FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Jack`s strategy on this thread seems obvious, break up the discussion among so many different topics that none can be examined coherently and he can conveniently ignore any rebuttals

[Len Colby]

It did surprise me - the explanation is completely bordering on the ridiculous.

So instead of an aircraft simply hitting the building, he's saying it's a remote control aircraft with

[...]

Edited for accuracy

[Len Colby]

It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area).

Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth!

Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?

Edited July 20, 2008 by Len Colby

[Terry Mauro]

It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area).

Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth!

Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?

********************************************************************************

""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...'

Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all.

"are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"

And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW.

You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life!

Edited July 20, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Ron Ecker]

Peter,

Thanks for posting that article. There is more information, including photos of all the officers, with the original publication of the article here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ve_u_s__mil.htm

[William Kelly]

Peter,

Thanks for posting that article. There is more information, including photos of all the officers, with the original publication of the article here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ve_u_s__mil.htm

They're all military people. How can we believe them?

BK

[Jack White]

Jack`s strategy on this thread seems obvious, break up the discussion among so many different topics that none can be examined coherently and he can conveniently ignore any rebuttals

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5

[Dave Greer]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13151&hl=

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." - A. Shickelgruber

Peter

The Pentagon crash image you attached looked as if it depicted the plane crashing into the building at an angle approaching ninety degrees, but that wasn't the case.

Does this image adequately explain that particular anomaly?

EDIT TO ADD: On top of that, the light poles you mention are on Washington Boulevard, and the helicopters are on the west side of the boulevard, the side away from the Pentagon.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

It seems that Barry Jennings didn't see dead bodies, etc. Seems that the Loose (with the truth) Change crowd decided to interpret things differently that Jennings intended. He stepped over people - not dead people, just people (probably awaiting movement to another area).

Barry Jennings WITHDREW his permission for the interview to be used because they (LC) were distorting the truth!

Actually in this case I'll side with Bemas and Avery he said "I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect but now he is changing his story again. Was he intimidated as truthers claim or are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?

********************************************************************************

""I could tell I was stepping over bodies" or words to that effect...'

Get it completely right, or don't bring it up at all.

"are his recolections of events that morning simply unreliable?"

And, your speculative antics leave a lot to be desired, BTW.

You're exactly what CD pegged you as, and probably worse. But, Simkin believes in allowing all "comers and players" equal opportunity to misinform and disinform the work here, in the name of "debate." Therefore, you'll obviously continue to spout your reams of incessant drivel, designed to intimidate other forum members, here. But, you don't fool me, or any of the others with your flagrantly enormous attitude and equally high opinion of yourself. Get a life!

Bravo, Terry. Since Charles Drago's succinct description of Colby is now censored here,

I may start quoting YOUR assessment...unless it too is censored.

I have started replying to Colby using MACBETH, ACT V, SCENE V. If they censor that too,

because it might corrupt the sensitivities of the students who study here (?) then we will

know how far the intolerance to truth really goes. Yeah, that's the ticket...censor Shakespeare.

Jack

[Jack White]

Thanks, Peter.

Since many will not bother with the interview, here is a transcript of Jennings

describing the explosions in Building 7.

........

TIMELINE according to Jennings:

1. Jennings and Hess reach the emergency bunker and are told by phone to "leave right away".

2. They descend the stairwell to the 6th floor.

3. Explosion occurs and they are trapped on the 8th floor.

4. Firefighters come and tell Barry not to climb down a fire hose because it is too dangerous.

5. Firefighters run away, first tower collapses.

6. Firefighters return, look more concerned.

7. Firefighters run away a SECOND time, as second tower collapses.

8. Firefighters return a THIRD time, and help Jennings descend WTC 7 to the lobby where it is completely destroyed and he is told "not to look down" and that he could tell he was "stepping over people".

Keep in mind, that the FIRST tower collapse did not significantly damage WTC7. According to NIST, only the bottom windows of the south side of the tower were damaged. Jennings was trapped in the north side of the building and described the explosive event in WTC7 taking place before either of the two tower collapses.

Transcript:

"When we arrived, the police were in the lobby... Me and Mr. Hess who I didn't know at the time... [got] to the 23rd floor... we couldn't get in. We had to go back down, then police and security took us to the freight elevators where they took us back up and we did get in. Upon arriving into the OAM POC, we noticed that everybody was gone... only me and Mr. Hess were up there. After I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and leave right away. Mr. Hess came running back in and said, "We're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here." He found the stairwell... we went down the stairs. When we reached the sixth floor... there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor... it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you". And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell. When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back... with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell. So as they turned and ran the second time, the guy said "We'll be back for you". And they did come back, this time they came back with 10 firefighters. They kept asking "where are you? We don't know where you are?" I said "I was on the North side of the building," because when I was on the stairs I saw the North side. All this time, I'm hearing all kinds of explosions. I'm thinking that may it's the police cars [and] buses that are on fire. I don't see.. you know, but I'm still hearing all these explosions. When they finally got to us, and they took us down to what they called the lobby, because when I asked them, I said "Where are we?" He said, "This was the lobby." And I said, "You got to be kidding me." Total ruins. Keep in mind, when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators--it was a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw was unbelievable. And the firefighter who took us down kept saying, "Do not look down." I kept saying, "Why?" We were stepping over people. And you know when you can feel when you are stepping over people. They took us out through a hole... in this wall, and that's how they got us out... this huge police officer came over to me and he said, "You have to run". I said, "I can't, my knees are swollen". [He said] "You'll have to get on your knees and crawl then, because we have reports of more explosions." That's when I started crawling and I saw this guy fall behind me, and his comrades came to his aid and they dragged him to safety."

