WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

One thing that gets me are all the coincidences...they just seem to keep piling up. For example, the towers had just switched from public ownership to private ownership, and the new owner (forget his name I do) had them insured specifically against terrorism. Considering they had previously been a target perhaps that is not too surprising. As I recall, he paid something like 15 million for the towers and got 7 billion from the insurance. Quite a return on his investment, eh? I sure wish I could get a return like that at the bank. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these facts.

Like I think I said before, I can see some coincidences, but it seems like they just keep piling up. Like how Rumsfeld switched the fighter response protocol before the attack, and then switched it right back, after the attack, as Q24 (I believe it was he) pointed out.

Thngs are not always what the seem. For an example, Rumsfeld, had no authority to issue shoot down orders of airliners on his own and in some cases, commanders refused to pass on shoot down orders for fear of shooting down an innocent airliner. Let's read what an F-15 pilot has said.

9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."

As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.

Coincidentally, at the very moment, the plane slammed into Tower One.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

When United Airlines Flight 175, piloted by Atta's hijack-partner Marwan Al Shehhi, crashed into Tower Two at 9:02 a.m., the two F-15's were about 71 miles - eight minutes away - from Manhattan.

By the time "Nasty" got word of a second hijacked plane, it had already smashed into Tower Two, he told the paper. But the idea that the F-15's, had they been scrambled earlier, might have been able to shoot down the hijackers is pure conjecture, "Nasty" told the paper.

At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.

http://www.freerepub...ws/737242/posts

In addition:

9/11 10th Anniversary: F-15 pilot Dan Nash recalls response

Controllers from the Northeast Air Defense Sector would spot an aircraft on their radar and ask the pilots to investigate and steer it away from Manhattan’s airspace. Over a four-hour period, Nash and Duffy repeated the process for between 50 and 100 aircraft.

When the South Tower of the trade center fell at 9:59 a.m., Nash was flying east over Kennedy, escorting a small civilian airliner to a safe landing. “When we turned around,” he recalled, “Manhattan was covered with what I thought was smoke. But it was the dust from the collapsed tower.”

The pilots were over the North Tower when it collapsed at 10:28 a.m. From an altitude of 6,000 feet, according to Vittner’s report, Duffy watched the tower implode. Nash wasn’t looking down at the time; he only saw the aftermath. The plume of smoke and ash, he estimated, rose 5,000 feet above streets below.

http://www.masslive....t_dan_nash.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD techniques and its protocols nor were they in the communication loop of NEADS and NORAD. To further underline that point, Lt. Colonel Phil Thompson said it best when he said:

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise..."

He was the chief of safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

Video of the pilot 911 that conspiracist claimed, shot down United 93. He was nowhere near United 93 when it crashed nor even in the area.

Claims Surrounding a F-16 Pilot and United 93

Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93.

"I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Now, let's go here.

10:09 AM1 minute, 57 seconds

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**** the code words, that’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire, ID, type, tail. (they are only to identify the type and tail number of the plane).

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

http://www.unexplain...=229808&st=3045

Despite the facts above, 911 conspiracist have claimed that the F-16 pilot shot down United 93. That is why I have warned not to allow yourself to be duped by those who have a habit of spewing flawed and misleading information, outright lies, disinformation and misinformation, otherwise, those who know the rest of he story will take notice.

Edited February 16, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Regarding the flight path of what probably wasn't 77, if 6 or 8 people including 2 cops saw the airplane north of the station, it seems likely they were all being truthful. I saw the video, and many if not all the videos were done actually AT the gas station. With pointing and talking, it looked to me like they were all telling the truth as best they knew it.

So for me trying to make up my mind, my choice is whether to believe you or them. It's not a hard decision.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Regarding the flight path of what probably wasn't 77, if 6 or 8 people including 2 cops saw the airplane north of the station

It would have been impossible for them to see American 77 fly north of the gas station. The video proves that.

The damage along the flight path of American 77 proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

The distribution of debris and damage within the Pentagon reconfirms the south-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77.

