FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

likow? Will this be the final entry in the Devil's Dictionary?

I guess another "MSM" has gone over to the extremists! I guess you will just have to label him an 'ANTI-SEMITE' now Len, as per orders from the

Bush-friendly right wing Jewish Organizations!

More and more we see mainstream journalists beginning to risk the namecalling. They are not PROJECTING A particular "conspiracy theory".

Rather they are becoming all too aware of the vacuous nature of the

Government's own Conspiracy Theory:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/EDR7TS7DI.DTL

_________________

Edited December 14, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Len Colby]

likow? Will this be the final entry in the Devil's Dictionary?

?????? likow? Likow is Zimbabwean mountain, port city and surname

I guess another "MSM" has gone over to the extremists!

[…]

More and more we see mainstream journalists beginning to risk the namecalling. They are not PROJECTING A particular "conspiracy theory".

Rather they are becoming all too aware of the vacuous nature of the

Government's own Conspiracy Theory:

You are reading way too much into what he said. Does he believe or suspect: the planes were remotely controlled, the WTC towers collapsed due to CD, a missile or drone hit the Pentagon, it was an “inside job” etc etc? He gives absolutely no indication that is the case. He does seem to suspect that maybe the CIA didn’t tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about what the Al-Qaeda suspects said under interrogation.

He makes many valid points but over plays his hand a bit. He wrote “according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day … comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.”* He backed that contention with this quote from the report (ellipses his) "Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members ... Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses ... is challenging.” So two of the thirteen chapters of the report relied “heavily” but not ‘mostly’ or ‘entirely’ on the torture induced statements of the Al-Qaeda members. Truth be told the bulk of “the basic narrative of what happened on that day” comes from sources that have nothing to do with CIA interrogations much of it has little if anything to do with information developed by the 9/11 C.

That said I do think that the destruction of the tapes and the concealment of their existence should be thoroughly investigated, was probably criminal obstruction of justice and the responsible parties should be punished but doubt that will happen no matter what the results are election day 2008.

I guess you will just have to label him an 'ANTI-SEMITE' now Len, as per orders from the Bush-friendly right wing Jewish Organizations!

Would you appreciate it if I suggested that you were acting “as per orders from Bin-Laden-friendly Muslim organizations”? If you could point out where I ever labeled someone who didn’t deserve it an “anti-Semite” I would appreciate it, make a correction and apologize to the innocent party. The last time I used it was against Bollyn whose only ever employer during his ‘journalistic career’ was neo-Nazi/Holocaust denier Willis Carto and who agreed with David Duke during a radio interview that inter-racial relationships were bad things foisted on the world by the Jews who “want mongrelize as much the populations they’re in contact with and one way to do that is to mix the races and the nations to such an extent that no one knows who they are anymore”**. If you still have any doubts take a look at his websites iamthewitnesss.com and bollyn.com.

* The complete quote was: “After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.”

** http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradiobollyn30april05.mp3 -about a third of the way through. A transcript can be found here: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...ge=4#1181249864

[Len Colby]

our old CIA buddies hiding in caves in Pakistan - funded by Bush buddies in Saudi Arabia, via Pakistan ISI.

[....]

the President (your choice if it is W or Chaney) can with the stroke of a pen or mumbling of the right code word declare a state of emergency and suspend en toto the Constitution...I'm not making this up. Fact. They do not have to ever relinquish that emergency. No one can temper it.

Then I’m sure you can provide evidence to support your claims. (Saying it appears somewhere in a lengthy book does quite cut it)

EDIT - typo fixed

Edited December 14, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

If you could point out where I ever labeled someone who didn’t deserve it an “anti-Semite” I would appreciate it, make a correction and apologize to the innocent party.

You once tried to imply that I was, Len. In an earlier thread.

Perhaps you will do as you reccomend others do and apologise to the innocent party?

But no. That won't happen. Not in a million years.

[Len Colby]

If you could point out where I ever labeled someone who didn’t deserve it an “anti-Semite” I would appreciate it, make a correction and apologize to the innocent party.

