FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Brian Smith]

This is what happens when a commercial aircraft strikes a bird -

[Len Colby]

My point wasn't really a correlation between the picture or aircraft and a 757, but more the fragility of aircraft skins. The damage in the picture(s) was caused by bird strikes.

Since we have no way of knowing what the differences between the wings and "skins" of the small planes which show extensive damage seen in those photos and jetliners they prove little. The same site has photos of jetliners that struck birds none of them look seriously damaged at all let alone like the wings came anywhere close to being sheared off.

"It would appear they can have a similar effect on 757s.

In February 1999, a Boeing-757-200 suffered extensive damage to the right wing and destruction of an engine when a flock of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) was encountered on takeoff (Cleary and Dolbeer 1999).[birdstrikecanada.com]

"

"Extensive damage" is a bit vague did the wing come anywhere close to being sheared off? I doubt it if jetliner wings were that fragile they would unsafe to fly considering that impacts are not uncommon. The photos from the site of jetliners who's wings look to be very firmly in place contradicts the notion that such impacts could cause them to detach.

"It's quite impressive damage for birds which would offer considerably less resistence than a metal pole, break-away design or not. Takeoff is also slower than the predicted speed of flight 77."

No it's not because we don't because we don't know what they meant by "extensive damage". Since we don't have any evidence that birds can come anywhere close to shearing wings off planes that isn't informative. The 767 that crashed into the WTC towers left plane shaped holes, presumably the approximately 1 inch (2.5 cm) wall thickness extra high strength steel perimeter columns not designed to "break away" would offer more resistance that light poles. Speed is not really relevant since the poles would be designed to break after certain amount of force had been exerted against it and force is a function of speed and mass. The greater the speed the less mass is needed.

"birds…would offer considerably less resistence than a metal pole, break-away design or not"

Not necessarily so. According to a site which I would describe as pro CT but skeptical of the "no plane" theory:

5 aluminum lamp poles were knocked down preceding the Pentagon wall. Through contact with the VDOT, the distributors and manufacturers of the poles used in the area I have been able to determine the following basic information.*

1) The poles were breakaway style on a 18 inch transformer style base. This means that at 23 inches off the ground the pole would be broken by a Volkswagen Rabbit traveling 20 mph.

2) The poles themselves were 27.66 feet high with a weight of approximately 175 pounds.

3) The truss style mast arms were 8 foot long with a rise that brought the pole height up to 30 feet.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

A 4 door automatic Rabbit (the heaviest Rabbit on the site) weighs 3137 lbs.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/volkswagen_...4xBSZzNAF?p=ext

If we remember back to high (secondary) school and recall the principle behind leverage, the longer the lever exponentially less force is need to do a certain amount of work. Let assume the planes struck the tops of the actual poles (27.66 feet) not the tops of the masts (30 feet). 27.66 feet equals 332 inches 332 squared equals 110,224, 23 (the height calculated for the Rabbit) squared is 529, 110,224 divided by 529 is 208.4. So it would take about 208 X less force to break the base of one of the light poles at the top than at the height calculated for the VW. 3137 (the weight of the 4 door Rabbit) divided by 208 is 15.1. So a 15.1 lb objecting hitting the top of one those poles should be able to knock it down. Force of an impact is half of mass times velocity squared. The take off speed for a 757 is about 200 mph (I saw 185 – 250 mph cited on the Net) 10 x the speed calculated for Rabbit, 10 squared is 100. 15 divided by 100 is 0.15 or 2.4 oz or 68 grams about the weight of a small bird, the is about the force the poles would have exerted against the wings. If a 757 couldn't handle hitting 5 small birds it would be unsafe to fly.

"

I have a question for you, if the Pentagon was struck by a missile or drone what knocked down the light poles?

I don't remember saying it was a missile..."

What do you think it was then?

"

"When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings."

Initial photos clearly show no 75ft hole. They show a 16/20ft hole, presumeably created by the landing gear. The 75ft hole appeared following the collapse due to fire."

Please show me a photo of the 16 – 20 ft (4.8 x 6 meter) hole and a reliable souce saying that's how small it was. Any hole in the exterior wall would have been caused by the entire 100+ ton mass of the plane not just the landing gear. To be honest I haven't looked that closely at the damage to the Pentagon and have seen the 16 – 20 foot hole size quoted too (but only on CT sites IIRC). This is more than large enough to accommodate the 12' 4" x 13' 6" (3.7 x 4.1 meter) fuselage of a 757 if you accept the explanation that the wings folded back.

