The Path To 9/11

Originally posted by Warbler@Sep 20 2006, 09:16 PM
I think its well documented that much of the inner design (partioning) was of low quality materials, that were supposed to be fire resistant. They would survive an impact though, where they would have been obliterated.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I have a habit of typing 'sound alike' words. For the most part people accomodate me, on other occasions it can be amusing, on others however, it alters 180 degrees what I was trying to say.

The sentance should thus read.....They wouldn't survive an impact though
 
Prince Regent: the Palestinians are foreign nationals in other countries, just as the asylum seekers in this country are foreign nationals. You don't normally expend billions of your country's wealth on building permanent structures for asylum seekers, and there's no doubt that that is exactly what the 'refugee' status Palestinians are. The idea of the hastily-erected camps was to give them somewhere to live with some outside running water taps, in the hope that in the course of time, sanity and humanity would prevail, and that they would be returning to THEIR homeland. A few years on, and the host countries hoped desperately that the poor state of the overcrowded camps, not intended for long-term - or lifelong - stays, would point up the need to effect the repatriation of Palestinians. No chance: Israel has barred exiled Palestinians from returning, and who is going to fight Israel on that score, and there have been even further land grabs and dispossessions by Israel, thus inflating the size of the camps even further.

If you think that a relatively poor country like Jordan could afford to build virtually an entire new town, with all of the necessary infrastructure, hospitals, schools, roads, water supply, drainage, etc., to cope with the haemmorhage of nationals from Palestine, then by the same token you should now expect Britain to do just the same for the tens of thousands seeking succour on these shores.

If you think that's not a brilliant idea, then you've answered your own question. There's actually another issue at heart here: just because a number of countries are 'Arab' doesn't make them all the same, any more than being 'European' or 'Christian' makes us all the same. We are as different from Poles and Ukrainians culturally, economically, and socially as Palestinians are from Omanis or Yemenis. You show a lack of understanding of the differences between Arab countries, many of which would no more have wanted an unexpected influx of thousands of Palestinians than a lot of people want the same here in the UK, albeit many of the 'asylum' seekers come from European lands. It's very simplistic to assume that because a person is an Arab, or even a Muslim, that they share the same heritage, standard of living, cultural and social norms, etc.

But the most important issue you've entirely ignored is that the Palestinians have a RIGHT to be in their own homes, and on their own soil, not reduced to being charity cases in other people's. As I'll say for about the tenth time, the camps could be demolished (this time legally and without massacres) if Israel would get back to its legal boundaries, and permit the peaceful return of the dispossessed Palestinians to WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS.

Blimey, how many bleedin' times does this need to be said? :angry:
 
Thanks for the link Gareth, I'll follow that up and read what they have to say.

There is a huge amount of all this kind of stuff out there [Googling for <twin towers explosions seismograph> brings up over 35 MILLION links!] and personally although I don't understand half the technical stuff, I find it very disturbing indeed. I'm not necessarily suggesting the Govt planted bombs btw; but I think it's at least a possibility that *someone* did. I can't find the site I mentioned [I think it was LetsRoll9/11]; but another one which details some of the same info is Serendipity, and I picked it AT RANDOM from the google list cited above, page 1. It has pretty extensive coverage of all the anomalies

Some of their ultimate hypotheses are pretty wild, but the writers do nevertheless amass a great deal of practical evidence that the official version can't be takern at face value.

These are some of the unanswered questions:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc13.htm

See this which ties in neatly with what Warbler has been telling us...
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seal01.htm

As regards the explosives:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm
and
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11_missileframes.html

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
It's worth reading this one right through.....

One [Finnish] military expert thinks a hydrogen bomb was used
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

There's a lot on the Serendipity site about the Pentagon crash site which has always looked fishy:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash_site.htm

By the way, I've just noticed they have a page refuting Popular Mechanics
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/rep...cs.htm#reply_2a


As regards your other points - I wouldn't trust ANYTHING David Brock said, he's a professional agitator... and info I've read on the Whitewater and Vince Foster affairs didn't come from him, nor from American Spectator [a very biased journal]. I admit I do happen to find the Clintons esp Hilary deeply sinister, and that was after starting off with a totally open mind on them.

As for the Pennsylvania plane, I'm inclined to think on the available evidence that it *was* shot down, in case it did reach its target, and it would imho have been irresponsible of whoever was in charge of that sector, whether he could reach the President of not, NOT to have taken such action, given what had already happened in Washington and NY [assuming the official account of events to be the true one..].

Btw, the USAF 'rules of engagement' make it clear that an area commander is *obliged* to act in defence of the homeland whether he can reach the CIC or not. And Cheryl Seals' article cited above discusses which planes should have been able to take out the WTC planes. In addition, the Pentagon has its own systems for identifying and taking out airborne threats, see
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Most of the alleged highjackers have since - allegedly! - been proved to be still alive btw, and elsewhere on the day. No attempt has been made however to find the 'real' perpetrators, if these initial ones were victims of identity theft. And some of the original men named have since been revealed to have links to the US security services etc, inc Mohammed Atta

Warbler, you'll find a lot of detailed stuff from various sources on the website on the construction of the twin towers. Lee Robertson, structural engineer who helped build the towers, is one of several people who have confirmed that the towers were specifically built to withstand the impact of a 707 [v similar in size and weight to a 747]
See item 2.2 on http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
[comments in red are by a sceptical but anon building expert; other named individuals have made the same points on other sites]

There is no feasable explanation for the collapse of WTC7 other than an explosion. There are many sites dealing with this inc
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm
also http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html
and http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml


I'm not - I hope - a nutter; but I am a professional researcher and I suppose it just comes naturally to me to look under the surface of everything that interests me. [And to bring in another thread - I LOVE Henry James, for just that reason... what appears to be going on is never quite what is really going on, and what is being said often means something other than it seems to, in his novels]

Some if not most of the sites linked to Serendipity blame Mossad etc etc and are anti-Jewish rants and I don't subscribe to that at all. But the fact I don't subscribe to their conclusions, nor those on the site itself, doesn't alter the fact that the photographic, scientific and engineering evidence points to something very fishy indeed here; there are far too many things which don't add up.

