FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Another melted vehicle.

Jack

Looks to me like it was stuck by debris. Explain why if dozens of vehicles were melted there are apperently no witness accounts of this happening.

[Jack White]

Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been

more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is

what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider

the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy

which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example...

Jack

Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive.

You are confusing MASS with DENSITY.

You can have two pieces of steel each with a mass of 100 pounds. But one

has a density of only 1/32" thickness while the other has a 4" thickness. Your

bullet will pierce the thin one (say a car door), and bounce off of the other because

of the density, not the mass. The human body, being mostly liquid, has a very

low density, regardless of its mass. Steel has high density and high mass (weight);

aluminum has low density and low weight.

Jack

- You are the person who suggested than an object's ability to withstand being penetrated by a projectile was related to its mass compared to the projectile

-Density is not messured in "thickness" as I've said before your understanding of physics is inadequate

- Explain to us then how fluid cutting/drilling works and how demolition charges cut through high density steel and how "cop killer" bullets penetrate bullet proof vests

Try again. Of course "THICKNESS" is a component of density.

Density is the amount of mass in a given amount of volume.

Volume of an object is defined by its dimensions, of which

"thickness" is one of the measures (length, width, depth).

Density is determined by dividing the mass (weight) by the

volume (length X width X depth). Depth is commonly also

called "thickness".

Jack

[Jack White]

Another melted vehicle.

Jack

Looks to me like it was stuck by debris. Explain why if dozens of vehicles were melted there are apperently no witness accounts of this happening.

Show us the debris. Or was the debris all vacuumed away while the disaster

was in progress?

Photos bear witness to the "melting". Living witnesses may have melted too.

I'd post a photo, but it is rather gruesome.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been

more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is

what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider

the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy

which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example...

Jack

Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive.

You are confusing MASS with DENSITY.

You can have two pieces of steel each with a mass of 100 pounds. But one

has a density of only 1/32" thickness while the other has a 4" thickness. Your

bullet will pierce the thin one (say a car door), and bounce off of the other because

of the density, not the mass. The human body, being mostly liquid, has a very

low density, regardless of its mass. Steel has high density and high mass (weight);

aluminum has low density and low weight.

Jack

- You are the person who suggested than an object's ability to withstand being penetrated by a projectile was related to its mass compared to the projectile

-Density is not messured in "thickness" as I've said before your understanding of physics is inadequate

- Explain to us then how fluid cutting/drilling works and how demolition charges cut through high density steel and how "cop killer" bullets penetrate bullet proof vests

Try again. Of course "THICKNESS" is a component of density.

Density is the amount of mass in a given amount of volume.

Volume of an object is defined by its dimensions, of which

"thickness" is one of the measures (length, width, depth).

Density is determined by dividing the mass (weight) by the

volume (length X width X depth). Depth is commonly also

called "thickness".

Jack

Sorry Jack I misread you I failed to note you were comparing two pieces of steel of equal mass but you are also confusing density with strength. Boron carbide bulletproof plate from one Chinese manufacturer comes in densities of “2.48g/cm3 or over”, a US company produces leaded glass with “density from 4.8 to 5.05 g/cm3”. Under your logic the latter would be twice as likely to stop a bullet.

Boron carbide - http://www.ecplaza.net/tradeleads/seller/4...ide_plates.html

Glass - http://www.sovis-optique.com/hotcell/xray.htm

Were the perimeter columns stronger than the 767? Presumably they were but the more relevant question is were they or the connections between the column sections strong enough to resist the force of the plane crashing in to them at 500+ MPH. When demolition charges are detonated thin copper sheeting and hot air cut trough structural steel. How do you explain this? What is denser and stonger?

I notice you failed to respond to Dave’s question about the Empire State Building crash just how do you explain that? How do you explain the engineers who designed the twin towers predicting that a 707 or DC8 crashing into the building would leave a big hole. Perhaps you should contact Leslie Robertson and set him straight. I’m sure the physics you learned in high school before he was born trumps his training in structural engineering and the years he spent design the buildings.

