I saw a link to something called K*lltown. They appear in league with various anti-everything blogs.

Sewer rats attack Pennsylvania lady-

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/08/...ndsor-park.html


Bizzare phone call sounds staged- and fake-

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2007/03/...t-says-val.html


Further, these classless nobodies are shown for what they are in this article (it's two years old, but I never heard of this, until now)-

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm


Absolute human vile.


I also saw, on this thread, a link to a website, which includes-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8485


What dismal, rank froth and brew do these sites purvey? And, why?

The question was whether the "inside job" side had any evidence that would stand up in a court. I fail to see how the question of whether or not there is evidence of a link between the hijackers and Bin Laden is relevent to this.

...and have they any evidence for a court case?

Plenty of evidence of negligence, especially from the point of view of hindsight, but is there any evidence of anyone actually letting the attacks happen? This is another of your claims that needs to be tested in court.

they are govt created false flag truthers-- operations designed to work in tandom with your kind-- they intentionally put out ludicrous theories that are meant to smear the truth movement by association-- footballs meant to be carried by govt shills or talking head parrots that never investigate the facts-- considering that last link accuses the pentagon of suppressing free energy im going to have to assume you think the pentagon can NOT tell a lie-- a gross error on your part --the free energy debate is another thread all together-- and swan i can assure you that a majority of murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone which in the case of 9/11 is too much to list in one sitting but is irrelavent when considering the actual physical evidence which is irrefutable

Gilsanz's article does happen to have that fact as its main theme.
I have answered your questions in considerably more detail than you have answered mine.

If you cut vertical elements, you expect things to start to move, which is asking for damage to the rest of the set-up from falling debris. Cutting horizontal elements doesn't have the same effect.
I love your idea of a demolition team so competent that they can prep an occupied building without anyone noticing, but so incompetent that they cut the wrong bits.

I did ask for evidence that it was possible, a previous example or expert's opinion. All that is just your non-expert opinion.

Again, just your opinion that the security and maintenance staff of the WTC were incompetents all.

Again, none of that is absolute evidence for CD, most of it is explained easily by the "official" theory, and you have yet to explain how a CD could even produce the debris pile effects - hot spots, molten metal, high-temperature corrosion - at all.
The difference this time round is that I'm asking you for evidence, not opinions. I'm surprised you are still claiming Mossad agents with explosives, as the evidence for that evaporated under examination.

Page upon page was indeed written, but it was all your opinions, the evidence wasn't there. For every aspect that you said was incontrovertible evidence of CD, I explained how it was something that an engineer would expect to find in the circumstances.

The point is that I set up the car as an example of a phenomenon which could be explained in solid engineering terms, even though the sort of detail you are demanding cannot be produced. Your picture of a car that had suffered a different event is irrelevant to my example.
You are claiming that an engineer couldn't tell from examining a damaged car whether it was a car bomb or a tree impact, but to do that you have to only allow him to look at your less than detailed picture, not examine anything else.
WTC7 looks like a CD if you look at only the last few seconds of its collapse, but if you examine the whole evidence, the ways in which it doesn't resemble a CD become apparent.

I'm off on holiday now, so you can live in your dream world unchallenged again.

These govt created false flag truthers, are they paid by the government? Is the pay good, I wonder? And considering that no one as yet seems to have answered the questions I've often asked, vis-a-vis the extraordinarily complex theories surrounding how the planes were switched and what happened to the passengers, and how all the people who must have been involved have still kept silent after all this time, I do sometimes wonder why it might be necessary for the government to go to all that effort, when, by its inability to answer such questions as those, the truth movement doesn't seem to need any government sponsored assistance in damaging its own credibility.

I think i'd like a talking head parrot, actually. Might be entertaining.

the questions have been answered many times its just your selective acceptance that seems to block it out-- the perps are not afraid to demolish two 110 story towers with people in them so a few occupants from a plane would be nothing-- the flight paths allowed for switches to be performed at military bases and as far as keeping silent goes i can assure you any accomplis to mass murder will keep quite for his own good

"False Flag Truthers"? And football carrying parrots?? Seriously???

Denial never saved anyone from disaster, neither will innocence or bliss save anyone.

Exactly the same argument that's always stated over and and over and over again... "they're evil enough to do anything." It's so convenient when you just decide that, as it saves having to think about any of the questions that people ask, doesn't it. Who are "they"? The Bush Administration? the Military ™ as a whole? please, could someone elaborate a little bit more, please? This just seems to be the only reply I ever get. And it's just not sufficient.

Less platitudes and more causality from you would be a fresh start to proving beyond any doubt the real perpetrators of this crime.

Such generalizations from you only seek to dull the senses and reduce the intellect to a blunt instrument from which serious debate can no longer be achieved. Rather than providing clear facts and proof, the best you can come up with is a single one liner that does nothing but replicate the same type of rhetorical adages we get from campaigning politicians blathering on about "change" without providing any specifics.

You are cheapening the debate.

