.

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c729c0a6...@news.buckeye-express.com:

>> >> arz .ht ml

>> >>
>> >> Special Report
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > BZZT!
>> >
>> > The following snipped bullshit should be called "Ravings about the
>> > Bush family"...
>> >
>> >
>> > BDK
>> >
>>
>> Now I remember why you were killfiled.
>>
>> Please get back to me when you can support your assertions.
>>
>>
>
>
> LOL, since nothing has changed on my end, I guess you missed me, huh?
>
> Awwwwwwwww.

Far from it, drooling cretin. It's a fresh install.

But I see you still can't back your claims.

[King of Brawl Hall]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:Xns95F6C948D3698owiezowie@
130.133.1.4:

> BDK posted:
>
>>> > There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit the
>>> > pentagon.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!
>>
>
> post one photo of the plane about to hit or hitting the pentagon.
>
>
> it's the pentagon, for heaven's sake. there must be one photo.

TOP SEKRIT!!

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com:

His sister's friend saw it.

Case closed!

[King of Brawl Hall]

spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in

news:MPG.1c72a0ffe...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757 parts at
all?

[King of Brawl Hall]

Cmd Buzz Corey <u...@that.net> wrote in news:vKydnUN0R7muo5XfRVn-
r...@gbronline.com:

They couldn't have seen a 757 hit, as there are no 757 parts in evidence.

If your entire case is based on a few people who saw a 757 going toward the
Pentagon, then you have no case at all.

[Frank Dwyer]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

> spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
> news:MPG.1c72a0ffe...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>
>>In article <MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>>kingrat...@buckeye-express.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are literally
>>>hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or from outside
>>>and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's sister saw it
>>>from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a big
>>>passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of
>>>other people did. Why would you think they are all lying?
>>
>>Because the voices in his head told him they were.
>>
>
>
> Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757 parts at
> all?

Guess again.
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jpg

"There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail
and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was,
a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

"FBI evidence teams combing the area of impact along the building's
perimeter found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, said Michael
Tamillow, a battalion chief and search and rescue expert for the Fairfax
County, Virginia, Fire Department. No large pieces apparently survived."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/

They also found both black boxes from Flight 77 and they identified the
remains of all but one of the passengers.

Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?

[Frank Dwyer]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

Other than both black boxes, the remains of the passengers, and the
debris from the plane, you're right.

http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2445

[khobar]

"King of Brawl Hall" <mas...@mason.snuh> wrote in message

news:Xns95F7782A53F6Bs...@207.14.113.17...

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:42085D89...@hotmail.com:
>
> >
> > King of Brawl Hall wrote:
> >
> >> It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps,
> >> identification numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on
> >> this site that I would LOVE to have explained to me.
> >>
> >> http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
> >>
> >> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
> >
> > For an attempt to replicate the event using a simple program like FS -
> > all I can say is that you have proven that it really did actually happen
> > as reported and indeed seen by multiple witnesses !
> >
> > The flaws in FS models at extreme angles of incidence are hardly
> > surprising since the planes aren't meant to be flown like that in
> > revenue service ! They aren't *perfect* models outside their design
> > limits you moron.
> >
> > When will you clown conspiracary fuckwits get the clue that it really
> > happened ?
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
> Of course, that's not the question I had at all.
>
> Why are the photos in Der Speigel entirely without flaps or call letters?

Do photos usually have flaps and call letters?

"A trolling we will go, a trolling we will go..."

Paul Nixon

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>> Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757
>> parts at all?
>
> Guess again.
> http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.j
> pg

real convincing.

~~~~~

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

--
"The price of greatness is responsibility." Churchill

[<SmirkS>]

BDK posted:

> My friend's sister saw it
> from the freeway.

OH! Well, OK, then.

~~~~

gee, and here i thought we were spending millions and millions on defense
and that the pentagon was the most heavily defended/monitored building in
the country - or something.

so, yeah, your friend's sister saw it; forget the ONE photo i requested.

that's good enough - definitely justifies invading iraq, getting 1500
troops killed, untold maimed, billions funneled to already-rich politicians
and their friends...

but hey, you believe what you want to believe, and i'll do the same.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:9g7Od.38$6p7.0
@news01.roc.ny:

Those are words, not pieces of evidence. And they contradict each other.

How did a part of the tail make it into the building, but didn't damage the
exterior?

> They also found both black boxes from Flight 77 and they identified the
> remains of all but one of the passengers.

Now you're just talking loopy nonsense.

> Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
> quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?

I'd like to speak to someone more rational.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in

news:6j7Od.39$6p7...@news01.roc.ny:

Of course, the article I posted clearly proved that there were no 757
parts.

But let's ignore that for now.

Both black boxes? Because they said so?

Remains?

Hahahahahaha. Maybe from the Navy people they killed.

[Frank Dwyer]

Two points:
1: Where in those quotes do they say the tail was inside the building?
2: A 757 impact would probably create a big enough hole to fit the tail
through.

>>They also found both black boxes from Flight 77 and they identified the
>>remains of all but one of the passengers.
>
>
> Now you're just talking loopy nonsense.

Is that the best you have? You just completely dismiss the FACT that
they found both black boxes from Flight 77 AND they identified the
remains of all but one passenger as "loopy nonsense"?

Exactly what do you think happened to Flight 77?

>>Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
>>quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?
>
>
> I'd like to speak to someone more rational.

You mean someone who is as blind to reality as you seem to be. You want
to speak with someone who won't present facts.

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
>
>>>Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757
>>>parts at all?
>>
>>Guess again.
>>http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.j
>>pg
>
>
> real convincing.

Moreso than your nutty little conspiracy theory.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on that
site.

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>
> Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on that
> site.
>

you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.

[<SmirkS>]

<SmirkS> posted:

>> Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
>> that site.
>>
>
> you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>

all it takes is ONE photo.

in three years, no one has come up with one yet.

[Frank Dwyer]

LMFAO! Damn the evidence, full speed ahead!
The "article" you posted proves nothing other than people will ignore
anything in order to believe what they WANT to be true.

There's a reason your fellow whackos put their "evidence" in flash files.

> But let's ignore that for now.

You seem rather adept at that.

> Both black boxes? Because they said so?

And you say "no they didn't" because of a flash presentation?

> Remains?
>
> Hahahahahaha. Maybe from the Navy people they killed.

From the passengers, wingnut. Perhaps you'd like to ask their families
about it?

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> <SmirkS> posted:
>
>
>>>Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
>>>that site.
>>>
>>
>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>
>
>
>
> all it takes is ONE photo.

Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?

That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.

> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.

So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
immediately be brought forward.
The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.