As for your belief that a structure's total mass has any bearing on its resistance to being pentraded by a projectitle that is frankly bizarre the two are unrelated. There were 22 floors above the bottom of WTC 2 impact zone. Imagine a 22 story structure constructed the same way as that upper portion of the building it would have less than 1/5 the mass because the columns were thicker lower down. Under your logic the smaller building would be over 5 x more susceptible to penetration.

[Len Colby]

Another melted vehicle.

Jack

Looks to me like it was stuck by debris. Explain why if dozens of vehicles were melted there are apperently no witness accounts of this happening.

Show us the debris. Or was the debris all vacuumed away while the disaster

was in progress?

Do you have a date and time for the photo? How do we know it was taken on 9/11? The FDNY remained on site well after that date. It appears to be surrounded by mud.

There are numerous accounts of firefighters taking refuge under fire trucks when the towers collapsed. If people or bodies were trapped in or under the cab they obviously would have removed any debris to free them ASAP.

It also appears that the cab has been removed. According to a NYC neighborhood paper “A Ladder 3 truck that had been parked on West Street, its cab missing, also is likely to be displayed in” a 9/11 museum.

http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsjuly08/hangar17.html

The FDNY ladder truck pictured below also seems to have been struck by debris on West Street and it had a detachable cab.

http://www.ladder18fdny.com/pages/wtc_memories.htm

Photos bear witness to the "melting".

That's you interpretation but given your track record this proves nothing.

Living witnesses may have melted too.

Do have any evidence that witnesses might have disapeered or been silenced?

I'd post a photo, but it is rather gruesome.

Post a link with a warning, what does this gruesome photo supposedly show?

Edited July 30, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been

more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is

what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider

the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy

which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example...

Jack

Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive.

You are confusing MASS with DENSITY.

You can have two pieces of steel each with a mass of 100 pounds. But one

has a density of only 1/32" thickness while the other has a 4" thickness. Your

bullet will pierce the thin one (say a car door), and bounce off of the other because

of the density, not the mass. The human body, being mostly liquid, has a very

low density, regardless of its mass. Steel has high density and high mass (weight);

aluminum has low density and low weight.

Jack

- You are the person who suggested than an object's ability to withstand being penetrated by a projectile was related to its mass compared to the projectile

-Density is not messured in "thickness" as I've said before your understanding of physics is inadequate

- Explain to us then how fluid cutting/drilling works and how demolition charges cut through high density steel and how "cop killer" bullets penetrate bullet proof vests

Try again. Of course "THICKNESS" is a component of density.

Density is the amount of mass in a given amount of volume.

Volume of an object is defined by its dimensions, of which

"thickness" is one of the measures (length, width, depth).

Density is determined by dividing the mass (weight) by the

volume (length X width X depth). Depth is commonly also

called "thickness".

Jack

Sorry Jack I misread you I failed to note you were comparing two pieces of steel of equal mass but you are also confusing density with strength. Boron carbide bulletproof plate from one Chinese manufacturer comes in densities of “2.48g/cm3 or over”, a US company produces leaded glass with “density from 4.8 to 5.05 g/cm3”. Under your logic the latter would be twice as likely to stop a bullet.

Boron carbide - http://www.ecplaza.net/tradeleads/seller/4...ide_plates.html

Glass - http://www.sovis-optique.com/hotcell/xray.htm

Were the perimeter columns stronger than the 767? Presumably they were but the more relevant question is were they or the connections between the column sections strong enough to resist the force of the plane crashing in to them at 500+ MPH. When demolition charges are detonated thin copper sheeting and hot air cut trough structural steel. How do you explain this? What is denser and stonger?

I notice you failed to respond to Dave’s question about the Empire State Building crash just how do you explain that? How do you explain the engineers who designed the twin towers predicting that a 707 or DC8 crashing into the building would leave a big hole. Perhaps you should contact Leslie Robertson and set him straight. I’m sure the physics you learned in high school before he was born trumps his training in structural engineering and the years he spent design the buildings.

As for your belief that a structure's total mass has any bearing on its resistance to being pentraded by a projectitle that is frankly bizarre the two are unrelated. There were 22 floors above the bottom of WTC 2 impact zone. Imagine a 22 story structure constructed the same way as that upper portion of the building it would have less than 1/5 the mass because the columns were thicker lower down. Under your logic the smaller building would be over 5 x more susceptible to penetration.