Simple request...show me proof and causality...otherwise the only support you will ever receive is from the simpleton minds out there that are looking more for belonging and faith than they are for solutions and evidence. This is why so many people call him Jesus Jones(Alex), because of his blind followers who do not question many of his findings, but rather swallow whole what he shovels as a substitute to the usual organized authority and religious blathering they have come to expect on the other hand.

What is most important is critical thinking rather than a copy/paste mentality. Even when my Instructor makes claims(such as his prior claims of AGW) I still challenge him on them regardless of his learnings and higher education, simply to bolster my own desire to question my environment and test every aspect of my surroundings in the Iron Forge of my own experiential gathering. Anything less cheapens the discovery process.

"From out of the Darkness into the Light. I Am"

The original question was, “why not test it in court,” to which I have shown any courts worthwhile are not in a position or do not have the inclination to do so. If the question is hypothetically whether there is “any evidence that would stand up in a court”, I believe certainly yes there are masses of evidence that presented logically would convince a jury of a 9/11 inside job. Also, if it were possible to get the Vice President on the stand to be questioned by a competent prosecutor, I am sure the ‘official’ story would be exposed for the contradictory riddled fabrication it is and would quickly fall apart.

I raised the fact there has never been, nor could there be if FBI Director Robert Mueller is correct there is “no legal proof” of the ‘hijackers’ identities, a court case against Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda in the interests of a fair and balanced discussion.



I raised the list of experts in response to your “amateurs know best” comment. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, with 380 registered and verified construction professionals (notice how that figure keeps going up), has “been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.” I think he would be a suitable expert to give evidence in a theoretical court case.



We have evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks, we have evidence of investigations of the Bin Ladens and hijackers being restricted, we have evidence of infiltration of Al Qaeda by the CIA, we have evidence of US agents being associated with the hijackers. What exactly more evidence ‘should’ there be of that the attacks were, at a minimum, allowed to happen? You aren’t going to get a signed confession from anyone.

As always with questions I ask you, third time lucky – is it possible with the information we have that elements of US agencies let the attacks happen on purpose?

Gilsanz’s article references a WTC7 computer model and then fails to give any graphics, fails to detail how it was put together, fails to say how the simulation was executed. How many inputs were manually added, how many overestimations were made, how far into collapse did it progress?

As Gilsanz and the ‘official’ story are being very secretive about the WTC7 collapse theory, perhaps it is best to wait for NIST’s final report so as we might hopefully at last have some real detail to discuss.



I didn’t say they “cut the wrong bits”, I suggested that charges local to the column could have inadvertently caused the penthouse collapse or that designed weakening of the column may have caused the penthouse failure due to column 79’s relative isolation from others.



I have provided links in the past to details of tertiary explosives, thermite and electrical or chemical detonators. Where is your evidence that these are somehow my opinion and do not in fact exist.



We know that Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of the company that ran elements of WTC, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines security. Where is your evidence that no insiders could possibly be placed in security positions?



You have a nice time – it will give you a break from thinking up excuses and all that hand-waving… er… challenging I mean, of course.

I was speaking very generally, i call it "common sense".



You didnt read the opener, or any of my other posts...



Religion = brainwashing that makes an easy entrance for brainwashing. Something to think about, is that brainwashing works better with repetition and routine, I.E. christians go to church on SunDay, a blatant worship of the Sun of God, light of the world, crown of thorns, had a "halo"... Every SunDay they get preached at by a person claiming spiritual enlightenment from GOD ALMIGHTY... and he wants your money too.
This makes no sense, but people all over the world get caught in "organized religion". Oh yes, and when catholicism held the world in its crutches nothing happened for 300 years except the death plague and overflowing infestations of rats.

What is religion other than control? What is a paradigm of ideas the affect the way a person sees the world? Does the idea of a constant exposure to a stream of suggestions about how life is lived and how life should be lived scare you?

We have the ultimate, we have television, radio, magazines, "new york times bestselling authors!", and newspapers full of this.

And of the 15 mega corporations that own all of this media(bar a very... very... very small portion of actual free stations privately owned), they have meetings... they dress up in satanic(or whatever weird mock-sacrifice kind of religion/secret society BS) fashion and have some good old *spam filter*(all men there) with eachother...

Tell me all you will but these are the people who you trust to run the world... and BTW they own practically everything you see, do you think they are telling you the truth, much less the rest of the world?

Other religions include our scientific community itself, the "experts" who never raise the question, "WTF is the government doing?"
Fema's got 600 concentration camps IN AMERICA, a small portion capable of holding a MILLION PEOPLE, all built near POPULATED AREAS, such as large cities.

Rofl i love this line. With one minor change


I swear thats a bush quote! The president you so dearly trust as he starts wars and is quoted on saying "a peaceful nation does not go to war"
Ofcourse he's also quoted on saying...
"One thing is clear, is relations between America and Russia are good, and they're important that they be good." --George W. Bush, Strelna, Russia, July 15, 2006
"I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would always have a close relationship." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"--George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006
"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006
"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." --George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006
"He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror." --George W. Bush, on Saddam Hussein, Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006
"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006

Kinda... makes you... think... about... ?!




Blinded by my massive egotistical complex!

