Of planewings steel and stone.

by **NewKid** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>On WTC 7 I am suspending judgement based on not enough info, and on the Pentagon I've already stated the evidence contradicts a full-size Boeing 767-200.<hr></blockquote> Starman, I remain agnostic on the Pentagon, but I'd like to hear what you think of this. <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html" target="top">911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html</a>

by **robertdreed** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:13 pm

In my opinion, that website has a good summary that makes a quite convincing argument against the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" hypothesis. As for the other crashes, their skepticism of the official stories holds up fairly well. They follow the evidence as far as any outside lay analyst can, and note some marked anomalies. I haven't been through the entire site yet, but I haven't found anything that rings false to me. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/11/06 9:52 pm

by **darkbeforedawn** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:44 pm

Starman you have brought up a lot varied material. I think that a lot of the witness material as reported in the NYT is questionable. The NYT has decidedly blown its credibility in my book. They deliberately drove us into war with Iraq and they participate in the continueing coverup of 9-11. But it is true I have not poured over these accounts nor do I intend to. The evidence for CD is massive and irrefutable. There is the seismic record and the photos showing intensely hot pockets of melted metal for weeks after the attacks. Burning fuel could not account for these. There are also numerous witnesses for the sound of demolition charages and explosions happening all over the buildings. These buildings were created to take many such hits as would have happened with a jet crash. As for the 10,000 gals of jet fuel? No way could that account for the damage we see happening to these buildings. There are exactly 28 different videos recording the south tower hit, not hundreds. Most of these show signs of having been tampered with in some way. Contrary to popular belief, planes do not just slide seamlessly into buildings built with enormous steel girders and then explode INSIDE the buildings. I don't understand how someone who has read Jeff's blogs on 9-11 could support the msm medias account, which has been thoroughly debunked, the way you some to...

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:08 am

I haven't posted much here in a while as I haven't had anything sigfnificant to contribute to discussions, but I'd like to say a few things about 9/11. Probably in the same way as everyone else, I can remember exactly what I was doing when it happened; in my own case, I had just woken up, and an old friend that was visiting told me that a plane had hit the WTC. I was pretty sick at the time, but was shocked into awareness as I raced to the television(CNN was the station we were watching, I'm pretty sure). I sat there with my eyes fixed on the screen watching the smoke from the first impact. It didn't seem like more than a few seconds later when I saw the second one hit in what I still understand was a live broadcast. There's so much footage of these impacts from multiple angles.. The main reason, in addition to my own eyes, that I truly believe these were real aircraft(or even augmented ones) is this: I can't determine if the technology is present to articulate the kind of operation holograph theories require. I can't because I simply don't know, like most of us. But what I DO know is that IF you assign credit for the attack to any element of High Power in the US(which I have no problem doing, btw), you have a long history to illustrate how such groups go about achieving their goals, and one thing conspicously absent is implementations of gross and overt technology. It's way more conveniant to set up a terrorist cell through plausible deniability and have a few people stand down at the right time who aren't guilty of anything more heinous than simply following the chain of command. THIS is how I see Absolute Power exert it's will; through subtle manipulations of relatively decent people that always believe they're doing the Right Thing. Even those on the other side. I mean come on, these assholes are(ultimately) out to make money/elevate themselves even further above the useless eaters, not spend a gazzillion dollars on a holographic proof of concept PsyOp. Why spend billions when you can do it for a few hundred thousand? If you turn away from that, alternatively, you have this inexhaustable onion layer that is impossible to penetrate, and you start thinking that everyone was potentially involved with conscious intent. Conspiracies as I have come to understand them, don't involve thousands of witting participants, they involve a very small number of individuals coordinating extended groups acting in relative ignorance to the actual objective. 'Loose lips sink ships', and all that. I doesn't suit anyone's agenda to have every MSM station involved in playing a hoax/holographic film. Think about just how many people would have to be cut into the loop to succeed in something like that.. That said, I have absolutely NO idea what happened at the Pentagon, but the Pentalawn 2000 spoof holds more water than the official story.. And for what's it's worth, I can still remember the first words that came out of my mouth when I saw the second plane hit: "We're attacking ourselves..". I wasn't very much into Deep Politics, High Weirdness, or the NWO at the time, actually not at all, tbh. I was completely ignorant regarding GW and Cheney. My friend looked at me like I was insane. So why did I say that?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:09 am