I will let Dr. Morgan Reynolds answer, excerpted from his speech two weeks ago at Madison

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

EXCERPT:

.......

Newton's 3d law, sometimes called the law of reciprocal actions, states that all

forces occur in pairs and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in

direction. By way of explanation for NIST and its contractors, the forces of action and

reaction between bodies in contact have the same magnitude, same line of action, and

opposite sense. We must ask, “Did NIST and its contractors have a tug of war when they

were children?” If there is a force on the building in a crash, there is an equal and

opposite force on the airplane. Yet the plane does not slow down or break apart! If a real

aluminum plane had run into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not

possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a

collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, the

airplane with its far lower mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight,

would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies. The airlines

weigh your luggage and worry about its distribution en route while building security

personnel and custodians never worry about the weight entrants bring into a building or

its distribution because buildings have tremendous redundant strength, especially when

built in downtown Manhattan, and need not be lightweight like airplanes to lift

themselves into the air and flown.

Strength, density and mass matter greatly in which body will fare better in

withstanding the equal force of an impact. Everybody knows this in shopping for a car:

should I buy a heavy SUV for safety or accept the risk of driving a lightweight economy

car or sports car? If the damage inflicted on the other body in a collision between a

jetliner and a Tower were likened to a sporting contest, it would be something like Tower

100, Airplane 2. Imagine, for example, that a Tower fell on the airplane instead of the

aluminum airplane hitting the Tower: complete crushing and utter devastation of the

airplane. However, this mismatch is not what the videos show. Instead, an aluminum

airliner cuts right through steel and disappears inside the Tower. Structural steel is far

stronger than aluminum and present in massive, cross-braced, reinforced quantity, and

would suffer only light damage compared to complete and utter destruction/rejection of

an aluminum airplane, with most of its debris scattered, telescoped and crumpled outside

the building, especially wings, tail section and most of the shattered fuselage.

The chances of a plane hitting a tower at an exact perpendicular, 90o angle are slim

and none, and therefore each plane would rotate during the crash in real collisions, in

contrast to the official WTC story. Flight 11 supposedly was banking (rolling) at 25o and

hit at a lateral angle of less than 1o according to NIST while Flight 175 supposedly was

rolling at 38o and hit the south tower at a lateral angle of 15o. Consistent with the 38o

angle and 15o lateral angle, Flight 175 supposedly was turning left in its last moments and

therefore the left engine/wing, assuming they would not break off immediately, would hit

the building first, before the right engine/wing. The wrecking ball (a.k.a the tower) would

bash such a plane in the opposite direction (counter-clockwise = east = rightward) and its

tail section would break off, at a minimum, and be flung to the east. Crashes are messy

things, to state the obvious, with airplane parts deforming, bending, crushing, tearing and

breaking off yet flung sometimes in predictable directions, as in this case. Yet NIST and

its contractors depict an impossibly neat perpendicular penetration with no rotation for

both events at the north and south towers. This is a fraud, pure and simple, a government

cover-up.

An airplane cannot be powerful and “invincible” at impact and yet fragile relative

to the building during impact at the same time. I repeat, an airplane cannot be powerful

in punching an airplane outline, “silhouette of passage” into the steel tower as if the tower

were a weak structure relative to the plane, thereby deforming and tearing the building

away, while the plane at the same time is fragile at the exoskeleton as well as inside the

building, shredding itself into thousands if not millions of pieces against the building. An

airplane, like a steel structure, is either strong in a collision relative to another body or it

is relatively weak and fragile. If an aluminum plane is weak relative to a steel/concrete

tower, the aluminum plane would suffer immense damage relative to the building with a

great deal of airplane wreckage left outside the building. Which is it? NIST and the

defendants want it both ways, an impossibility in a collision between an airplane and twin

tower. When a tennis ball collides with the strings of a tennis racquet, that ball cannot

burst through the strings and yet simultaneously shatter into thousands of ball pieces. A

body cannot change its physical character in the same environment within a fraction of a

second (temperature, etc.). The aluminum parts of a plane (most of it) cannot cut through

steel columns reinforced by steel-spandrel-belts backed by lateral edges of six or more

steel-reinforced concrete floors while the plane simultaneously shreds itself against the

steel walls and steel/ concrete floors.