,

Edited February 16, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Gummug]

It would have been impossible for them to see American 77 fly north of the gas station. The video proves that.

The damage along the flight path of American 77 proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

The distribution of debris and damage within the Pentagon reconfirms the south-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77.

,

One thing I'd like to know, I heard that the FBI confiscated all the video tapes, like from hotel security and such, that caught the object (whatever it was) that hit the Pentagon. I understand they'd like to see them to study them, but could they have just made copies? Did they ever give them back after studying them? Like I've said before, when everything seems so secretive and the PTB act like they're trying to hide something, no wonder CT abounds imo.

Also, Skyeage, I wonder what you think about this. The reason I put it in, I know statistically there are going to be some deaths if you take a large enough number of people, but doesn't this seem to you to be stretching the statistical odds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Edited February 16, 2013 by Gummug

[Gummug]

As Churchill said of Soviet foreign policy ("a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma"), 9/11 will remain in history as our generation's most unfathomable debacle, something of "a tortuous puzzle inside a confounding riddle wrapped in a lead-sealed enigma that may or may not have been orchestrated by a multi-tier international conspiracy that may or may not ever be revealed if there is any revelation to be had." JFK's assassination is to 9/11 as Rubik's Cube is to the ineffable nature of time travel.

I agree completely, and the more time passes between the event and now, the colder the trail becomes, and imo I think the truth may forever be shrouded in darkness until the sea gives up her dead and all things are made known. Concerning JFK (sorry this is a little off topic) I've heard the Mafia had a hand in it because supposedly JFK was going to crack down on organized crime. I've also heard the CIA was behind it, also that the Federal Reserve had a hand in it because JFK was going to sign an order to have Congress print money again (not the Federal Reserve which was never supposed to in the first place). Maybe all of them were involved, I guess we'll never know.

[skyeagle409]

One thing I'd like to know, I heard that the FBI confiscated all the video tapes, like from hotel security and such, that caught the object (whatever it was) that hit the Pentagon.

I have already identified the B-757 in one video and B-757 debris outside and inside the Pentagon, so videos are not required to identify that aircraft as a B-757. Remember, in most aviation accidents videos are not available for examination. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings yet there are those claiming the aircraft were missiles, drones or illusions.

Did they ever give them back after studying them?

I am sure they have, but radar and black box data have been examined and are available.

Like I've said before, when everything seems so secretive and the PTB act like they're trying to hide something, no wonder CT abounds imo.

Also, Skyeage, I wonder what you think about this. The reason I put it in, I know statistically there are going to be some deaths if you take a large enough number of people, but doesn't this seem to you to be stretching the statistical odds?

There were a number of deaths and the victims have been identified. In addition, human remains of passengers and crew from American 77 have been recovered and identified so it is amazing that there are 911 conspiracist who continue to claim that the object which struck the Pentagon was a missile or a drone, especially after American Airlines, operator of American 77, confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon. You can go to these links and determine what happened to American 77.

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/757/24602,N644AA-American-Airlines.php

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-3

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=644AA

Recently, I attended a going-away dinner for the commanding general of my former unit. He was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck and provided us with the rest of the story that is not available on the Internet. There is no mystery that the aircraft was American 77 as he has confirmed details on what occurred that day at the Pentagon and yet there are those who intend to lead the unknowing down the wrong path.

Edited February 17, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Gummug]

There were a number of deaths and the victims have been identified. In addition, human remains of passengers and crew from American 77 have been recovered and identified so it is amazing that there are 911 conspiracist who continue to claim that the object which struck the Pentagon was a missile or a drone, especially after American Airlines, operator of American 77, confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon. You can go to these links and determine what happened to American 77.

Right. I am not so much doubting that planes hit the towers and probably the pentagon (although I'm still scratching my head as to why there weren't any wing marks on the building) but the deaths I was referring to are deaths of people who seemed to know more than they were supposed to, or who were going to blow the whistle and were subsequently silenced (as has been alleged to have occured with many of the JFK assassination witnesses):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

I mean these people weren't even on the planes. I realize statistically some of them would die, but the number seems to suggest that a higher percentage than normal associated with this event have died.