You once tried to imply that I was, Len. In an earlier thread.

Perhaps you will do as you reccomend others do and apologise to the innocent party?

But no. That won't happen. Not in a million years.

Nonsense David I merely asked you to why it seemed so important to you that London terrorism drill had been sponsored by a “Jewish” or “Jewish-American” bank. You brought this up all three times you mentioned the case but of course it turns out that was a misconception on your part brought on by yet another case of you misunderstanding what you’d read.

PS When and where did I "recommend others" to "apologise to the innocent party?" Or was that comment based on yet another reading comprehension error?

Edited December 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Len are your forgetting this recent gem:

"

If you have any evidence that the Chertoff who helped edit the Popular Mechanics story is related to the former head of DHS other that the claims of an openly anti-Semitic, intellectually dishonest, fugitive from justice who was fired by his neo-Nazi bosses for “filing (a) false story(ies)” let’s see it. Even if true it’s an ad hom, can you show anything in it was false"

Yes I do have some "evidence" that is, like all evidence subject to debate and interpretation. It is in a book ive loanded and will post in a couple of days.

Why do you not give the name of the person who is"openly anti-semetic, intellectually dishonest, fugitive, from justice who was fired by his neo-Nazi

bosses.."? Why the WAY YOU PUT IT IT MAKES IT WOUND LIKE IT COULD BE ANY OF "THOSE WACKY TRUTHERS" roundly defeated by Chertoff the Younger.

Or is this vagueness the point?

[Len Colby]

Len are your forgetting this recent gem:

No, I even cited it in post # 3 above

"If you have any evidence that the Chertoff who helped edit the Popular Mechanics story is related to the former head of DHS other that the claims of an openly anti-Semitic, intellectually dishonest, fugitive from justice who was fired by his neo-Nazi bosses for “filing (a) false story(ies)” let’s see it. Even if true it’s an ad hom, can you show anything in it was false"

I asked for cases of people who didn’t deserve it, see post # 3 above

Yes I do have some "evidence" that is, like all evidence subject to debate and interpretation. It is in a book ive loanded and will post in a couple of days.

I asked for “evidence…other than [bollyn’s] claims” I presume your book either cites him or states this as a fact with no references given. Please let us know either way.

Why do you not give the name of the person who is"openly anti-semetic, intellectually dishonest, fugitive from justice who was fired by his neo-Nazi bosses.."?

Because I presumed that most people who’ve looked into 9/11 (or at least you) would have known the source of this claim.

Why the WAY YOU PUT IT IT MAKES IT WOUND LIKE IT COULD BE ANY OF "THOSE WACKY TRUTHERS" roundly defeated by Chertoff the Younger.

Or is this vagueness the point?

"Openly anti-semetic” could apply to several “truthers”, “intellectually dishonest” to many more but how many worked for (let were fired by their) “neo-Nazi bosses”? How many are “fugitive(s) from justice”? AFAIK all the above apples to only one person but if you have evidence that all (“could be any of”) “truthers” are dishonest neo-Nazi fugitives let us know!

[Len Colby]

On another thread in response to a video which claimed an engine part was found seven miles from the crash site I wrote “all reliable reports I’ve seen said a turbofan (i.e. an engine part) was found about 1000 feet from the rest of the plane” It’s been a while (over a year) since I looked into this, I should have said “all reliable reports I’ve seen said an engine part was found about 900 - 1800 feet from the rest of the plane.”. I correctly cited the distance in post on another forum which appears below in adapted form.

Very few accounts actually stated how far away the part was found, most use ambiguous terms like “a considerable distance away”. I only found 6 sources (other than the video) that indicate an actual distance only 3 of them clearly identified a source for that information.

According to Popular Mechanics (PM):

Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=7

On the next page they had map made from a satellite image showing where the part was found. Note that it is in the direction of the creek and lake thus probably downhill.