This page from a leading "inside job" site argues pretty persuasively that the hole was much larger than 20 http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html even Gerald Holmgren a leading "no planer" argues that the pre-collapse hole was "about 65 ft wide" http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/02.htm which is more than wide enough to accommodate an entire 757 up to the engine mounts.

This is what happens when a commercial aircraft strikes a bird -

Brian please cite the source of those photos. The wing doesn't look anywhere close to being sheared off in any of them. As per my calculation the force needed to knock the light poles over is equvilent to hitting small birds those look rather large.

[Brian Smith]

Those images are from the "killtown" site in the 911 videos section. I agree with you that the light poles would not have sheared off the wings, though. On the other hand, how could the planes have cut through the steel exterior walls of the world trade center like a knife through butter? And how did the wings of the WTC planes manage to cause enough damage to the central core columns to make the floors above the impact zones fall? In a recent interview with one of the Popular Mechanics "debunkers" it was stated that photos from the pentagon showed aluminum from the plane wrapped around the steel support beams. I can only imagine the amount of damage that a 767 would do to forty seven, 4" thick steel load bearing beams that held up the weight of over 30 floors (south tower) and over twenty floors (north tower). We all know that the impact of the planes did not cause sufficient damage to the forty seven central steel columns to cause the upper floors to give way. It is hard for me to believe that the fires were the determining factor in initiating the collapses. But I digress.

Edited September 16, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Len Colby]

Those images are from the "killtown" site in the 911 videos section. I agree with you that the light poles would not have sheared off the wings, though.

I’m glad that you agree about that. All we need now if for Steve (Rymer) to “come on board” for that matter not to be disputed here.

I replied to the rest here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75102

[Jack White]

...report on what really happened at The World Trade Center in 2001.

It involves steel and concrete being turned to dust and paper being unscathed.

It involves (you never heard this reported!) 1400 automobiles being melted

without the presence of fire (LOOK AT THE PHOTOS AND BE AMAZED). Many of

these cars were blocks away, and undamaged by falling debris or fire.

It involves weapon systems not available to arabs in caves.

It shows a movie of a STEEL BEAM TURNING TO DUST as you watch.

See giant holes blasted through multi-story buildings.

THIS IS ALL NEW INFORMATION WHICH HAS JUST BEEN MADE AVAILABLE IN THE PAST

FEW MONTHS! It is about a Star Wars weapon. Was it a test of a weapons system?

The six articles are written by college professors with PhDs at major

universities.

Click on the website pages and be amazed. If interested, pass this on to

friends. If you do not want to know what really happened, trash this without

reading.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html

Look at them in order...or go directly to number 5 to see the TOASTED CARS OF 911.

Jack

*Dr. Judy Wood is a professor in the engineering department at Clemson University.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Jack White

[Brian Smith]

The general consensus on the 911 internet scene, as far as I can see, is that Wood and Reynolds are government disinfo agents, who are putting forth this theory for the express purpose of making all 911 sceptics look like goofballs in the eyes of the great, uninitiated mass who still believe the official story. But when I look at the pictures of all those burned, and (in some cases) melted vehicles, and the videos of that huge vertical steel "spire" disappearing into dust, I am not so sure this is the case. As bizarre as their theory sounds, I cannot shake the feeling that they may be unto something. Maybe I am an idiot or a wacko, but god help me, I think there is a good possibility that they are correct, and that some type of top secret directed energy weapon was used that day. What else could have caused that kind of damage to all those vehicles, some as far as a half mile away, according to Wood? It's a bizarre theory, but so much about the whole event was bizarre.

[Jack White]

The general consensus on the 911 internet scene, as far as I can see, is that Wood and Reynolds are government disinfo agents, who are putting forth this theory for the express purpose of making all 911 sceptics look like goofballs in the eyes of the great, uninitiated mass who still believe the official story. But when I look at the pictures of all those burned, and (in some cases) melted vehicles, and the videos of that huge vertical steel "spire" disappearing into dust, I am not so sure this is the case. As bizarre as their theory sounds, I cannot shake the feeling that they may be unto something. Maybe I am an idiot or a wacko, but god help me, I think there is a good possibility that they are correct, and that some type of top secret directed energy weapon was used that day. What else could have caused that kind of damage to all those vehicles, some as far as a half mile away, according to Wood? It's a bizarre theory, but so much about the whole event was bizarre.