Shredding at the exoskeleton (wall) and simultaneously bursting through it and

imposing an airplane silhouette of passage on the tower is impossible. Punching through

plus shredding? That is a non-starter. If parts “shredded” and deformed at the

exoskeleton, as asserted by NIST and its contractors, wreckage would have accumulated

below the impact zone and in the gash in each tower. The plane could not disappear

inside a tower yet NIST exhibits from their alleged computer simulation results reported

in NCSTAR 1-2 Executive Summary like Figures E-26, E-27, E-35, E-43, E-44, E-45, E-

53, and E-61 show fine debris everywhere in the impact zone and below it. NIST and its

contractors offer no evidence of such accumulations visible in either tower gash or below

them. Therefore, the computer simulations are better termed “computer hallucinations”

because the results are contrary to classical physics and simple evidential tests.

Gashes in the towers as depicted were too small to completely absorb the alleged

aircraft. To accommodate this problem, NIST and its contractors rely on a “shredding”

theory. The 767 fuselage (essentially a framed, hollow aluminum tube), fuel-laden wings

and engines supposedly caused failure (severing) of the steel walls (and floors) while the

outer half of the wings damaged wall columns and belts but these columns did not fail.

Allegedly, the outer wings “shredded” against a web of steel and all wing material was

carried into the buildings. This is impossible for another reason, as demonstrated here

(“A Theoretical Shredding Mechanism” section in

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...=we_have_holes). Steel wall

sections that do not fail (severe, fragment completely) would compress the wing, causing

crumpling in the wing. Tearing must occur in jetliner material some distance from the

steel columns and spandrel belts against which the jetliner metal crumples. Barring any

angular forces arising to spin pieces around columns and spandrel belts, all steel columns,

steel spandrel belt and floor sections that were hit at the wall but did not fail must have

rejected jetliner pieces and bounced them (inelastically) outside each tower. We would

expect even more debris compared to a fracture mechanism because shredding would

hold back a considerable amount of material in large crumpled pieces rather than

shattered fragments. Yet pictures and videos show no evidence that aircraft debris fell to

the ground below the impact zones. Where is the evidence for the shredded wing halves?

It does not exist. Such shreddings could not have flown into the buildings after inelastic

rejection/reflection by steel walls.

The NIST/contractor computer simulations with thousands of pounds of jetliner

debris posited in airliner crashes located in the WTC plaza are entirely unsupported.

These may properly be labeled computer delusions. The word “simulation”(s) appears

130 times in NCSTAR 1, 88 times in NCSTAR 1-2, etc., as per my search of the

document. In it are a variety of simulations, of which the following is an example:

The use of simulations by NIST and its contractors entail deception because they

intentionally depict misleading conditions and results. In conjunction with the above

shown simulation there was, in addition, the following caption:

That statement, found at pg. 70 of 298 of NCSTAR 1 is false and/or misleading because

it implies that there was a full-fuel load onboard the purported jetliner that reputedly (but

falsely) is said to have crashed into WTC 1. The jetliner, if it had been there, would not

have had a full load of fuel and the importance of this deception consists in the fact that

there was insufficient energy available through mere kerosene, irrespective of quantity, to

cause the pulverization/powderization/dustification of the WTC, as I have alleged and as

is more fully delineated by Dr. Judy Wood. NCSTAR 1 on pg. 70 of 298 admits in

regular font: “…it likely carried about 10,000 gal...” or only 42% full.

In a previous crash of an airplane into a Manhattan skyscraper, a B-25 bomber hit

the Empire State Building going an estimated 225 mph in 1945 and put a gash in the

building but left a large section of the telescoped plane in that gash, burned fuel over the

surface of the building and ample wreckage below the impact zone.

