FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

[Jack White]

How did this steel girder get reduced to the thickness of

a piece of paper, and immediately rust. Jet fuel again?

Jack

[Jack White]

The 911 vehicle attack.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles were flipped on their side or top.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were wholly or partially melted.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were selectively set afire though nearby paper was not.

Without apparent cause, hundreds of vehicles were suddenly turned to rust.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had their engine blocks melted and ablaze.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had burned interiors without exterior fire.

Without apparent cause, dozens of vehicles had rubber and plastic melt, but not metal.

What can cause these effects?

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

[Jack White]

How did this steel girder get reduced to the thickness of

a piece of paper, and immediately rust. Jet fuel again?

Jack

Another paper-thin steel girder.

Jack

[Len Colby]

He is highly intelligent, and... ... ...

Jack

I didn't ask what makes him better qualified than you, I asked "what exactly in his CV especially qualifies him to opine on jetliners crashing into steel framed buildings should look like."

Being intelligent doesn't specially qualify people to pose as experts on matters outside their areas of expertise. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was obviously quite bright but he believed in fairies and Houdini cut off contact with him because the author insisted he had magical powers. You have to be quite intelligent to become an engineering professor at Northwestern Univerisity but Dr. Aurthur Butz believes the Holocaust was a hoax. The lisit of smart people who believe or believed stupid things isn't a short one.

I can also cite a lot of very smart people who disagree with your views of 9/11 who unlike you and Doyle and Butz and Reynolds etc etc are commenting on subjects they are eminently qualified in.

[Len Colby]

1. Does "Colby" consider President Bush especially qualified (or even just merely qualified) to speak about the events of 9/11?

Since he was POTUS at the time, despite his limited intelligence the answer would be obviously yes for issues within his scope of knowledge. Not that I would believe anything he said.

If so, then what does "Colby" have to say about the fact that

President Bush said that he saw the first plane crash into the WTC? Would "Colby" kindly explain to us how that could have been possible in light of the fact that video of the first hit had not yet been shown on TV at the time Bush said he saw it happen?

Jack we’ve been over this before, perhaps you forgot. I don’t think it’s possible I think he either was confused or lied about it with the latter being more likely

Would "Colby" kindly explain whether he agrees with those who have speculated that Bush was watching a closed circuit TV transmission in his limo? If "Colby"

disagrees with that explanation, then what other explanation is there? Does he think that Bush had been tricked in the same manner as audiences at a magic show?

See above.

2. Videos of the "crashes" show an impossibility. Does "Colby" think that the videos have been tampered with or is it his position that the "I can't believe it's not butter" explanation is the truth, despite the physical evidence to the contrary?

What supposed “impossibility” do the videos of the crashes supposedly show?

[Len Colby]

If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall

I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable

Edited August 1, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

You are wrong, sir...about your COMINCH.

Jack

EDITED TO ADD TRANSCRIPT:

At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.

STUDENT QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,612354,00.html

Edited August 1, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

If the South Tower "collapsed" it should have fallen downward by

gravity. So why is this large many-ton section of exterior in the

middle of Church Street, more than a block away? To get there

it flew HORIZONTALLY completely over WTC4.

Jack

WTC 2 was 1362 feet tall and about 400 feet from Church st. WTC 4 was only 9 stories tall

I think we've all seen the effects of rocks dropped into water. Under Jack's understanding of physics water being projected outward is inexplicable

Explain how the multi-ton intact section of wall flew horizontally more than 400 feet.

The physics of that must present an interesting equation, when the rest of the building

was falling by gravity. Just what OUTWARD force detached the wall and hurled it

horizontally? I am depending on your physics expertise here, because it is beyond

my understanding. According to Newton, there had to be a horizontal force, but I

cannot figure what it was. Tell us.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

You are wrong, sir...about your COMINCH.

Jack

EDITED TO ADD TRANSCRIPT:

At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.

STUDENT QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,612354,00.html

How am I wrong? Is he not an idiot? Did he not have multiple websites that made fun of his numerous verbal errors? Notice the bolded red. Your transcripts says the same thing I said that he said. You still don't know the tense. Add the single word "had" as in "had hit the tower" and it could easily mean he saw the news footage of the smoking building. Or add the word "that" as in "saw that an airplane hit the tower" and it will have the same effect. Can you say with 100% surety that he said exactly what he meant? He still could have seen the same news footage that was on shortly after the first plane hit before the second hit that showed the first tower burning when they still didn't know what kind of plane hit the towers. Perhaps it is silly to assume that a plane hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. But he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Plus, before the second plane hit, the various news stations didn't know what type of plane or the cause either.

And again there is this: Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability?

Do you really want to assert that he is a master orator? I still think he's an idiot with a speech impediment. Whether or not he is my commander in chief or not has nothing to do with it. As I've said multiple times before, my miltary status is unrelated to my posting.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

He (Mr Keith) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines...

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Some more interesting stuff - B767 pilots discussing various limitations:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/tech-log/9961...vmo-mmo-uk.html

Please note that it is not a 9-11 discussion, simply professional B767 pilots discussing performance with each other. Note that one talks about the Flap Limitations; he talks about a Flap 15/20 (degrees) airspeed limitation of 210 knots - which is about 240 miles per hour. Why would they have a flap limitation (which is used at low level, during takeoff and landing) 20 mph ABOVE the speed which it is claimed by this "expert" the aircraft would break apart?

How stupid does this Keith think people are, that they won't check on "facts"? IMO, more evidence that the "truth movement" is an oxymoron.

Still, this is only discussion by B767 pilots on an aviation forum from 6 months PRIOR to 9-11. Take it with a grain of salt until I produce evidence to support those figures.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Evan Burton
corrected spelling

[Evan Burton]

More interesting material: a Qantas memo from Jan 2004, listing various parameters / limitations for it's fleet.

http://www.curbe.com/QVA/qva/QFAsp.pdf

Note the speed limitation for the B767 at altitudes below 5000 feet above ground level: 250 knots, even higher than the flap limitation!

So what is happening with this Keith fella? Is he stupid, misinformed, or lying? If misinformed, will he issue a correction? In any case, his aviation credability is near zero.

[Craig Lamson]

More interesting material: a Qantas memo from Jan 2004, listing various parameters / limitations for it's fleet.

http://www.curbe.com/QVA/qva/QFAsp.pdf

Note the speed limitation for the B767 at altitudes below 5000 feet above ground level: 250 knots, even higher than the flap limitation!

So what is happening with this Keith fella? Is he stupid, misinformed, or lying? If misinformed, will he issue a correction? In any case, his aviation credability is near zero.

It should be noted that these are normal OPERATIONAL limits. They are not the actual physical limts of the aircraft.

Here is a photo of an airplane breaking the sound barrier just a few feet from the ground......

http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gal..._sound_page.jsp

Edited August 1, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

That as well as the F-4A "Sageburner", Jackie Cocquirine flew an T-38, etc - but that is NOT the B767. It is indicative that the laws of physics do not prevent an aircraft from flying that fast, though.