[skyeagle409]

Right. I am not so much doubting that planes hit the towers and probably the pentagon (although I'm still scratching my head as to why there weren't any wing marks on the building) but the deaths I was referring to are deaths of people who seemed to know more than they were supposed to, or who were going to blow the whistle and were subsequently silenced (as has been alleged to have occured with many of the JFK assassination witnesses):

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU[/media]

I mean these people weren't even on the planes. I realize statistically some of them would die, but the number seems to suggest that a higher percentage than normal associated with this event have died.

Beware of those conspiracy videos, especially that particular video. How many people of the truth movement have been knocked off by the government?

[Czero 101]

Right. I am not so much doubting that planes hit the towers and probably the pentagon (although I'm still scratching my head as to why there weren't any wing marks on the building)

Regarding this, perhaps this post of mine from July '09 which addresses some of the "issues" with the damage to the Pentagon may help alleviate some of your head scratching:

Cz, I had a typo. The picture I was talking about in post#356 and #358 is:

Page 21 Post 304 3rd or 4th picture. KennyB

No worries. We all make mistakes now and then.

Let's re-address your previous posts.

Gentlemen, please bear with me again. Look at post #30, about the 3rd pic down, the one that is well lit. If the plane came in and barely cleared the wire spools, why didn't the left wing hit that little cyclone fence. If the plane was cocked over to the right enough to clear that, the right wing or the right engine would have been plowing the ground. See the arrow pointing to the ledge under the windows on the left side. If the left wing made that mark, the wing would have been higher than the fuselage. For the fuselage to be fairly level, the only way it could be done would be if the plane had a gull wing, like a C-119. Does a 757 have a gull wing? No, I thought not. KennyB

First things first. The images I will be presenting all come from the following site:

USINFO Photo Gallery: The September 11 Attack on the Pentagon

This site was previously posted by Merril in post #284. It addresses the misconceptions presented in the "Loose Change" videos, specifically that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an aircraft.

I'm assuming that you are referring to this image.

While this is the same image that you refer to from post #304, it is smaller and does not have the same indicators on it. The arrow shown points to the mark you are referring to

What you are seeing here is a low concrete wall which surrounds a ventilation exhaust structure situated between the helipad an the Pentagon proper. That wall is roughly only a foot high. The arrow in the picture above indicates the point on that wall where the bottom of the left engine pod struck it, removing a roughly semi-circular portion of the wall. Please note that it was only the lower portion of the left engine pod that hit that low wall, not the entire wing.

With regards to the "cyclone fence", this picture gives a bit better perspective:

The portion of the fence seen at the very left of the above image is the same portion of the fencing seen in the image Kenny has referred to. That fence was surrounding a large, temporary power generator on the lawn of the Pentagon. This is the large, dark object that makes up most of the foreground in the image I have provided above.

This generator looks to be approximately the same size as a standard shipping container. These containers are 20 or 40 feet long by 8 feet wide by 8 1/2 feet high. It is hard to tell the length of the generator, but the width and height appear to be that of a standardized shipping container. The trailer that the generator is mounted on is roughly 3 feet high (from the ground to the bottom of the generator / container). So this gives the generator a total height of roughly 11 1/2 feet. Again, it is hard to be certain of the exact dimensions of the generator / container so it could even be what's called a "high-cube" container. A "high-cube" container is 9 1/2 feet tall and is called "high-cube" because it allows for more cubic footage of cargo to be carried. This would give the generator a total height of 12 1/2 feet. Having worked in the trucking / container industry as recently as a year ago, I am quite familiar with these containers, their dimensions and the trailers used to move them. While I can't be 100% positive due to the damage to the generator, I would say that I am 95% positive that my comparison between the generator and the shipping containers I have referenced is accurate.

Examining the image above you can see that the generator has obviously been hit by something, in this case, the right wing of flight 77. The caption for this image states that an eyewitness saw the wingtip of the aircraft hit the generator, but in my opinion, it had to have been closer in towards the right engine pod since the gap in the fencing surrounding the generator was made by the right engine pod. This also explains why the corner of the "cyclone fence" is still standing as seen in both my picture and Kenny's. More on that to follow.