I didn't have much problem with his writing style myself. As to "feel good"? Nothing about this makes me feel good. It is sad and terrifying beyond belief. I think he makes succinct points, focusing on common sense and using his background in forensics and looking at evidence. He does not claim to be physicist or engineer. I personally don't believe flight 77 hit the pentagon. And I think he probably has made life very hard for himself by taking this couragous stand on his beliefs about 9-11. I know I have...To illustrate his style I include this excerpt from his article: We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories* By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. March 2006 .............................................. . The question is, did AA Flight 77 crash into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:37:46 on September 11, 2001 (aka Boeing 757 tail #N644AA, FAA-listed as destroyed and deregistered on January 14, 2002, four months late)? The answer is no beyond a reasonable doubt. We know for sure that something else blew holes in the Pentagon that morning, not a Boeing 757. Compelling evidence includes the following: • After two terrorist attacks on the WTC, a hijacked, unscheduled FL 77 supposedly wandered about the countryside for some 40 minutes undisturbed as FAA bureaucrats and NORAD warriors went “hmmmm.” • The government released flight control transcripts on October 16, 2001, but terminated Flight 77’s path 20 minutes before allegedly crashing into the Pentagon and excluded Flight 93 entirely (Thompson, The Terror Timeline, p. 505), so official lies were still being worked out. • The Pentagon aircraft supposedly put on a stunt show, suggesting supreme skill in the cockpit, yet the terrorist-pilot decided to fly into the low-occupancy west side, bypassing the high-occupancy east where people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz might have been killed. Supposedly passing over a supine White House which failed to launch its SAMs, the Pentagon too remained passive as the aircraft performed an acrobatic 270 degree (or 330 degree according to The 9/11 Commission Report) dive from 7,000 feet (an altitude known to the FAA despite the transponder off), and smashed into outer ring E of the Pentagon dead center at the first and second floors traveling at an alleged 530 mph without an engine scraping the front lawn or disturbing construction material, after downing a few lamp posts on the highway with their associated debris pointed the wrong way and felling no lamp posts on the service road nearer the Pentagon. Very neat (physically impossible too). Curiously, no uniformed Air Force member was killed but the toll on Naval Intelligence and Army was high. • Confusion has even reigned over the exact time of the Pentagon event. There was no seismic signal from the alleged Pentagon crash to corroborate the time. • Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, “may not have had a ticket” (Thompson, The Terror Timeline, p. 493), was not listed on the passenger manifest and “couldn’t fly” (pp. 193-4). Professional pilots observe that it must have been “a crack pilot in the left seat” or remote control doing the flying (p. 493). Crack pilot John Lear doubts that he could have done such flying. • A gaping hole in the government theory is that the Pentagon gash is too small both vertically and horizontally. A Boeing 757’s tail is 40 feet tall with landing gear up while the maximum height of the hole in the Pentagon could not have been 30 feet tall (two stories). The width of the hole was less than 20 feet before the façade collapsed, and windows above the impact hole were intact. The largest width claimed for the hole is 65 feet—more like 52 feet according to photographic expert Jack White—and that was after the façade collapsed, not upon impact. The 757wingspan is 125 feet, about twice the width of the post-façade-collapse hole. The Puny Pentagon Hole (PPH) falsifies the government’s “a-Boeing-757-hit-the-Pentagon” story. It is not a close call. • A 757 flying a nearly flat flight profile (no dive) at 500+ mph as alleged could not hit the Pentagon’s ground floor because of an extremely powerful ground effect cushion beneath it. At high speeds, the highly energized wing-tip vortices and huge downwash sheet of a 200,000-lb. airliner make it physically impossible to get closer to the ground than one-half wingspan or about 60’ in this case. The physical forces of the compressible gas called air, in other words, stirred by a high-speed 757 traveling flat near the ground make it impossible to land it at high speed. An aeronautical engineer proves this proposition in an article at www.physics911.net, and he invites other engineers and pilots to prove him wrong. Very few pilots have experienced the aerodynamic effects in this rare flight domain because they normally only get this close to the ground during landing at low