Some are dealt with in a book by David Griffin, questioning the official report on 9/11
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

At the time I saw no reason at all to question the accepted version of events on 9/11; now I do question it, and the more I read the more bizarre it all seems
 
If the hijackers have been 'proved' to be alive today, then where is the evidence which proves that assertion? At the least, they need to appear on a live television programme somewhere, even if it's Al-Jazeera - not some doctored tape with a phoney date. Interesting that Griffin asserts that bin Laden was visited in a hospital in Dubai by a Saudi intelligence officer.

Griffin is embarking upon lectures about demonic consciousness, I see, as he relates it to the Bush administration, but not, as he puts it, in a mythological sense.

As for allegations that Al-Queda may have drawn funds from the wife of Prince Bandar, that is not quite as bonkers as it first sounds. I did say in an earlier posting - and without any knowledge of websites promoting this idea - that the Saudis had most likely paid off some of the cells to cease and desist domestic operations. I don't see Saudi pay-offs as a conspiracy - or any other Gulf States which may be paying off Al-Queda - they are merely trying to protect themselves from being blown to bits in their mosques and markets.

However, for all the allegations in the sites you've put up, Headstrong, the point would be 'why'? Who would gain from the 9/11 atrocities? Also, I don't know how you would be able to get in to rig a building with enough explosives to bring down some 500,000 tons of steel, glass, and concrete - I'm sure that if the buildings were built to withstand the enormous stresses of an exploding and nearly through-and-through impact of a large aeroplane, then you'd need an almighty amount of high explosive. And where would you go about placing it so that it wouldn't be discovered by the Mexican cleaning ladies? What about all the detonator caps and wires? Or was the whole thing supposedly on a timer, and operated by remote control from WTC7? But just think about the materiel required to be transported, smuggled in and then installed, all without arousing suspicion, in the two towers AND the WTC7 building! Yes, it could be done at night 'so as not to disrupt the workers', and it could be done by blokes in fake overalls, pretending to be working on the electrics. But I don't know, it would need a lot of nitro or whatever, in order to blow out enormous steel bars, and where would it all be hidden?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Sep 21 2006, 01:18 AM
However, for all the allegations in the sites you've put up, Headstrong, the point would be 'why'? Who would gain from the 9/11 atrocities?
Click to expand...
It returns us rather neatly to what I posted nearly 24 hours ago.

When investigating any crime, its always helpful to look for the beneficiaries in order to help establish motive. There's a fair chance that if you've drawn up the list accurately, the guilty party(ies) is(are) on it. Five years on, we have the benefit of hindsight and now know who benefited. In no particular order,

* The American arms industry
* The American intelligence services - they'd craved something like the Patriot Act for years
* American energy companies - Curiously, and for no immediately obvious reason, the road from 9/11 just happened to end up with a major world oil supplier :what:
* The Bush administration - and with it, all those groups, countries and corporations who had a sympathetic link to it,
* The broad aspirations of the PNAC

In the context of about 2,500 dead Americans the price would have been worth paying for the global gains. All of the companies had back office facilities and were up and running again within days. The WTC itself was only insured a very short time before the attacks. The movement in Aviation and American Transport stock 3 weeks before the attacks also suggests that someone knew. It's widely believed that AQ proxy's had sold stock in areas that they knew would take a hit to generate additional finance, which an official line of sorts.

David Griffin? That name rings a bell? Is he some Californian theologian?

I think it's safe to assume that the actual hijackers are dead, though people operating on false identities who get named as the hijackers, can conveniently be killed off for the public. I can't personally conceive of any way in which they could have set the plane on auto pilot and affected a parachute jump :unsure: especially so for American 77 which had to perform a particularly difficult manouvre involving a series of spiralled turns to get down to ground level. Indeed many commercial pilots doubt whether someone experiencing their first flight, regardless of simulator hours, could have performed it, especially since you can't exactly go into an official flight school and request to practice it, without raising suspicions.

WTC7 I believe was also the New York City emergency command post/ crisis management room, which had been kept mothballed for a major incident?. Indeed Rudy Guiliani had to scamper for his own life when the South Tower fell and evacuate thus, hence why he ended up on the streets walking back 'up town' conducting inpromptu press conferences. I'm clutchiung at straws on this one, but if there was anything in that building that was of a particular sensitive nature related to this assignation, then incentive destroy might have existed. I'm just struggling off hand to think what it might reasonably have been though.

Time to wade through some of these links that people have so kindly been firing up :D
 
Wade no more, Warbler: WTC7 was what you've imagined, except the imaginings now include it being pre-set with explosives in anticipation of 9/11, ready to be detonated much earlier and appear to have been wrecked by the initial falling-down of the twin towers. The theory goes that 'somehow' (that's a conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory!) the detonation failed, hence the rush back to 'evacuate' an already evacuated building and re-set the charges. Giuliani is implicated heavily in complicity by Griffin, BTW.