[Owamanga]

On 8 Feb 2005 17:50:51 GMT, King of Brawl Hall <mas...@mason.snuh>
wrote:

>Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:42085D89...@hotmail.com:
>
>>
>> King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>>
>>> It's sort of funny that the "757s" in NYC lacked wing flaps,
>>> identification numbers, or reflected light. There are a few pictures on
>>> this site that I would LOVE to have explained to me.
>>>
>>> http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm
>>>
>>> But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
>>
>> For an attempt to replicate the event using a simple program like FS -
>> all I can say is that you have proven that it really did actually happen
>> as reported and indeed seen by multiple witnesses !
>>
>> The flaws in FS models at extreme angles of incidence are hardly
>> surprising since the planes aren't meant to be flown like that in
>> revenue service ! They aren't *perfect* models outside their design
>> limits you moron.
>>
>> When will you clown conspiracary fuckwits get the clue that it really
>> happened ?
>>
>> Graham
>
>Of course, that's not the question I had at all.
>
>Why are the photos in Der Speigel entirely without flaps or call letters?

The flaps are not extended in the photo (as one would expect for a
plane traveling that fast), but they are set to 15 degrees in the game
screen-shot. Flaps on this equipment should be fully retracted at
approximately 250mph, deploying them any faster than that could cause
airframe damage and stability issues.

That being said, and using the game model as reference, I can still
make out the flaps in the photo.

Switching to your fucked up loon logic for a second, I'm surprised you
don't claim the 'Der Spiegel Image' to be fake because the sky and
plane are brown/orange and we all know that sky is blue, like the game
screenshot shows.

Now, as for both you and the web loony asking for call letters, just
because some idiot put them on the game model, doesn't mean they are
part of the real United Airlines Livery does it?

Here is a REAL clear photo of a United 767-200 series, DO YOU SEE
CALLSIGN LETTERS UNDER THE PORT WING?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/711533/M/

NO, BECAUSE THEY DONT FUCKING PAINT THEM THERE.

And another one:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/708750/M/

Take a good look Mr Crazy Loon, this one is really clear. No numbers
or letters under *either* wing or anywhere else underneath the
aircraft...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/699766/L/

Lets just pause for a moment on that last one shall we, it's a nice
big clear sunny-day close-up picture of the underside of a United
767-222. But wait, I don't see any RIVETS!!!

Wow, and your loonie website suggested we should be able to see rivets
on a real plane....

Could it be that a rivet is a VERY FUCKING SMALL DOT that I'd have NO
FUCKING CHANCE IN HELL of seeing from any distance closer than being
sucked into one of the engines. Definitely not what I'd expect to see
in a telephoto shot of a plane that's half a mile away like the Der
Spiegel image. I can't even see the damn windows from that distance,
how the fuck is anyone supposed to see the nuts, bolts and rivets?

Some more REAL pictures, eat your heart out, and make yourself a new
tin-beanie as you browse:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/566374/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/560834/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/512095/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/003917/M/

--
Owamanga!

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <Xns95F77072A...@130.133.1.4>, m...@privacy.net
says...

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
> >
> > Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on that
> > site.
> >
>
> you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.

Let's see...on the one hand, we have the score of eyewitness accounts
from the people who saw it, and on the other hand, we have the fact that
you're *sure* it didn't happen....

It's been proven to the standards of sane people; the fact that you
still don't believe it is irrelevant.

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <Xns95F770D65...@130.133.1.4>, m...@privacy.net
says...

> <SmirkS> posted:
>
> >> Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
> >> that site.
> >>
> >
> > you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
> >
>
>
> all it takes is ONE photo.
>
>
> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.

Prove to me that you took a crap yesterday. Let's see ONE photo.

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>>
>> all it takes is ONE photo.
>
> Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
> surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?
>

gee - uhhhh - derp - uhhh - lessee have i considered the obvious...

uhhh - derp - uhhhh - yes.

> That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
> plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>

what remaining FACTS? no video of the pentagon, hey?

>> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>
> So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
> immediately be brought forward.

<speechless whistle>

> The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.

lol - this much you are correct about.

good thing you're so important, tho. it provides a balance.

[<SmirkS>]

Jeffrey Salzberg posted:

>> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>
> Prove to me that you took a crap yesterday. Let's see ONE photo.

billions of taxpayer dollars aren't focused on my ass, simpleton.

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F7789A267DAs...@207.14.113.17>,
mas...@mason.snuh says...

> spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
> news:MPG.1c72a0ffe...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> > kingrat...@buckeye-express.com says...
> >
> >
> >> Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are literally
> >> hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or from outside
> >> and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's sister saw it
> >> from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a big
> >> passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of
> >> other people did. Why would you think they are all lying?
> >
> > Because the voices in his head told him they were.
> >
>
> Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757 parts at
> all?
>
>

What about the engines and lots of bits and pieces that when the serial
numbers were checked, just happened to come back to the 757 that was
claimed to have hit the building?

Why do you buy into this crazy shit that doesn't hold up under any kind
of scrutiny at all, and defend it as if you were accused of having
something to do with it?

Maybe it is the voices in your head...

BDK

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F778830DB88s...@207.14.113.17>,
mas...@mason.snuh says...

She was one of HUNDREDS, that's the point! It's not that a few people
saw it, a large number saw it, and all but a couple saw the SAME THING,
an AIRLINER hit the pentagon.

Case closed..

BDK

[<SmirkS>]

Jeffrey Salzberg posted:

> Let's see...on the one hand, we have the score of eyewitness accounts
> from the people who saw it, and on the other hand, we have the fact that
> you're *sure* it didn't happen....
>

neither of those things are facts.

> It's been proven to the standards of sane people; the fact that you
> still don't believe it is irrelevant.
>

no, simpleton, it has not.

that you believe what your told is fine for you.

too bad you weren't asked to die for it.

[<SmirkS>]

BDK posted:

> Why do you buy into this crazy shit

so, asking for one photo of a jet hitting the pentagon, which in itself
should be an impossibility - brings this type of respo....

you know what? screw this.

if it had happened when clinton was president, you'd be standing on the
white house steps screaming at the top of your lungs.

[<SmirkS>]

BDK posted:

>
> She was one of HUNDREDS

bring her forward, then.

who is SHE?

you have nothing.

[BDK]

In article <Xns95F777FFBC4ECs...@207.14.113.17>,

mas...@mason.snuh says...
> BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in

> news:MPG.1c71fc23...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>
> > In article <MPG.1c71533d4...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> > spammer...@volcanomail.com says...
> >> In article <Xns95F65D0A7A98Fs...@207.14.113.17>,
> >> mas...@mason.snuh says...