The artist's depiction below clearly shows that the generator is roughly in-line with the right engine pod and the low wall surrounding the ventilation structure is roughly in-line with the left engine pod.

The image below, taken before the side of the building collapsed, shows the generator / container still on fire in the lower right portion of the image:

Looking at the generator / container and comparing it to the remaining fencing, it appears as though the fence is only 8-feet high, not 10-feet as claimed by Kenny in later comments (see below).

It just so happens that this image is also one used by the makers of "Loose Change" to put forward the idea that there was only a 16-foot hole created in the front of the Pentagon where flight 77 impacted. What hey DON'T tell you is that the hole they presume is the only damage (indicated by the arrow just to the left of centre) is actually on the second floor and that most of the impact damage was to the ground floor. Conveniently for them, the ground floor damage is hidden in this image by the foam / water being sprayed by the fire truck in the lower left foreground.

cz, that mark on that ledge is perfectly horizonal. For the wing to have made such a straight mark, the plane would have to have been heeled to the left and the left wing or engine would have caught the fence, the right wing would have been pointing up at a high angle. The only way the left wing could have made that mark would be if it had a gull wing and a little more altitude. Your picture shows the wing in an even lower position than I thought it was. As close as that fence is, there's no way it would have missed being hit by the left wing or the left engine. It was too close for the wing to go over it. If, as you say, the left wing was lower than the right one, it would have centered that fence. That looks like a 10ft fence. KennyB

As stated above, the "mark on the ledge" is only the roundish gouge taken out of a small portion of the wall. The rest of the wall is perfectly horizontal because that is the top of the one-foot wall. The aircraft was only "heeled over" by a small amount, probably less than 10 degrees. The image below shows the approximate attitude of the aircraft at impact:

As you can see, the right wing is raised slightly and the left wing is virtually parallel with the ground. This would have the effect of putting the left engine pod less than a foot above ground, which is consistent with the damage shown to the low wall, and putting the right engine roughly 5 to 6 feet above ground, which again is consistent with the damage seen to the generator / container and the "cyclone fence" surrounding it. The reason the corner portion of the fence is still standing is that it was in the "empty space" between the right engine pod and the aircraft's fuselage. Also, fence corner posts are, generally speaking, sturdier posts, are placed deeper into the ground and usually have concrete poured into the hole surrounding the post to make it stronger and more stable.

The image also shows the approximate extent of the damage caused to the Pentagon. You can clearly see that considerably more damage was done to the ground floor by the wings, engines and other, heavier parts of the aircraft.

The damage can be seen more clearly in this artist's depiction:

Compare that to the following images that show the damage to the ground floor:

Damage from the right wing extends up to the second floor slab, but since the wing did not penetrate the floor slab, the damage above there is somewhat limited when compared with the area below the floor slab. Here's a closer look at the second floor slab:

And the same area pictured after the collapse:

Note the scrape marks above the second floor. These are most likely the results of parts of the aircraft (horizontal and vertical stabilizers, parts of the wing) hitting and disintegrating against the facing wall. Notice also that there is significantly less damage above the second floor slab and that the damage tapers off laterally after column 19 (indicated). This is due to the weaker outer portion of the wing breaking up upon impact with the floor slab. Damage gets more significant toward column 18 and 17. The wing's structure is more substantial and stronger the closer it gets to the fuselage (so that it can support the engines and the fuselage) and would remain intact longer, therefore doing more damage before breaking up completely.

This is an image of the damage done to the ground floor by the left wing. Since it was virtually horizontal at the time of impact, most of the damage is limited (vertically) to the ground floor, but as can be seen by the indicated column numbers, extends quite far laterally, as far as column 8. The expansion joint at column 11 indicated is where the facade of the Pentagon initially sagged immediately after impact, and then collapsed approximately 20 minutes later.