Later on in the interview, Jennings repeats the fact that he was trapped in the building before both buildings collapsed, citing the fact that first responders ran away twice and came back three times to try and get him out of the building.

[Jack White]

Fill'er up?

No. Jetliners carry only enough fuel to reach their destination. No use transporting the weight of extra unneeded fuel.

Though 757 and 767s are designed to carry 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, a transcontinental flight as these were scheduled only requires about 10,000 gallons.

All early reports supporting the government conspiracy theory quoted the larger figure, when it was actually less than half that fully loaded and even less considering the amount burned initially after takeoff.

But for mathematical ease, let's use the 10,000 figure for the two WTC jets.

I was thinking about this last week when filling my 5-gallon can with gas for my lawnmower. How many 5-gallon cans would it take to bring down a 110-story building?

Let's see...10000 / 5 = 2000 cans

For a 110-story building... 2000 / 110 = 18.18 cans per floor.

To create an "inferno" to bring down a WTC tower, you would only need 18 lawnmower cans of fuel per floor.

But say 50 % burned in a fireball OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, then you would need only half that...1000 lawnmower cans of gas per building

or about 9 cans per floor...just 45 gallons.

I have never before seen any calculation about the VERY SMALL amount of jet fuel involved. Instead we have theories about the huge volume of fuel running down stairwells to the lobby before igniting.

Given the volume of the building vs the volume of the fuel, we see that about 45 gallons per floor was an average. My car tank holds more than half that.

Jack

Edited July 21, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13151&hl=

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." - A. Shickelgruber

Peter

The Pentagon crash image you attached looked as if it depicted the plane crashing into the building at an angle approaching ninety degrees, but that wasn't the case.

Does this image adequately explain that particular anomaly?

EDIT TO ADD: On top of that, the light poles you mention are on Washington Boulevard, and the helicopters are on the west side of the boulevard, the side away from the Pentagon.

An airliner cannot fly AT HIGH SPEED close enough to the ground to clip light poles.

That is why jetliners SLOW DOWN to land.

This is because of what is called GROUND LIFT EFFECT at high speed. The moving plane

compresses the air as it passes thru it, pushing it aside. The air pushed toward the ground

presses against the bottom of the plane, causing IT TO RISE. The higher the speed, the

farther from the ground the plane IS LIFTED. At 500 mph, ground lift effect would cause

the plane, flying parallel to the ground according to reports, to be unable to hit the Pentagon,

much less the light poles.

Look it up.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

No. Jetliners carry only enough fuel to reach their destination. No use transporting the weight of extra unneeded fuel.

Not always. There is the practice of tankering, carrying extra fuel to offest the price difference at the next location. While it may not apply here (I don't know and don't really care), it is definitely not right to say they carry only enough fuel to reach their destination as that is not always true.

Though 757 and 767s are designed to carry 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, a transcontinental flight as these were scheduled only requires about 10,000 gallons.

Partly wrong. The 757 only holds about 11,000 gallons so it is wrong to say 757 and 767.

[Matthew Lewis]

An airliner cannot fly AT HIGH SPEED close enough to the ground to clip light poles.

That is why jetliners SLOW DOWN to land.

This is because of what is called GROUND LIFT EFFECT at high speed. The moving plane

compresses the air as it passes thru it, pushing it aside. The air pushed toward the ground

presses against the bottom of the plane, causing IT TO RISE. The higher the speed, the

farther from the ground the plane IS LIFTED. At 500 mph, ground lift effect would cause

the plane, flying parallel to the ground according to reports, to be unable to hit the Pentagon,

much less the light poles.

Look it up.

Jack

Wrong. Ground effect is present when close to the ground at LOW SPEEDS and at a postive angle of attack. As speed increases, ground effect decreases. At high speeds it is negligible especially at the negative angle of attack the plane at the Pentagon would have had. Look it up.

[Matthew Lewis]

To clarify, there are two types of ground effect. The normal ground effect increases at low speed and high angles of attack, exactly the conditions one would find in a landing saituation.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

Ram ground effect (the other type) does increase at high speeds but only takes effect "where the wing is at an altitude of h/c=0.1 or less."

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/01/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack.

Ground effect would definitely NOT keep a 757 from hitting the Pentagon at the speed and trajectory it is supposed to have been at on 911.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Matthew Lewis