> >>
> >> > But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
> >>

> >> To accompany your pithy, empty "logic"?
> >>
> >
> > LOL, the only thing he knows about "logic" is that Spock said it on Star
> > Trek a lot.
>
> What a stinging geek rejoinder.
>
>

Seem s to be pretty accurate though. You claim there was no 757, a
"missile" or "bomb" hit the pentagon, in direct conflict to almost all
the witnesses (there were a few that said it was small plane, or missle,
but there are always a few people who see bogus stuff when a
disaster/tragedy/crime occurs) , and the 757 plane parts, DNA from the
passengers, etc. But even if you claim the plane parts, and DNA was
"planted", that doesn't explain why hundreds saw the plane fly into the
building.

How were ALL those people convinced to lie, instantly, as you may
remember they interviewed a bunch of them almost immediately after it
happened?

You really do need to watch Star Trek more often. It makes much more
sense that most of your "conspiracies".

"Damn it Jim, I'm a conspiracy whackaloon, not a sane person!" LOL

BDK

[Jeffrey Salzberg]

In article <Xns95F7738F5...@130.133.1.4>, m...@privacy.net
says...

> Jeffrey Salzberg posted:
>
> > Let's see...on the one hand, we have the score of eyewitness accounts
> > from the people who saw it, and on the other hand, we have the fact that
> > you're *sure* it didn't happen....
> >
>
> neither of those things are facts.

Oh, my mistake. I was using the sane people's definition of "fact":
"That which really happened."

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
>
>>>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>>>
>>>
>>>all it takes is ONE photo.
>>
>>Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
>>surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?
>>
>
>
> gee - uhhhh - derp - uhhh - lessee have i considered the obvious...
>
> uhhh - derp - uhhhh - yes.

And you've disregarded it based on what, slurpy?

>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
>>plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>>
>
>
> what remaining FACTS?

Does the second half of my statement above not exist in your reality?

> no video of the pentagon, hey?
>
>
>
>>>in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>>
>>So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
>>immediately be brought forward.
>
>
>
> <speechless whistle>
>
>
>>The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.
>
>
>
> lol - this much you are correct about.
>
>
> good thing you're so important, tho. it provides a balance.

The world doesn't answer my demands either, slurpy. If it did, you
wouldn't be such a fool.

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> BDK posted:
>
>
>>Why do you buy into this crazy shit
>
>
> so, asking for one photo of a jet hitting the pentagon, which in itself
> should be an impossibility - brings this type of respo....
>
>
> you know what? screw this.
>
>
> if it had happened when clinton was president, you'd be standing on the
> white house steps screaming at the top of your lungs.

You think opposition to your conspiracy is politically motivated?

Have two facts...
-Clinton was a damn good President.
-Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[khobar]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F77072A...@130.133.1.4...

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
> >
> > Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on that
> > site.
> >
>
> you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.

Read the opening "article" that has since been cited as "proof".

A link to it:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html

Paul Nixon

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> BDK posted:
>
>
>>She was one of HUNDREDS
>
>
> bring her forward, then.
>
> who is SHE?
>
>
> you have nothing.

Allen Cleveland
Frank Probst
Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Fred Gaskins
Aydan Kizildrgli
Omar Campo
Afework Hagos
Tim Timmerman
Steve Eiden

There's 10 that saw the plane.

Now you name ten that saw whatever you claim happened.

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>> gee - uhhhh - derp - uhhh - lessee have i considered the obvious...
>>
>> uhhh - derp - uhhhh - yes.
>
> And you've disregarded it based on what, slurpy?
>
>>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
>>>plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> what remaining FACTS?
>
> Does the second half of my statement above not exist in your reality?

tell us - do police arrest themselves often?

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
>
>>>gee - uhhhh - derp - uhhh - lessee have i considered the obvious...
>>>
>>>uhhh - derp - uhhhh - yes.
>>
>>And you've disregarded it based on what, slurpy?
>>
>>
>>>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
>>>>plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>what remaining FACTS?
>>
>>Does the second half of my statement above not exist in your reality?
>
>
>
> tell us - do police arrest themselves often?

Yes
Will you be addressing any of the questions posed to you?

[<SmirkS>]

khobar posted:

> http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwar
> z.html

tyvm.

~~~~~~~

"We have been told by the Bush administration that American Airline Flight
77 was flown into the Pentagon by a "crack pilot" who was a marginal car
driver. Hmm, I did not buy that story for even a second. That the Pentagon
fire was so hot it vaporized most of a 60-ton airplane including cobalt jet
engine parts that would not evaporate in the temperatures of a normal
building fire, but they got enough human DNA to prove who was on the
flight. Hmm, if it were hot enough to melt a plane including a cobalt heat
resistant jet engine, human DNA recovery would have been impossible so I
don't buy that fable either.

So, how do we prove that the "Official Bush Story" is actually the
"Official Bush Lie?"

That has not been easy and we have had many working on this night and day
for three years to get to the bottom of the matter.

After the Pentagon attack, the video cameras and tapes at a nearby CITGO,
the Sheraton Hotel along I-395 and Virginia DOT cameras were all
confiscated by the FBI and they have yet to disclose any of the contents
that were recorded by those cameras. Those cameras would have recorded what
came in to hit the Pentagon and if viewed by the public, all the world
would know that it was not a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, as we
were told. All the world would know that Bush's assertion is in fact a huge
lie.

They cannot disclose those tapes without indicting themselves that it was
the U.S. government and select "private sector outsourcing" that did the
alleged terrorist attacks of 9-11. In short, our government would have to
admit that it is al Qaeda and that this GWOT (Global War on Terror) is
fabrication made up to provide excuses for a despicable U.S. energy and war
policy.

The post-attack cleanup at the Pentagon shed some light on the fact that it
was not a 757, but exactly what the part recovered was has not been easy to
find or locate.

It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a "turbojet" component from
an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on
just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes.

There was one credible witness found that saw "a two-engine jet airplane,
the engines were under the wings." That is a visual description of a 737,
757, or 767, but it is also a description of an A-3 Skywarrior."

[<SmirkS>]

Jeffrey Salzberg posted:

>> neither of those things are facts.
>
> Oh, my mistake. I was using the sane people's definition of "fact":
> "That which really happened."

eyewitness account is not acceptable as "fact".

this really shouldn't even be an issue. the PENTAGON was attacked - show me
what did it. not difficult unless something's fishy.

~~~~~~~

--

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>> tell us - do police arrest themselves often?
>
> Yes

lol - when?

answer: only when about to be caught.

> Will you be addressing any of the questions posed to you?

your calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact.

a simple photo will suffice, bub.