Cz

Edited February 17, 2013 by Czero 101

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

No, there are several possibilities. Either the witnesses are completely fabricating their stories, or they are telling the truth and actually did see some sort of Boeing passing as they described. If the latter, there is no way the Boeing they saw could have struck the building as the story goes, raining on your parade.

So your only position is to call them all liars and cheats, simply because their testimony shows the official story to be impossible.

Instead, you need to believe that all elements of the government always tell the truth and never deceive the public, and that is a most untenable position, if one has studied the record of government for veracity.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

No, there are several possibilities. Either the witnesses are completely fabricating their stories, or they are telling the truth and actually did see some sort of Boeing passing as they described.

Since the physical evidence proved beyond any doubt that American 77 did not pass north of the gas station, they are either lying or mistaken.

If the latter, there is no way the Boeing they saw could have struck the building as the story goes, raining on your parade.

It has been shown and proven by the physical evidence alone, the damage along the flight path leading to the Pentagon, and distribution of wreckage inside the Pentagon, that it would have been impossible for American 77 to have traveled north of the gas station. All of the physical damage prove that beyond any doubt.

So your only position is to call them all liars and cheats, simply because their testimony shows the official story to be impossible.

Either that or they were simply mistaken because the physical evidence does not support their claims. If a light pole was installed south of a building, why try to convince people that light pole is standing north of that building?

American 77 Witnesses

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

That proves beyond any doubt that American 77 did not pass north of the gas station.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the lists...136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon,

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon

. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an

American

Airlines

jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a

large jet/commercial airliner

.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757

.

https://sites.google...evidencesummary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Willams:

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' "

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."

–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

Source

: Yes, I saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

The remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families.

Since you like to use witnesses, you will notice that there are witnesses who have said the aircraft was an American Airlines jet.

Edited February 17, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

Sky

No, there are several possibilities. Either the witnesses are completely fabricating their stories, or they are telling the truth and actually did see some sort of Boeing passing as they described. If the latter, there is no way the Boeing they saw could have struck the building as the story goes, raining on your parade.

That's only two of "several possibilities"... "They were mistaken" is another, far more plausible possibility to explain why such a small number of people have a different story than all the other witnesses.

So your only position is to call them all liars and cheats, simply because their testimony shows the official story to be impossible.

Funny how that is the exact position you have taken with ALL the evidence provided that disagree with your "interpretation"....

Oh wait... Funny's not the right word.... HYPOCRITICAL... that's better, and more reflective of the truth of your position.

Instead, you need to believe that all elements of the government always tell the truth and never deceive the public, and that is a most untenable position, if one has studied the record of government for veracity.

No, that is your narrow-minded, fingers stuck in ears, confirmation biased, strawman opinion.

No one here has ever claimed that "the government always tell the truth and never deceive the public" and I defy you to prove otherwise.

YOU are the one who claims that since the government has lied before it MUST be lying now.

YOU are the one who constantly refuses to acknowledge how that illogical, inaccurate, and biased position completely destroys your own credibility (if you ever had any to begin with) since BY YOUR OWN POSTS HERE you have proven yourself to be a liar, and by your own "logic" should not be believed.

Cz

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

I wonder if you've seen the actual interviews with those people? I suspect not, but I could be wrong.

I found it pretty persuasive, all that testimony. And what made it unique was that most all of them was right there. I think the cops were actually AT the gas station when it happened, as were several others.

So as a neutral observer, I believe those people were telling the truth the best they knew it.

Your observation that "they were mistaken" is impossible. Several of them pointed to where they had seen the airplane, and they all pointed to the same place, and they were not all interviewed together.

I do sincerely apologize for not knowing the nuances of your particular belief regarding the events of the day. I had assumed you were defending the official story? I did not mean to assign a particular view to you.

I would be thrilled to discuss your nuances of the story, if only you would present them.

[skyeagle409]

I wonder if you've seen the actual interviews with those people? I suspect not, but I could be wrong.

Review the eyewitness accounts provided to you where they identified the aircraft as an American Airlines jet.

USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted,

"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an

American

Airlines

jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".