Id like to share something with you, go type "george carlin, people id like to kill" into youtube, and tell me what you think when he starts talking about the "indoctrination" of children through the public school system.
He is a smart man, because truly it IS FUNNY, ISNT IT?!?!?

The most powerful nation in the world has given its power over to an insane(and downright stupid) oil baron hell bent on destruction...

in his own words...

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

EDIT: Editted to add awesome Bush slam image

"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world."

You make, actually, a point there, Zaus, somewhere among it all: no, I wouldn't trust any of them to run the world ...

So basically, you're saying that, whereas most dictators (Adolf Hitler, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, etc), try to make the world, and ntheir own people, believe that they're omnipotent and all-powerful and their governments are likewise, the Bush regime takes exactly the opposite approach... con them into thinking they're all a bunch of clowns, when actually they really are omnipotent and all-powerful, is that right?

It's a theory, certainly; but one that doesn't, thus far, seem to have any corroborative evidence to back it up. Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about.

yes because they were still struggling to attain complete control but the shift in approaches marks the moment of their achieving their goal and the switching from a power grab approach to a eugenics based extermination agenda through fake enemies and contrived wars

So how do others react to Richard Gage's assessments and claims?

A Critical Analysis of the Collapses of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

A slide-by-slide assessment of his slideshow

Just how many of the "Architects and Engineers" are what they claim?

Hmm.

"All generalizations are useless; including this one"

Your generalizations are pure correlations removed of intimate details that would otherwise create a line of causation.

I did...and it is chopped full of correlations...but no causation whatsoever. You need to prove an immediate and direct link between actions taken and results observed.

While I happen to be an atheist I will still keep my opinions on religion to myself. But a point should be made on the line of reasoning you take here. The essence of brainwashing is that it derives it strength on the weak minded, therefore those who are easily lead or mislead will be the first and simplest followers of said brainwashing.

A series of correlations and intimately old pagan symbols that have no real bearing on present day beliefs or such belief structures. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and spent countless hours in bible school and in church. I don't remember anything about sun worship at all.

You are reaching here. The nature of those old pagan symbols find themselves as leftovers mixed in with the rest of the later symbology simply through the precedence of tradition. The root word of Worship is worth...to find worth in something. Hence the worth of such a faith is determined greatly by personal point of view...and from personal experience I can sincerely note that each and every Christian I have met has a different view of what they find specifically worthy in each aspect of religious practices they adhere to.

No argument there...the Roman Catholic church has seen its fair share of abuses over the centuries.

It sincerely depends on just how much a person desires to question their environment and what they are told. As I said...those who are easily lead will end up in the same position regardless

I enjoy watching all of it...one can get a clear grasp of what lies are presented and thusly a good picture of the truth through viewing and reading such programs and articles. Bias presents itself, and as such it helps to have it in the open.

Obviously you are referring to "Bohemian Grove". They dress up, pretend to sacrifice a child, which they endow with all of the evil of the Molech...and in doing so the essence of the evil is carried away by the soul of the innocent. It is an old tradition rooted in the worship of the Owl God of Sumer...not Molech. It is actually a representation of an attack against Molech.

What would be amusing is if they instead chose to do a mock sacrifice based on Mayan traditions...I would be interested to see what your take on that would be. Or perhaps a Jewish sacrifice of a goat...or maybe mimic Abraham giving up his child to YHWH.

The concept of sacrifice is extremely old(prehistory into neolithic man back 10,000 years) and what they are doing is showing a reverence for that old tradition(however wrong I may feel they happen to be in doing so). The point is not whether they are right or wrong...but in the fact that they truly believe that they are doing something good...they literally believe it to be so. And no matter what you try to do, you are never going to change that opinion, as it is deeply rooted in their own biases and traditions, so that any removal would actually require nothing short of revolution.

And it is 5 mega corps...not 15

I am a Libertarian (who also happened to be an Anarchist back in the day -- but I grew up ) and as such I never take anything at face value and have a serious mistrust of anything Government related. But in the same token I also do not take anything anyone else says at face value as truth without tearing it apart and looking for its causational roots.

The best way to get through to such scientists is simply to look at the numbers and bring the discrepancies to them so they can review it. You are not going to affect their world view by ranting. They like to see causation too, but they aren't going to simply drop everything they are doing, put their lives on hold, all so they can go into debt to spend time on something that they sincerely believe other scientists are reviewing. Instead they will wait for the reports to come out and then look for some spare time to review them as peers.

Keep in mind that many of them have tons of other reviews they have to peruse in the course of their private and business lives, many of which they do in their spare time. I know of three engineers that are employed and are backed up close to 2 years worth of papers that they are looking into.

Not all of them have time

Prove it...it is all I ask(yes I am aware of Rex84)

All I want is causation.

Why do you say "The president you so dearly trust"

The standards I hold to requiring you to present causation and evidential gathering, I also hold to him and his crew. To date their theories are lacking...but lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

So long as you prefer to swallow whole everything fed to you by "conspiracy theorists" then you will remain more of a reactionary rather than a revolutionary. The same type of blind faith you despise in your "enemy" you adhere to in regards to theories opposed to said "enemy"

While it is commendable to see any type of review, I did not see a single mass computation or KE/PE energy transfer calc to back up or refute any claims within. Kind of disappointing.

