911

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Are you utterly naive as to the ways of the world?

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Are you utterly naive as to the ways of the world?

You can't change the identity of an aircraft by simply changing a data plate. You can change a C-5A to a C-5C, to reflect a major structural modification, but the tail number will remain the same.

Additionally, AMARC, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, and I, participated in monthly nationwide teleconferences with the Air Force and other major contractors when I was supervisor/inspector for the TF-39 jet engine structural component section of L3 Communications at Travis AFB, where the Air Force provided me with Dock 844, a large aircraft hangar, to set up my shop. I began the Air Force contract with Raytheon Aerospace before Vertex, took over, which was later taken over by L3.

[regeneratia]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xWp4ZM4hnGw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't know how to embed on this site. If the embed doesn't work, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw.

Edited September 25, 2012 by regeneratia

[Babe Ruth]

Good comparison video Regen.

Yes, Peter Jennings was quite right--it sure LOOKS like a controlled demolition.

[skyeagle409]

Good comparison video Regen.

Yes, Peter Jennings was quite right--it sure LOOKS like a controlled demolition.

Peter Jennings is not a demolition expert, however, experienced demolition experts roaming in the rubble of the WTC buildings have said the WTC buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition and in fact they have said, there was no evidence whatsoever of a controlled demolition.

Edited September 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

There is ample evidence Sky. The only trouble is that YOU are unable to perceive it.

[skyeagle409]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xWp4ZM4hnGw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't know how to embed on this site. If the embed doesn't work, here is the link: http://www.youtube.c...?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw.

I had to laugh at that video because it has been shown that the puffs of air from the WTC buildings were forced out as the building collapsed, which had nothing to do with explosives. There is a massive amount of air inside buildings and if they collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out under pressure one way or another and this is just another example of someone posting misinformation because they didn't know!

Here is an example of what I am talking about and notice that as the buildings collapse you will see the same puffs of air and debris being forced out as the buildings collapse and understand that no explosives were used.

[media=]

[/media] Edited September 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

There is ample evidence Sky. The only trouble is that YOU are unable to perceive it.

Post the evidence for all to see, if you think you have it because demolition experts, architects, and civil engineers have said there was no evidence of controlled demolitions. Even the investigators who examined the steel at Fresh Kills landfill found no evidence of controlled demolitions either.

Edited September 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

There is ample evidence Sky. The only trouble is that YOU are unable to perceive it.

How amusing now that you are overriding the findings of demolition experts, architects, and civil engineers who have said there was no evidence of controlled demolitions, which was evident in the videos, on audio, and the fact that monitors in the area did not detect explosions.

Remember, you claimed that explosions occurred before American 11 struck WTC1, yet I posted a video just before American 11 struck WTC1 and there was no sound of any explosions before impact, which simply means someone made up that false story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjsYTelMxy0&list=LPhaeL_-_MOQI&index=5&feature=plcp

Edited September 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Skyeagle buddy ! man ITs time to get on to some real world peep`s ITs like reading a closed Loop night mare story in here !

You ,I ,the most of the real world saw the planes hit we know whats right and whats wrong !

On your Six !

[regeneratia]

I had to laugh at that video because it has been shown that the puffs of air from the WTC buildings were forced out as the building collapsed, which had nothing to do with explosives. There is a massive amount of air inside buildings and if they collapse, all of that air is going to be forced out under pressure one way or another and this is just another example of someone posting misinformation because they didn't know!

Here is an example of what I am talking about and notice that as the buildings collapse you will see the same puffs of air and debris being forced out as the buildings collapse and understand that no explosives were used.

[media=]

[/media]

You totally missed the entire point of the video!

Totally missed it.

What kind of person laughs at a tragedy that killed nearly 3000 people? You. Hmmmm! Very telling.

If you want us to think you are discerning, you will have to find another reason for readily, dubiously dismissing the video.

First of all, did you know that the video contained TWO different buildings? One, WTC. The other, a controlled demolition of another building somewhere like the Phillipines. But in both video, you see this black cloth coming out of the initial part of the explosion. It is a blink and miss it kind of thing. But the cloth is the same size and of the same nature in BOTH videos, both of the controlled demolition of a building out of country AND of the WTCs.

If you want us to think you have a discerning mind, maybe you better hone your attention to the details first. Of course, discernment IS entirely in the details.

Look again. http://www.youtube.c...?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw.

Will someone please embed this?

Edited September 27, 2012 by regeneratia

[Babe Ruth]

Wish I could help Regen, but I'm not sure what embeding is.

[booNyzarC]

You totally missed the entire point of the video!

Totally missed it.

What kind of person laughs at a tragedy that killed nearly 3000 people? You. Hmmmm! Very telling.

