Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI, the mob, and 9/11

Recommended Posts

My first official "new" topic.

I read a few threads where references were made to either Clinton or GW creating an atmosphere of opportunity for the terroist to flourish and 9/11 to happen.

I just picked up and skimmed through 9/11 Commisison Coverup by Peter Lance and he some interesting things about the Colombo family war and the first Trade Center attacks, TWA Flight 800 and 9/11. It dovetails with some of my thoughts about the FBI and their pre-9/11 priorities.

The FBI, for most the the 1980's and 1990's was obsessed with bringing down the Mafia. By the mid 1980's they had some major successes against The Commission in NY, families in Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, New Orleans, etc (except Tampa ) . By the late 1980's'/early 1990's transnational organized crime groups were moving into the United States in a big way and the FBI was slow to respond.

Some points:

- All the way back to 1980, investigators in some field offices complained at Senate Hearings that they were not allowed to look at any non-Mafia organized crime.

- In 1988, the FBI listed their orgnaized crime priorities in various field offices- The Mafia was listed as #1 in Denver, ahead of Asians and Hispanic drug gangs, but the Smaldone crime family was withered down to 4 guys- all over 70 years old. In San Francisco there had not been an active Mafia family since the late 1980's but the mob was listed ahead of the surging Chinese triads and other transnational groups there.

- The FBI did not dedicate a squad to Russian/Eurasian criem groups until May of 1994, 4-5 years after a huge upsurge in activity in the US and a full 20 years after they started in Brighton Beach.

The list goes on. Anyway after the First World Trade Center attacks, there was still scant attention paid to terorism and transnational crime groups ( the financiers of terrorism) as opposed to the Mafia. In the mid 1990's while most Mafia families were shrinking (and a few totally gone) Janet Reno started a huge program- Operation Button Down - to go after the remnants of remaining families.

So I wonder if this Mafia-centered obsession of the Justice Department did not divert resources that would have been better served in other areas, namely transnational OC (definitely) and terrorism (maybe). Of course hindsight is 20/20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon

by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically

provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a

Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a

cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from

my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a

Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural

design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be

used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural

loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower

pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of

the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly

not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of

the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the

aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high

speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper

engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack,

crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of

the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex

structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is

known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial

impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to

penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of

concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall,

with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this

aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6

blast-resistant concrete walls a total of nine feet of reinforced concreteãbefore exiting

through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I

first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a

reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped

charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead

devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line

of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a

jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The

signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow

the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can

not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11

Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how

shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that

this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any

damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines

were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video

coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they

have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise

that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Michael Meyer

Original article is at Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's a tin-hat, crazy conspiracy theorist.

Just some things to ponder:

The witnesses who saw the aircraft - http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

DNA matching for the victims aboard the flight - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

The remains of the aircraft - http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

The finding of the Flight Data Recorder - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699

The people aboard the flight reporting it was hijacked - http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22...11/pdf/sec1.pdf

Oh - and Al Qaeda admitting they did it - http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../14-610042.html

There is also the ASCE Building Performance Report - http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

And it is worth having a look at the Popular Mechanics article that discusses the Pentagon - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=6&c=y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - and this piece specifically mentions that article on the SF911T site:


Seems that Mr Meyer hasn't quite got his facts straight:

So we have one known reinforced concrete wall, at the front of the building, and one two-layer brick wall at the rear. In between would have been internal walls which would offer further resistance, but don’t believe anyone who gives you totals like “nine feet of reinforced concrete”, or tells you that Flight 77 debris couldn’t have travelled for what the ACSE called a “short stopping distance”, unless they actually offer some supporting evidence that stands up to your investigations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of Mr Meyer, exactly what are his qualifications as a mechanical engineer? From where? Worked in aerospace? For whom?

I did a Google search and can't find anything about Michael Meyer - except the article from the website. I know I am being the doubting Thomas here, but does he actually exist? How do I know that the article was not just penned by someone within the SF911T organisation, purporting to be from " Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer"?