Same again...with much conjecture and contradictions. Of course Gage's slide show is quite the same.


So "based on his own findings" he could not find enough information in a casual net search(assuming on my part).

Perhaps he could simply ask the people in question directly for their references...any engineer would be happy to oblige with a source and date for their degrees.

Well I could certainly argue that at least some of the witness accounts are false. Your link says that Kim Flyler, “Could see silhouettes of people in 2 back rows”, that Cissell James, “Saw faces in plane” and that William Lagasse could see, “Window shades pulled down”. Well sorry, but if the airliner was travelling at approximately 530mph then no you could not define that detail. See video here of a Boeing 757 speeded up to approximately 530mph. Then there are all the contradictions – big plane/small plane, wheels up/wheels down, cart-wheeled into the building, dragged its wing along the ground?

Saying that, I wasn’t actually arguing in my post for ‘no airliner impacted the Pentagon’ – more the fact it wasn’t the airliner/flight it was supposed to be. You see, there certainly are indicators that an airliner did not impact the Pentagon but due to those witnesses and also because the generator in front of the building appeared to have been moved/damaged, I cannot be sure. It can be taken for now that my argument is an airliner did impact the Pentagon, as they did the Towers… only not the flights we were told.



You replied to my Pentagon post with a lot of ‘irrelevant/so what’ type refutations. Sure any point on its own could be ignored in that way but it’s when you start adding up the odds that the ‘official’ story strains credibility: -

• Odds of former Navy pilot who worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon happening to be the Flight 77 pilot? Let’s be generous – 10%.
• Odds of air traffic control mistakenly thinking this was a military plane? Well four planes on 9/11 and it only happened once – 25%.
• Odds of two out of the three calls coming from a person with close links to the Bush Administration? Let’s be generous again and say – 10%.
• Odds of the Pentagon being struck at its least vulnerable spot? Five sides – 20%.

Multiplying just these points, odds of the ‘official’ story happening as it did gives a fraction of a percent - 0.05%. Now what are the odds of all the above happening when viewed from an alternative theory? Would you hand-pick a pilot, use a military plane, set-up calls and choose where to impact? Yes to all – 100%.



No, your opinions are not proof – it works both ways. And I’m not sure how unbiased your research method is when you link to “debunk911myths” and immediately discard other information because of the website it is on. If you research the flight data you will see in this case that ‘Killclown’ is correct.



Do you mean to say the ‘hijackers’ knew where to fly as to be undetected by radar or is that just another coincidence we need to add to the list above? The point is there is no record of Flight 77’s eastbound journey and that after disappearing from radar, Flight 77 was never positively identified as such again. Chances of that happening by accident – what 10, 20, 30%? Chances of that happening if you want to ‘swap’ your aircraft – 100%



Can you prove that ‘hundreds of thousands’ figure or did you pluck it out of the air? Here is a list of 100+ pilots and aviation professionals who question the ‘official’ story. Here are the comments of just a few: -

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”
Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.…"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg.
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ..."
Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)

"Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists"."
Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army

"The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field."
Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE

Hang on… the Pentagon is under attack, there’s damage to the building, people killed or injured, chaos all around, hell no one knows at this point whether there might even be another incoming airliner… and the very first thing FBI agents think is to pop across the road to start confiscating video footage? This is not what we would expect in the situation; this is the action of someone who knew what was going to happen and had a plan.

I don’t know how long it took to confiscate all of the footage but the gas station owner said, “The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” There were apparently 84 tapes confiscated of which only 3 I can think of have been released. Why are the rest being withheld despite Freedom of Information Act requests?



Do you check these articles or just post them because they have “debunk911myths” in the title? As well as containing irrelevant/incorrect information that does nothing to clear up Mineta’s testimony, the link is just a parroting of the 9/11 Commission Report. Your article states: -

“Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.”

The “one or two minutes” mentioned above is a plain fallacy. Whilst there certainly was confusion over identifying the flights, this does not change the fact that NEADS were aware of an incoming threat to Washington at 09:21 and requested fighters over the airspace in response. The reason they were in the “wrong place” is that the fighters from Langley AFB were then somehow sent in completely the wrong direction, despite the NEADS request. From the Vanity Fair article detailing the NEADS tapes that mrbusdriver previously linked: -

09:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: sh**! Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.

09:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He's heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm—I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

It’s strange actually – the ‘unidentified male’ specifically says, “Third aircraft” but Nasypany still assumes it’s Flight 11. As I said, doesn’t matter, fighters were requested over Washington more than 15 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact – the “debunk911myths” article that your research is based on is wrong.

This “order” that the Vice President had in place obviously will not be agreed upon but this leads on to the Commission Report’s discrepancy with Norman Mineta’s testimony that I have been discussing with mrbusdriver: -

It is clear from the transcript of Mineta’s testimony that he is not ‘mixed up’ about the timings. He states his arrival time of 9:20am, that Dick Cheney is already there and that Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon whilst they are at the PEOC. The only way to assume the Commission’s arrival time of 09:58am for Cheney is correct, would be to somehow assume Mineta completely ‘lost’ an hour in his timeline somewhere or in fact lied – neither of which are plausible when viewing his testimony

There have been accounts from former US government employee Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer that indirectly support Mineta’s testimony (see ‘Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival’).