If you want us to think you are discerning, you will have to find another reason for readily, dubiously dismissing the video.

First of all, did you know that the video contained TWO different buildings? One, WTC. The other, a controlled demolition of another building somewhere like the Phillipines. But in both video, you see this black cloth coming out of the initial part of the explosion. It is a blink and miss it kind of thing. But the cloth is the same size and of the same nature in BOTH videos, both of the controlled demolition of a building out of country AND of the WTCs.

If you want us to think you have a discerning mind, maybe you better hone your attention to the details first. Of course, discernment IS entirely in the details.

Do you happen to have a link to the original video with sound?

Look again. http://www.youtube.c...?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw.

Will someone please embed this?

To embed a YouTube video all you have to do is enclose it with media tags as seen in the following code box:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWp4ZM4hnGw[/media]

And you get this:

[skyeagle409]

You totally missed the entire point of the video!

Totally missed it.

What kind of person laughs at a tragedy that killed nearly 3000 people? You. Hmmmm! Very telling.

The 9/11 attacks were not funny by any means. I was amused by the fact that 9/11 conspiracist have used a segment of that video, and similar videos to support their claim that the squibs from the WTC buildings were evidence of controlled demolitions, which they were not. In a segment of the video that you have posted, some 9/11 conspiracist have claimed that the dark object was a person. As I have said in the past, claims of 9/11 conspiracist are based on ignorance.

I might add the video is not evidence of a bomb explosion.

Edited September 27, 2012 by skyeagle409

[regeneratia]

Wish I could help Regen, but I'm not sure what embeding is.

No worries. Love your intent.

[Sakari]

Boony, I really have nothing to add. I just wanted to say I wish I had your patience.....Just clicking on this topic p***ed me off.

Keep spreading common sense please, I could not try without getting banned.

You rock!

[regeneratia]

Honey, you laughed a very wrong time and on a very emotionally charged issue.

I know you would rather just place the video in a small narrow mental category, rather than to create another, that the video simply does not fit it, because it is so much easier than actually questioning things surrounding 9-11. But I am not at all that mentally lazy. I question everything without shame,

9-11 was indeed a controlled demolition, regardless of how uncomfortable that may make you. 65% of the USA believe we are not being told the truth regarding 9-11. I barely know anyone that doesn't have questions about the events of that day. Not one person that I talk in depth to.

And I wonder about your motivations, using the tired tactic of ridicule without actually addressing the point of the video. I suspect the ignorance is displayed not some one outside yourself because you will not address the point of the video. You merely lump it into some narrow neuropathway and leave it there without trying to be objective about it.

Rethink, dear!! Because this is our USA democracy we are ultimately talking about here.

The 9/11 attacks were not funny by any means. I was amused by the fact that 9/11 conspiracist have used a segment of that video, and similar videos to support their claim that the squibs from the WTC buildings were evidence of controlled demolitions, which they were not. In a segment of the video that you have posted, some 9/11 conspiracist have claimed that the dark object was a person. As I have said in the past, claims of 9/11 conspiracist are based on ignorance.

I might add the video is not evidence of a bomb explosion.

[booNyzarC]

Boony, I really have nothing to add. I just wanted to say I wish I had your patience.....Just clicking on this topic p***ed me off.

Keep spreading common sense please, I could not try without getting banned.

You rock!

Thanks Sakari, I appreciate your kind words.

[RaptorBites]

Honey, you laughed a very wrong time and on a very emotionally charged issue.

Nice attempt at redirecting which side should be the one remembering that it is a very wrong time to crack jokes.

I know you would rather just place the video in a small narrow mental category, rather than to create another, that the video simply does not fit it, because it is so much easier than actually questioning things surrounding 9-11.

How wrong you are. There has been no evidence of any Controlled Demolition before, during, and after the collapse of WTC.

Have you read Steven Jone's paper regarding his fuild use of thermite as evidence of foul play? If you have read his paper, you will also notice that dishonestly forgets to measure the amount of Aluminum Oxide found in the WTC dust. The by product of a thermite reaction specifically in the amount needed to weaken the WTC structure was somehow left out in his paper.

Dishonestly to fool the uneducated at its best, and quite possibly the reason why he did not let his peers review his paper before releasing it.

But I am not at all that mentally lazy. I question everything without shame,

I doubt you have questioned everything in regards to 9/11, as you will have undoubtly realize how wrong you are.

9-11 was indeed a controlled demolition, regardless of how uncomfortable that may make you.

You saying that without any conclusive evidence proving that controlled demolition was used does make me uncomfortable that there are people that would still spout off nonsense and not provide hard evidence at all.

65% of the USA believe we are not being told the truth regarding 9-11.