speeds. Highly wing-loaded aircraft like the Global Hawk or B1-B can land at high speed but not lightly wing-loaded aircraft like the 757. In addition, a ground-hugging 757 spewing a 100,000-lb. thrust jetblast behind it would have blown trailer trucks and people away, phenomena absent in the flight path (see the DVD "Loose Change" for an example). Irrefutable physics falsifies the Pentagon’s lies. • The linear path through rings E, D and C implies vehicle impact at an approximate 45-degree angle. Geometry dictates that the hole would have to be 1.5 times a 757’s wingspan, or 187 feet. Therefore, the hole necessary to accommodate a 757 on a “non-magical” basis is three times the width of the post-façade-collapse hole. • While Jim Hoffman maintains that 767s “shredded” in the WTC crashes, he contends that a smaller 757 penetrated a three-foot thick concrete exterior wall at the Pentagon and continued on through two more Pentagon rings, a distance of at least 185 feet, poking a 9-foot diameter hole into C’s inside ring and apparently blowing two additional holes inside ring C. That means little or no shredding and an amazingly strong fuselage with a 15-foot diameter. The theories of aircraft crash behavior at the WTC and Pentagon appear contradictory. According to photographic expert Jack White, photos do not seem to show penetration into the second ring. • Some apologists claim that the 757 vaporized on impact and left virtually no wreckage while penetrating three rings, an amazing proposition and unprecedented in crash history. Vaporization would require heat intense enough to melt all the metal, including aluminum, tempered steel, carbon and titanium, and heat the resulting liquids into gases. That is impossible with jet fuel. Losing over 60 tons of material? Ridiculous. • Such “vaporizing” heat was selective enough to preserve sufficient fingerprints and DNA to identify victims. These miraculous results were courtesy the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the government’s “trustworthy” producers of autopsies from Waco, TWA flight 800, etc. The chain of custody for these human remains is unspecified. • The government possesses many tapes of the Pentagon attack but only offers a belated five frames from a parking lot video of the crash, dated September 12. The pictures were photoshopped, so sleuthing about what is pictured is probably worthless. One interpretation is that the engine exhaust looks like a tomahawk cruise missile with an engine not yet at full operating temperature. Another is that the "puffy plume" is a white Global Hawk photoshopped to obscure it. The explosion looks like it was caused by a warhead but is the fireball real? • We don’t know exactly what hit the Pentagon (F-16, Global Hawk, A-3, cruise missile, etc., if anything), but “certain missiles are specially conceived to have a piercing effect... An airplane crashes and smashes. A missile of this type pierces” (Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 31). The tomahawk cruise missile is “the weapon of choice to strike reinforced, hardened targets.” • In a “sheer coincidence,” emergency vehicles were pre-positioned at the Pentagon (Thompson, The Terror Timeline, p. 421) and the FBI quickly confiscated tapes of the crash from the Pentagon service station and Sheraton hotel after the crash (probably Virginia DOT too). • The hapless fire chief Ed Plaugher of Arlington, VA, said there were no recognizable airplane parts at a press conference the next day. • Many eyewitnesses at the Pentagon incident favor the military plane, missile or drone theory (Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 26, Holmgren). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld endorsed the missile theory in a famous slip of the tongue, referring to “…the missile [used] to damage this building.” Others believe that there was no flying object at all, just interior explosions. • Eyewitnesses saw a C-130 later confirmed to be piloted by Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien flying low over the aircraft or missile that hit the Pentagon. Contrary to eyewitness accounts, O’Brien claimed that he was not close to the crash and explosion: “With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.” I was in Washington, DC, that morning and there was never a clearer morning in the history of East Coast aviation. The man is a liar. O’Brien’s C-130 showed up minutes later at the Pennsylvania crash, raising the suspicion that O’Brien was at both events for black ops purposes. Some 19 C-130s reportedly are equipped for electronic warfare/jamming/remote control capabilities (The Terror Timeline, pp. 513-4). • CNN’s Jamie MacIntyre and others reported that close inspection showed “no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Conclusion? Irrefutable and abundant FACTS rule out AA Flight 77 as the object that flew into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:14 am