Yes, I realize there's much to be gained in prolonging terrorism, but terrorism was being prolonged anyway, courtesy of Al-Queda's helpfulness and Israel's continuing intransigence. The USA had cleverly left Saddam alive in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War in order to be able to go back later and wage a second conflict if necessary - you don't want to use all of your Defense budget in one hit, do you? I don't know why there would be the need to have blasted a very large chunk out of Manhattan, 'attack' the Pentagon - and you're telling me that people in the Pentagon might've known about the impending attack on their own building, and carried on working sanguinely inside? Knowing the US's proclivity for killing allied and their own troops with friendly fire, I certainly would'nt have taken the slightest chance of a plane/missile/giant frisbie hitting the right spot at the right time!
 
Originally posted by krizon@Sep 21 2006, 09:37 AM
Yes, I realize there's much to be gained in prolonging terrorism, but terrorism was being prolonged anyway, courtesy of Al-Queda's helpfulness and Israel's continuing intransigence.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for the PNACists, attacks on the USS Stark or Embassies in Africa isn't sufficient to justify what they wanted to do. As such they don't amount to "prolonging" a terrorist war/ campaign, which was not what the Americans wanted anyway (I use the word in its plural loosely as I realise its far from strictly accurate). What 'they' wanted was to accelerate and actively feed it, effectively ratcheting it up to a whole new level. Put simply, distant conflicts in the Middle East could only go so far, they have their limitations.

In order to introduce punitive legislation, and stitch up billions of dollars of federal contracts for the next 25 years, as well as launch neo imperialistic expansionist campaign leading to world domination and the emasculation of sub-ordinate nations, they needed to bring the threat into the homeland, and leave it festering away in the collective consciouness of a shocked and frightend population.

I've nearly finished ploughing through the various links now, some of which have rung a few bells.

I'm still not signing up to the missile launched from a remotely controlled plane though. Especially as the cabin crew of flight 11 were in touch with the ground, and reported mace in the cabin and dead personnel etc as a result of hijackers action. I just don't see where the incentive was for anyone to try and over elaborate with a seemingly unnecessary additional factor. Quite apart from anything, it begs the obvious question of where the real passengers and planes were, if the hijacked planes were themselves hijacked by these phantom customised replicas. Unless we're being asked to believe that CIA agents hijacked the original planes, flew them off into the desert, and either masacared everyone, or they're all being held in a hanger somewhere. In any case commercial air traffic control could still account for their presence with or without a transponder. Remember its not unusual in the event of contended conspiracies for 'elements' to put out stories and information designed to mislead line sof investigation and discredit those who adopt them and are then de-bunked later

I notice that the Bush aside comment that I've alluded is picked up on one of the links though, I shall return to this later.
 
The following comes from a Q&A session that Bush gave on December 4th 2001 at the Orange County Convention Centre, Orlando. It's carried on the White House web site in press releases (or so it claims). I've got no way of verifying whether this is a genuine site, or a mocked up version, and doubt very much if Bush had said this in open forum, that the official site carries it any longer anyway. The other thing I'm not comfortable about, is that I seem to recall the account I'd picked up on, was an alleged 'aside' made to a CNN crew, which was supposed to have occurred on the morning of 9/11, during the transfer from the classroom, to the school hall where Bush held his press conference, and declared war on "folks". The language is remarkably similar, although I've got recollection of the phrase "one lousy" although one being transcribed here is "one terrible".

If this is true, and Bush did lower his guard a few months later when faced by a small kid (probably forgotten his brief by then) this is what was said. Those of you with forensic and interrogating minds should spot the contradictions in his story and if you unravel them to their logical conclusion, they leave some awkward questions.


Q Mr. President, we thank you for coming, on behalf of the clergy of Orlando. We're going to be having a summit this next week, 12/12 summit, and I'm a pastor. And we want to know what we can do -- we're praying for strategies of how we can assist you in our government, and assist our communities.

THE PRESIDENT: First thing you can do is make sure people of all faiths are represented at your prayer session. It sends such a strong signal -- (applause) -- it reminds people of the greatness of America. The evil people we fight, they don't believe in religious freedom. They want it their way or no way. And if you're not their way, they'll treat you harshly. That's why, by the way, when we liberated cities throughout Afghanistan, people lined the roads and cheered out of joy and happiness.

Secondly, you need to pray for the good Lord to protect America, provide a shield over our country, to prevent us from harm. (Applause.)

Q Hi, Mr. President. I want to say, they haven't won. I got in my car today, and I'm in the same building with you, speaking to you. They have not won.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Q And would you say hello to my son Jordan, and my daughter Patricia.

THE PRESIDENT: Jordan and who?

Q Patricia.

THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Patricia; how are you? How old is Patricia?

Q Five, and Jordan is in 3rd grade. And Jordan has a question, if I could give him the microphone.

THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.)

I tried to get as many facts as I could, Jordan, to make sure I knew as I was making decisions that I knew exactly what I was basing my decisions on. I've got a fabulous team. A President can't possibly be President without a good team. It starts with having a great wife, by the way. (Applause.)

And so, I got on the phone from Air Force One, asking to find out the facts. You've got to understand, Jordan, during this period of time, there were all kinds of rumors floating around. Some of them were erroneous. Obviously -- for example, there was a news report saying that the State Department had been attacked. I needed to know what the facts were. But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so, I've talked to the Secretary of Defense; one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert.

An interesting thing happened shortly thereafter. Condoleezza Rice -- who was not with me but was with the Vice President because they were in the White House compound -- called me on Air Force One after that, and said that she had gotten a call from Russia, from Vladimir Putin, who understood why we were putting our troops on alert, and, therefore, wasn't going to respond. That was an important phone call. Because when I was coming up, and a lot of other older-looking people here who were coming up with me -- (laughter) -- that would never have happened in the past. An alert by the United States would have caused Russia to go on alert, which would have created a complicated situation. But that wasn't the case.