How wrong you are. Within the past 11 years, the polls have shown that the number of people that still believe that 9/11 is an inside job has been dwindling. Sakari actually posted a poll near the beginning of this thread. Go check it out in case you missed it so you can realize how foolish your little guess.

I barely know anyone that doesn't have questions about the events of that day. Not one person that I talk in depth to.

Apperantly, you have been talking to the wrong circle.

And I wonder about your motivations, using the tired tactic of ridicule without actually addressing the point of the video.

What exactly is the point of the video? A piece of black cloth was seen in the squibs of both the WTC towers and some random building in the Philippines?

Funny enough as it sounds, it seems like that black cloth looks pretty edited. Perhaps I shall locate the exact videos non-edit for you so you can take back your little "point" regarding the video.

I suspect the ignorance is displayed not some one outside yourself because you will not address the point of the video. You merely lump it into some narrow neuropathway and leave it there without trying to be objective about it.

I will gladly address the point of your video.

Rethink, dear!! Because this is our USA democracy we are ultimately talking about here.

Yes, and it is a shame that those who believe in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 is an inside job would rather spit on the graves of those that died that day than to realize that there are more enemies outside our borders than within.

[skyeagle409]

Honey, you laughed a very wrong time and on a very emotionally charged issue.

That was not intended, but 9/11 conspiracist have shown just how vulnerable they are to deceptive tactics, disinformation, and misinformation.

I know you would rather just place the video in a small narrow mental category, rather than to create another, that the video simply does not fit it, because it is so much easier than actually questioning things surrounding 9-11. But I am not at all that mentally lazy. I question everything without shame,

Taking the 9/11 attacks into an account, how many times have the 9/11 conspiracist been corrected on the way things occur in the real world of aviation vs. what they conjure up with their Hollywood mentality? Questioning is good and healthy, however, the 9/11 conspiracist need to do their homework before concocting another conspiracy theory.

9-11 was indeed a controlled demolition, regardless of how uncomfortable that may make you.

There is not a shred of evidence in the videos nor on audio of bomb explosions, and once again, monitors in the area did not record bomb explosions. Besides, who in their right mind would transport thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives to the upper floors of the WTC buildings anyway? It would have taken almost a year to pre-weaken the WTC buildings for demolition, which did not happen and people get the wrong idea that if bombs are detonated within a building, it will automatically collapse, but let's take a look at what happen when over 1000 pounds of explosive was detonated at WTC1 in 1993.

.

As you can plainly see, WTC1 remained standing despite the huge explosion. Now, let's take a look at other buildings where bombs were detonated.

This building took a few hits from JDAM bombs, and yet, it remains standing.

Some people have the wrong idea that if you plant explosives in buildings, they will automatically collapse, but that is not the case, especially if the buildings were not pre-weaken. Steel from the WTC buildings were examined and no evidence was found indicating that explosives were used.

65% of the USA believe we are not being told the truth regarding 9-11.

With 9/11 conspiracy individuals and web sites spreading disinformation and misinformation, I can see why some question the official story.

And I wonder about your motivations, using the tired tactic of ridicule without actually addressing the point of the video.

9/11 conspiracist have proven they are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation, and much of that due to ignorance of he facts. Let's take a look at some of their claims, which have been corrected with facts and evidence.

* United 93 landed at Cleveland airport.

FACT: The aircraft 9/11 confused as United 93, was actually a Delta Airlines, B-767.

Delta 1989 confused as United 93

Later, we would learn that this 767 was Delta flight 1989. It had originated from the same Boston airport as United 93, but was cleared by inspectors after landing at Hopkins. It had not been hijacked, and there was no bomb. And United 93, by the way, was a 757.

http://www.911myths...._cleveland.html

* Passengers from United 93 was seen bused to an unknown location.

FACT: The people the 9/11 conspiracist claimed were passengers from United 93, was scientist who disembarked from a KC-135, which had nothing to do with United 93.

Rumor Two: United 93 deboarded at NASA Glenn Research Center and its passengers were taken away in an unmarked shuttle.Bloggers claims that eyewitnesses saw civilians being loaded onto military bus ses at NASA Glenn. They were whisked away to some undisclosed location, never to be seen again.

FACT: The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

http://www.911myths...._cleveland.html

* 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a pod was attached beneath United 175.

FACT: 9/11 conspiracist confused wing/fuselage fairings and main landing gear doors, which are standard on all B-767s, as an installed modified pod. in one case, I had to correct a person who confused the bottom paint scheme as an attached pod.

Another poster confused the long line beneath the fuselage and forward of the wings as a modified pod.

http://911research.w...salter/pod.html

* 9/11 conspiracist have said that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

FACT: The path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon proves beyond any doubt that American 77 did not pass north of that gas station.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB196/doc02.pdf

* 9/11 conspiracist claimed that turning off the transponder will make an aircraft invisible.