so now it's back to cut-and-pastes...

by **StarmanSkye** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:47 am

Dark: Re: Spooks comments: --quote-- This means, the 767 wings had to slice at least ten times per wing through 14 inches of 13/16 inch thick high-strength steel column plates as the plane slid smoothly, without slowing, into the tower. This apparently happened, because the videos of the second hit show this-- and we know the videos don't lie do they? And surely the wings didn't shred as they went in, because then fuel in the wings should have spilled out and immediately ignited. But that didn't happen because the fuel only exploded on the far side of the building. So somehow, the magical 9/11 aluminum plane wings passed through large strong steel columns. --unquote-- Many of the perimeter columns broke at their welds and bolt connections, as did the aluminum fascia. I think I remember reading a video analysis (for which high-quality broadcast-quality video at 29 frames per second or whatever were available) that there was a recorded deceleration -- but it would NOT have been perceptable to the eye, since we're talking about a very small rate-difference of perhaps a few ft. per second when the south-tower-impacting plane was moving about 2 city blocks per second -- this argument of 'no noticeable deceleration' is a strawman. "Videos don't lie" is a dishonest, insultingly-manipulative value-added statement that in this form is not appropriate. There were literally many dozens of videos shot that day, only a few of which were rebroadcast by the MSM 'news' services that day and following. Have you even bothered to check online archives of the south tower plane-impacts? This is an aerial-shot news-chopper video-still at the moment of impact and fireball viewed from due-north: <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/helicopter_news_4_s.jpg">911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...ws_4_s.jpg</a> <img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/helicopter_news_4_s.jpg" style="border:0;"/> This is the second image of an 8-frame sequence of the impact and fireball viewed from NNE: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/sth/st_hit2_s.jpg<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/sth/st_hit2_s.jpg" style="border:0;"/> This is another image of the south-tower impact as seen from ENE: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/crash_nyr115_s.jpg<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/crash_nyr115_s.jpg" style="border:0;"/> This is an image of the Boeing approaching the south tower as viewed from the NNW maybe 2 seconds before impact: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/attacks_ny186_s.jpg<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/attacks_ny186_s.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Video still-frame of plane approaching South Tower viewed from NW: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/approach_300.jpg<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/approach_300.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Above images and many more from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/impacts.html Image of impact and beginning of explosive fireball emerging from north face of south tower, viewed from NNW: Note burning debris being ejected, what might be the left engine that landed about two-blocks away across Vesey street by the Woolworth Building, leading one police officer to report the firing of missiles from the Woolworth Building roof: Following photo in series shows the ejected-debris (engine?) more clearly: http://911review.org/_webimages/swallowplane/towercrash.JPG<img src="http://911review.org/_webimages/swallowplane/towercrash.JPG" style="border:0;"/> Image above and collection of mostly poor-quality video-stills from: http://911review.org/brad.com/swallowplane.html Dark said: Do we have ONE incident of planewings surviving and penetrating a structure or wall or object and not breaking off from the body of the plane on impact? Hey -- The plane's wings DIDN'T survive -- But sure, remember the Lockerbie bombing, didn't the airliner crash into an apartment building, causing a lot of damage to the reinforced concrete structure? But of course -- this event, wings ripping into buildings, is specifically almost always avoided. But the point here isn't that there's evidence that fueled-wings CAN'T pierce 1/4 inch box-columns, but that the evidence ONLY exists in the well-documented, independantly and substantially-verified fact that 2 Boeing 767s DID crash into the WTC tower's perimeter columns and aluminum facing at over 500 mph. Reynolds claims: --quote-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning. • When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse. • The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled. --unquote-- Another instance where Reynolds wants it both ways -- he says the fires were small and quickly died-down, but expresses surprise that victims would walk around the impact hole -- MUCH of the fuel exploded outside or in the elevator shafts as well as burning explosively in the South Tower skylobby where almost a dozen survivors described the fires and damage -- but the majority of burnable debris would have been shoved by the plane's airframe and wing components and engines etc. to the opposite side of the buildings, where the pile of shattered workstations and office furnishings would have burned intensely; Survivors in the south tower reported seeing victims in the north tower trying to escape the fires as they moved into higher floors -- victims in both towers reported intense fires moving higher as relayed by family and friends. This whole conjecture about flames dying-down is refuted by hundreds of eyewitnesses and archive reports, and the evidence of trapped survivors breaking upper-story windows where they were trapped to get what little cool-air relief they could -- and more than 80 victims falling as they succumbed from heat and smoke or choosing to jump in order to escape the flames. This insistance by Reynolds and others trying to push the CD theory that the flames were dying-down is simply wrong and a tremendous disrespect to the office workers and building employees/security workers who were trapped in the upper floors, as well as the police and firemen who died while trying to rescue them. Indeed, two firemen who reached the 78th floor reported two small fires -- but they were NOT observing or reporting the fires that had spread and were burning above. The 7 miles of elevator-shafts plus utility spaces in the core of each tower provided a very adequate supply of air to feed combustion. As far as the initial-survivors who were seen 'walking' along the broken section of perimeter -- are you suggesting they couldn't have survived an airplane-impact but WOULD have survived a CD rigged to make it LOOK like an airplane impact? Or are you suggesting the victims are holograms? I really don't get your point? Obviously, these office-workers were to the edges of the plane's impact and shielded from the initial fireball explosions -- they wandered to the building's edge (as witnessed, and as I posted) being dazed and blinded by smoke, apparently to try to find some air -- they likely followed the breeze blowing into the building but were so dazed many simply walked right off the broken edge ... It's absurd that Reynolds would claim that the fires quickly ran out of fuel when he used as his example of how unusual fire-caused building collapse was, the example of the hotel-fire that burned for 19 hours, burning so intense that its framing members glowed cherry red and were greatly deformed. Another instance where Reynolds wants it both ways. That's what I mean about Reynolds arguing dishonestly. Without doing sufficient research to understand HOW those towers might have failed without being brought down by CD, you can't POSSIBLY prove your point -- all you're doing is parodying what Reynolds or another pro-CD advocate is claiming 'must' be true. Well, I'm soirry to break it to you, but it's just not compelling. For instance -- HOW do you propose sufficient CD was pre-installed in the towers to bring them down? Would it take 10,000 pounds? 10,000 pounds per FLOOR, maybe. Have you seen ANY projections on what it would take, how long it would take a team of three or four men to do? Working under what cover? (To suggest the two-day power-down event for upgrading South Tower's computer cabling would be enough to rig the whole building for CD, as Reynolds does, is to show how little someone knows what it would take.) How would you access the massive central cores since they were thoroughly shielded in concrete and fire-proofing and clad in up to 5 inches of gypsum board? HOW would you pre-place thermite to destroy the perimeter box-columns? There was simply no PLACE to hide them -- there was no dead-air space in the walls, except at the very root of the floor-joists -- but there, a spandrel-plate 52 inches high and 5/8 inches thick (or so) ran horizontally at each floor, that connected the box-columns and that the aluminum facing was bolted to, and that the floor-joists were hung on hangers and bolted-to. If those spandrel plates were cut with thermite charges, the after-the-fact evidence would be VERY obvious. So, I'm interested -- since you think CD is so absolutely proven as the ONLY way to bring these towers