Yankee relief pitcher Corey Lidle crashed into a condo building on the east side

of Manhattan in a light plane, did little damage to the building, left wreckage below the

impact zone and spilled burning fuel across the impact wall,52 contrary to both “plane”

non-collisions at the World Trade Center. Asked “On Vesey Street when you first arrived

there, what was the scene like? That was where the first plane that hit. Was there any

debris on that street?,” FDNY Fire Chief Salvatore Cassano replied, “No, there was no

debris on that street at all from the first plane.”53

Experienced pilots on flight simulators could not hit the “towers” (208 foot wide

target) at over 500 mph on multiple attempts on the morning of 9/11 according to an

interview with pilot John Lear by pilotsfor911truth.org. In spring ‘08, John Lear tried to

rent a flight simulator and put some “arm-chair” hijackers who claim they can hit a tower

at 542 mph at the controls, as well as experienced jetliner pilots, video tape their misses

and put the record out on the internet. He was refused.

Could a 767 hit 540 mph at low altitude, as claimed by the defendants and NIST?

Boeing 767s and other airliners are not designed to fly at speeds above 500 mph near sea

level. Total drag increases in proportion to air density and air density is much thicker

near sea level, over 3x the air density at 35,000 feet altitude. It is akin to jogging along

the beach and then trying to do so in 1-2 feet of water, where resistance is so much

greater. Total drag increases as the square of velocity. Thrust must equal drag to sustain

velocity and turbofan engines cannot develop sufficient thrust to fly level at speeds of

540 mph near sea level. They cannot do so because the turbo fans (multi-bladed

propellers) would “choke” on such dense air at such speeds and begin acting as a brake.

Retired aerospace engineer Joseph Keith designed Boeing’s “shaker system” to test

airframes against resonant frequencies and insists that a Boeing airliner would risk

shaking itself apart flying above 500 mph near sea level, although he also maintains that a

Boeing 767 could not attain such speeds near sea level. Boeing refuses to answer Keith’s

inquiries on the issue of 767 potential speed at low altitude, even though Keith is a retired

Boeing pensioner receiving monthly checks from Boeing. That is an admission in itself.

Boeing knows that speeds close to 600 mph near ground level in a 767 are ridiculous. In

responding to Jeff Hill in two separate telephone calls, two Boeing spokespersons scoffed

at the idea that a Boeing 767 could fly at more than 500 mph near sea level, and in

particular, Leslie Hazzard laughed and said, “Not a chance, not that fast.”54 Retired pilot

John Lear maintains that a Boeing 767 cannot fly 540 mph at low altitude. How did

NIST and its government contractors prove that a Boeing 767 is capable of flying at 542

mph near sea level? They never bothered. It was a presupposition, as was nearly

everything else in the NIST report.

54 Here is a clip with Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori

Bechtold verifying that it is impossible for a Boeing 767-200 (UA175) to fly anywhere

near 500 mph at 700ft altitude http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

Even if such incredible speeds were possible at such low altitudes in a 767, retired

pilot John Lear insists that no accomplished pilot, including himself, could hand-pilot an

airliner into the towers at such speeds. Proof of concept? There is none.

Painted on the top of wings of airliners are the warnings “No Step” or “Do Not

Walk Beyond This Area” because, obviously, a 200-lb. man can walk on and damage

delicate ailerons, panels and flaps. There are no such warnings or restrictions against

walking on steel/concrete towers because redundant strength is enormous. There is little

design premium in favor of reducing the building’s weight because the building’s design

orders do not include flying.

Airplanes do not have “crash test ratings” as passenger cars do because airplanes

are designed to carry their own weight, payload (strictly monitored) and fuel and

withstand the rigors of flying, weather, landing and taking off and no more. Their

“overdesign” margin is minimal. They cannot take much punishment in collisions with

steel machinery, cables, buildings, telephone

Source: http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml ;

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madis...gust_07.ppt.htm

poles and trees. By contrast, the overdesign factor in buildings, especially in lower

Manhattan, is huge.

[Jack White]

I'd post a photo, but it is rather gruesome.

Post a link with a warning, what does this gruesome photo supposedly show?

No purpose is served by posting the photo, since the circumstances are

unknown. The photo shows an otherwise undamaged human hand with

the body missing. Cause of separation from the arm is not apparent.

I cited it only to indicate that many persons at ground zero did not survive

to be witnesses. The gruesome photo by itself serves no purpose except

to show the brutality of the crime.