FACT: Turning off the transponder or switching frequencies will not make an aircraft invisible, and turning off the transponder will make it very difficult to track on radar, but not render the aircraft invisible. Remember, airliners are no stealth aircraft.

* 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a C-130 fired a missile at the Pentagon.

FACT: The C-130 in question was not involved.

[media=]

The list goes on and on.

Edited September 28, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Rethink, dear!! Because this is our USA democracy we are ultimately talking about here.

Rethink?? With over 40 years experience within the world of aviation as a pilot and airframe technician, and as supervisor/inspector for the Air Force and major defense contractors, and having spent a lot of time listening to bomb explosions while serving in the Air Force, I think I know when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

[Babe Ruth]

Raptor

Apologies if I missed it, but how did you explain the phenomenon of blistered paint, melted tires and hot spots?

And do I understand correctly that you simply dismiss the testimony of Rodriguez, calling him a liar, whilst ignoring the research of Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic evidence proving Rodriguez correct?

[RaptorBites]

Raptor

Apologies if I missed it,

Apology accepted.

but how did you explain the phenomenon of blistered paint,melted tires, and hot spots?

The heat generated from the fires below ground zero acted like a furnace. Some firefighters even went on to state that their boots were melting due to the intense heat generated from the rubble below.

And do I understand correctly that you simply dismiss the testimony of Rodriguez, calling him a liar, whilst ignoring the research of Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic evidence proving Rodriguez correct?

Correct in the sense that Rodriguez's testimony would be considered void as he has also lied about many other things as well. As far as the research from Ross and Furlong goes, I am still reviewing that information as I haven't had much time to read into it as much as I did Cimino and Jones.

Still planning on getting back to you on that BR.

[RaptorBites]

As I have had only a few minutes to read a bit of information regarding the Craig and Furlong Seismic review, here is a preliminary understanding and determination I have made.

Please not that it is in no way representative of my full review, and I am not claiming to be an expert in reading or deciphering seismic charts.

http://www.journalof...longAndRoss.pdf

The thing that stuck out at me at the most is the discrepancy of times of the seismic activity reported at the Palisades station and the impact times reported by the commission.

14 seconds for the North Tower

and 17 seconds from the south tower.

Craig and Furlong states that the commision's findings of both crash times of AA Flight 11 @ 08:46:40 and UAL Flight 175 @ 09:03:11 are unquestionable and highly credible based on known data.

Here is where it get's a little hairy to me, and if anyone here with any form of piloting/radar knowledge please confirm this for me as I have little less than any knowledge regarding FAA radar readings.

The Commission’s times are based upon: "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11

based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic." [9/11 Commission

Report, pg 460, Note 130]

FAA radar uses ground to air signals that employs a directional antenna that rotates on a vertical axis from anywhere between 5-120 seconds per sweep.

So when the FAA identifies a crash or loss of an airplane, it takes the crash time based on the last sweep's location to when the phosphorus bleep disappears at the next sweep. This can lead into the discrepancy of the exact time when the airplane is considered lost by the FAA (commission). Which maybe where the discrepancy of when the seismic activity was recorded (based on an atomic clock timestamp) and the actual crash times of both planes. Am I correct on that?

So if my assumption is correct, and again I am no expert in reading seismic graphics nor an expert in radar, Ross and Furlong may be incorrect in claiming the crash times for both airlines are both unquestionable and highly credible as the crash times reported by the FAA are reported when the bleeps actually disappear off radar and not when the crashed actually happened. Which may explain the 14 second and 17 second discrepancy.

If any of my opinions are incorrect, anyone, please let me know.

Edited September 28, 2012 by RaptorBites

[skyeagle409]

Apologies if I missed it, but how did you explain the phenomenon of blistered paint, melted tires and hot spots?

And do I understand correctly that you simply dismiss the testimony of Rodriguez, calling him a liar, whilst ignoring the research of Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong regarding the seismic evidence proving Rodriguez correct?

About the lawsuit of William Rodriguez.

RICO lawsuit

In October 2004, Rodriguez sued the President of the United States and 155 other parties, accusing them of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

His 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against The United States Of America, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In his lawsuit, Rodriguez made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create “American Gulag” concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government’s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the US military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. In his Complaint, Rodriquez also alleged that he "single-handedly rescued fifteen persons from the WTC".

The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005. In January 2006, Rodriguez swore and filed a 51-page affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss, which reiterated and expanded upon his conspiracy allegations. On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants. Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of his claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

Seismic Spikes

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

http://southerncross...org/41/9-11.htm

Edited September 28, 2012 by skyeagle409