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

> Allen Cleveland
> Frank Probst
> Joel Sucherman
> Mike Walter
> Fred Gaskins
> Aydan Kizildrgli
> Omar Campo
> Afework Hagos
> Tim Timmerman
> Steve Eiden
>

who are they? never heard of them. do they decide what's fact in the united
states? do they then authorize war in iraq?

chasing bin laden?

no.

>
> There's 10 that saw the plane.
>
> Now you name ten that saw whatever you claim happened.

exactly my point. i don't claim anything.

i just asked for a photo, and look at you now.

[<SmirkS>]

khobar posted:

>> > http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205sch
>> > war z.html
>>
>> tyvm.
>>
>
> You're welcome.
>
> So now everyone agrees a jet was flown into the Pentagon, right?
>

'everyone' never had a doubt.

[khobar]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:Xns95F77D911...@130.133.1.4...

> khobar posted:
>
> > http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwar
> > z.html
>
> tyvm.
>

You're welcome.

So now everyone agrees a jet was flown into the Pentagon, right?

Paul Nixon

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in
news:HZ7Od.102$Zy...@news02.roc.ny:

> King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>

>> Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:9g7Od.38$6p7.0
>> @news01.roc.ny:

>>
>>
>>>King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>>spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in
>>>>news:MPG.1c72a0ffe...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>>>>>kingrat...@buckeye-express.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are
>>>>>>literally hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or
>>>>>>from outside and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's
>>>>>>sister saw it
>>>>>
>>>>>>from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a
>>>>>>big
>>>>>
>>>>>>passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of
>>>>>>other people did. Why would you think they are all lying?
>>>>>

>>>>>Because the voices in his head told him they were.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757 parts
>>
>> at
>>
>>>>all?
>>>

>>>Guess again.
>>>http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jp
>>>g
>>>
>>>"There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail
>>>and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was,
>>>a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)
>>>
>>>"FBI evidence teams combing the area of impact along the building's
>>>perimeter found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, said Michael
>>>Tamillow, a battalion chief and search and rescue expert for the
>>>Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire Department. No large pieces apparently
>>>survived." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/
>>
>>
>>
>> Those are words, not pieces of evidence. And they contradict each
>> other.
>>
>> How did a part of the tail make it into the building, but didn't damage
>> the exterior?
>
> Two points:
> 1: Where in those quotes do they say the tail was inside the building?

It certainly wasn't outside. Was it?

Sort of silly, as there was no 757 tail to begin with. Inside or outside.

But I'd love to see your supporting evidence for one.

; )

> 2: A 757 impact would probably create a big enough hole to fit the tail
> through.

Probably?

Can you show me exterior damage from the tail in any photo?

Why not?

>>>They also found both black boxes from Flight 77 and they identified the
>>>remains of all but one of the passengers.
>>
>>
>> Now you're just talking loopy nonsense.
>
> Is that the best you have? You just completely dismiss the FACT that
> they found both black boxes from Flight 77

Or so they claim.

What evidence do you have to support this?

> AND they identified the
> remains of all but one passenger as "loopy nonsense"?

Loopy. Nonsense.

The plane disintegrated, but they managed to get enough DNA for every
single passenger?

Hahahahahaha.

> Exactly what do you think happened to Flight 77?

It didn't hit the Pentagon. Beyond that, I have no idea.

>>>Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
>>>quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?
>>
>>
>> I'd like to speak to someone more rational.
>
> You mean someone who is as blind to reality as you seem to be. You want
> to speak with someone who won't present facts.

Please present some facts.

--
Tell Them the King of Brawl Hall Sent You
http://brawl-hall.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=71

You need to BeDoper
http://www.bedoper.com

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:I98Od.51$6p7.11
@news01.roc.ny:

> wrote:
>
>> <SmirkS> posted:

>>
>>
>>>>Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
>>>>that site.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> all it takes is ONE photo.
>
> Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
> surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?

That's sort of his point. The video was confiscated (within MINUTES), and
never seen again.

Why?

> That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
> plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.

No debris. No black boxes. No remains.

Just words to that effect.

>> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>
> So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
> immediately be brought forward.

> The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.

The ASCE report proves no 757 hit the Pentagon.
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
>
>>>tell us - do police arrest themselves often?
>>
>>Yes
>
>
>
> lol - when?
>
>
> answer: only when about to be caught.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/12106302p-12976319c.html
http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpage=1&id=75219
http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2718189

Would you like the rest of the over 2 million examples?
I already grow weary of exposing your ignorance.

>>Will you be addressing any of the questions posed to you?
>
>
> your calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Is that a yes or a no?

> a simple photo will suffice, bub.

What are you looking for, this?
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091122.gif

That animation is useless.

[King of Brawl Hall]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:Xns95F77350240CCowiezowie@
130.133.1.4:

> Jeffrey Salzberg posted:
>
>>> in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>>
>> Prove to me that you took a crap yesterday. Let's see ONE photo.
>
>
> billions of taxpayer dollars aren't focused on my ass, simpleton.

I love 9/11 threads.

[King of Brawl Hall]

spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in

news:MPG.1c72da36e...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> Let's see...on the one hand, we have the score of eyewitness accounts
> from the people who saw it,

How many people claim to have seen the actual impact?

12?

[King of Brawl Hall]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
news:Xns95F77E011...@130.133.1.4:

He's pretty selective as to what facts he believes...

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:

>
>
>>>if it had happened when clinton was president, you'd be standing on the
>>>white house steps screaming at the top of your lungs.
>>
>>You think opposition to your conspiracy is politically motivated?
>>
>>Have two facts...
>>-Clinton was a damn good President.
>
>

> agreed.

>
>
>
>>-Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
>
>
>

> ahem - prove it.

ahem - why?

> even the passenger list is suspicious.

How so?

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c72da7b3...@news.buckeye-express.com:

> In article <Xns95F7789A267DAs...@207.14.113.17>,
> mas...@mason.snuh says...

>> spammer...@volcanomail.com (Jeffrey Salzberg) wrote in

>> news:MPG.1c72a0ffe...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>> > kingrat...@buckeye-express.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are
>> >> literally hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or
>> >> from outside and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's
>> >> sister saw it from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707,
>> >> but she saw a big passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just
>> >> like hundreds of other people did. Why would you think they are all
>> >> lying?
>> >
>> > Because the voices in his head told him they were.
>> >
>>
>> Anyone have the balls to address the fact that there were no 757 parts
>> at all?
>>
>>
>

> What about the engines and lots of bits and pieces that when the serial
> numbers were checked, just happened to come back to the 757 that was
> claimed to have hit the building?

The engine that flew over the Pentagon?

; )

What engines?

Can I see them?