Also, Mineta says he first learned of the “order” at around 09:25am or shortly after and hears, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out”… the Commission report states, “At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon”… thereby corroborating Mineta’s timeline.

Mineta has since been asked about the discrepancy between his account and that of the Commission Report – here. When presented with the Commission’s timeline, Mineta says he could possibly have been out on his timing but also that the Vice President was there before him and further says, “9:58? Oh no no no, I don’t know how that comes about. ”

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy and omission of Mineta’s testimony. To say he was ‘mixed up’ not only assumes Mineta got the time of the “order” wrong, but also his time of arrival wrong, the Pentagon impact time wrong and timing of the directive given to land all commercial aircraft wrong. Now unless you are claiming Mineta was abducted by aliens, implanted with false memories and plonked back on Earth 1 hour later… ‘mixed up’ does not make any sense. Research that and, if you can figure a version of events whereby the Commission report was not fabricated to absolve Cheney of any responsibility, let me know your conclusion.

I had this discussion with flyingswan earlier in the thread. I directly e-mailed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth about the issue and posted the responses here. The conclusion is that AE911T do verify their members and if anyone has evidence that individuals are not who they are supposed to be, you should let the site know and they will be happy to investigate the claim.

So, Obviousman, do you have any specific evidence that you would like to make AE911T aware of?

Hmmm... still, i notice, apart from Zaus, no one has yet offered any answers to the questions I was asking a while back. maybe, then, I should just assume that the ultimate answer to everything is simply that "They" are evil, and leave it at that.

hmmm.

Of course "they" are evil. "They" (take your pick of any of the "theys") are always evil (remember poor 'Rubber Duckie' if you doubt the veracity of this).

as i said ...selective acceptance

um, Say again, please? over.

Some notes here...
AA77 was NOT being tracked by NORAD...they got an offhand mention of it from the FAA at 9:21. And the FAA was calling it AA11. The live radar data was coming from FAA contacts at Dulles to the Secret Service, not to NORAD. NORAD was pretty much in the dark. They scrambled Langley (airborne at 9:30) who followed their standard departure route with ATC into a Navy ATC controlled Warning Area offshore...NORAD wasn't controlling them, ATC was...this is peacetime operations. NAVY ATC did not understand the urgency. Dulles TWR reported a fast mover at 9:33 to the Secret Service contact, NORAD did not get this information.

Looking at the AA77 FDR data here. Best as I can tell, the 757 was doing around 300kias coming abreast the Pentagon around 8000 feet. Civil aircraft are limited to <250kias below 10K, while the military fighters need a bit more speed...300-350kias. Seeing a track inbound at 300kias, a controller would reasonably estimate the track was military.

Now, the 757 starts turning and descending. While not smoothly flown, the data shows a reasonable descent...N1 reduced to 30-40%, airspeed kept around 300kias, descent rate around 2000ft/min, and pretty much a standard turn rate, perhaps slightly less. Only when he is rolling out on heading at the target does he firewall the throttle and continued down and in. Bank angle in the turn was ragged, between around 20 and 40 degrees, and was rolling out as the power and speed started up. Not the best maneuver, but certainly not "extreme" in any respect that I can see, until the very end

Still confused over the "who's on first" quandry...Clark started out in the Situation Room, not sure when he got to the PEOC to be with the VP and DOT boss. et al. He was apparently on a video teleconference at 9:25 from there.

Incidentally, if anyone doubts that a 757 would be capable of those kind of maneuvers, may I recommend: http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boe...Video-5203.html Yes, of course, it's a highly experienced crew in that video, but it shows the kind of thing that it's posisble to do with a 757.

Except that all commercial aircraft are fitted with servo limiters so that the airplane cannot do maneuvers like that(accidental extreme maneuvers in case of turbulence or accidental actuation). The limiters are adjustable but only by Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. The Servo Limiters are not accessible by flight personnel while in-flight.

So while the plane itself is fully capable of such flight actuation...the Limiters would still have to have been tampered with by experienced personnel, to allow for greater flight control actuation.

p.s. My prior landlord is an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer btw

“Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.”

The “one or two minutes” mentioned above is a plain fallacy. Whilst there certainly was confusion over identifying the flights, this does not change the fact that NEADS were aware of an incoming threat to Washington at 09:21 and requested fighters over the airspace in response. The reason they were in the “wrong place” is that the fighters from Langley AFB were then somehow sent in completely the wrong direction, despite the NEADS request. From the Vanity Fair article detailing the NEADS tapes that mrbusdriver previously linked: -


09:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: sh**! Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.

09:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He's heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm—I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

It’s strange actually – the ‘unidentified male’ specifically says, “Third aircraft” but Nasypany still assumes it’s Flight 11. As I said, doesn’t matter, fighters were requested over Washington more than 15 minutes prior to the Pentagon impact – the “debunk911myths” article that your research is based on is wrong.