The other two cited people involved in the recovery of the part and gave very similar estimates. According to Christopher Bollyn:

“Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.” http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_mysteries.html

The state trooper who found the part was interviewed by a hometown newspaper:

For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts. "I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered.

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

Marshall, who served four years in the Air Force, said he found many parts that he couldn't specifically identify.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020607193748/.../ln100801c.html

That Marshall and Svonavec gave nearly identical estimates of the distance (600 yards = 1800 feet) is a strong indicator IMO that is the correct distance. I have questioned Bollyn’s credibility and objectivity in the past but he did directly quote a named source and since he was promoting the theory something was fishy I would expect him if anything to fudge the evidence towards a longer distance.

The distance most cited by “truthers” comes from an article in the Independent (London, UK):

“A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...-93-639770.html

John Carlin the author of the article didn’t clearly cite a source for the claim which was made with several others, “All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.” The other points he made, including that an approximately 1 ton engine part was found far from the plane were indeed “widely disseminated” but no reports then published I’ve seen indicated the distance (his article was published before the three cited above). Did Miller actually confirm the distance? Did Miller or Carlin conflate 2000 feet (close to the Marshall / Svonavec estimate) with 2000 yards? If it were the latter was it ‘accidentally on purpose’?

Wallace “Wally” Miller, Carlin’s sorta source spoke to the Pittsburgh Pulp (a weekly paper) didn’t seem to think very highly of him and indicated he wrote the article with an agenda:

As for the features that appeared overseas, it seems that they had manufactured some of their own mysteries. When told of his ambivalence in London's Independent, Wallace was surprised. He said that he'd repeatedly told the Independent's reporter that he didn't think there was a conspiracy.

"It was clear what [the reporter] was after from the beginning. All his questions were about a conspiracy," Wallace recalls. "And when I wouldn't say that, he got pretty angry, reminding me how far he'd come to interview me. I told him he should have just asked me over the phone then."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/...ver_story.shtml

Even IF Miller told Carlin the part was found “2000 yards away” he would be a less authoritative source than either Marshall OR Svonavec who were involved in the recovery of the part. Especially since at the time he was in charge of the effort to recover body parts which he told PM were “confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site.” (see page 8 of the article linked above). Thus though he might have been working 1800 feet from the point of impact he was unlikely to have been 2000 yards from it.

The fifth report of the distance the part was found came from 911 Research, probably the best researched “truth” site. On a couple of pages it indicates the part was found “2000 FEET” away. The 1st page cited the 2nd page which only cited two sources

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysi...ht93/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

1) A Pittsburgh newspaper article:

State police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said…searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka was apparently in error since almost every other source even “truther” ones indicates it was an engine part.

2) The 2nd was the Carlin article. Thus 911 Research contradicted its only source as to the distance. Perhaps Jim Hoffman (the site owner) remembered the 1800 feet estimates but couldn’t find them or perhaps he was averse to citing Bollyn who he obviously doesn’t like because he is associated with neo-Nazi’ and whose errors he has punted out on several occasions. Interestingly the page includes a bit of a topographic map which seems to back Popular Mechanic’s contention that the engine part was found downhill from the main crash site

[ http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/...o_crash_f93.png

Another map on the page indicates the part was found to the SSW i.e. down the hill, this is close to the spot identified by PM which indicated it was SSE.

The sixth source to cite the distance the part found was a page on Rense which no longer seems to be online but was quoted by PM which claimed "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site” but offered no evidence or citations.

In all likelihood the part was found “over 300 yards” (i.e. 900 feet or 274 meters) to “at least 1800 feet” (i.e. 549 meters) downhill in the direction of travel from the crash site. Nothing very surprising about that according to several experts. Even if one wants to give credence to Carlin’s report it came nowhere close to the “seven miles away” figure cited in the video.

.

[Josiah Thompson]

Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:

"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."

It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.

The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.

Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.

Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.

I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.

What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?

quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']

Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because

many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable

evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless

indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an

undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

[William Plumlee]

Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:

"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."

It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.

The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.

Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.

Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.

I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.