What serial numbers?

Got any photos of them?

Or just some claims from the people responsible?

> Why do you buy into this crazy shit that doesn't hold up under any kind
> of scrutiny at all, and defend it as if you were accused of having
> something to do with it?
>
> Maybe it is the voices in your head...
>
> BDK

http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman

Research. All you do is parrot the authorities. Badly.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:y68Od.103$JV.43
@news02.roc.ny:

> King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>

>> Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in

>> news:6j7Od.39$6p7...@news01.roc.ny:

>>
>>
>>>King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>>Cmd Buzz Corey <u...@that.net> wrote in news:vKydnUN0R7muo5XfRVn-
>>>>r...@gbronline.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BDK wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <Xns95F64B71B92FAs...@207.14.113.17>,
>>>>>>mas...@mason.snuh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:MPG.1c70e0575...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>><42068068$0$34196$91ce...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>,
>>>>>>>>claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>flash player needed:
>>>>>>>>>http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you whackjobs keep posting this stuff?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't you ever get tired of making fools of yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that hit
>>>>>>>>the pentagon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>False.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A ton of people saw it hit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All those people on the freeway are liars?? LOL, you are pretty
>>>>>>desperate to convince people of this supposed conspiracy, aren't you?
>>>>>>I suppose they are all in on it, huh? Pitiful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't you know, all those first hand eyewitnesses, many who were very
>>>>>close to the crash, and actually saw the AA plane hit the Pentagon
>>>>>really didn't know what they were seeing. Yet some yo-yo two miles
away
>>>>>actually saw either a fighter jet or a missile hit the Pentagon and he
>>>>>can certainly be believed...at least in the minds of the dipwitted
>>>>>nut-case conspiracy morons. Let the little simple minded conspiracy
>>>>>loons have their fun, they can dig up all sorts of stupid claims in a
>>>>>lame attempt to defend their silly theories, if it makes them happy
>>>>>then let them play, but no person with more than three working brain
>>>>>cells takes them even mildy seriously.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They couldn't have seen a 757 hit, as there are no 757 parts in
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>Other than both black boxes, the remains of the passengers, and the
>>>debris from the plane, you're right.
>>>
>>>http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2445
>>
>>
>> Of course, the article I posted clearly proved that there were no 757
>> parts.
>
> LMFAO! Damn the evidence, full speed ahead!
> The "article" you posted proves nothing other than people will ignore
> anything in order to believe what they WANT to be true.

So you have evidence to the contrary?

Can we see it?

> There's a reason your fellow whackos put their "evidence" in flash files.

What?

>> But let's ignore that for now.
>
> You seem rather adept at that.
>
>> Both black boxes? Because they said so?
>
> And you say "no they didn't" because of a flash presentation?

What?

>> Remains?
>>
>> Hahahahahaha. Maybe from the Navy people they killed.
>
> From the passengers, wingnut. Perhaps you'd like to ask their families
> about it?

What do the families have to do with anything?

Did they see some bodies?

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:1K8Od.59$6p7.16
@news01.roc.ny:

> Have two facts...
> -Clinton was a damn good President.
> -Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

What sort of dope are you on?

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c72daddf...@news.buckeye-express.com:

> In article <Xns95F778830DB88s...@207.14.113.17>,

> mas...@mason.snuh says...
>> BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in

>> news:MPG.1c729dfc7...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns95F6C948D...@130.133.1.4>, m...@privacy.net
>> > says...
>> >> BDK posted:

>> >>
>> >> >> > There are plenty of pics of parts that came from the 757 that
hit
>> >> >> > the pentagon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> False.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry, it's the truth, you need to get a grip!
>> >> >
>> >>

>> >> post one photo of the plane about to hit or hitting the pentagon.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> it's the pentagon, for heaven's sake. there must be one photo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American
Airlines
>> >> flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this
>> >> building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade
Center."

>> >>
>> >
>> > Photos would be nice, but really aren't needed, as there are literally
>> > hundreds of people who saw it, either from the freeway or from outside
>> > and inside the other buildings in the area. My friend's sister saw it
>> > from the freeway. She wouldn't know a 757 from a 707, but she saw a
big
>> > passenger plane (her words) hit the pentagon, just like hundreds of

>> > other people did. Why would you think they are all lying? What would
>> > possibly be the point? How would you convince all of them to lie about
>> > it so quickly that the local news had some of them on a short time
later
>> > telling this supposed lie? It doesn't compute...
>> >
>> > I don't really care if there are pics or not, enough people, both
>> > connected in some way to the govt, and more importantly, not connected
>> > (my friend's sister is a 40+ year old stay at home mom) to the govt
THAT
>> > SAW THE SAME DAMN THING. It happened. Accept it.
>> >
>> > BDK
>> >
>>
>> His sister's friend saw it.
>>
>> Case closed!
>>
>>
>
> She was one of HUNDREDS, that's the point! It's not that a few people
> saw it, a large number saw it, and all but a couple saw the SAME THING,
> an AIRLINER hit the pentagon.
>
> Case closed..
>
> BDK
>

"100s" of people have never claimed to see the impact.

Please try again. All the eyewitnesses in the world can't overcome the
physical evidence to the contrary, by the way.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:hR8Od.107$oD1.104
@news02.roc.ny:

> wrote:
>
>> BDK posted:
>>
>>
>>>She was one of HUNDREDS
>>
>>
>> bring her forward, then.
>>
>> who is SHE?
>>
>>
>> you have nothing.
>
> Allen Cleveland
> Frank Probst
> Joel Sucherman
> Mike Walter
> Fred Gaskins
> Aydan Kizildrgli
> Omar Campo
> Afework Hagos
> Tim Timmerman
> Steve Eiden
>
>
> There's 10 that saw the plane.

But not the impact. Right?

> Now you name ten that saw whatever you claim happened.

How about everyone who's ever viewed the still frames that curiously lack a
757?

That's got to number in the 10s of millions.

[Frank Dwyer]

wrote:

> Frank Dwyer posted:
>
>
>>Allen Cleveland
>>Frank Probst
>>Joel Sucherman
>>Mike Walter
>>Fred Gaskins
>>Aydan Kizildrgli
>>Omar Campo
>>Afework Hagos
>>Tim Timmerman
>>Steve Eiden
>>
>
>
> who are they?

Eyewitnesses to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

> never heard of them.

I'm not surprised.

> do they decide what's fact in the united states?

No. Do you?

> do they then authorize war in iraq?

No. Do you?

> chasing bin laden?
>
> no.
>
>
>
>>There's 10 that saw the plane.
>>
>>Now you name ten that saw whatever you claim happened.
>
>
> exactly my point. i don't claim anything.