down, what IS the manner that these charges were placed? And tell me, HOW were the 911 fireballs with exploding aircraft-debris and burning ejecta and building-components engineered to precisely inflict grevious aircraft-impact injuries to those who were along the impact-zone areas in the buildings -- and especially the 200 people in the South Tower skylobby who were burned and shredded and had their heads and arms and legs amputated -- how was THAT done so carefully to fool everyone when it would have been MUCH simpler to just pilot a plane into the buildings via remote? **** Newkid -- Yes, thanks for the 911 research.wtc link -- that's one of the best research sites on the net. You may note that's where I found many of the photo-images I linked above -- not immediately connecting them to the Pentagon-strike analysis. One thing in particular that RobertReed quite-rightly pointed out (on another thread) is that as internet investigators, we're at a big disadvantage, basically 'stuck' with what's available on the net (or at bookstores) for our evidence -- copies of photographs and videos and various 'versions' of written argument. Perhaps no-where else but in the differing descriptions/analysis of the initial size and shape of the Pentagon-facade 'hole' is this limitation/dependency on others more noteable. And too, I agree with Robert that there wasn't any major red-flags or evident falsehoods or unsubstantiated proof that I disagreed with. Overall, a very well-organized, rigorous-thinking site. But I STILL have big doubts the Pentagon or WTC planes were piloted by persons -- especially NOT so-called Al-Qaeda-backed terrorists. That's a mighty big leap. At this point, I'm stumped -- was the entry hole large enough or not? It seems the site's investigators have faithfully reported the original extent of the damage to the limestone blocks and underlying bricks and the available hole seems to be adequate for the entry of a Boeing's fuselage, wings, engines and passengers and everything else under the unique conditions of tremendous momentum of the crash -- that is, any parts that wouldn't have managed to get beyond the reinforced concrete-pillars would have been shredded into mostly tiny pieces to litter the lawn -- As I get it, the airplane basically fragmented through impact. But then, Reynolds seems to 'prove' the ground-effect cushion of a Boeing 757 at 500 mph would have made it impossible to fly the plane right above the deck at less than half-a-wing-length, or 60 feet. The 911research.wtc site seems to suggest that it IS possible to fly about 6 feet above ground. I don't know WHO'S right. It never really made sense that the plotters would have used a substitute airplane or missile instead (I sorta leaned towards a smaller plane mocked-up as a Boeing) instead of an actual plane -- too much unnecessary complexity and added risk of discovery otherwise. That same Occam's Razor argument holds for the WTC towers also. So, I guess I just dunno -- tho I kinda lean toward accepting that a Boeing hit the Pentagon, I also lean towards a natural, purely mechanical cause for the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. I'm kinda agnostic about WTC 7, and lean towards a missile shootdown of the Pa flight. But the really BIG central issue here is that it was a MIHOP. Not much to show for the over 100 hours I've spent reading up on all this stuff, is it? But that's probably the point for so many extreme and even wacky odd-ball ideas -- the real perps and gatekeepers and disinfo-clerks have got us so confused and arguing with each other we can't get it together enuff to call them on their crimes. BTW -- I found some EXPLOSIVE info that makes a strong case for WTC CD -- but I'll add it to another comment or thread so as not to make this comment overly long and where it would get lost. Basically, 3 folks who report from memory that they recall early construction information that modern skyscrapers like the WTC project were being built with demolition charges pre-placed to make their end-of-life tear-down more efficient. I would think if this was well-known and true that much more would have been made of it before now, by numerous sources. Starman Latest post response: DBD said: --quote-- I don't understand how someone who has read Jeff's blogs on 9-11 could support the msm medias account, which has been thoroughly debunked, the way you some (sic) to... --unquote-- Oh for FUCKS' Sake, man. That is just SO bloody cheap-shot lame. See what happens with these passionate, heart-before-head arguments? Look, I made a dedicated, determined, time-and-effort intensive search for the Truth as I honestly understand it -- I've carefully considered different arguments and opinions