Jack

PS...for those interested in such ghoulish obscenity, google...

severed hand wtc 911

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

The NIST 911 report shows a diagram of places where aircraft parts were

found. It lists the roof of a building at 45 Park Place where it said a landing

gear was found. It does not show a photo of the alleged piece. Nowhere on

the internet in all of the hundreds of 911 sites is a photo of this alleged

landing gear. Where is evidence that it existed?

Jack

[Jack White]

The NIST report shows this piece of aircraft debris several days later.

Satellite photos from 9-12 do not show the piece. Why?

Jack

[Jack White]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.

...........

Joe's Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery(5) is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

Email Joseph Keith

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.

(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid...999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time. http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.

(5) How they faked it: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb67/genghis6199/

[Evan Burton]

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

.......

He 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. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

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

Some quotes from the aeronautical fraternity:

Convert MPH to KTS, then think about V2+10 speeds at heavy weights, i think that you will find that no commercial airliner will "shake itself apart" at such slow speeds!!!

Methinks your friend doesnt know what he is talking about!

The max speed for a 767 below 8000 is 313 knots ( about 360 mph) if it is CAA registered and the highest V2 I have seen was 177 kts giving a target initial climb speed ( V2 to V2 + 15) of up to 192 kts or 220mph so your friend is talking b*****ks. Flap 1 limit speed is 250 knots.

The aircraft is perfectly capable of achieving its VMO of 360Kts at low level.

Now I have still not produced any references for those comments being correct, so they should be considered merely unsupported speculation until I can prove they are accurate.

[Jack White]

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

.......

He 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. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

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

Some quotes from the aeronautical fraternity:

Convert MPH to KTS, then think about V2+10 speeds at heavy weights, i think that you will find that no commercial airliner will "shake itself apart" at such slow speeds!!!

Methinks your friend doesnt know what he is talking about!

The max speed for a 767 below 8000 is 313 knots ( about 360 mph) if it is CAA registered and the highest V2 I have seen was 177 kts giving a target initial climb speed ( V2 to V2 + 15) of up to 192 kts or 220mph so your friend is talking b*****ks. Flap 1 limit speed is 250 knots.

The aircraft is perfectly capable of achieving its VMO of 360Kts at low level.

Now I have still not produced any references for those comments being correct, so they should be considered merely unsupported speculation until I can prove they are accurate.

Please name these people and their "aeronautical fraternity" plus their credentials.

Are their credentials superior to a Boeing engineer? And why talk of 360 mph? That

figure is irrelevant since the speeds involved are over 500 mph.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.

...........

Joe's Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery(5) is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

Email Joseph Keith

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.

(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid...999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time. http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.

(5) How they faked it: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb67/genghis6199/

I guess "they" brainwashed everyone who witnessed the planes crash into the towers. How does that square with "joes law" (snicker) ?

[Craig Lamson]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.

...........

Joe's Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery(5) is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

Email Joseph Keith

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.

(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid...999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time. http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.

(5) How they faked it: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb67/genghis6199/

I guess "they" brainwashed everyone who witnessed the planes crash into the towers. How does that square with "joes law" (snicker) ?

[Jack White]

Joe Keith updates JOE'S LAW.

...........

Joe's Law

Joseph Keith

Retired Aerospace Engineer

June 13, 2008

Revised and updated on July 24, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media are putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!" By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle. So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery(5) is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.

Email Joseph Keith

(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.

(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid...999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time. http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.

(5) How they faked it: http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb67/genghis6199/

I guess "they" brainwashed everyone who witnessed the planes crash into the towers. How does that square with "joes law" (snicker) ?

Morgan Reynolds discusses witnesses:

.....

What about Witnesses?

The “dog that did not bark” at the WTC was that there were almost no reports of a

deafening sound from incoming “kamikaze airliners.” Everyone should have heard

thundering airliners screaming at above-top speed, and only the deaf could have missed

it. The speed of sound at sea level is approximately 760 mph, easily exceeding the

alleged speeds of Flight 11 and 175 airliners. Testimony about the ear-splitting sound of

the above-top-speed airliners should have been nearly universal yet few remarked about

the deafening sound or said their eardrums nearly split open because it was so painful.

Full throttle jet engines will emit 130-140 db at their source, vastly in excess of the

loudness in front of amplified speakers at a rock concert (approximately 110-120 dB).

