FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Denis Pointing]

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.

Well said Tosh, but I suspect your wasting your breath, Jack will probably start insinuating you are a disinformation agent now. Oops, sorry, too late, I just read the post where he did. LOL. Seriously Tosh, well done sir. Denis.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tosh,

I don't get it! A fundamental principle of reasoning is that the actual must be possible (meaning that nothing that actually happens can violate the laws of logic or the laws of science, in this case, of physics, engineering, and of aerodynamics. Here are some examples of what I have in mind:

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail!

The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible, but it was not

The image just above the gate mechanism in the single frame that shows what might be a plane is not only too small to be a Boeing 757 but is trailing white smoke, which is consistent with a missile but not jet engine exhaust.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at over 500 mph jusy barely above ground level--physically impossible, since the accumulated pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage would have made it impossible to have flown closer to the ground than 60 feet.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then its engines would have plowed massive furrows in the lawn, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then wing/wind/wake turbulance would have massively disrupted the law, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had come it at an angle instead, it's right wing would have hit the building first, spinning the plane clockwise and snapping off the tail or creating a massive crater; but there is no crater and the tail is not sitting on the lawn.

A piece of wreckage that was later photographed from more than one location has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1998, and, like the other debris that subsequently appears on the lawn, appears to have been planted.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.

Jack's photo studies of the Pentagon illustrate many of the points I have made here. Indeed, the massive black smoke that intimidated the members of Congress when they looked across the Patomic is coming from a series of enormous dumpsters, not from the building itself.

You should not be faulting Jack. He has done his homework. The question is how you could be making reports about the Pentagon that cannot be true, because no Boeing 757 hit the building, although one may have passed over it. You are violating laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics.

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

WTC-7, a 47-story building that came down at 5:20 PM/ET on 9/11, may have been the most robustly constructed building in the history of structural engineering. It was constructed over massive electrical generators providing energy to lower Manhattan and had to be designed to never collapse. The steel used in the Twin Towers, for example, was about 5 inches thick but hollowed out at the center, which provides nearly as much support strength as solid steel beams. But solid steel beams were used in WTC-7. The building was hit by no aircraft and did not have any jet-fuel fires. The fires shown in the photographic record were quite modest. There were tanks of diesel fuel in the building, but diesel burns at low temperatures and is not explosive. Larry Silverstein gave an interview pointing out that he had suggested that the building be "pulled," that the "fire commander" had made the decision to pull, and that they watched the building come down. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, on the scene at the time, both observed that its fall was "just like" the destruction of resorts and casinos in Las Vegas by controlled demolition. It came down in a complete, abrupt, and symmetrical fall at the speed of free fall (about 6.5 second), indicating there was no resistance to its collapse. We have an early report from the BBC of the collapse of the "Soloman Brothers" building at 4:57 PM/ET, which was 23 minutes early! The building was so robust in its construction that when the Soloman Brothers bought 20-30 floors, they completely reconstructed a new building within the building! And we have witnesses who report that a 20-second countdown took place at the time. Another witness who was inside the building reported multiple explosions taking place. It boggles the mind that anyone would choose someone like Thompson for a serious investigation committed to truth. It follows that this investigation is not one of that kind. So Thompson is probably perfect! Unlike him, Jack has committed no mistakes.

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

Edited February 24, 2008 by James H. Fetzer

[William Plumlee]

Tosh,

I don't get it! A fundamental principle of reasoning is that the actual must be possible (meaning that nothing that actually happens can violate the laws of logic or the laws of science, in this case, of physics, engineering, and of aerodynamics. Here are some examples of what I have in mind:

The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail!

The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible, but it was not

The image just above the gate mechanism in the single frame that shows what might be a plane is not only too small to be a Boeing 757 but is trailing white smoke, which is consistent with a missile but not jet engine exhaust.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at over 500 mph jusy barely above ground level--physically impossible, since the accumulated pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage would have made it impossible to have flown closer to the ground than 60 feet.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then its engines would have plowed massive furrows in the lawn, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had flown just barely above ground to impact on the first floor, then wing/wind/wake turbulance would have massively disrupted the law, which is perfectly green, smooth, and uncluttered by any debris in photos taken shortly after impact.