and out of respect examined them with the keenest objectivity and balance I could manage -- even catching myself at copping a bias that was causing me to throw-out info that contradicted what I began to WANT to find. Whether planes actually crashed, the buildings were brought down by explosives or not, were piloted by Arabs or ex-airforce pilots, etc. -- I made an effort to have a rogorously-informed opinion that I could back-up with good, solid information. And for that you judge ME as a MSM dupe? Cripes .... So am I guilty TOO for accepting the MSM-take on the Moon-landings and the Yellowstone supervolcano and global warming too? Don't you see that some things are what they are regardless of who else believes something about them too? The eyewitness accounts have been reposted and collected by MANY more sources than just USA Today or NY Times -- it don't make any diff. WHERE they're published, or by who! Cripes, talk about letting source-bias pollute and change the facts. There's SO many points of correspondence between the witnesses who were actually THERE -- dozens of people referring to certain key events and individuals who stood-out -- if you haven't read their statements then you don't have a clue what I'm talking about -- and IMHO, you won't know what happened. Yet you're perfectly willing to accept what Reynolds states the eyewitnesses said. If you can't see how two-faced and bogus that is ... Well, your credibility just took a dive -- copy-and-paste is not a substitute for KNOWING. Anyway, you're now claiming the MSM is pushing that 911 was an inside job? They support MIHOP? Isn't that what you meant when you said I now 'support' the MSM account? And so, if the MSM says one thing, now you automatically believe the exact opposite? Oh yeah, THAT'S rigorous ... Your comment is simply manipulative, the same thing Reynolds does if you carefully look at his language -- he implies 'if you don't agree with me then you're a weak-headed dupe.' Well, I reject that. Besides, if you carefully examine what I said, I showed the reason I think actual planes hit the towers and that I'm not persuaded that CD were used OR that they were necessary. 'melted columns'? Most of the column failures occurred at weld-joints. The 'crosses' Reynolds claims are evidence for thermite charges are better-explained by recognizing that the core's box-columns transitioned to site-built 'I' beams around the 90th floor -- a prominant example of this butt-weld failure on the cap of a heavy core box-column is apparently what Reynolds is referring to -- since I think I've been at least as diligent as him in reading the structural analysis reports and viewed the available evidence-photos of steel damage. But in addition, the very hotel-fire Reynolds talks about as the example of an intense fire that burned for 19 hours without collpasing to 'prove' the WTC towers couldn't have failed without CD, featured major heat-caused column bending and distortion. But the comparison is flawed simply because the unique feature of the WTC towers' tube-within-tube structure had very novel and untested features that directly contributed to the tower's failure. THAT was the real cover-up of the FEMA and NIST reports which they soft-pedaled -- plus the many failures of fire evacuation, radio-communication, building-code compliance, safety equipment, lack of redunandancy in fire-suppression systems, etc. etc. etc. The design of super-long unsupported truss-joint spans and their perimeter-and-core attachments were NOT tested for fire-conditions -- and these were crucial to keep the buildings from having catastrophic failures, which is exactly what I think happened (but which the NIST and FEMA reports attempt to sidestep). In any regards-- your reliance on a theory of pre-faked videos while dismissing the first-person eyewitness testimony to 'prove' your no-plane thesis is nothing more than an obsession -- like fixing facts around the policy. The 28 videos you refer to are only the number publicly known and accepted -- but there are literally many hundreds of still-images that are in total agreement with what everyone saw. It's impossible for me to understand how such a massive plot could be pulled-off. But again, the big one is -- WHY? How could ANYBODY fake the huge fireballs convincingly, without being found out? It seems to me, you're so fixated on this HAD to be CD so that the more you can 'prove' no-planes the more the PTB guilt is self-evident and obvious. But they're all separate issues. But that you think because I don't absolutely, unquestionably accept CD or no-planes that I support the MSM version -- jeez, if you don't see how absolutely flawed that is then there's just no use, man. fuggit. Starman