By the way, we're heading into a new era. One of the positive things that comes out of the evil was, we're reassessing relationships in order to make the world more peaceful. I believe it's important for us to have positive relations with our former enemy and to rethink the defenses of the United States of America. (Applause.)

I've chosen to underline the last paragraph and leave it in, because once again, there's something spooky about his language and sense of mission. It chimes to close with aspirations of the PNAC coming as it does only matter of months after September, and at the start of the Afghanistan deployment.

The bold bits you can only read and make your own mind up about, I can only assume he's committed another 'Bushism' as his only line of explanation. If pushed I'd say there was just about reasonable doubt, but I'm sure there's something else in circulation where he contradicts himself further?
 
If you want to hear it I've posted a link below. But just analyse what the conspiracy people are saying. Bush, as so often, is talking bollocks. He is talking to a small boy and he talks about seeing planes hitting the towers live. Not just bollocks but utter bollocks. But then he's renowned for that.

So they say because of his confusion he was party to a plot to blow up the towers. Now, we all know that he is not too bright. But I suggest that had he been implicated in any plot the last thing he'd be doing is telling people that he had seen things that he couldn't possibly have seen.

Of course, logic must never be allowed to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Bush talks bollocks to a boy
 
:lol: I take it you named the link Brian?. As I said the only possible explanation is a 'Bushism' and were it any other President you'd be screaming by now. The problem with this one, is that he can always invoke his IQ as a defence. :lol:

Having said that, he does state that he saw a plane hit a tower. I believe, (but again there's no way I can authenticate it) that he was questioned after this about his recollection and said he was confused, and was referring to the South Tower. If true, this would represent another panic.

It was pointed out to him that the second plane hit at 9.03. He was being led into a classroom between 8.59 and 9.00, where upon he was faced with a media monitoring and filming his every move (complete with the timing devices they have in their cameras). He's claiming therefore to have seen something happen about 3 - 4 minutes before it did!!! Indeed his recollection of Andrew Card also contradicts himself (if indeed this was the line of defence that a desperate White House put out on the hoof).

Remember they too could easily have been caught out. A few months after the event, and faced with a friendly Q&A session in Florida on seemingly innocuous questions, his minders must have thought he and they were were due for an easy ride given the christian constituency he was addressing. I've got this image of them sitting around with then feet up, and then suddenly spluttering their drinks out.

"What the fecks he saying. Oh for Gods sake. Shut him someone" :lol:

The only footage captured of American 11 hitting the North Tower was filmed by a French TV crew, doing a documentary on the NYFD (indeed it still remians the only footage in official existance today). All the other images we see are off United 175 hitting the South Tower. The camera crew rushed to the scene with the assigned tender and continued filiming. This footage only became available on 9/12, and certainly not before 8.59 - 9.00 of the day previous (9/11)

Now his concentration span is of course a thing of legend, but unless he was in the habit of watching web cams of static buildings for his travelling entertainment, I can't think why else he'd be having such tedious images beamed into his limo, when Sesame Street was probably on anyway.

I'm equally inclined to think he'd gone off message, dropped his guard and slunk to his level. I fear this is one of those uncomfortable encounters where logic and fact over lap. Afterall had he said something along the lines of "I saw a building on fire and was told it was because an aeroplane had hit it. As someone who used to fly myself I thought that must have been one lousy pilot, and assumed it was a terrible accident"?. Then yes, no case really, easily explained, however the fact remains that he didn't say that.

It would be an interesting one to prosecute given the testimony. There might be a reasonable doubt based on diminshed responsibility (or the witness is a moron to give it the legalese). Having said that, a civil case would probably find the balance of probabilities lies against him, given the precise interpretation of what he said. It isn't difficult or technical afterall, you either saw a plane or you didn't Mr Bush? you said you did! How?

I should say infinately more capable politicians than Bush have been caught out after the event when not expecting it. Cecil Parkinson over the existance of a Peruvian peace plan aka the Falklands. Thatch herself came within a whisker of getting badly exposed by Diana Gould over the Belgrano until Sue Loyally stepped in to terminate the exchange. I've wondered a few times what might have unfolded if a clearly rattled PM had been allowed to continue against a well briefed and knowledgable Mrs Gould. Who if memory serves me right, despite being dumbed down as a West Country housewive/ battleaxe, was I believe also an alumni of Somerville.
 
I'm sorry, this is meant to be a deadly serious discussion but then Warbler quotes Bush: "... and I'm saying, this must be one terrible pilot... "

"No shit, Mr. President! :blink: I reckon he'll be taking his navigational aids test again, sir!"
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Sep 20 2006, 02:55 PM

I'm also pretty certain that the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down by the military
Click to expand...

I'm sure the miiltary would have loved to have been able to shoot it down, but the fact is they couldn't without authorisation from Bush, who funnily enough they couldn't get in contact with...
Click to expand...
This site, which details the exact procedures for USAF and security services action in case of rogue plane attacks, is helpful. When even US Senators are questioning the officiial line, it's not surprising others do

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607
 
Brian and others keep focussing on the barmy conclusions some of the links throw up, in order to diss the doubts about accepted 'facts'.

I'm not really interested in other people's fantasies about what happened, entertaining tho some of them are; what DOES interest me is all the technical stuff out there which demonstrates that the official story just doesn't add up. I don't buy the wilder surmises about substitute crews etc etc, and a lot of the other 'wild side' guesses about what went on..... I don't know what really happened.