I am glad you find the web pages persuasive. The toasted cars

are really bizarre! There is still much work being done on this

by Scholars for 911 Truth.

Thanks for taking a look.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

What's bizzare about the cars? Lots of flaming debris fell from the impact site, only takes one piece landing on a car to start the whole lot on fire.

[Jack White]

What's bizzare about the cars? Lots of flaming debris fell from the impact site, only takes one piece landing on a car to start the whole lot on fire.

You obviously have not looked at the site. Many of the toasted cars were up to

a half mile away, on the East River side of the island instead of the Hudson River

side. Over 1400 cars were involved, and they were not hit by falling debris.

Some of the cars were melted. Some had the tires burned off. Some had

the engine blocks melted. Some had the exterior burned but not the interior.

Some had the interior burned but not the exterior. Look at the photos and you

can see for yourself what is bizarre.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Just looked at the pictures of the cars... some first impressions...

Some of the cars they list as burnt are clearly not, they are just covered in dust, for example figure 67 and the car in the foreground in 70.

Figure 71, large piece of debris landed on it, it burned from the top down and stopped before it was completely burnt, and then it was moved in the cleanup.

Figure 72, the 'wilted' van looks like something fell on it, and all of them were clearly moved after they burnt, hense the missing parts.

Figure 73, the paint burnt off from the top down.

Figure 74, looks like something fell through the roof and started the fire on the inside.

Figure 75, duh, they were parked right next to the impact point and set on fire by the fireball.

Figure 76, why is the passenger door burned? Because fire spreads, what kind of question is that. What's odd about the hood curling? Do they even know what the hood is made of?

The 'randomly toasted' cars on the FDR is a funny one. You can clearly tell that the cars did not burn there, but were moved there afterwards during the cleanup.

It just goes on and on with grossly misinterpreted images and false conclusions.

[Kevin M. West]

What's bizzare about the cars? Lots of flaming debris fell from the impact site, only takes one piece landing on a car to start the whole lot on fire.

You obviously have not looked at the site. Many of the toasted cars were up to

a half mile away, on the East River side of the island instead of the Hudson River

side.

I was referring to the one large parking lot where all the cars burned, that was on the hudson. The cars near the east river were all moved there to get them out of the way during the cleanup.

[Brian Smith]

What's bizzare about the cars? Lots of flaming debris fell from the impact site, only takes one piece landing on a car to start the whole lot on fire.

You obviously have not looked at the site. Many of the toasted cars were up to

a half mile away, on the East River side of the island instead of the Hudson River

side.

I was referring to the one large parking lot where all the cars burned, that was on the hudson. The cars near the east river were all moved there to get them out of the way during the cleanup.

You are probably right about some of the vehicles being photographed at a further location from ground zero after they had been moved out of the way. But even if this is the case, why were so many scorched in such a manner. Some even look as if portions of them had melted. Why were so many of the tires burned completely away? I can understand that a lot of vehicles were damaged from falling debris from the collapsing towers, and later moved further away from the site, but the manner in which so many were burned is strange.

After the north tower collapse, a long segment of the inner steel core, standing at almost half the length of the towers former height, buckles for several seconds, and then appears to vanish into dust -

As it begins to descend vertically, the surviving segment of the core appears to lose all solidity, and just turn into dust. The most rational explanation is that dust or asbestos, clinging to the steel that comprised the segment, was shaken loose as the "spire" fell rapidly to the ground. But why did it fall straight down so fast like that? It looks as if it was undermined at it's very base before it starts to fall downward vertically. And how could so much dust have accrued to it's entire length like that? When it falls, the entire thing is obscured by a thick blanket of dust. Or....it was indeed somehow turned into dust by some top secret, black budget directed energy weapon. I don't think it is as strange as it sounds. How could two 500, 000 ton buildings collapse in such a way as to leave not a single solid piece of concrete on the ground? Aerial photos of the wreckage show it looking like a pile of pieces from a child's erector set. I wonder if the steel was weighed before it was carted away, and if this weight matches the weight of the steel used in the buildings construction. This was the scene of the most horrific terror attack in history after all. You would think that it would have been treated that way. Edited December 14, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Kevin M. West]

Of course some look melted, car bodies are made of plastics and thin sheets of metal. Why would tires burn completely away? Because firefighters had better things to do than put them out. Unless you're referring to the ones where there are no remains at all on the wheel or on the ground around them, in which case the car was clearly moved afterwards and the tire remains fell away.