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:40 am

I have a friend who was in the immediate area of the WTC complex on 9/11. She works for Citigroup. She normally worked in the Saloman Smith Barney Building. Building number 7. They moved her 3 days before 9/11 to another building 3 blocks from the complex to work. I don't know why they did that. There was so much confusion going on that day and I was watching tv all day long like most everyone else I guess. When I saw that building fall I didn't know whether she was dead or alive, I didn't know if they had evacuated or what. I guess I didn't put it together for awhile that she was worked in a building inside the trade center complex, I've never been to New York and didn't know the layout at that time. But I sure sat up and took notice when they said the Soloman Smith Barney building. Because I knew that was her building from the caller ID when she'd call me from work on the phone. And I will never, ever forget how shocked I was when I saw that building fall down that evening after watching the other towers fall down in the morning. I foolishly tried to call there. What an idiot, but I guess I thought maybe somehow I could get connected to someone who could tell me something. All I got was the fast busy signal of a phone out of order, of course. Her home phone rang and rang. No answer for weeks. She was out of touch for about 3 weeks and I feared she was dead. She finally called me, told me her power had been out in her apartment because she lived nearby and had to go stay with her mother. She told me that she saw the first plane hit as she was sitting at her desk. They evacuated from the building she was in and was on the street when the second one hit. She said the instant the first plane hit, she got a migraine headache that lasted 3 weeks. Psychological reaction, and was put on pain meds and anti-depressants. Said her headache wouldn't stop no matter how many painkillers she took. Oh, as I was typing that I have to wonder why they were evacating people out of a building 3 blocks away from the complex after the 1st plane hit but were still undecided about evacuating the towers?????? Is that the way that went? She believes she saw planes that day. She lost many friends that day. I lost touch with her before I became suspicious about the events of 9/11. But I am going to try and contact her and see what she has to say about it now. Besides, at that time and the first few months after, I didn't even want to ask her to talk about it, it was too traumatic. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 4/12/06 2:44 am

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:03 am

Thanks Starman. The Pentagon attack looks more and more like it may have been designed not to add up. No matter how you piece the evidence together, it just won't add up to the official story, but it also won't add up to a missile or something else. We just can't be certain about any of the so-called "givens" of our evidence, whether it's the witnesses, the photographs, or whatever. Add to that the concealment of the cameras and the clear cut lying associated with it. Remember that the govt has taken the position that the non-pentagon cameras (e.g., Citgo camera) and all but one of the dozens of Pentagon cameras don't show the object crashing into the Pentagon. This is impossible if the official story is to be believed. (It also ignores satellite footage.) We know just from the non-pentagon cameras that they should have captured the object on film. So there's something terribly wrong with their on the record responses. Also we have to consider the one video that has been 'leaked.' Yet, the govt mysteriously denies its authenticity and everyone who's looked at it says it's a crude fake. This is a presentation on the 9-11 research site done to show "no-plane" hit, but with updated commentary suggesting something like a 757 may have been the object. (Note too that Hoffman's latest paper doesn't take the position that it was flight 77 or even that it for sure was a 757.) Also note the conclusion in the intro of the slideshow: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The conclusion of this talk, Whatever Struck the Pentagon Was Not a Boeing 757, implies that no 757 was involved in the attack. 9-11Research does not endorse this implication, but only that no intact 757 impacted the Pentagon's facade. 9-11Research finds the most likely hypothesis one that involves a 757-like plane exploding immediately before impact, which we credit to French researcher Eric Bart. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html" target="top">911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html</a>

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:24 pm

talk about a climb-down...

Of planewings steel and stone.

Re: Oh please

Pentagon crash & WTC

Re: Pentagon crash & WTC

Re: Pentagon crash & WTC

Re: Reynolds writing style

darkbefore...

Re: Oh please

For what it's worth

Re: Oh please

Re: Oh please

Who is online