Maj Maspany was getting words from FAA, thru his surveillance/ID techs that they thought the inbound (not being displayed nor tracked at NEADS) was AA11. They had no clue where it was.The unidentified "third hijack" call was natural, after the word of "another hijack", not having the FAA line telling him they (erroneously) thinks it's AA11.

Trying to correllate eleventy-seven timelines is a BEAR!!! But the fighters were airborne 8 minutes before impact.

Again, Langley scrambled on NEADS request, based on nebulous FAA information (not "data"), for a target somewhere inbound to DC. From there on they are under ATC control. That they weren't directly vectored towards DC was attributable to 1) no such procedures in place and 2) unclear communications as to the threat situation. It was a procedural flaw, an inadequacy, peacetime procedures in the middle of a sneak attack from WITHIN the US. The pilots had no information either. Secret Service was scrambling armed and unarmed fighters from Andrews and transmitting shootdown authority through bizzare and improvised channels. Surveillance SA and FAA coordination was probably better in the PEOC than at NEADS. Andrews fighters using bullseye control with self CAP under FAA control, with other NORAD fighters in the same area under close control of NORAD..."goat rope" in the extreme.
All I can say is that I am certain the procedures are very clear, precise, and well rehearsed...now. They weren't then. Hopefully they've also decentralized a lot of the basic functions as well.

It makes sense that certain parameters seem unstipulated, and a chance sighting of "passengers at windows" seems difficult to understand. That may be because eyewitnesses are fallible.



I'll read the rest of the post, later. But, for now, I ask this. Why not avoid the Capitol, and the airfields? Why not go straight into the northwest side of the Pentagon, alongside a...cemetary? A lot less to worry about, maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

I've worked/managed countless fighters in innumerable MOAs, Warning Areas, and Restricted Areas in my time. One thing is paramount...safety. You have specific airspace, and the FAA owns the rest. You, or your Tech, coordinate closely with the FAA for clearances, and woe be to him who wanders from his airspace. One just doesn't take fighters and charges into someone else's airspace without coordination (lots) and a helluva good reason. This is where AFOI came in. Basically telling the fighters they (and the controller) that THEY were responsible for any and all separation from ALL air traffic, whilst blazing through the very heavily trafficed eastern corridors. It's damned dangerous, and the authorizations come from higher up (not sure where that morning, at least Region CC I would guess, quite possibly CONR).

I am making an educated bet that there was no procedure for "AFIO on launch" that morning, or even today. You cannot launch high speed into anothers' airspace and expect them to get everyone out of your way. It's unrealistic, and stupid. Especially with the airspace/ATC/pilot confusion that morning in the "ATC Zero" going on. Just the idea of the Langley and Andrews fighters in the same close airspace, under different control, with different ROE, with innocent airliners trying to get down sickens me to the core...any controller's nightmare of the worst sort.

Today, I'm sure they have 24 hr CAP over various places, and I am confident that there are other CAPs that come and go randomly or based on "activities" (big Bowl games, dignitary travel, etc). Cargo planes are a worry. TRAs, sometimes very short notice, are the norm now, much to the distress of the AOPA. Alert statuses are probably enormous, with assets (relatively) everywhere. The enemy bombers/cruise missile threat was a piece of cake compared to this new situation.

The air defense on 9/11, while distressing, was completely believable from an insider's point of view. Slam it or question it as you like, it was what it was, postured to the world threat of the day accordingly.

Maneuvers like what? At 300 knots, it doesn't take much control surface throw to maneuver. The plane didn't go through any terribly unusual "g" maneuvers, descents, or bank angles. And the 757 is not an Airbus, where the control authority is artificially limited by a computer based on pre-programmed algorithims. What are these "limiters"? Boeing does fly by wire, but does not program in limiters. Stick shakers, yes.

Yes.



From several independent sources. Jones points out one of them below...

At the wonderful Boston Tea Party conference this past weekend, I presented new data on the aluminum-iron-rich microspheres and on "red chips" which I have found in all the WTC dust samples studied so far. One of these, from Frank Dilessio and Tom Breidenbach, was collected within twenty minutes of the North Tower collapse! I had Frank and Tom come up to the podium and explain the collection and chain of custody THEMSELVES at the Boston mtg. Again , this sample (one of four so far we're studying in depth) shows the microspheres in abundance -- and red chips also, with same chemical signature!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13006

..now we have a dust sample acquired by Frank Delessio 20 minutes after the last Towers' collapse, long before clean-up even started! And this sample provides some of the very best examples of Fe-Al spheres that our team has seen.



If you watched Jones' video, at least you'd be able to present an actual argument, instead of coming across like those people who protest and bleat on and on about movies they haven't even seen!



Wrong. There is evidence of melted steel.



First of all, the WTC microspheres have a different chemical composition than those which are the "normal product of construction work". So it is still valid evidence.

Jones also has evidence of melted steel in iron-rich slag samples. There are videos of orange-colored molten metal pouring out of the tower. There are numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts describing the molten metal. And that's just off the top of my head - there's much more evidence than this.