I'm not surprised.

> i just asked for a photo, and look at you now.

Wrong, wingnut. AFTER you were shown a photo, you said "you get back to

me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon."

You've since revealed that the ONLY proof you'll accept is a photo.

[King of Brawl Hall]

"<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:Xns95F77E6656546owiezowie@
130.133.1.4:

> i just asked for a photo, and look at you now.

That means you support terrorism!

[King of Brawl Hall]

BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c72dcc45...@news.buckeye-express.com:

> In article <Xns95F777FFBC4ECs...@207.14.113.17>,

> mas...@mason.snuh says...
>> BDK <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in

>> news:MPG.1c71fc23...@news.buckeye-express.com:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.1c71533d4...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
>> > spammer...@volcanomail.com says...
>> >> In article <Xns95F65D0A7A98Fs...@207.14.113.17>,
>> >> mas...@mason.snuh says...
>> >>
>> >> > But I'll settle for pithy, empty statements.
>> >>
>> >> To accompany your pithy, empty "logic"?
>> >>
>> >
>> > LOL, the only thing he knows about "logic" is that Spock said it on
>> > Star Trek a lot.
>>
>> What a stinging geek rejoinder.
>>
>>
>
> Seem s to be pretty accurate though. You claim there was no 757, a
> "missile" or "bomb" hit the pentagon, in direct conflict to almost all
> the witnesses (there were a few that said it was small plane, or missle,
> but there are always a few people who see bogus stuff when a
> disaster/tragedy/crime occurs) , and the 757 plane parts,

Which have been shown to be parts from a military jet, not a 757.

> DNA from the
> passengers, etc.

A claim of DNA. Not actual DNA.

> But even if you claim the plane parts, and DNA was
> "planted", that doesn't explain why hundreds saw the plane fly into the
> building.

"100s" made no such claim. They say they saw a 757 going toward the
Pentagon.

That's a bit different, don't you think?

> How were ALL those people convinced to lie, instantly, as you may
> remember they interviewed a bunch of them almost immediately after it
> happened?

Who said they all lied?

> You really do need to watch Star Trek more often. It makes much more
> sense that most of your "conspiracies".
>
> "Damn it Jim, I'm a conspiracy whackaloon, not a sane person!" LOL

I leave Star Trek to the dorks, thanks.

[Frank Dwyer]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

> Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:I98Od.51$6p7.11
> @news01.roc.ny:
>
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>><SmirkS> posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
>>>>>that site.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>all it takes is ONE photo.
>>
>>Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
>>surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?
>
>
> That's sort of his point. The video was confiscated (within MINUTES), and
> never seen again.
>
> Why?

Unless you want to believe that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what
difference does it make?

>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
>>plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>
>
> No debris.

You've already been shown the photos.

> No black boxes.

It seems you want and need to believe that.

> No remains.
>
> Just words to that effect.

Tell that to the families.

>>>in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>>
>>So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
>>immediately be brought forward.
>>The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.
>
>
>
>
> The ASCE report proves no 757 hit the Pentagon.
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You keep right on referencing conspiracy kooks.

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>>>>tell us - do police arrest themselves often?
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>>
>>
>> lol - when?
>>
>>
>> answer: only when about to be caught.
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/12106302p-12976319c.html
> http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpage=1&id=75219
> http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2718189
>
> Would you like the rest of the over 2 million examples?

lol - great.

ok, so you've taken my comment literally - glad to see it.

> I already grow weary of exposing your ignorance.

you have exposed nothing.

> What are you looking for, this?
> http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091122.gif
>
> That animation is useless.
>

and you posted it anyway. whassa matter - NOT ONE OTHER PHOTO TO OFFER?

it's the PENTAGON for crying out loud.

EVIDENCE, PLEASE.

again:

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

these are simple questions.

lots of EYEWITNESS accounts to the possibility of a missile....

LOTS of photos - none of a jet.

keep digging, frank.

[Frank Dwyer]

It was in pieces

> Sort of silly, as there was no 757 tail to begin with. Inside or outside.
>
> But I'd love to see your supporting evidence for one.
>
> ; )
>
>
>>2: A 757 impact would probably create a big enough hole to fit the tail
>>through.
>
>
>
> Probably?

Does that word confuse you?

> Can you show me exterior damage from the tail in any photo?

Not only that, I can show you damage from an entire plane. But I won't
because...

> Why not?

I don't feel like it.

>>>>They also found both black boxes from Flight 77 and they identified the
>>>>remains of all but one of the passengers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now you're just talking loopy nonsense.
>>
>>Is that the best you have? You just completely dismiss the FACT that
>>they found both black boxes from Flight 77
>
>
>
> Or so they claim.
>
> What evidence do you have to support this?
>
>
>>AND they identified the
>>remains of all but one passenger as "loopy nonsense"?
>
>
> Loopy. Nonsense.
>
> The plane disintegrated, but they managed to get enough DNA for every
> single passenger?

I didn't say every single passenger or DNA.

> Hahahahahaha.
>
>
>
>>Exactly what do you think happened to Flight 77?
>
>
> It didn't hit the Pentagon.

Prove it.

> Beyond that, I have no idea.

I'm not surprised.

>>>>Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
>>>>quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd like to speak to someone more rational.
>>
>>You mean someone who is as blind to reality as you seem to be. You want
>>to speak with someone who won't present facts.
>
>
> Please present some facts.

So you can dismiss them?

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>> i just asked for a photo, and look at you now.
>
> Wrong, wingnut. AFTER you were shown a photo, you said "you get back to
> me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon."

LOL - you did nothing of the sort. you gave me a link to urbanlegends...

> Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on that
> site.
>

"Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines
Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon"

and the animation i provided you had eyewitnesses saying missile.

it's a wash.

"The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the
Pentagon wreckage"

the link they provide goes nowhere. thanks.