If a Boeing 757 had come it at an angle instead, it's right wing would have hit the building first, spinning the plane clockwise and snapping off the tail or creating a massive crater; but there is no crater and the tail is not sitting on the lawn.

A piece of wreckage that was later photographed from more than one location has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1998, and, like the other debris that subsequently appears on the lawn, appears to have been planted.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.

Jack's photo studies of the Pentagon illustrate many of the points I have made here. Indeed, the massive black smoke that intimidated the members of Congress when they looked across the Patomic is coming from a series of enormous dumpsters, not from the building itself.

You should not be faulting Jack. He has done his homework. The question is how you could be making reports about the Pentagon that cannot be true, because no Boeing 757 hit the building, although one may have passed over it. You are violating laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics.

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.

James;

With respect. I will not be drawn into a debat on this. All I know is what I saw and too, what I saw on the "certified, time logged" radar tapes from Air Traffic Control. I talked to three people who escaped with their lives and spend days in a burn ward. I know what they told me. I talked to a Sargent who pulled people from burning Jet fuel and others who were still in shock days after.., and I know what they told me they saw and did after the impact. And I know what I saw.

Now if you want to call me a xxxx, then that is O.K. by me. I have been there before. I do not care to become involved in a "special interest conspiercy", regardless of the motives.

I do believe in little green men bouncing around in space; laughing their ARSE off at us. Its no wonder they do not want anything to do with earthlings after reading somethings we put in print.

You have a good day and leave me out of this. I did apoliges to Jack for the POS comment. Now I go in peace and I wish you the same. Just log me down as "disinformation" agent and be done with it.

Edited February 24, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Duane Daman]

If a 757 passenger jet really hit the Pentagon ( as the official version claims ) then why did the FBI immediately confiscate all of the video evidence that would have proven that claim ?... The owners of the various businesses, which were near the Penatgon, stated that their survellience cameras captured what hit the building ... Yet all of these tapes were grabbed by the FBI right after the attack, and none of them have ever been released to the public .

You would think with all the "conspiracy theories" taking over the internet, about a small cruise missle really hitting the Pentagon instead of a passenger jet, that the US government and the FBI would be anxious to prove that the official version of the 9/11 attacks are true ...But instead, they continue to hide the evidence that would prove what really hit the Pentagon.

If that's not proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up , I don't know what is.

[William Kelly]

If a 757 passenger jet really hit the Pentagon ( as the official version claims ) then why did the FBI immediately confiscate all of the video evidence that would have proven that claim ?... The owners of the various businesses, which were near the Penatgon, stated that their survellience cameras captured what hit the building ... Yet all of these tapes were grabbed by the FBI right after the attack, and none of them have ever been released to the public .

You would think with all the "conspiracy theories" taking over the internet, about a small cruise missle really hitting the Pentagon instead of a passenger jet, that the US government and the FBI would be anxious to prove that the official version of the 9/11 attacks are true ...But instead, they continue to hide the evidence that would prove what really hit the Pentagon.

If that's not proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up , I don't know what is.

Scenes from the video surveillance camera that caught the plane and impact are the first in the sequence published after page 82 of this book - Pentagon 9/11.

The conspiracy was the simultanious hijackings of planes by terrorists and crash them into buildings.

There are also other hi grade color glossy photos of debris and the oral history of hundreds of witnesses.

Why would someone speculate about a cruise missle, or deny the airplane debre even exists?

If you can't acknowledge the basic facts of the attack, you'll never understand what happened and why.

BK

[Duane Daman]

If a 757 passenger jet really hit the Pentagon ( as the official version claims ) then why did the FBI immediately confiscate all of the video evidence that would have proven that claim ?... The owners of the various businesses, which were near the Penatgon, stated that their survellience cameras captured what hit the building ... Yet all of these tapes were grabbed by the FBI right after the attack, and none of them have ever been released to the public .