If someone with the appropriate qualifications & expertise has doubts about what happened at the Pentagon, and goes to the trouble of writing an open letter, then they should have no problem with fully stating their professional qualifications, should they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still no reply about our unknown "mechanical engineer"?

Perhaps he would like to revise his statement in view of the work carried out by Purdue University:


"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.



Will this model appear on the so-called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" website? I don't think so Tim.

That website hasn't been exactly know for its accuracy, has it?

Prof Jones work has been disavowed by his university and his department, to name but one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the link Adam posted, the author Will Durham stated: "The front of the hijacked Boeing 757 can be seen entering one video frame, with a massive explosion and orange fireball erupting upon impact with the Pentagon, followed by a plume of smoke."

Judicial Watch (They filed the FOIA action) president Tom Fitton was quoted elsewhere: "This ought to put to rest the conspiracy theories out there that American Airlines Flight 77 was shot down and that a missile hit the Pentagon."

Widely reported yesterday in an article by Robert Burns:

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was the pilot of the American Airlines plane, said in a telephone interview that she realized Pentagon officials were compelled to release the videos under the Freedom of Information Act.

But she said the images provide no new information about what happened that day.

Ms. Burlingame said she doubted that release of the videos would do anything to dispel the many conspiracy theories, including the claim by some that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane’s approach.

The series of still images can be viewed here: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

I offer no opinion on the above except that that I agree with Ms. Burlingame. Releasing these images five years after the event, and the fact people are still analyzing photographic evidence from Dallas and the authenticity of same 43 years later indicates that debates about what actually hit the Pentagon are likely to continue for a long time.

Adam, did you view those images before posting what you did?

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched both of the videos, one showing the nose of an approaching aircraft, and the other showing the thin blurred body. IMO they show neither the nose nor the body of a Boeing 757. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I am very interested in how you would now stand by your theories after the release of the September 11 video of the Pentagon plane crash.

Please reply in this thread.


There is nothing new. These are the same questionable images previously leaked.

I have no theories about what happened. Evidence shows the official story is untrue.

We still do not know what happened, and theorizing is foolish.


Who is Evan Burton? Does he really exist? What are

his credentials?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Evan Burton? Does he really exist? What are

his credentials?


He is the guy who has ripped you to shreads time after time. His credentials are listed in his bio. How did you miss that Jack? Oh wait, its an observational thing, and you are a failure at observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Evan Burton? Does he really exist? What are

his credentials?


Ask your friend Dr Costella to look me up on the Defence database. He has access to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing new. These are the same questionable images previously leaked.

I have no theories about what happened. Evidence shows the official story is untrue.

We still do not know what happened, and theorizing is foolish.


1. Jack does his normal "it's wrong but I can't say why it's wrong" trick.

2. There is NO evidence that shows the official story is untrue - quite the contrary. Jack cannot explain the witnesses, the video footage, the remains of the aircraft that survived the impact, the identification through DNA that identified all but one of the people on the aircraft, and the admission that an Islamic extremist group committed the act.

3. Jack maintains - as always - his stance that if you disgree with him you must be foolish, lack credibility, or you are a provocetuer. He never actually provides evidence to substantiate his claims - and he will never debate their validity.

4. As always, Jack will not take a definite position. He claims "the photos are faked" (the same claim made on all of his work) but cannot offer an alternative that can withstand scrutiny. Just like his so-called Apollo work; he claims that he has never said the landings were faked - only that the images were faked. The astronauts confirm that the images are true - therefore Jack in effect says that the astronauts are lying, because he says the images are faked. Does he take this position? No - he hypocritically gives them praise while at the same time says they are part of a hoax.

Jack is a joke - or a xxxx - or both.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don'tpeople use science to evaluate these things properly?

You have a known length of the aircraft and an approximate speed. The previously posted link shows that it cannot be an object less than 77-odd feet in length.

Do the science people - don't accept what people tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...