Edited February 17, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

If you look very closely within that mess, you will find unburned paper, which clearly indicates that is no molten concrete.

Well if you believe a passport can fly out of the fireball of a plane and survive unburned, then what do you find so unusual about this unburned paper in molten concrete.

It is a compressed mess of four stories of debris and contents within the building.

There is a video available where you can still read words from unburned paper embedded within the object, which clearly indicates the material was never molten concrete.

It's actually four floors of the World Trade Center squashed like a pancake and yet people were led to believe the meteorite was molten concrete. In another photo, an unmelted gun barrel was displayed along side of a similar object, which was yet another indication the material never reached the melting point of steel.

You partially right for once, it was compressed floors but you neglect to mention.....

One of the most chilling finds in the hangar is a jagged 4ft by 4ft block ­resembling a meteorite, named Compression. It is ­the result of several floors of the Twin Towers melting together in the infernal heat.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/911-ten-years-on-inside-151495

I see nothing you have put forward which suggests a lack of molten concrete or steel in the meteorite.

[DONTEATUS]

Its just So Insane to think anyone Can not See what Hit that Day ! I guess All the pilots,and families of all the people Are Trying too a cover up ? Did you not get born until the last two Weeks ! THats about How smart you seem If you hold to the Idea of these C.T`s THe mind of a infant !

[Stundie]

In the video, I heard so much misinformation that it is unbelievable that anyone would take what is presented seriously. Let's take a few examples.

1. Timeline; 0:11. It depicts a grapple lifting a hot piece of metal and it is sought to imply the material is molten steel. Clearly, the material is not in a molten state so it is amazing that anyone would even suggest that is molten steel. There would have been no way to lift molten steel with such a machine, so that is misinformation

This panto debunking his hilarious and I'm going to preempt why you say there is no way to lift molten steel with such a machine. You'll come out with some crap about about digger not being able to pick up molten steel, not realising that no one in their right mind would use a digger to pick up pools of molten steel? lol The digger would be grabbing the cool ends of the whatever was melting, like say a girder for instance. Or they would let the fires cool down and carry on digging.

So it's not misinformation, you are misinformed. lol

In other words, your ridiculous assertion that diggers can pick up molten steel doesn't equal there was no molten steel.

2. Time line; 0:37, Steven Jones name is mentioned and that was a mistake because Steven Jones have been discredited by experts, and even by his own colleagues at BTU. The video also mentions that Steven Jones found thermite, but that claim has been discredited along time ago because the compounds he found was also contain in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Apparently, Steven Jones of unaware of that fact before he made his false claim. That ismisinformation

I'm sure it would be easy for someone with your experience and expertise to discredit Jones, but all I see is an internet warrior whose obviously not as smart as he likes to claim.

3. Time line; 1:23-1:39, they mention molten steel but they are not experts to identify the metal as molten steel. In addtion, that claim is made regarding the "meteorite" which is not molten steel at all, but compressed contents of four floors from the WTC building that was not subject to melting point of steel which was evident by the fact there was still unburned paper within the material. So once again, misinformation that have duped people unknowingly, so that is misinformation

Sorry my friend, but there were plenty of experts and none experts and they all saw molten metal, girders some say it's steel.

You have provided no evidence that any of these people at GZ are wrong. So again, you are misinformed.

4. Time line; 1:40 depicts a curved piece of I-beam, which was subject to temperatures less that the melting point of steel under high stress.

You don't say....lol

However, I take the word of an expert whose putting his reputation on the line and not some internet fantasist, who claims he knows better.

5. Time line 2:00. The worker clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He claims that it takes thousands of degrees to form that I-beam, but that is correct only during the manufacturing process, not in the field.

That doesn't even make any sense.

If that was the case, (in the field) the I-beam would have been a glob of former molten steel and would not have retained the shape as you see in the video,and that is misinformation

No misinformation, he says it takes thosands of degrees to bend it because ithere is no signs of stress mean which is clearly true. So if it is not heated

6. Time line; 2:40- 4:00 Persistent fires. Persistent fires within a rubble days after a fire is nothing new. Check it out.