I don't see anything strange about any of the burned vehicles. I've seen a few car fires, they don't always spread to the entire car. Sometimes the front burns up, sometimes the back burns up, sometimes the top. Sometimes the metal itself burns (they use aluminum sometimes).

As for the 'spire' turning to dust, that is so laughable I feel like I'm wasting time addressing it for the 10th time. The column had the support knocked out from under it by debris piling up at the base, and it fell straight down. It's that simple. It was covered in crushed drywall and concrete like everything else there, and some of it came loose as it fell, leaving a trail of dust. The combination of the dust obscuring it, and the motion blur as it fell, and the crappy low resolution of the videos you find on the web, make it hard to see, but even with all that you can still see it fall away, and not vaporize.

[Michael G. Smith]

Of course some look melted, car bodies are made of plastics and thin sheets of metal. Why would tires burn completely away? Because firefighters had better things to do than put them out. Unless you're referring to the ones where there are no remains at all on the wheel or on the ground around them, in which case the car was clearly moved afterwards and the tire remains fell away.

I don't see anything strange about any of the burned vehicles. I've seen a few car fires, they don't always spread to the entire car. Sometimes the front burns up, sometimes the back burns up, sometimes the top. Sometimes the metal itself burns (they use aluminum sometimes).

As for the 'spire' turning to dust, that is so laughable I feel like I'm wasting time addressing it for the 10th time. The column had the support knocked out from under it by debris piling up at the base, and it fell straight down. It's that simple. It was covered in crushed drywall and concrete like everything else there, and some of it came loose as it fell, leaving a trail of dust. The combination of the dust obscuring it, and the motion blur as it fell, and the crappy low resolution of the videos you find on the web, make it hard to see, but even with all that you can still see it fall away, and not vaporize.

Not looking at the pictures/videos Jack posted yet, which i will as soon as i can, im sure there are questionable things that need answering. Saying that, i have always believed that these buildings were "helped". As far as "burned vehicles", they didnt just get some debris dropped on them. I have looked into this for some time, and my opinion [FWIW], has been that, unfortunately, our Government had their hands in this terrible event. Without going into any detail at this point, ask yourself one thing..........how do two, almost identical buildings, hit at different levels, at different angles, "fall" almost perfectly straight down?? Two almost identical {they didnt call them the "Twin Towers" for nothing} drop in such a manner that they did not topple, lean, partially fall, fall into one another, and drop within such a small area [considering their height, weight and size] without causing any other major damage and deaths?? You can throw all of the physics you want at it, it doesnt happen. Believe me, im not a physicist, but common sense takes over at some point. These buildings were brought down with "help" from the "powers that be" to fall in a very small area, [straight down] and to cause the least amount of damage to the area, with no, or very few if any additional deaths. This was all done so this Government could finally move on to their long awaited "Next Step". They could then have every reason to "in the name of National Security" invade everyones personal privacy, get every one ID'd at some point, in some way, for "your personal safety", and any other so called security measure they wanted to put in place. Im not even going to touch on the "Anthrax" threat.[!!??] Isnt it amazing....they never found out who was involved in that??? Just look at everything that has changed since 9/11. Are your rights the same as they were? Does the Government "know" anything more about you, your family, where you work, what you do? Are they looking into your personal information legally, without your knowledge? Do you feel safer?? I surely dont. I feel like I have been raped. Its only going to get worse. They have the wheels in motion now. It gave the Government the reason to go into a phonied up war, to make the Military Ind. Complex their billions of dollars, and to use us, and our children to do their dirty work in a country we have no business even being in. Thanks for starting this tread Jack. You are right. Just my opinion, FWIW.

thanks-smitty

[Kevin M. West]

How did 2 identical buildings fall in the same manner? Think about that for a sec.

How did they fall straight down? Gravity. The buildings weren't strong enough to stay together while they toppled over, as soon as one side failed and they started to tilt, the tilt made the other side fail, and it went straight down from there. No part of the building was strong enough to hold one side of the top part to act as a pivot. And they were not anywhere near 'in their own footprints', every building for a couple blocks in every direction was damaged, some so severly they had to be destroyed, and one so bad it fell on its own.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Kevin M. West