You would think with all the "conspiracy theories" taking over the internet, about a small cruise missle really hitting the Pentagon instead of a passenger jet, that the US government and the FBI would be anxious to prove that the official version of the 9/11 attacks are true ...But instead, they continue to hide the evidence that would prove what really hit the Pentagon.

If that's not proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up , I don't know what is.

Scenes from the video surveillance camera that caught the plane and impact are the first in the sequence published after page 82 of this book - Pentagon 9/11.

The conspiracy was the simultanious hijackings of planes by terrorists and crash them into buildings.

There are also other hi grade color glossy photos of debris and the oral history of hundreds of witnesses.

Why would someone speculate about a cruise missle, or deny the airplane debre even exists?

If you can't acknowledge the basic facts of the attack, you'll never understand what happened and why.

BK

I don't know anything about the book you have mentioned ... So for all I know it could be more government disinformation.

I don't pretend to know all the facts about 9/11 , but I have read many times that the FBI immediately confiscated all of the video tapes from the surrounding businesses that showed what hit the Pentagon ... Does the book you mention deny thoses claims ?

I have never seen any evidence offered anywhere which shows the amount of plane wreckage that should have been at the Pentagon site.

Where were the bodies ? ... The seats ? ... The plane itself ? ..... Evan posted some photo op pictures above showing a few small pieces of wreckage ... One small piece of crumpled metal and a wheel can not possibly be all that was left of a huge 757 passenger jet .

Doesn't the official version claim that the plane and the passengers bodies were all vaporized ? .... That baloney might have worked for attacks on the twin towers, but it just doesn't cut it for the Pentagon and the Shanksville, Pa. locations, where no bodies or proper amount of wreckage were ever recovered.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Duane Daman

[William Kelly]

If a 757 passenger jet really hit the Pentagon ( as the official version claims ) then why did the FBI immediately confiscate all of the video evidence that would have proven that claim ?... The owners of the various businesses, which were near the Penatgon, stated that their survellience cameras captured what hit the building ... Yet all of these tapes were grabbed by the FBI right after the attack, and none of them have ever been released to the public .

You would think with all the "conspiracy theories" taking over the internet, about a small cruise missle really hitting the Pentagon instead of a passenger jet, that the US government and the FBI would be anxious to prove that the official version of the 9/11 attacks are true ...But instead, they continue to hide the evidence that would prove what really hit the Pentagon.

If that's not proof of a conspiracy and a cover-up , I don't know what is.

Scenes from the video surveillance camera that caught the plane and impact are the first in the sequence published after page 82 of this book - Pentagon 9/11.

The conspiracy was the simultanious hijackings of planes by terrorists and crash them into buildings.

There are also other hi grade color glossy photos of debris and the oral history of hundreds of witnesses.

Why would someone speculate about a cruise missle, or deny the airplane debre even exists?

If you can't acknowledge the basic facts of the attack, you'll never understand what happened and why.

BK

Duane,

I don't know anything about the book you have mentioned ... So for all I know it could be more government disinformation.

The thread is about this book, Pentagon 9/11 by DOD historians, and it contains photos you claim the FBI confiscated and have kept hidden. I don't doubt the FBI confiscated photos, though they didn't get them all because there are too many, and that the FBI contaminates everything they touch, but its pretty clear to me that the AA flight that was hijacked hit the building. If that truth is also the government's version then you can call it whatever you want, but its not disinformation, a very specific type of psychological warfare.

I don't pretend to know all the facts about 9/11 , but I have read many times that the FBI immediately confiscated all of the video tapes from the surrounding businesses that showed what hit the Pentagon ... Does the book you mention deny thoses claims ?

Duane, please read the book, it's pretty basic stuff, especially if you are going to be posting opinions on it.

I have never seen any evidence offered anywhere which shows the amount of plane wreckage that should have been at the Pentagon site.