"The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the
people known to be aboard Flight 77"

so, dna survives fire that melts steel?

about that passenger list:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/hijacked.planes/

also:

~~~~

But this is truly a bizarre passenger list. Well, if you look at the
occupations of the passengers of Flight77, you get a strange feeling that
something is wrong with this picture.

For a random collection of passengers, this is a very impressive manifest.

We use the results of Killtown's work on the passenger list, which was
drawn from the canonical sources of 9/11 victims biographical information
on the Internet: the numbers in square brackets are the numbers in
Killtown's listing (Local Copy).

a senior scientist with the US Navy, retired Army. [12] A third-generation
physicist whose work at the Navy was so classified that his family knew
very little about what he did each day. They don't even know exactly why he
was headed to Los Angeles on the doomed American Airlines Flight 77.

a Boeing engineer in Integrated Defense Systems; he served in the US Air
Force for four years, and for the National Security Agency for 14 years.
[36]

a director of program management at Raytheon, US Army (ret.) [28] who
helped develop and build anti-radar technology for electronic warfare.
Raytheon's website notes that they are leaders in every phase of the
Precision Strike kill chain; are the world's leading organization at
Missile Defense; provides state-of-the-art technology to detect, protect
and respond to terrorism and provide Homeland Defense; and that their
technology forms the eyes, ears and brains of Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance systems, from the Predator to the Global Hawk.

a retired naval aviator who worked for Veridian Corp., a defense
contractor, who was working with military aircraft and weapons systems [56]
A Navy test pilot who worked on the development of the F18. "He had done a
number of black programs -- which means top-secret," said his son. "We were
given no details."

an electrical engineer with defense contractor BAESystems. [41] largest
technical support supplier to the US Navy. BAE Systems is an industry
leader in flight control systems, which are present on nearly every US
military aircraft. BAE electronic warfare systems such as their jamming
system are vital to the US Navy operations.

2 Boeing propulsion engineers: a lead Propulsion Engineer and a Project
Manager with Boeing Satellite Systems, [32] and a lead engineer for Boeing
Satellite Systems. [40]

a software architect with Lockheed Martin Corp., US Army (ret.). [42] A
manager in the systems and software architecture department.

a Vice President for software development, EMSolutions and retired
Lieutenant Commander, Navy. [18] He spent 20 years in the US Navy, where he
developed high capacity signal processors, multi-processor application
software and innovative signal processing algorithms. EMSolutions maintains
a facility security clearance, and has contracts with Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) and BAESystems.

a technical group manager at Xon Tech, a defense-related research and
development firm [46] He previously worked as an engineer at the Naval
Research Lab. Also a technical manager of Xon Tech [53].

a retired Navy Rear Admiral, former Navy pilot, and retired American
Airlines pilot. [24]

a senior executive at the Defense Department. [29] A budget
analyst/director of the programming and fiscal economics division who
worked at the Pentagon.

a former Navy electronics technician worked as a Department of Defense
contractor with Vrendenburg Co. in Washington [57]
managing partner and co-founder of Stratin Consulting. and retired Marine
Corps Lieutenant and Vietnam War veteran [26]

a lawyer who had worked with the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. [49]
and of course, there was Barbara Olson, attorney, CNN Commentator and wife
of the United States Solicitor General. [39]

The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines
passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security
clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America.

~~~~

keep digging, frank.

[Frank Dwyer]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

A kook's blog is not "research". Were you actually interested in
research, you'd accept the facts.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:H4bOd.116$zI1.49
@news02.roc.ny:

> King of Brawl Hall wrote:
>
>> Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:I98Od.51$6p7.11
>> @news01.roc.ny:
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><SmirkS> posted:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Get back to me when you can actually disprove any fact mentioned on
>>>>>>that site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>you get back to me when you can prove that a jet hit the pentagon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>all it takes is ONE photo.
>>>
>>>Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
>>>surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?
>>
>>
>> That's sort of his point. The video was confiscated (within MINUTES), and
>> never seen again.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Unless you want to believe that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what
> difference does it make?

That's almost a good question.

>>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from the
>>>plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>>
>>
>> No debris.
>
> You've already been shown the photos.

And you're responding to a thread about an article that show they were not
from a 757.

>> No black boxes.
>
> It seems you want and need to believe that.

What evidence do you have?

The government's word?

>> No remains.
>>
>> Just words to that effect.
>
> Tell that to the families.

I have no problem telling them that.

What do they have to do with it, I ask again.

>>>>in three years, no one has come up with one yet.
>>>
>>>So? You make it sound like since you demand one, one MUST exist and
>>>immediately be brought forward.
>>>The world doesn't answer (or even acknowledge) your demands.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ASCE report proves no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> You keep right on referencing conspiracy kooks.

Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story

By Jason Christie
8/8/2004

Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence indicating a 757
struck the Pentagon. Indeed, there seems to have been no "official"
investigation into this topic at all. Many who claim a 757 hit the Pentagon
cite an American Society of Civil Engineers building study as proof. I
contend that the ASCE report, despite its assumptions regarding the day in
question, actually supports the belief that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

The report, some sixty pages long, was released in January of 2003. Its
stated purpose was not to investigate the events that caused damage to the
Pentagon, but to examine the performance of the building after the incident
in question. It makes certain base assumptions regarding the assumed presence
of a 757, and works forward from there.

While there are an impressive number of PhDs behind the building performance
report, some of the logic is rather spotty, and the report seems to include
at least one falsehood. Other areas of the report openly contradict the
claims many have made in support of the 757 theory.

The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3, "Review
of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet
released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke
trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building performance
experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the difference
between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is
questionable, at best.

Smoke trail mislabled as 757.

Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching all
the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet longer
than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this supposed 757
lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate it is an
airliner.

Smoke trail remains in place. Clearly, that was not a 757.

In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy, irregular
smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of disinformation is
deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE should correct this report
in order to save their credibility. There is nothing in the still frames that
remotely resembles a 757, so it is difficult to believe a team of engineers
could make a mistake of this magnitude.

The ASCE report also aids supporters of the 757 theory by misrepresenting the
width of the initial impact damage. While the photograph in figure 3.8
indicates that only two windows, and a single column are missing from the
second floor, the drawing placed beside it (figure 3.10) shows a total of
four missing windows. This illustration does not correspond to any known
photograph. Its inclusion is yet another reason to doubt the veracity of the
report.

Note the fencing in place, where the left wing clearly would have struck, had
a 757 hit the Pentagon.

The ambiguous presence of the two windows on the second floor are revealed
only under magnification. No columns are shown on the bottom floor.

This is crucial, as the small size of the initial entry point, along with the
stunning lack of debris, is the main reason so many doubt the claim that a
757 struck the Pentagon to begin with.

Careful reading of the report shows that only a single column and two windows
from the second floor were removed. This makes the width of the damage at the
top of the entry point somewhere between sixteen and twenty feet. Of course,
part of the top of the column is still evident in photographs, which calls
into question the possibility that a massive 757 inflicted the damage, yet
left this piece of the building in position.

Two windows wide, with the top part of the column hanging down. Total lack of
tail damage above presumed impact area.

The damage to the first floor columns, based on photographic evidence and the
ASCE report text, shows only 5 columns were removed at that point. However,
figure 3.10, again, seems to show a much larger area of damage. This
confusion aids many 757 theorists by enabling them to claim, falsely, that
the entry hole into the Pentagon was one hundred to one hundred and twenty
feet wide. This figure, as revealed in the ASCE text (section 6.1), actually
refers to damage to the Pentagon’s façade, and not the actual entry hole.