Conspiracist have been unknowing duped because they were unaware of the rest of the story. Persistent fires as proof of a conspiracy? We can safely list that claim as misinformaton

It all boils down to the fact that many people are unaware that they are being duped by those who were duped by others and the snowball keeps building, but to those of us who know better, we can see that problem loud and clear and that video you posted is just another example of what I am talking about. It boils down to the fact that

You only have to look back at that hoaxed video of WTC7 to understand what I am talking about.

Word to the wise; do not allow yourself to be duped by those whose intention is to lead you astray.

Word to the wise, if there are plenty of eyewitnesses from firefighters to proffessors say they saw molten steel, they didn't see molten aluminium.

Don't be duped by internet fantasist who think they know better. lol

[skyeagle409]

Well if you believe a passport can fly out of the fireball of a plane and survive unburned, then what do you find so unusual about this unburned paper in molten concrete.

You partially right for once, it was compressed floors but you neglect to mention.....

One of the most chilling finds in the hangar is a jagged 4ft by 4ft block ­resembling a meteorite, named Compression. It is ­the result of several floors of the Twin Towers melting together in the infernal heat.

http://www.mirror.co...n-inside-151495

I see nothing you have put forward which suggests a lack of molten concrete or steel in the meteorite.

There were those who have said the 4-floor compression material was molten concrete, which clearly, it is not.

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

This panto debunking his hilarious and I'm going to preempt why you say there is no way to lift molten steel with such a machine

Let's call it factual. Try lifting a pool of honey and you will see what I mean.

You'll come out with some crap about about digger not being able to pick up molten steel,...

It is clear that material is not molten. Do you know what molten means?

So it's not misinformation, you are misinformed. lol

Of course it is and you know it!

In other words, your ridiculous assertion that diggers can pick up molten steel doesn't equal there was no molten steel.

Definiteion of molten:

MOLTEN

Made

l

-

i

-

q

-

u

-

i

-

d

by heat;

melted

I'm sure it would be easy for someone with your experience and expertise to discredit Jones,...

Steven Jones discredited himself, even his colleagues agree with that correct assessment.

No misinformation, he says it takes thosands of degrees to bend it because ithere is no signs of stress mean which is clearly true. So if it is not heated

That isn't true at all. At thousands of degrees, there is nothing left to bend because at thousands of degress steel has already been transformed into a liquid state. In other words, he didn't know what he was taking about.

Word to the wise, if there are plenty of eyewitnesses from firefighters to proffessors say they saw molten steel, they didn't see molten aluminium.

Word to the wise, most of those people are not trained to differentiate between types of molten metal. Don't be duped by internet fantasist who think they know better, like Richard Gage and Steven Jones, to name a few. (Lol)

Steven Jones

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy.

Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor

Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members.

Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses

and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added,

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Now, what have I said many times about Steven Jones? I want to further add more about Steven Jones.

On another note:

Alcoa and the World Trade Center

In the late 1960's, Alcoa was approached to help design a new alloy for the World Trade Center. Alcoa created a unique aluminum "skin" and novel cladding system for the architects. T, a signature lightweight alloy developed by Alcoa for the World Trade Center, is credited with giving many tall buildings around the world their shiny, graceful appearance.

Aluminum was used extensively in the construction, including the covering of the trademark Gothic forks around the base of the buildings.

http://www.alcoa.com...s_items/wtc.asp

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Its just So Insane to think anyone Can not See what Hit that Day ! I guess All the pilots,and families of all the people Are Trying too a cover up ? Did you not get born until the last two Weeks ! THats about How smart you seem If you hold to the Idea of these C.T`s THe mind of a infant !

911 conspiracist have proven themselves vulnerable to the deceptive practices of those 911 conspiracy websites, which are well-known for spreading disinformation, misinformation and outright lies.