It's total nonsense to claim that no evidence of melted steel exists.



Moving the goalposts. Your claim was that structural engineers - and only structural engineers - were the most qualified group to investigate the collapses. Now you want to bring in fire engineers, after I pointed out that your "most qualified group"......wasn't.



Try reading the whole post next time. This was my reply....

Aw, MID. I'm disappointed in you.

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend....




If you can't clue in from my reply above, then the only one with a problem here is you, flyingswan. It's not my fault you can't grasp such basic concepts as this.



No. You were the one who asked about the quote - in the very next post after my reply above - just a few minutes later!! You didn't clue in back then, and you still don't clue in now. MID clued in right away, however.



First of all, the mod and I have long-since dealt with this issue, in both open forum and private discussions.

But worse, dredging up old posts written by others makes it quite obvious that you're grasping at straws, trying to find anything to support a failed argument.



When - or if - you're ever able to grasp the basic concepts I've tried explaining to you so many times now, it will be nothing less than an epiphany.

Good luck....

The "people on the spot" also said the fires were small and limited to 1 or 2 floors. There were many accounts, and they varied. So don't try claiming they all said the WTC 7 fires were massive, or "fully involved".

The videos and photos do not show WTC 7 having "fully involved" fires - at any time.

The accounts of massive fires are not corroborated whatsoever by the videos and photos.

The accounts of small, limited fires are corroborated by the videos and photos.


It's quite apparent that "evidence" isn't relevant to you - if it contradicts your argument.

Sure, let's do that.



Okay, let's go back to your previous comments about this...



Come on - "setting himself up as an explosive expert"?!?!? Please.

He says "I think...". He's certainly not "setting himself up as an explosive expert". He makes no claim to be "an explosives expert". He has a personal opinion, and gives it. Period.


Now, look again at the quote you keep using to smear him...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

You've twisted that around - as if he's claiming that 'he never mentions (or talks about) bombs'.

WRONG.

He never said that. He said he always talks about explosions, not bombs. In other words - he always talks about explosions, but he doesn't always talk about bombs.

And he gives a reason for not always talking about bombs - because he's not an explosives expert.


You have no argument, as I keep on telling you.

First- mrbusdriver is way ahead of the curve. Q24 needs to come to more agreement with him, IMO.

Second, from Q24-



I presume you refer to Ted Olson. First of all, he is a Washington power broker, no doubt.

I don't know what kind of stress he underwent, post-9/11. I don't know what political or PR undertakings he might have engaged in. That said, his information, as presented in the 9/11 Commision report, The Hijacking of American 77 was simple and straight forward. I'll go with that, and forget about all the magazine interviews (accurate and inaccurate), and all his poltical posturings.

Q24-



Among those lost on American Flight 11, was Betty Ong. She was number three flight attendant, and made an emergency call to AA headquarters. There is public record of some of that call.

Apparently, a remark on that recording from AA headquarters asked if it was a case of "flight rage", or really a hijacking-

(Ex. Sen.-Gov. Bob Kerry, testimony, 2004, "MR. KERREY: Among the--there were eureka moments for me where I discovered something on this commission. I was listening to flight attendant Betty Ong on American Airlines flight 11, when she was talking to the ground. People on the ground, American Airlines and federal officials, were surprised that the plane had been hijacked. In fact, argued with her, said, are you sure it isn't air rage?

Don't you think the FAA should have told the Port Authority at some point during this whole entire period--I mean, take '98 through 2001, because our staff has concluded that at least the Counterterrorism Center at CIA should have done some scenario analysis about hijacking, since it was mentioned in some of the things that we had picked up. No specific plan was detected, but don't you think that the FAA or somebody at the federal level should have engaged in some scenario analysis about the possibility of a hijacking and begin to think about that as a possible threat against the United States?

GovInfo Library Link)


Nonetheless, at that hearing in 2004, Betty's brother and sister were introduced. They are a matter of public record, faces and all. Their family is mentioned in Wikipedia. Her highschool alumni memorium, 1973 is on the Internet. Other news articles linked to her are on the Net. Anyone can decide for themselves.

Her pictures from Betty Ann Ong Foundation-




Video testimony, Ong family appearance, and Recording of Betty's Emergency Call on 9/11, from AA Flight 11-

Testimony and Audio Recording, start 34:00



The video is from-

Panel 6- Day Two: Tuesday, January 27, 2004

9/11 Commission Archive Page


Transcript pp.106-115

9/11 Commission Hearing, Re: Betty Ong


S.F. Mural Depicting 9/11 Flight Attendant Scarred by Taggers.
Artist Ann Sherry and organizer Cathie Lam of the Chinatown Community Development Center survey graffiti damage-

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/BAH0S2TVJ.DTL



names from article-

Chinatown Community Development Center Staff-

Norman Fong, Deputy Director

Cathie Lam, Senior Community Organizer

http://www.chinatowncdc.org/about/staff/index.html


Fong works for the Chinatown Community Development Center, which owns the building where the mural is located and co-commissioned the painting -

From San Francisco Public Television Station KQED-

Asian Pacific American Heritage 2008 Local Heroes

http://www.kqed.org/topics/history/heritage/apa/heroes.jsp

Video Clip of Rev. Fong


All this is just one part of a much larger portrait, of those who were there, that day.