What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?

quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']

Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because

many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable

evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless

indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an

undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

Jack I have to disagree. My wife works at the Pentagon for the Joint Chif of Staff J-2. I was there shortly after the crash and I saw the tail and the numbers in all the smoke and confussion AND DEATH. I watched as parts of the airliner was removed and firefighters fought the blaze while many were removing bodies. To tell me I did not see an airliner is a disservice to those who were killed. They were NOT killed my our goverment. I think some want to believe we would do something like that are real sick people. I think their motive is to sell stories and write books and add height to their lack of stature. At a time when we should rally together and stand firm as a solid nation, we have some who like to walk with lies and untruths to perhaps drawn attention to themselves and stroke their own egos.

I had respect for you as a researcher and as an American... that is now gone. I'm sure you do not give a crap what I think... But I am an American and I am damn proud of it. And in my own way I have fought hard for her and her flag. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer and you Sir are a real POS in my opinion.

Edited February 24, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Jack White]

Okay Jack. Let's take just one of the things that you claim to "know" and that I too know a bit about. You write:

"I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this. I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided."

It is true that modern Class A steel frame buildings do not usually collapse. But WTC7 was not your usual Class A steel frame building and 9/11 was not a normal day.

The envisaged footprint of WTC7 was expanded by a third when it was built in the mid-eighties to squeeze out the last square inch of floor space. Since original pilings were already drilled to bedrock though the then existing ConEd substation, the expanded floor size could only be accomplished through the construction of three huge cantilever trusses which carried the expanded load back into the central structure. There was no redundancy in this design. If a major structural member failed, the building would come down. Secondly, there were 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel either in or under the building. Thirdly, "modern" construction techniques meant that wider spans of floors were supported by fewer columns. All this came together in a building that was much more delicate and subject to collapse than your ordinary steel building.

Secondly, you say WTC7 was "undamaged". You're wrong. Photos make clear that WTC7 was damaged by debris (flaming I-beams, facade members, aviation fuel) that hit it after the collapse of the South Tower and a second blow one-half hour later after the collapse of the North Tower. This building was hit substantially and fires started on numerous floors.

Finally, the severing of a twenty-inch water main on Vesey Street by the collapse of the North Tower meant there was no water to fight a high-rise fire in the building. After sending a reconnaissance team into the building to determine whether to try to fight fires in it, Chief Daniel Nigro made the command decision to let fires burn in the building unabated. Fires started in the building at around 10:30 AM and continued unabated until the building collapsed at 5:21 PM. These fires were fed by the 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building. Video of the collapse shows that it started on a lower floor at the approximate location of Column 79. This is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have studied the collapse. Column 79 lies in a direct line over the most northeast of the three trusses mentioned above.

I'll bet when you decided that you "knew" the building was brought down by "controlled demolitions" you knew nothing of the above. If you choose to know nothing, you can hold any belief you want to hold and call it "knowledge." Then (as with the Fetzer-White-Costella claim concerning Officer Chaney) you can continue to believe it forever, never admitting you made a mistake.

What we are talking about here are the costs of never admitting you're wrong. I'll bet you'll continue never admitting you were wrong about Chaney and never admitting you are wrong about WTC7. Am i right?

quote name='Jack White' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:07 AM' post='138519']

Some people "do not admit their mistakes" BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN.

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that no cellphone calls were made from "hijacked" airliners on 911, because

many experts have said that was impossible. It is possible to provide indisputable

evidence of any calls made. That has never been done. I will not admit I am wrong unless

indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because an

undamaged steel building does not just collapse by itself. Many experts agree with this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There are multitudinous proofs of this.

I will not admit I am wrong unless indisputable proof is provided.

I could go on and on. Nobody should be bullied into accepting lies.