But I do doubt the premise that the fires could have caused such a catastrophic, sudden, fast and neat collapse of the towers [inc/esp WTC7 which btw housed several security agency offices, inc FBI etc as well as the mayor's office] into their own imprint. There is a lot of highly informed and qualified technical opinion out there which says this could NOT have been done any way except by explosives, and there are many many web sites which demonstrate this, with huge detail about all aspects in the heat the fuel would burn at, the construction of the towers, comparable highrise building fires and many other relevant matters. Yes, the experts disagree, but the fact that there is no concensus gives rise to concern, and mistrust

I doubt the official version of the Pennsylvania place crash - there is no plane at the site, and no bodies were ever retrieved [according the coroner in the days following the incident - he later changed his story, then clammed up]. To make a hole that size in the ground, there would have been the kind of large debris you see in other plane crashes, and bodies - remember Lockerbie? If as some surmise the plane broke up in the air, then why the hole? And why is there nothing in it? Or elsewhere? Only one sizeable piece of wreckage was ever found, and that some distance away.

I also doubt the story about a plane diving at ground level into the Pentagon. The damage is totally inconsistent with the story [tho it is consistent with a scud type missile]. The impact hole, before the wall collapsed, was only 16 or 20 feet in across, and surrounding windows were intact, as seen on CNN news film; and all the 'evidence' [local cctv cameras etc] was immediately confiscated and has never been shown. The photos put out later of a bit of a passenger airline sitting on the lawn are such obvious fakes as to be laughable. The 'conspiracy theorists' btw all point the finger at men very high up in the security branches of the USAF/NORAD, and they did not have offices in the part of the Pentagon which was hit [and which was almost empty a the time - it was being 'refurbished']

As I said last night, I picked the site 'serendipity' at random from the first Google page which opened up, simply as an example of the kind of material which is out there. That doesn't mean I subscribe to all their theories, God forbid; but it does have some interesting research on it. A much longer search on the web would possibly provide more measured discussion, eg the page I've posted a link to above in my previous message. There are many many thousands of sites out there delving into all this.

It's also interesting that a great many of the sites I've tried to link onto from other sites, have simply vanished - apparently a curiously common thing in 9/11 research, esp where original film of the planes is concerned.

911truth.org has a series of 40 questions which need to be answered:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

This is a link to an interesting debate between the makers of documentary 'loosechange' which questions the official version, and the editor and researcher of Practical Mechanics - apparently a Hearst publication ;^) - which touches on several of these points:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060917190653114

Btw, that link also demonstrates in detail that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush had prior to the attacks been given [iirc on Cheney's orders] sole power to order airpower lock-down, contrary to usual/previous NORAD procedure. And Cheney refused repeatedly to sanction the bringing down of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Why?

I don't understand, when so many US military 'black ops' have already been proved, admitted and in some cases prosecuted, people are so unwilling to consider the possibility of a 'big one' - something which had been hinted at so many times in preceding years. Those high in neo-con circles had been calling down an "American Pearl Harbour" precisely in order to do the things they have done: expand military spending and investment massively, suspend civil rights, and invade oil-rich countries. There are numerous documented quotes from big players in this area, which refer to this required 'crisis'

As for who gains, that seems obvious to me: see above. Politicians, military top brass, and industrialists all love two things - total control, and in two cases of the three at least, big money. 9/11 has given them that. And events prepared the way for the 2nd invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of iraqwhich will eventually facilitate the building of the long-planned trans-Central Asia pipeline... esp if Iran follows

Do I sound cynical?
 
Sorry Brian, I've found another one where Bush seems to give an identical account less than a month later on Jan 5th 2002, at a Town Hall Forum, at the Ontario Convention Centre, California. The mans clearly a moron of the highest order. :cry: :lol: I left the preamble in because it gives us a frightening insight into the sort of fundamentalist drivel that he's taking so seriously, but if the same question was given of Armoured Dinner Jacket and God was replaced with Allah, I wonder how sound and balanced we'd think he was? In fact I defy anyone to read this, and go bed safely reassured. Anyway the text;

Q My question is very simple: How can we, as pastors, pray specifically for you and your family? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first -- thank you. I have -- first of all, I believe in the power of prayer. (Applause.) And I have felt the prayers of the American people for me and my family. I have. And I want to thank all of you who have prayed. People say, well, how do you know? I say, well, I can just feel it. I can't describe it very well, but I feel comforted by the prayer.

I think the thing that -- the prayer that I would like America is to ask for is to pray for God's protection for our land and our people, to pray against -- that there's a shield of protection, so that if the evil ones try to hit us again, that we've done everything we can, physically, and that there is a spiritual shield that protects the country. (Applause.)

Do you have a question. Come on underneath. The man's got a question.

Q First of all, I'm very impressed in how you handled the situation on September 11th. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's plenty. (Applause.) No. Thank you.

Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me (even I've got to conceed he's talking sense at last on this one). (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, (roughly translates into... I never progressed beyond....) and it starts with making sure every child learns to read (I swear, you really couldn't write this). And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, (Science? Chemistry, Physics, Biology.... Readingology) not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative. (I thought you said it works Bush?) Enough of my sarcasm the text continues into the serious (as opposed to the worrying) bit

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)

Anyway, it was an interesting day.

Now Bush might have been having a particularly bad day? but this time he's clearly been asked the question by an adult (hence me boldening the word man) so no little kid to say he was dumbing things down for this time. Again he's claiming to have seen a plane fly into the first building 4 minutes before it happened. To the very best of my knowledge, no network covered the North Tower impact throughout the entire day - I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the first we knew about it, was when CNN et al, cut to live pictures of the burning North Tower, a minute ot two after impact - until such time then, I'm prepared to accept this as transmitted FACT. No one broadcast the North Tower impact before 9.00. Even if a tourist had been able to take a video, they'd have no time (13 mins max) to get it to air, for Bush to see it anyway (and again to my knowledge ones never been shown). The only one in existence is the NYFD/ French documentary crew, so far as I've ever been able to establish
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Sep 21 2006, 10:57 PM
And Cheney refused repeatedly to sanction the bringing down of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Why?
Click to expand...
Because Barbara Olson was a passenger on it ;)

Mind you having told us that you don't think American 77 hit the Pentagon and was subject to a missile strike, I'm not sure this line about Cheney is really consistent.