[Gummug]

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-melting-temperature-of-steel

Quote

No misinformation, he says it takes thosands of degrees to bend it because ithere is no signs of stress mean which is clearly true. So if it is not heated

That isn't true at all. At thousands of degrees, there is nothing left to bend because at thousands of degress steel has already been transformed into a liquid state. In other words, he didn't know what he was taking about.

If steel melts at about 2500 degree F (I thought it was about 2800 deg shows what I know), then it could be a couple of thousand degrees and still be solid. I'm sure it would be very soft, but still solid.

[Czero 101]

Cz

I wonder if you've seen the actual interviews with those people? I suspect not, but I could be wrong.

I found it pretty persuasive, all that testimony. And what made it unique was that most all of them was right there. I think the cops were actually AT the gas station when it happened, as were several others.

So as a neutral observer, I believe those people were telling the truth the best they knew it.

Your observation that "they were mistaken" is impossible. Several of them pointed to where they had seen the airplane, and they all pointed to the same place, and they were not all interviewed together.

I do sincerely apologize for not knowing the nuances of your particular belief regarding the events of the day. I had assumed you were defending the official story? I did not mean to assign a particular view to you.

I would be thrilled to discuss your nuances of the story, if only you would present them.

Its totally impossible for them to be mistaken?

Excuse me? How exactly can you make that claim and expect to be taken seriously?

Wait... Nevermind... We all know that providing trifling things like "evidence" and "facts" and "proof" just aren't your thing and have absolutely no meaning or importance to you at all.

I wonder when you're going to learn, BR, that this is not a discussion with you?

For it to be a real discussion, it has to be on equal terms, something you have actively, purposely and continually refused to play by.

With you, however, it generally goes like this:

You make a willfully ignorant totally biased and indefensible claim or post some blatantly ludicrous and naive / biased / ignorant opinion / "interpretation", others defeat it with facts and evidence which you then purposely and hypocritically ignore.

Repeat ad nausem.

That you aren't just trolling this forum to get your kicks or whatever the reason, is the impossible part.

Cz

Edited February 18, 2013 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

http://www.chacha.co...rature-of-steel

No misinformation, he says it takes thosands of degrees to bend it because ithere is no signs of stress mean which is clearly true. So if it is not heated

If steel melts at about 2500 degree F (I thought it was about 2800 deg shows what I know), then it could be a couple of thousand degrees and still be solid. I'm sure it would be very soft, but still solid.

At what temperature does steel lose 50% of its strength? What temperature range was reached within the WTC buildings, keeping in mind the redistributed structural loads due to impacts?

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

There were those who have said the 4-floor compression material was molten concrete, which clearly, it is not.

There are those who think they know better, they were never at GZ and they have never examined a piece of steel from GZ either.

Yet hilariously, they think they know better when evidently they don't.

But how do you tell the deluded, they are deluded?? lol

Edited February 18, 2013 by Stundie

[Stundie]

Let's call it factual. Try lifting a pool of honey and you will see what I mean.

There nothing factual about what you have posted. As I said, they would have cooled it down before they lifted it, making your entire point moot.

But then you and moot points are partners in crime, deceiving the gullible.....lol

It is clear that material is not molten. Do you know what molten means?

It is clear you are wrong yet again. Who said it is molten?? I think you'll find it WAS molten but then you knew that when you failed...lol

Of course it is and you know it!

Glad you are learning eventually.

Definiteion of molten:

hahahaahahahaha!! Oh dear, poor Skyeagle doesn't understand pretext.

If the metal was molten at GZ, that doesn't mean it is molten now does it? lol

That isn't true at all. At thousands of degrees, there is nothing left to bend because at thousands of degress steel has already been transformed into a liquid state. In other words, he didn't know what he was taking about.

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about, you assume that when anyone states that steel is molten, it means the entire object is molten when nothing could be further from the truth.

Its absurd that your debunking as resorted to new pantomine lows but not surprising...lol

Word to the wise, most of those people are not trained to differentiate between types of molten metal. Don't be duped by internet fantasist who think they know better, like Richard Gage and Steven Jones, to name a few. (Lol)

Or Skyeagle who thinks he knows better than those experts at GZ with his so called 40 years of experience. lol