Jack

Jack I have to disagree. My wife works at the Pentagon for the Joint Chif of Staff J-2. I was there shortly after the crash and I saw the tail and the numbers in all the smoke and confussion AND DEATH. I watched as parts of the airliner was removed and firefighters fought the blaze while many were removing bodies. To tell me I did not see an airliner is a disservice to those who were killed. They were NOT killed my our goverment. I think some want to believe we would do something like that are real sick people. I think their motive is to sell stories and write books and add height to their lack of stature. At a time when we should rally together and stand firm as a solid nation, we have some who like to walk with lies and untruths to perhaps drawn attention to themselves and stroke their own egos.

I had respect for you as a researcher and as an American... that is now gone. I'm sure you do not give a crap what I think... But I am an American and I am damn proud of it. And in my own way I have fought hard for her and her flag. We are not perfect, but we are getting closer and you Sir are a real POS in my opinion.

Tosh...the very first people on the scene were firemen from National Airport.

They saw no wreckage and no sign of a crash, only a very small fire. NO AIRPLANE

WRECKAGE. Here is the photo they took as their two trucks started spraying water

on the SMALL FIRE. Please point out to me the aircraft tail section you saw. I can find

NO WRECKAGE OF ANY SORT, just a nice green lawn.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Jack, in this thread you said:

Tosh...the very first people on the scene were firemen from National Airport.

They saw no wreckage and no sign of a crash, only a very small fire. NO AIRPLANE

WRECKAGE. Here is the photo they took as their two trucks started spraying water

on the SMALL FIRE. Please point out to me the aircraft tail section you saw. I can find

NO WRECKAGE OF ANY SORT, just a nice green lawn.

Perhaps you should consider this:

Killtown,

I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.

I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one.

LT Col Hal Bidlack

USAF Retired

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=184...amp;postcount=1

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

http://www.moaa.org/Magazine/January2002/feature3.asp

I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/sold.../responding.pdf

About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

"Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around.

A few seconds later he was sliding back out to check on his friend and then race back to the firetruck. He jumped in, threw it into gear, but the accelerator was dead. The entire back of the truck was destroyed, the cab on fire. He grabbed the radio headset and called the main station at Fort Myer to report the unimaginable.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/042.html

You should also consider the following images:

Edited February 24, 2008 by Evan Burton
Added URL

[Evan Burton]

Oh, and you should also consider the following:

136 people saw the aircraft approach the Pentagon

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris.

4 mentioned seeing airline seats.

3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

[Evan Burton]

Now, based on the above reports and witness statements, how can you say:

For instance, I KNOW that a Boeing jetliner did not hit the Pentagon, because there

is no genuine evidence of aircraft wreckage on the outside of the building, and

the small hole in the wall is too small for the entire plane to go inside the building.

How can you discount such evidence in order to be so certain?

I do notice you used the word GENUINE. Is it your contention that the 104 people who say the aircraft hit the Pentagon are either mistaken or lying?

[Len Colby]

Jack wrote: “the very first people on the scene were firemen from National Airport. They saw no wreckage and no sign of a crash, only a very small fire.” I don’t suppose he has a citation for this claim?

Also they weren’t “the very first people on the scene” because as Evan pointed out people were already there.

Evan

Trying to have rational discussion with “no planers” is rather pointless, it’s like trying to convince a fanatic his religious beliefs might be wrong.

As for how little wreckage there was perhaps one should consider photos of the recent crash in Venezuela which left very little as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_...5239/html/1.stm

It should be noted that in this case the plane was a lot smaller (1/3 the mass of a 757), crashed at a shallow angle, hit a softer target (dirt as opposed limestone fronted bomb proof reinforced concrete.) at lower speed (the planes top cruising speed is about half the velocity AA77 was believed to be at). All of which spell out a much weaker impact. Kinetic energy = mas x velocity squared so even when we don't account for the angle and softer terrain the impact had abouth 1/12 the energy of AA77 (3 x 2 x2)

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=41

Yet "The aircraft is practically pulverised", in the words of one of the first people to see the wreckage and a rescue official said it was “too destroyed” to be reached But hey maybe it was really a Global Hawk too!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261106.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...d=moreheadlines

Edited February 24, 2008 by Len Colby