Matthew Lewis

The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool.

I still think building 6 may have had a large open space, multiple floors in height covered only by the roof. The hole appears too even with square sides. If true then only the roof would have been taken out by debris. Unfortunately, I am unable to find anything about the floor plans for building 6 online. I did find some good pics of damage to the outside of the building though. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 here http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

Has anybody ever done any research into building 6 to see if it indeed had floors in the center? Could it have had and open courtyard area inthe center of the building with offices on the outside like many other buildings?

Lower on the same page they show stills from the same angle/same clip without the early explosion. And of course there is the fact that no one reported any really early explosion. But what do you think Jack? Are you really trying to imply that the plane was fake? That the hundreds if not thousands of people who were there live didn't see the second plane?

Fake.

But if she was worried about being killed in a road accident, why didn't she wear her seat belt? I've seen it written that if she had been wearing it that night, she would have survived.

The put options sound odd until you find out that the numbers were not exceptional. There had been more in recent weeks. Add to that the fact that the airlines were already in a slump and there had been recent bad news from American Airlines and they are not really even noteworthy. http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html The "As of Sept. 29, 2001" sounds like it comes straight from Loose Change. The trades were investigated after that, the people were identified and they have been claimed. The Loose Change authors are just horrible at research. Here's a good site for Loose Change. http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html Of course you may have to think for yourself instead of parroting conspiracy propaganda.

I didn't mean for it to sound harsh. Your point was well made. NORAD did have many intercepts before 911 (although not nearly as many as after) but with the vast majority of them being over international waters, an intercept over US territory was unexpected and foreign to them. Before 911, NORAD's radars did not look inward. They looked solely outward for incoming threats. This meant they could not direct intercepts themselves over the US and had to rely on the FAA and ATC to direct any fighters.

Mr Hogan said The key words you edited out were "over the US" From Mr. Colby Every other intercept was over international waters.

Actually it was more than an hour and fifteen minutes before Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted. It was orginally reported incorrectly by various sources due to the time change in the NTSB report when his plane crossed from Eastern to Central time zones. You can see for yourself in the NTSB report here. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...A00MA005&akey=1 Notice the change in the middle of the intercept from EDT to CDT. That adds another hour between those two entries. Also of note is the plane that first intercepted Stewart's plane was a plane already airborne for another mission and diverted and not one dedicated to air defense. They also never shot Stewart's plane down. They followed it until it crashed on its own.

Well if Jack says the weather is identical then weather.com must be wrong! Jack could never be wrong could he!? Are you trying to imply that I might be involved in a coverup because I am in the Air Force? You're funny Jack! I happen to be an officer on the E-8C JSTARS but what I do for a living is not relevant. What is relevant is my long time love of flying, my degree in aviation and the studying of weather and contrail formation that came from that. It's really funny that you think the military is behind your fantasy when there is no proof whatsoever. There are not enough planes total, let alone tankers, in the military (all branches) to spray all the "chemtrails" people think they see. And of course that's ignoring the fact that many planes are deployed in multiple theaters outside the US right now and the ones involved in routine training sorties in the US. A large majority of your trails have to be coming from commercial airliners. They make up the vast majority of the traffic in the US. Everytime I've seen a picture of a plane leaving a "chemtrail" they can never seem to get a good enough picture to show any identifiable marking whatsoever, let alone military markings. I have seen plenty of evidence that any plane flying high enough, commercial or military, can leave a persistant contrail. Of course that goes back to that pesky established science. Good video here showing normal commercial planes (gasp!!) leaving large contrails. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6432590138024652983 My comments on the weather which are easily verifiable from a variety of sources were only to point out that the slight changes could effect contrail persistence. Slight changes that might not be readily identifiable to you working in your garden. Of course that is based on the decades old science behind contrail formation. You know, the stuff you think must be all wrong because you never are! The fact remains though that it is windier and warmer today than yesterday. I'm not sure how the long article about tankers is relevant as it can be easily shown that most planes leaving persistent contrails are not military. The flight explorer program can show you in near real time all the flights in an area following a flight plan. I urge you to check it out. Of course you might learn that there really is no sinister spraying program going on and that might be too devastating for you.