Deceptively, both missing and damaged columns are assigned the same color. In
the front wall, only columns 10-14 were removed, in fact.

Finally, the diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 show another fallacy of the 757 story, and
illustrate a dramatic lack of critical thinking on the part of the report’s
authors. The supposed exit point of the alleged 757 is commonly referred to
as the "AE punch-out". It was a circular hole approximately eight feet wide
in the rear wall of the Pentagon, where the remains of the aircraft are
claimed to have exited.

An amazing number of columns in front of the AE punch-out "exit hole". Did a
giant pachinko ball strike the Pentagon?

However, as diagrams 6.2 and 6.3 clearly illustrate, at least four columns
remained in place in front of the claimed exit hole. It is difficult to
imagine something with the size and mass required to create this exit point
weaving around the columns like a giant pachinko ball in order to reach the
rear wall and create this circular-shaped hole. This facet of the damage in
not questioned in the ASCE report.

Whatever made this hole couldn't have been a 757, or even a missile, due to
the columns in front of it. Probably man-made.

Furthermore, the supposed 757 engines remain unaccounted for in the ASCE’s
study. With these obvious holes in the 757 theory, and the lack of debris,
supporters of the 757 story are reduced to reliance on eyewitness testimony.
This testimony, hearsay evidence, would not even be allowed in court unless
presented by the eyewitness themselves, and certainly cannot account for the
lack of 757 debris or explain the other serious flaws in the 757 theory.

There is an ambiguity to the World Trade Center case that allows for endless
debate on the issues involved. There is considerably less "wiggle room" when
it comes to the Pentagon, and that is probably why FEMA neglected to study
the Pentagon at all. A formal report on the cause of the damage itself would
have renewed debate, and put FEMA on the defensive.

Unless definitive evidence indicating a 757 is uncovered, the most logical
conclusion that can be reached when studying all of the available evidence is
that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and a subsequent cover-up was attempted. And of
course, if no 757 struck the Pentagon, then all of the events surrounding
9/11 must be questioned. I invite all interested parties to read the ASCE
report for themselves and consider the many flaws in this building
performance report.

ASCE Report Online in PDF Format:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Mr. Dick Eastman's Comprehensive Analysis of the 757 Evidence

Essay in .Doc format.

Pentagon Message Board

What's kooky about it?

Can you refute it?

[<SmirkS>]

Frank Dwyer posted:

>>>Have you considered that either no photos exist OR that video
>>>surveillance was confiscated immediately afterward?
>>
>>
>> That's sort of his point. The video was confiscated (within MINUTES),
>> and never seen again.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Unless you want to believe that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon,
> what difference does it make?
>

AH - so now you're dooomed, frank.

stop your arguments now.

>>>That's why we base our opinions on the remaining FACTS: Debris from
>>>the plane, black boxes, and remains of the passengers.
>>
>>
>> No debris.
>
> You've already been shown the photos.
>

really? did you show me?

>> No black boxes.
>
> It seems you want and need to believe that.

i told you about the link you provided concerning black boxes.

dead link.

stop digging, frank.

[<SmirkS>]

King of Brawl Hall posted:

>>> The ASCE report proves no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>>> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>> You keep right on referencing conspiracy kooks.
>
> Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on
> 757 Story
>
> By Jason Christie
> 8/8/2004
>
> Three years after 9/11, there is still little to no evidence
> indicating a 757 struck the Pentagon.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/hijacked.planes/

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- The numbers appear out-of-whack, thankfully. And
so, a lingering question is why the passenger loads on the four planes
hijacked in U.S. skies are being described by industry officials as "very,
very low."

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:kcbOd.118$%I1.99
@news02.roc.ny:

How did they identify them?

; )

All but one infant, if I recall. And of course, no arabs.

>> Hahahahahaha.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Exactly what do you think happened to Flight 77?
>>
>>
>> It didn't hit the Pentagon.
>
> Prove it.

http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon

>> Beyond that, I have no idea.
>
> I'm not surprised.

If the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it?

Would you know?

>>>>>Anything else in your little theory you need debunked? Perhaps some
>>>>>quotes from eyewitnesses that saw the plane?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to speak to someone more rational.
>>>
>>>You mean someone who is as blind to reality as you seem to be. You want
>>>to speak with someone who won't present facts.
>>
>>
>> Please present some facts.
>
> So you can dismiss them?

It'd be a good start if you'd present some facts, instead of your incessant
naysaying, devoid of any evidence.

[King of Brawl Hall]

Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:UdbOd.119$%I1.67
@news02.roc.ny:

Can you refute any aspect of either page?

The ASCE report one, for instance? How is it not research?

Because you say so?

[Frank Dwyer]

King of Brawl Hall wrote:

> Frank Dwyer <fdw...@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in news:hR8Od.107$oD1.104
> @news02.roc.ny:
>
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BDK posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>She was one of HUNDREDS
>>>
>>>
>>>bring her forward, then.
>>>
>>>who is SHE?
>>>
>>>
>>>you have nothing.
>>
>>Allen Cleveland
>>Frank Probst
>>Joel Sucherman
>>Mike Walter
>>Fred Gaskins
>>Aydan Kizildrgli
>>Omar Campo
>>Afework Hagos
>>Tim Timmerman
>>Steve Eiden
>>
>>
>>There's 10 that saw the plane.
>
>
> But not the impact. Right?

<sigh> Lots of people saw the impact.

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines
jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to
work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet
off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two
seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or
any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west
wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not
going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But
whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,'
Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a
steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its
target and staying dead on course.'"

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and
slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane
that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire,
smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway
as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either
forward or backwards,' he said."

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of
Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the
huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's
military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I
turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody
could believe it.'"

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the
Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the
crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of
the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I
think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the
grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The
whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never
imagine I would see anything like that here.'"

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck
in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was
a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over.
Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its
wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts
on the way in.'"

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American
Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit,
and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington
National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the
Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to
witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in
the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at
all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates
that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the
left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The
plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring
a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it
crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it
looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it
was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said.
'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I
remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I
saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"

You'll take the word of some useless blogger who was nowhere near the
Pentagon that day over that of a priest and a pilot (among others) who
actually saw it happen?

>>Now you name ten that saw whatever you claim happened.
>
>
> How about everyone who's ever viewed the still frames that curiously lack a
> 757?

They don't lack a 757. You might lack the ability to discern one, but
that doesn't mean it isn't there.

> That's got to number in the 10s of millions.

And?