When dB levels increase by 10, the subjective loudness roughly doubles, so 130 dB is

twice the cacophony of being in the front row at a rock concert and 140 dB would be four

times the loudness at a rock concert. Any lengthy exposure to 140 dB courtesy of, say,

being within 200 feet of a full throttle jetliner is dangerous and at the pain threshold.61

Few, if any, complaints of such deafening noise from airliners were reported at the

WTC.62

An important if secondary line of evidence is to listen to those who were there.

There are only two systematic studies of witness testimony that I am aware of. I

participated in a research study of 503 witness statements from 501 first-responder

witnesses compiled by the 9/11 Task Force. That compilation points clearly and directly

to the plain fact that the actual eye- and ear-witnesses to the event DO NOT confirm that

jetliners crashed into the WTC on 9/11.63 In the only known systematic review of

63 August 12, 2005: “New York Releases Records of 9/11 Emergency Responders.”

The City of New York releases a large volume of records from 9/11. These include over

12,000 pages of oral histories—testimonies from 503 firefighters, paramedics, and

emergency medical technicians involved in the 9/11 emergency response—and about 15

hours of radio communications between dispatchers and firefighters. The oral histories

witness statements, the report reveals surprisingly little support for the official airliner

“impact” stories. Clearly, we can see that the witnesses do not describe events consistent

with wide-body jetliners hitting the WTC at speeds of over 400 mph and 500 mph,

respectively. Instead, and in the aggregate, they indicate that the witnesses are not sure

what, if any object, they saw and are only clear on having heard or both seen and heard

explosions.

To be more specific, the study found that of 501 individual witnesses, only 16

claimed to see a plane before the hit at WTC 1 and 16 witnesses claimed to hear

something like a plane before the hit at WTC 1. Ten of those claimed to be both ear and

eyewitnesses. There is little or no consistency among these reports. Only one witness

claimed to see and hear a plane before the WTC 1 event. Only one witness, William

Walsh, described an American Airlines plane, although all interviews were conducted

weeks after 9/11, plenty of time for government and media accounts to influence and

control memories.

The study found that at the time of the hit on the south tower, 21 witnesses

reported they were inside the twin towers and 96 were outside, either at the WTC or

within six blocks, for a total of 117 witnesses potentially able to see and hear an

incoming airliner at a reasonably close distance. Only 19 claimed that they saw a plane

and 98 made no such claim, so only one in six reported seeing a plane, a surprisingly

small percentage. Only 20 reported hearing a plane, 97 heard no plane, so only 17%

reported hearing the sound of a plane. That is astounding testimony, given that such a

speeding airliner would emit sound exceeding that of the front row at a rock concert.

Only two witnesses inside the towers reported hearing a plane, a shockingly low

percentage if there were truly a 130-140 dB noise approaching at the speed of sound

(sound travels at the speed of sound, approximately 760 mph near sea level). Among

those claiming to see or hear a plane, there is little or no consistency among their reports.

Some are rather odd statements, for example, Thomas Fitzpatrick said, “The noise from

the plane was enough to make you not want to look up. I thought the plane was actually

going to land in the street to be honest with you. The noise was outrageous. When it hit

the building it was even worse.” Yet no one claimed to definitively see and hear a

screaming airliner hit either tower at high speed in this sample of first responders. Most

witnesses reported hearing or seeing or just hearing a sudden explosion in towers 1 and 2

and explained that they did not know a plane had hit it and only found out later from the

news that “it was a plane.”64

Approximately 100 of the first responder civilian interviews were redacted, or one

in five, some heavily redacted, for example, see interviews of Rene Davila who recently

died and Ronald Coyne. Others were concluded abruptly. What are the authorities

hiding?

No surprise, witness testimony is often problematic and contradictory. What is

surprising is given the traumatizing nature of 9/11, the lack of psychological and material

preparation for the shock of the 9/11 attacks by the population, the vast governmental and

media control over information and psychology, plus false memory syndrome, that so

few first responders claimed to have seen and heard an airliner hit WTC 1 or WTC 2,

even though weeks and months had passed after that fateful morning before their

interviews conducted by their FDNY superiors. None of the witness statements were

under oath or under hostile cross-examination. Some of the anomalies in witness

testimony might be resolved under oath in deposition.