I'm not Mr. Colby or Mr. Burton (why their locations should matter I have no idea) but the first things that come to mind are different weather with a different moisture content, different traffic overhead at different altitudes, perhaps with different engines. All of those can have an effect on contrail persistence but the ones with the most effect are weather and altitude. A quick look on weather.com shows it is windier today than yesterday in Fort Worth and a search on aviationweather.gov shows the winds above 30,000 feet to be over 60 knots. That would also have an effect on the dissipation rate of a contrail. It is also warmer today than yesterday. Only by a few degrees but that would have an effect on the moisture content of the air as well.

That's assuming that government hired disinformation agents actually exist and that's a huge assumption. Got any proof to back that up Jack? It is really too hard to believe that some people might not think the same way you do Jack? Are people not supposed to have their own opinions?

You're right. Many people have been known to die from DHMO.

Or they could be normal commercial activity at high altitude. Commercial planes do fly over Austin. You can get a good idea of high altitude traffic here http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/.../navigation.cfm About 3/4 down on the left is a pic labled high altitude jetways. Good depiction of the jetways already in place for high altitude traffic. Of course these jetways are at least 10 miles wide and ATC can route a plane anywhere they want if they need to.

The only thing I found for "Operation Parasol" was about some 4000 Canadian Red Cross volunteers assisting Kosovar refugees. http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=006683&tid=009 Those insidious Canucks! Polluting our skies and disguising it as a Red Cross operation! The preceeding post was for humor value only and not meant to offend any actual Canadians. If any Canadians were actually offended, I am deeply sorry.

I never claimed you did not watch this happening. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I've actually studied the science behind contrail formation. It fully backs up my position that contrails can be persistent under the right conditions and can become cirrus clouds. This has been known about since planes could fly high enough to create contrails. Regardless of its cause of formation, that is a cirrus cloud in your picture. There are also more cirrus clouds on the horizon in your picture before you cut it. I also notice in the Fort Worth weather that it appears that a front is moving in. Contrail formation is usually more common in the days preceeding a front. Since only one plane is visible in your photo, it is impossible to tell if they were too close for FAA regs. Even if they were, how do you know they weren't military planes on a completely innocent mission leaving perfectly normal contrails? You don't. You don't know if they are at the same or different altitudes and you haven't even bothered to use an easily available tool like Flight Explorer to make sure they weren't commercial planes. Your's are the absurd claims as you are looking at trails in the sky and assuming they are something sinister when there is a perfectly rational explanation for it and you haven't even bothered to look at any alternative. You just jumped to the conclusion you wanted.

If it is anything like your formation you posted about above, then it is hardly a formation. As mentioned in my post above from Dec 2, at a cruise speed of 500mph they would only need to be 7.2 seconds apart to get the one mile separation required by the FAA and that only applies at the same altitude. Can you prove they were all at the same altitude Jack? Can you prove they weren't commercial airliners? Have you checked with a program like Flight Explorer to see if any commercial flights were in that area at that time? Why is it so hard to believe that commercial flights might pass over the city where there are known navigational beacons to follow? I'm afraid you have known and established meteorlogical science against you here Jack. From your own picture there were obviously already some cirrus clouds in the sky so conditions were right for cloud formation.

Persistent contrails have existed and been known about since aircraft could fly high enough. http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474/ The question is not what are they spraying. Persistent contrails have been known about and observed since before WWII. The real question is why they are more common now than they used to be. There are many pieces to that answer. 1. Jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70's. It is projected to double again in just 10 years. 2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust. 3. Jets travel higher now (on average) partly due to increased traffic and partly due to increased power allowing higher flight. Higher flight means more contrails. Read that study from 1942 I posted above for more explanation on this. 4. An increase in traffic increases the exhaust put into the atmosphere. This exhaust has a cumulative effect and results in conditions more conducive to contrail formation over the long run. I've read some studies about it and will try to find them, though not everything is available online. 5. Evidence that airlines have changed their engines can be found in the noise regulations that the FAA has put out. Around 2000, Stage 3 regs went into effect. This is a regulation governing the noise output of jet engines and required every airline to either replace their engines or install hush kits. These newer engines are not only quieter but are more fuel efficient meaning again, more water vapor. Incidentally, Stage 4 regs were due to take effect in January of this year requiring even more changes. I haven't heard specifically if Stage 4 engines are more fuel efficient but I wouldn't doubt it. I do know that many Stage 3 engines already met Stage 4 regs though so many airlines did not have to update. Some of those that did have applied for extensions as they can't make their planes compliant in time.