For what its worth, I've never been a fan of this missile strike theory, and reckon its the sort of thing that gets put out to discredit and misdirect. There's plenty of counter science and eye witness testimony to explain this one, and I find it the more persuasive. I'd happily give this one up.
 
So you don't believe that the people who booked their seats - just ordinary, normal people, mums, dads, and kids - on the two planes which didn't fly into the WTC just disappeared into thin air, Headstrong? Where have they gone? Why are their families left to grieve for them, and what the heck were the calls home from the Penn. aircraft about, if they weren't from husbands to wives saying they were about to 'have a go'?

It's entirely possible NOT to retrieve bodies. I'm sure you know well enough that many people are simply disintegrated, as when, for example, a pipeline ruptures and anyone nearby is flash-burned to the size of a chicken, thanks to evaporation at enormous, sudden heat. Most high-speed impacts shred bodies - you can actually view the evidence of a through-and-through in the WTC footage, and if landing gear was found several blocks away, and small pieces of fuselage on the tops of buildings a block away, you can imagine the slice 'n' dice effect on soft human tissue. What wasn't evaporated by fireball would easily have been carved off torsos in seconds, and distributed over a wide area, subsequently covered by metal, concrete, tons of ash, smashed furniture, etc.

Where did thousands of people 'go' when the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How amazing that a shadow of the person could be left, but not their physical being. They were simply, literally, atomized. While a plane crash isn't quite on the scale of an atom bomb, the speed of impact into the ground or a solid building is not going to leave a pretty sight behind - but add to that the rupture of fuel tanks all over the site, and you have little evidence.

The people falling through the collapsing buildings would likewise have been shredded on the way down, their limbs torn off, scattered, and the residue mashed by half a million tons of building material crashing down around them. I'm sorry to be a bit explicit, but given the scale of size of the buildings versus their tenants, it's fairly easy to understand why there was so often no body to recover.

If you look at one of the many sites you chose, Headstrong, there's a detail (well, let's believe it's true - who knows, it, too, could be disinformation at this rate!) showing floor trusses, where the anonymous architect wonders why the trusses were set 6' 8" apart and not the usual 3' 4". Maybe at some point during their construction, somebody either decided to skim the pot and keep some of the money by not putting in enough trusses, or perhaps there was - as there so often is on long-term construction projects - a decision to cut back in certain areas. I can't possibly answer (and neither can the critic of the official line) why floor trusses were spread out over a wider area, but no doubt that would create a weaker floor than one with more closely-set trusswork. Maybe that is a clue to the rapid collapse of the floors? In one building, four floors have been compromised by the attack, across a fairly wide site. I'm not sure why the floors ABOVE the site would fall, but inadequate trusses might explain why the weakened floors fell and thus dominoed their way through the rest of the building. As for the walls falling outwards like a banana unpeeling, it'd need a structural engineer to explain that one!

No-one has yet answered my questions about how one would insert the amount of detonators into the two towers AND WTC7 without arousing suspicion at some point in time.
 
Gotta go to bed... but in brief

I've already said I don't subscribe to the wilder theories, I just question what happened, and distrust the official version/s [since they change quite a bit]. I didn't say I didn't believe that the two planes flew into the twin towers; I think they did; tho why it was allowed to happen is another question. It's the other two which really look impossible for me.

Many doubts have been cast on the Penn telephone calls, but yes these do sound like 'conspirary theory mania'... tho some of the calls are very odd, eg the one from a guy to his Mom - he says "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham". Whoever would start a conversation with their mother like that??

My guess, and it's only that, is that this plane was shot down - but why cover that up? According to all previous protocol, this was the correct procedure in the circumstances. [Maybe as Warbler suggests, any cover-up was to avoid inurance claims against the military]

In the case of the Pentagon plane, we are 'told' that plane parts were found in the building, but the fires there were minimal [like the damage, esp at the supposed entrance point] and it's inconceivable that large pieces of debris, and bodies or body parts, AS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH, EVER would not have been found - but no parts or photos of parts such as the engines have been produced, except the landing gear. Ditto the Penn plane. Did the French Concorde just vaporise? Of course not, there was wreckage

Whether or not the trusses in the twin towers were standard is immaterial. The three buildings should not have imploded as if blown up by explosives from the foundations in that identical fashion. The technical arguments against them failing in two cases from plane impact [in the case of the S tower the hit was in a corner anyway] and in the other as the result of a few low level diesel fires are to me incontrovertible. Besides which many - hundreds - of people on the scene have borne witness to hearing multiple explosions, inc fleeing victims and first response service personnel.

I don't know how the explosives might have been put in there, but such things are very sophisicated now - we are not talking WWII bridges. You can find sites with various suggestions about this, all scarcely credible. The Finnish military bod makes a very good case for a mini atom blast at the base of the central shaft - it's really the only thing which explains the curious way the towers, esp tower 2, 'shower' away at the top, then vaporise. The almost hilarious bit, is how everything and everyone just vaporised, disintegrated - and yet Mohammed Atta's passport was supposedly 'found' - intact!! - on a street corner a day or so later. What A Miracle!