The evidential case for the remarkable dearth of witnesses claiming they saw and

heard an airliner hit a twin tower is deftly presented in a radio interview by Ace Baker on

January 15, 2007, including audio clips of commentary by network anchors and reporters

on 9/11, as well interviews with alleged witnesses to the alleged WTC airliner events.65

Most eyewitnesses saw no planes and heard no jetliners yet many insist they

heard and saw the initial explosion at each tower come from inside. For example,

twenty-four of 39 witnesses failed to see or hear a plane in the study of the witness

statements in Never Forget.66 Only two witnesses of 39 claimed to both see and hear a

plane, and both were first responders. The "no planers" like so many downtown that

morning failed to report seeing or hearing a plane, and some insisted that the initial

explosion in each tower came from within. Many witnesses remarked that they only

"learned later" that a plane had hit the tower.

Given the conflicting witness reports, eye- and ear-witness testimony must be

described as problematic and inconclusive at this point. One issue is that memories are

remarkably malleable and “one of the cleverest and most powerful techniques for

planting highly implausible false memories involves the use of fake photographs.”67

Some of 9/11 is about false memories. Further, we cannot completely reject the

hypothesis that the unidentified technician/perpetrators may have used drones, missiles or

other aircraft disguised to look like airliners. There may have been other “black

technology” used to deceive enemies and civilians about what was flying or not flying.

The complete story of what the perpetrators actually did to pull off their magic show has

yet to be told. Perhaps the most fascinating testimony among plane "huggers" remains

that of scuba specialist Steven Bienkowski who said he was aboard a NYPD helicopter

southwest of the South Tower as a plane approached on 9/11: To him it "looked like an

evil magician's trick...nothing like what I would have imagined...the plane just

completely disappeared...being there was surreal." Surreal indeed. Witness accounts deserve additional investigation and research but one thing is

clear: no planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11 as maintained by apologists for the

regime. The evidence, especially the physical evidence and laws of physics, is

overwhelmingly against the official myth that airliners “entered” the twin towers. The

claim that Boeing 767 airliners crashed into the twin towers is indefensible. The towers

likely suddenly acquired their gashes that morning via directed energy weapons (DEW),

though that is a research topic for another occasion.

A major problem for the perpetrators was that they knew the plane videos were

unconvincing because they did not look real, so they employed people like the scripted

“Harley T-shirt” shill on the street, interviewed on Fox News, who said: “…several

minutes after the first plane had hit, I saw this plane come out of nowhere, and just

scream right into the side of the twin tower, exploding through the other side, and then I

witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural

failure, probably because the fire was just too intense.”68 Amazing, isn’t it? This

obvious plant, a guy in a Harley shirt, brought closure to America by explaining

everything in one sentence, explaining it all, enunciating the same script replayed by

NIST and its contractors years later in more elaborate regalia.

What happened to the passengers allegedly aboard Flights 11 and 175? To

paraphrase author Jim Marrs, “I did not plan 9/11 so I do not know.” We will never

know everything about such a complex crime as 9/11. Rarely is such perfection

achieved, nor is it an obstacle to obtain criminal convictions and plaintiff victories in the

courts.69 Searches of public records by 9/11 researchers support the suspicion that many

names on the (variable) passenger manifests were fake.70 Ellen Mariani, widow of Louis

Neil Mariani who allegedly was aboard Flight 175 apparently has never found other

family survivors of victims allegedly aboard Flight 175.71 Perhaps the defendants in my

federal qui tam lawsuit possess information about missing persons that may be found in

discovery. The query, “What about the passengers?,” serves as a rhetorical device to

establish the presupposition that jetliner crashes occurred. The premise is: Since so

many innocent people died, it is unworthy to challenge the very occurrence of the alleged

jetliner events. In legal proceedings, the question “what about the passengers?” would be

stricken as being misleading since it presupposes a state of facts not shown to exist.

The court is the right forum for these disputes to be tested via evidence.

Unproven assertions cannot be used as facts in a court of law, at least with diligent

counsel to challenge them. For that, I am grateful.