Is it logical to think he knew what would be on the rest of the program when it was taped? Is it logical to think the fire department would be involved in a demolition? He was talking to the fire department commander after all. More on this subject here http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html They raise a few good points That same site also more info on the extent of the damage to the building http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html And the fires http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html Chapter 5 of the FEMA report here http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf has some good diagrams on the unique cantilevered structure of the building as it was built over another building. Also consider that the collapse is well underway before any supposed "squibs" are seen. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html In my opinion, if anyone thinks Silverstein meant “demolish the building,” it’s because he or she wants to believe it and for no other reason that can be logically argued.

Silverstein may have said it was pulled or he may have been talking about something else entirely. It is interesting to note that when a demolitionist implodes a building it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull". Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/im...20building' "Pull" is used if they bring something down mechanically such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling". Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? What about a felling or a shoot? http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm Even this kids DVD review mentions that buildings are "shot". http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=395 "they set a new world record for most buildings "shot" (industry term for bringing down a building or structure with explosives) at one time."

When a building is on fire, can there not be materials inside that will explode? How do we know they weren't hearing something that just sounded like an explosion?

As mentioned before, planes taking off or landing rarely leave contrails as they are too low. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the planes were flying over the city above 30,000 feet on regular commercial routes. Airliners are only required to have a mile separation by the FAA. At a cruise speed of 500 mph, a single mile separation amounts to 7.2 seconds between two planes crossing the same point in the sky. That also only applies if they are at the same altitude. The FAA allows planes to cross with only 1000 feet vertical separation. It is impossible to tell how far apart the planes are from the picture as only one plane is visible. They could easily be within regs. Also Nellis AFB is near Vegas. Military planes often fly in formation for training without nefarious purposes. How do we know the picture does not show commercial flights or normal military flights? I don't know what you consider a formation, but from the picture as only one plane is visible, that looks like a rather lousy formation. My opinion is those are normal commercial flights that happen to be passing over the area, not landing or taking off from the local airport, but just passing over at high altitude. Can you prove otherwise?

Keep in mind also that he wasn't in as much danger as some would like you to believe. Whenever the President goes somewhere, he is accompanied by an AWACS and fighter escort. The airspace above him wherever he is is also temporarily restricted to all traffic. Even forgetting about all of this, the inaction of the SS does not prove that Bush knew anything. All it proves is the SS did not act like some people looking back on the event feel they should have. Maybe they had a good reason for delaying, maybe they didn't, maybe they were waiting until Air Force 1 was ready until they moved him, maybe they were under orders from a third party. The point is there is no proof one way or the other. It is circumstantial evidence at best. Sure you can look back at it and say you would have done something different but you also have the benefit of looking back at it. It is very possible that at the time, the SS had a very good reason for not immediately whisking him away and their inaction (if that is what it was, you don't know they weren't doing things behind the scene, perhaps securing a police escort to the airport?) doesn't prove a thing.

Fine, I said I wouldn't do this but you obviously can't grasp this. If I say I saw that the airplane hit the tower. I saw the airplane had hit the tower. and I saw the airplane hit the tower. What exactly am I trying to say? Two of them are easier to undertand than the third but the third is ambiguous. It can have two meanings. It is hard to understand sometime but people talk like that all the time. If you haven't noticed it then you must live in a college english department because it happens. As for point one, was he sitting in the limo? Was he outside the classroom? Technically he is correct. As he said it well afterward he may have trouble remembering exactly what or how it happened. I know I have trouble remembering exact details days later and I'm sure you do as well. Point three. He had a tv in the limo. I doubt he goes anywhere without it on a major news channel. Maybe he meant that one. Maybe he didn't. Also almost every school in the nation has tvs in every room. Can you say none of them in the building were on? The biggest thing is here you are trying to assume that he spoke perfectly when he clearly does not often if at all. Spend some time in Texas and you'll see just how some people speak. It will be very similar. Secondly, you have you made your conclusion and are trying to fit the evidence to it. That is not objective. I have not made a conclusion. I can accept that his words can go either way. Maybe he meant it one way, maybe he meant it the other. Maybe he's really some criminal mastermind and said it exactly the way he did to be ambiguous. I don't really care and I don't know and never will. If you do then you must be psychic and I'll have to ask you what my favorite number is. Tell me that and I will believe everything you're trying to say. Until then, the only thing that can be inferred from his statements is "he just don't speak good." I am done now. There is nothing more to say on this subject.