The burning fuel as a cause of explosions far below the impact sites is something of a red herring btw - it would have vaporised and burned off [viz the huge fireball on impact of tower 2] very quickly indeed. The fires didn't burn for long, as newsreel and still bear witness. Numerous civil engineers [inc those who built the towers] claim that it would be impossible for the fires, burning the short time they did, to have reached heat enough to melt the steel anyway - esp the main horizontal [girder] trusses

Warbler, you are correct that there is NO film of the North Tower hit, other than the so-called 'firemen's film' so fortuitously taken by the Frenchmen. I'd have to look up what time that was first broadcast, but certainly not in time for Bush to have seen it in Florida. Mind you I can't agree this makes him complicit; this seems a clear case to me of him making up a story which he's comfortable with, which sounds good when asked the same old question "how did it feel.." - and which he then goes on to believe, himself... ie. It may not be a conscious lie, but more of an over-dramatisation. Perhaps.
 
Brilliant - I just Googled '9/11 conspiracy theories' on an all-web search, and got Wikipedia's list of several, all of which are popularly enshrined in the Serendipity websites. It's worth just doing that to get the hit where structural engineers debunk the 'WTC blown up' theories.

Headstrong, you say you don't subscribe to the wilder theories, but it seems plain that you do. Are you a construction engineer, qualified to decide that the way the towers came down was 'wrong'? They don't implode - to implode would mean that the walls fell inwards. They don't, they're clearly seen falling outwards. The floors fall, as you'd kinda expect floors to do, straight down. What else would you expect them to do - fly outwards?

The fact is, we have either seen film of buildings being bombed, or brought down in controlled demolitions, where they USUALLY, but not always, fall straight down. The thing about a controlled demolition is that the charges vary from floor to floor in order to prevent blow-out of external walls, yet in the case of the WTC there is clearly blow-out. The other scenario is in bombing, where everything depends upon the angle and explosive force of the bomb (or missile) as to how the buildings explode.
 
It's interesting that Wikipedia has been consistently censoring articles which attempt to disprove the official line on 9/11

I'm not a Wikipedia fan btw. I don't trust any reference source which can be added to by anyone who fancies adding their two cents... let alone one which can be censored by hands unknown

However, do add a link to these engineers please
One's attitude to all this must ultimately depend on which engineers you trust, I suppose
:unsure:
 
How do you know so much about Wikipedia's take on 9/11 articles, Headstrong? Have you put some up yourself, and found that they have been changed or edited in some way? I would no more trust single-source webs where the author only promoted his or her stance on a subject as gospel, so I guess we have a difference of opinion there, too!

The issue of the trusses, which you find immaterial, is raised by the structural engineer in one of the Serendipity sites you yourself put up. In accord with your own cynicism over the WTC scenario, he raised the issue as to why the trusses would've been placed twice as far apart as the norm for such a building. He's remained anonymous, however, so I guess he doesn't want to be asked further questions. If you're going to just take out issues of sound construction to make a stronger case for a conspiratorial bringing-down of the towers' floors, then I can't really say any more, especially when the issue was raised by the very cynics you subscribe to! :lol:

Damn - 2.15 and gotta be up betimes for Ascot! More anon, no doubt, but nighty-night for now! :)
 
I'm not entirely sure you can compare the victims of American 11 and United 175, which were fireball impacts compounded by the WTC's collapse, with United 93 Kriz. In some respects you'd be better off comparing United 93 with Pan Am 103 or even KAL007 but I think that one might have come down over water?

Having said that the absence of bodies in Pennsylvania would surely point to a fire ball impact? one of the problems to my eyesight (I'm not familiar with the actual dimensions of the crater) is that the crash site always looks relatively shallow, and the debris field is variously reported as being some 7 miles long, which completely contradicts this. Pan Am 103 broke up in mid air at a cruising altitude and numerous bodies were recovered, many in surprisingly good condition according to the search parties who were finding them (although a lot these were still strapped in). If United 93 broke up (whether through missile shoot down or the airframe becoming unstable as a result of diving) something similar should have happened surely? If it were a case of the latter, then the likelihood would be that this occurred at about 20,000 feet. A considerably lower altitude than Pan Am 103, but still enough to 'ruin your day' I guess - I mean whats a few thousand feet anyway? Having said that Pan Am 103 had 5 to 6 times the number of people on board I seem to think.

I don't believe any politician would have been punished by the public, unless the shooting down coincided with a successful attempt to regain control, or an action in progress? Can you imagine what would happen if the flight cockpit voice recorder proved that they'd over powered the hijackers, and the passenger who was an airline pilot was back in control, when along came Bush and blew it out the sky - ouch :lol:

If it were to create an heroic myth by contrast, then it wouldn't be the first time. Private blonde haired, good looking, all American gal, Jessica Lynch comes to mind. Lets not forget she was given the open top car ticker tape treatment after being rescued from hospital by the USMC and CNN, where she was being treated by rather obliging and bemused Iraqi doctors after having been captured without even drawing her weapon. She was initially reported as having fought to the last round. :lol: It later transpired she cowed badly and never fired, whilst the woman of Native American or was it Afro Caribbean origins? was killed, going down fighting in the exact way that Jessie was supposed to have done. All American hero Pat Tillman, killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan would be another example of the truth outing of course. So there are precedents, and probably countless others that I'm not aware of, or haven't been exposed yet.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Sep 22 2006, 01:10 AM
He's remained anonymous, however, so I guess he doesn't want to be asked further questions.
Click to expand...
Come, come Kriz, it really doesn't require too much imagination to sepculate why someone whose written at the length he has done, and challenged the official line in the detail that he has, might wish to remain anonymous :rolleyes: I think the number of Kennedy witnesses and experts who've had road crashes, fallen off balconies or committed suicide (even those who shot themselves through the right temple despite being left handed) stood at over or close to, 40 last time I knew.
 