Have you checked the NTSB web site or places where they study plane wreckage?

Where were the bodies ? ... The seats ? ... The plane itself ? ..... Evan posted some photo op pictures above showing a few small pieces of wreckage ... One small piece of crumpled metal and a wheel can not possibly be all that was left of a huge 757 passenger jet .

Check out the picures in the book, many are online, some posted on this forum.

Doesn't the official version claim that the plane and the passengers bodies were all vaporized ? .... That baloney might have worked for attacks on the twin towers, but it just doesn't cut it for the Pentagon and the Shanksville, Pa. locations, where no bodies or proper amount of wreckage were ever recovered.

If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, then where did the hijacked planes go?

I thought a book about 9/11 by Goldberg, one of the authors of the Warren Commission Report, is fascinating, and worth discussing, if there's anyone out there who can get past the cruise missle fantasy.

BK

[Duane Daman]

The thread is about this book, Pentagon 9/11 by DOD historians, and it contains photos you claim the FBI confiscated and have kept hidden. I don't doubt the FBI confiscated photos, though they didn't get them all because there are too many, and that the FBI contaminates everything they touch, but its pretty clear to me that the AA flight that was hijacked hit the building. If that truth is also the government's version then you can call it whatever you want, but its not disinformation, a very specific type of psychological warfare.

I haven't followed this thread from the beginning , so I never read any of the previous posts about the book.

I was not referring to photographs ... I was strictly speaking of the survelliance video tapes belonging to several businesses surrounding the Pentagon, that were apparently confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attack ... So far the only video footage that has been released to the public , and aired for one day on TV , is the edited Pentagon tape which shows a rather small silver object that either resembles a small fighter jet or a cruise missle, hitting the side of the Pentagon at only a few feet off the ground.... From what I've been told by a few professional pilots, it's very obvious that a 757 jumbo jet could have never been flown that low to the ground by any experienced pilot, much less some muslim yahoo with only a few months of flight school training.

So considering these facts, I don't believe the government's version of these attacks are the truth, as much as we might wish them to be.

Duane, please read the book, it's pretty basic stuff, especially if you are going to be posting opinions on it.

With all due respect Mr. Kelly, my opinions are not about this particular book, but more about the evidence which has been confiscated and then covered up by the FBI .

Have you checked the NTSB web site or places where they study plane wreckage?

No, I haven't read any information on that web site ... My opinion about the lack of 757 plane wreckage is more from my own observations from other plane crashes which involved jumbo jets, where huge amounts of physical evidence of the plane wreckage was left behind, including the bodies and body parts of the victims of the crashes ... Huge amounts of physical evidence that was clearly lacking at the Pentagon site after the crash.

Check out the picures in the book, many are online, some posted on this forum.

Are these the same photos that Jack has done some of his studies on ? ...If so, I have already seen them ... If not, I would be very interested in seeing them.

If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, then where did the hijacked planes go?

That's a very good question ... One which I'm sure has many different theories attached to it ... and one would have to be answered by someone who knows a lot more about this subject than I do.

I thought a book about 9/11 by Goldberg, one of the authors of the Warren Commission Report, is fascinating, and worth discussing, if there's anyone out there who can get past the cruise missle fantasy.

If this book was written by one of authors of the Warren Commission, then I would have to disagree that it's even worth reading, much less discussing, and would have to classify it as just more government deception ... Just like the Warren Commission was.

It still remains to be seen if the cruise missle theory is a fantasy or not ... Considering that the evidence which proves what really hit the Pentagon, has been confiscated by the FBI ( never to be seen again) we may never find out what is fantasy and what isn't .

Edited February 25, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Why trust a book released by the Department of Defense?

I thought we learned that lesson in the JFK case.

Jack

[William Kelly]

The thread is about this book, Pentagon 9/11 by DOD historians, and it contains photos you claim the FBI confiscated and have kept hidden. I don't doubt the FBI confiscated photos, though they didn't get them all because there are too many, and that the FBI contaminates everything they touch, but its pretty clear to me that the AA flight that was hijacked hit the building. If that truth is also the government's version then you can call it whatever you want, but its not disinformation, a very specific type of psychological warfare.