Pilot of AA 11, John Ogonowski, is a name imminently more real than the conspiracy theories that, for some reason, still exist.

Here is an article, from his home state of Massachusetts-

"John Ogonowski was the fourth generation of his family to till White Gate Farm in Dracut, a place he dearly loved. He grew up working the farm, but left home in 1972 to join the Air Force. After serving in Vietnam, he became a commercial pilot. When he married, he brought his wife Peggy home with him to the family's farm. There the couple raised three daughters.

Ogonowski became deeply involved with the New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, which matched immigrant growers with mentors who would lease them small plots of land, teach them how to adapt their methods to New England conditions, and support their efforts to grow produce for local markets."

Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities Article- Mass Moments


"The team responsible for the content of the Mass Moments website and radio spots is headed by Ellen K. Rothman. Associate Director of the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities, Ellen has over 25 years experience in public history. She received her B.A. from Harvard and her Ph.D. in American History from Brandeis University.

Mary Babson Fuhrer and Liz Nelson assisted on the research and writing. Mary Fuhrer holds a B.A. in History from Princeton and an M.A. from George Mason University. She was on the staff of Fruitlands Museums in Harvard, MA for seven years before becoming a consulting research historian. Liz Nelson has written numerous books and articles on Massachusetts history and been a freelance editor on several major historical publications. She holds a B.A. from the University of Massachusetts/Amherst and an M.Ed. from Lesley University. Liz Nelson was also the chief consultant on the Teachers' Features section of the website."


Related article from Tuft's University-

John Ogonowski was the pilot on American Airlines flight 11 to Los Angeles that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. John is most remembered for his contributions to the farming community in Massachusetts, and particularly for his dedication to immigrant farmers from Cambodia whom he assisted as part of the NESFP. John served as NESFP's first mentor farmer and dedicated acreage of his property to help Cambodians begin farming. He gave production advice, helped put up a shed and greenhouse, and often did not collect the rents. He is survived by his wife, Peggy, and their three daughters. Peggy and John's brother, Jim Ogonowski, are still actively involved in the project and assist to keep the farmers on their land to preserve John's memory.




A Special Note Regarding John Ogonowski



John Ogonowski, 52, Dracut, Mass., pilot.



Family of John Ogonowski

That’s interesting - the ‘official’ angle of the flight path for Flight 77 is wrong according to Sgt Lagasse and Sgt Brooks. Well, either the two in this video or the Pentagon building performance report are mistaken. I don’t understand why the ‘official’ report would want to cover up the real approach angle though. Unless you have any ideas, MolonLabe?

Could we, perhaps, venture to suggest what they might have been, then?
And then, perhaps, could we venture to attempt an answer to my still unanswered question about how many people who must have been involved in the plot, whatever it may actually have been, and why not a single one of those involved in the plot has ever come forward?

So of all the people in the US who could possibly have been on Flight 77, you don’t find it suspect that two out of the three calls from that airliner happened to originate from the Solicitor General's wife? The same man who successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively determined the final result of the contested 2000 Presidential election. Of all the people in the US it could have been are you saying that isn’t a coincidence? I’m not saying it couldn’t have genuinely happened like that, I’m just noting it is one of many coincidences that all add up to making the ‘official’ story practically untenable based on the odds.



I have no doubt that any passengers on the four flights on 9/11 were killed.

But there's the crux of it.
How?
By whom?
Where and when?
And, again, why has no one involved in such a monstrous conspiracy ever come forward?

You need to understand 9/11 was an inside job before going into this aspect, otherwise you are not going to ‘get’ it. They were airliners still, just not the ones they were supposed to be. Having taken years to plan an inside job, ensuring every detail was prepared not least in setting the WTC buildings for demolition, I would not be leaving to chance that some suicidal patsy lunatic might back out, fail with the hijackings or not align with a Tower correctly, clipping a wing and sending the airliner spiralling into the street. I would take a guaranteed precision plan every time. The guaranteed plan being remotely controlled Boeing airliners: -

• This 1984 NASA demonstration of a remote Boeing had 17 years worth of improved technology to implement by 2001.
• Autopilot systems can carry out everything including takeoffs, ascents, levelling, navigation, descents and landings.
• There is a long list of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles developed and operated by various countries.
• There are many flight control systems that can be operated from a ground control station.

I have discussed how/where a Boeing could be obtained for the inside job here.

You are also asking about the people involved in the inside job, 747400. I did have a website listing the main players involved but unfortunately the link has died - will try to find that again. I gave a refutation that a large number of people would need to be involved in my post here. If you wonder why no one has come forward then be sure to answer my questions on the bottom of that post… nobody else could.

In reference to the flights and passengers, they are questions that could only be answered through a full independent investigation with unrestricted access to all the evidence and witnesses – not going to happen. The questions are equivalent to coming across a murder scene and wanting to know how, why, when and by whom the crime was committed, all before the police investigation even begins.