FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Is there any reason why this thread should not be merged with the previous thread on the same topic?

[Len Colby]

Though he might protest perhaps the fairest thing to Jack would be to erase this thread. Doing so would prevent people who haven’t looked at it yet from discovering that despite the fact it was extensively debated he forgot that he posted a study making the same claims using the same photo here a year ago. Interesting that he now claims the scaffolding was at the 1st floor level when the photo from his original study shows it to be at the 2nd.

Peter wrote:

I see no reason to merge the threads.

Obviously you didn't bother to look at the original, Jack is reapeating the exact same claim with less evidence. Give a good reason not to merge them.

[Kevin M. West]

Jack, why do you assume that the new sign is in the same location as the old one that was knocked down?

[Matthew Lewis]

How do we know that engine didn't roll after it landed or get moved?

[Dave Greer]

Here's some pretty convincing evidence that something flew through the air from the direction of the WTC toward the junction of Church and Murray.

NOTE: I wouldn't recommend anyone who suffers from epilepsy watches this clip between 8 and 20 seconds.

Right at the very start the video shows damage to the corner of a building I've identified as 108 Church Street. This is the building at the opposite corner to where the engine part is. It's directly in-between the WTC site and the location of the engine part. The building has been identified using Google Maps, and the 3D buildings function in Google Earth.

At the 5 second mark, you can see the part of Church Street next to the engine part identified in Jack's study. It shows what appears to be another, smaller piece of wreckage, and also a large crack in the tarmac just behind it.

It all points to an engine part flying from the North Tower, crashing through the corner of 108 Church Street, hitting the tarmac, and splitting into at least two parts. The split could also have happened when it hit 108 Church Street.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jack, why do you assume that the new sign is in the same location as the old one that was knocked down?

How do we know that engine didn't roll after it landed or get moved?

Page 31 0f 40:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

[PDF] FEMA403 -- Chapter 2File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church. Streets. The extent to which debris scattered ...

The label on the top photo above is "plane-enginepredust.jpg". Photos taken after the collapse of WTC #2 and #1 are

of everything in that proximity in lower Manhattan covered with dust from the often videoed dust plumes associated with the pancaking of the 100+ stories of concrete floors, at near free fall speed, as each of the two towers fell:

9/11 WTC, B-767 jet engine description: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...nited+Airlines+

Does it look like a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D model, multi-ton B-767 airliner jet engine core as shown in the photos in several posts, could have been moved (after it was "installed" or "landed" (softly???) at the location where these photographs were taken....) in the short time between the crashes into the WTC towers, and the time the first tower collapsed and blanketed the area, including the engine core, in a thick layer of dust?

Does it look like this heavy object could roll, yet land on end?

Where else would the street sign in the photo have been mounted, if not on the pole at the intersection, next to where the engine core came to rest, or was planted?

Some of the Sonnnenfeld photos bear on this and many more, no doubt in his tapes, will. http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

Edited June 26, 2009 by Peter Lemkin

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jack, why do you assume that the new sign is in the same location as the old one that was knocked down?

How do we know that engine didn't roll after it landed or get moved?

Page 31 0f 40:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

[PDF] FEMA403 -- Chapter 2File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church. Streets. The extent to which debris scattered ...

The label on the top photo above is "plane-enginepredust.jpg". Photos taken after the collapse of WTC #2 and #1 are

of everything in that proximity in lower Manhattan covered with dust from the often videoed dust plumes associated with the pancaking of the 100+ stories of concrete floors, at near free fall speed, as each of the two towers fell:

9/11 WTC, B-767 jet engine description: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...nited+Airlines+

Does it look like a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D model, multi-ton B-767 airliner jet engine core as shown in the photos in several posts, could have been moved (after it was "installed" or "landed" (softly???) at the location where these photographs were taken....) in the short time between the crashes into the WTC towers, and the time the first tower collapsed and blanketed the area, including the engine core, in a thick layer of dust?

Does it look like this heavy object could roll, yet land on end?

Where else would the street sign in the photo have been mounted, if not on the pole at the intersection, next to where the engine core came to rest, or was planted?

Some of the Sonnnenfeld photos bear on this and many more, no doubt in his tapes, will. http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

Uhhh...Peter...

How were you able to "edit" my last post?

[Evan Burton]

Topics merged. I called for a vote of moderators: of the active mods (5) there were 3 for merging, 1 against, 1 not yet heard from.

[John Dolva]

The answer likely lies in ''Why?''. ''How'' is obvious of course.

[Evan Burton]

Peter is also a moderator. If it is his belief that a post is in violation of forum rules or requires editing, he has the power to do that. Also, if he feels that editing a post might make the post more legible, etc, then he can also do that. In the later case, he might be asked to explain what changes were made if the poster felt that an explanation was needed.

A reminder to all Mods: if we take a moderation action, please try to record it in the Moderator Actions thread at the top of the page. This is not compulsory, but done as an action in accountability for all Forum users.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

Oh - please be assured that no moderator - or admin - can alter posts without it being recorded.

[Len Colby]

Briliant work David! I don't imagine Jack has any explaination for a chunk of 108 Church having been knocked away before either tower collapsed unless it was due airplane debris.

Minor correction though, since the location is to the NE of the WTC complex the part must have been from flight 175 hitting the SOUTH tower and indeed (as pointed out in an earlier post) debris can be seen 'flying' from 2 WTC immediately after the crash

Some of the Sonnnenfeld photos bear on this and many more, no doubt in his tapes, will. http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

Except he is a cynical xxxx who only started talking about 9/11 three years after the fact in a rather transparent attempt to escape justice (extradition) for murdering his wife and whose mythical videotapes have yet to be seen.

Even if his story wasn’t so obviously a fraud there is no basis for an assumption his video footage would be relevant to this question. AFAIK he didn't take any photo

[Dave Greer]

Briliant work David! I don't imagine Jack has any explaination for a chunk of 108 Church having been knocked away before either tower collapsed unless it was due airplane debris.

Minor correction though, since the location is to the NE of the WTC complex the part must have been from flight 175 hitting the SOUTH tower and indeed (as pointed out in an earlier post) debris can be seen 'flying' from 2 WTC immediately after the crash

You're quite right, it was of course Flight 175 hitting the South Tower (in my defence I was up late last night looking at this while the news of Michael Jackson filtered in on the telly. Who says men can't multi-task!). As you point out, this is further corroborated by the debris seen arcing through the air on the far side of the collision, heading towards the corner of Church and Murray.

[Evan Burton]

Peter is also a moderator. If it is his belief that a post is in violation of forum rules or requires editing, he has the power to do that. Also, if he feels that editing a post might make the post more legible, etc, then he can also do that. In the later case, he might be asked to explain what changes were made if the poster felt that an explanation was needed.

A reminder to all Mods: if we take a moderation action, please try to record it in the Moderator Actions thread at the top of the page. This is not compulsory, but done as an action in accountability for all Forum users.

While yes I can, I have edited no posts, made no other actions - other than two warnings - both of which were heeded. So, don't know what the discussion is about.

That's not correct Peter. The Forum has recorded your actions:

I don't know what you did, but you did edit a post. The post in question is:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=168887

Edited June 26, 2009 by Evan Burton

[Matthew Lewis]

Same [apparently] turbine at Fresh Kills Landfill [totally inappropriate place for it - unless to get rid of it!...it doesn't match the one on Church St. and NEITHER are large enough to be real for those planes!!!

Why do you think it isn't large enough? The center core of the turbine (what is shown there) is only 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the full engine with fan blades and housing (what one sees on the plane itself.) That certainly appears to be large enough.