I haven't followed this thread from the beginning , so I never read any of the previous posts about the book.

I was not referring to photographs ... I was strictly speaking of the survelliance video tapes belonging to several businesses surrounding the Pentagon, that were apparently confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attack ... So far the only video footage that has been released to the public , and aired for one day on TV , is the edited Pentagon tape which shows a rather small silver object that either resembles a small fighter jet or a cruise missle, hitting the side of the Pentagon at only a few feet off the ground.... From what I've been told by a few professional pilots, it's very obvious that a 757 jumbo jet could have never been flown that low to the ground by any experienced pilot, much less some muslim yahoo with only a few months of flight school training.

So considering these facts, I don't believe the government's version of these attacks are the truth, as much as we might wish them to be.

Duane, please read the book, it's pretty basic stuff, especially if you are going to be posting opinions on it.

With all due respect Mr. Kelly, my opinions are not about this particular book, but more about the evidence which has been confiscated and then covered up by the FBI .

Have you checked the NTSB web site or places where they study plane wreckage?

No, I haven't read any information on that web site ... My opinion about the lack of 757 plane wreckage is more from my own observations from other plane crashes which involved jumbo jets, where huge amounts of physical evidence of the plane wreckage was left behind, including the bodies and body parts of the victims of the crashes ... Huge amounts of physical evidence that was clearly lacking at the Pentagon site after the crash.

Check out the picures in the book, many are online, some posted on this forum.

Are these the same photos that Jack has done some of his studies on ? ...If so, I have already seen them ... If not, I would be very interested in seeing them.

If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, then where did the hijacked planes go?

That's a very good question ... One which I'm sure has many different theories attached to it ... and one would have to be answered by someone who knows a lot more about this subject than I do.

I thought a book about 9/11 by Goldberg, one of the authors of the Warren Commission Report, is fascinating, and worth discussing, if there's anyone out there who can get past the cruise missle fantasy.

If this book was written by one of authors of the Warren Commission, then I would have to disagree that it's even worth reading, much less discussing, and would have to classify it as just more government deception ... Just like the Warren Commission was.

It still remains to be seen if the cruise missle theory is a fantasy or not ... Considering that the evidence which proves what really hit the Pentagon, has been confiscated by the FBI ( never to be seen again) we may never find out what is fantasy and what isn't .

Well Duane,

Since you haven't been reading the titles of these posts, don't read the books we are discussing and haven't seen the photos then why are we even having this discussion.

I suggest you read the book before making any more posts on this subject.

Thanks,

BK

[Michael Hogan]

Why trust a book released by the Department of Defense?

I thought we learned that lesson in the JFK case.

The lesson learned in the JFK case was to study all the evidence, particularly that presented by the government. That means at least reading what they have to say before forming an intractable opinion.

That's what Penn Jones Jr. did. That's what Mark Lane did. That's what Harold Weisberg did. That's what Sylvia Meagher did.

They used the government's own offerings to demonstrate where the official story was fraudulent.

If one chooses to stick their head in the sand and avoid each and every primary source that they can, that's their right.

They just shouldn't expect others to take their opinions very seriously.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

I find it interesting that NOBODY addressed the image I posted, but

instead retaliated by launching personal attacks. Any argument that

does not address this photo is meaningless.

Jack

[William Kelly]

I find it interesting that NOBODY addressed the image I posted, but

instead retaliated by launching personal attacks. Any argument that

does not address this photo is meaningless.

Jack

Jack,

That doesn't look like "no signs of an aircraft crash" to me. It looks like there's fire coming from the Pentagon and trucks are pouring water on it.

BK

[Michael Hogan]

I find it interesting that NOBODY addressed the image I posted, but

instead retaliated by launching personal attacks. Any argument that

does not address this photo is meaningless.

How can a fire truck take a picture of itself?