Kri, I don't *subscribe* to the serendipity website, nor its conclusions, as I've pointed out several times. I've also said at least three times that I picked it at random as an *example* of what it out there - ie a huge amount of often well-informed questioning of the official version, much of it on technical lines.

If I'd known we'd get into such a long discussion I'd have taken the time to find a less "excitable" website which didn't cloud the issue by postulating absurb Jewish global conspiracies and massively far-reaching cover-ups as the root of all this. I've no idea what happened on 9/11, nor exactly who caused it, tho I think the 'whys' are a bit clearer, whichever camp you come from. I said I've an open mind, and that's exactly what I have. That's also why I keep searching for information.

I didn't say - or mean at least - that the size or distance apart of the trusses was immaterial *per se*. I said, that question is immaterial to whether the towers should have collapsed as a result of the - fairly short lived - fires from the impact of the planes. They should not have, for several other reasons. And the melting of trusses from an aviation fuel fire doesn't in any way explain the *identical* collapse of WTC7.

Of course I'm not a construction engineer, but when even some of those who built the Twin Towers agree that they should not have fallen, who am I to say they are wrong? On the balance of what I've read, and it's a lot - and I've also watched the documentary which blames the 'melting trusses' - I'm *inclined* to believe that the towers could only have fallen the way they did from a controlled demolition. So many explosives experts have made the point, I don't see how it can be ignored. Try looking up stuff on the company [Controlled Demolition Inc, as it happens, with links to the administration] which immediately carted off all the debris and had it shipped out and rendered... suspicious doesn't begin to describe it.
Sorry to cite serendipity again, but I'm too lazy to look for another version and I saved this page to search on later:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm

I've been looking into this whole 9/11 conundrum on and off for over a year now, so I suppose I talk in a kind of shorthand about it. I know it's a lot of stuff to keep in mind when you first start lifting the carpet.

A few websites I've looked at have remarked that they've tried to intoduce their research into Wikipedia and that their submissions have been taken out by persons unknown. Wikipedia is of course a magnet for the half-educated and opinionated of all stripes, which is why I so distrust it... Still, what people have said begs the question of who has the power to censor entire items from the Wiki, rather than add to them or 'correct' them.

it's not just Wikipedia. This is an example

<< As a result of reports in 2001-2002 that the Twin Towers were demolished by the use of explosives there have been more detailed scientific studies appearing on the web.
See [this link added 2006-01-19]:
Prof. Steven Jones: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? ...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html >>

You click onthe link, and it's vanished.
However a quick Google brings up lots on Dr Jones, a prof of Physics, and his well-informed views, eg:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
This site also gives a link to the article by Jones, and again it has vanished.
More about this, and the sacking of Jones, here:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

In fact the article can be found elsewhere
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

Quote from Jones's article, I haven't read the whole thing yet - but it's riveting:

<< Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from?
Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt". (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author. This could lead to an experiment crucis.>>

I'm interested that the author also notes something which always bothered me about the collapse of WCT1, the North Tower - that the collapse*begins* with the antenna on the roof - ie the collapse starts not with weak floors made by a hole further down, but with a catastrophic failure of the *central core of the building* - exactly the part which should be strongest

Jones aslo quotes scepticism on the part of the NY journal 'Fire Engineering', the professional organ of the fire-fighting profession:
"Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members - described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."

It's incorrect to say that the buildings didn't implode by the way. Almost everyone accepts that they did.

Most of the big 9/11 sceptics' websites draw material form several sources by the way, and also include links to lots of others, inc Govt info. I wouldn't trust a 'single source' website either.

And some believe that the wilder sites out there [inc serendipity and some of its linkied sites like webfairy] are deliberate attempts to tar the proper research sites with the brush of lunacy, something which would not surprise me
http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html


Warbler, the original hole [before the later collapse of the wall] at the Pentagon was c.16-20 feet in width, and this is of course VERY much smaller than a Boeing. There is irrefutable CNN film footage of this; the size of the surrounding - intact! - windows is standard, giving a good measure for the hole. They say the windows had recently been replaced with bomb proof glass... but the imacpt of a 747 would surely buckle the frames at least! However this page and related pages supply several eyewitness accounts which are very interesting to the undecided
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html

Numerous building surrounding the Pentagon as well as the building itself had cctv cameras; strangely however all the local security cctv film *of the imapct moment itself* was immediately collected up by the authorities and has vanished... except for one produced days later, supposedly from the Pentagon carpark, which can be shown to have been easily doctored. It purports to show a tailfin going into the building, but is at the wrong angle entirely for the damage trail etc etc.

It's true that people driving by claimed to have seen a plane whizzing by into the Pentagon, but it's very easy as many psychological tests have shown to remember having 'seen things' which you've been told you have seen. People even said they saw the plane bounce - but there are no marks on the lawn at all! The angle and height at which the plane hit, is almost impossible for anyone but a superb and very experienced pilot to achieve btw... some pilots have claimed that only remote control could have achieved it. Something flew into the Pentagon - but what was it? I don't know if it was a plane or not

Btw, all accounts, film, etc etc of the Lockerbie crash [among numerous others] show that large pieces of plane and intact bodies would have been identifiable if these two planes had crash-landed as we are supposed to believe. In fact debris and bodies were forund, but several miles away...

More on Flight 93:
http://www.flight93crash.com/
http://911review.com/attack/flights/f93.html

Right, I've got things to do... !! Enough already...
I've repeated myself too often.

Just a cursory exploration of the sites brings up more and more doubts. Go figure.
 
Back
Top