The WTC no-plane theories are a danger

[k-robjoe]

Eric Salter : The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the 9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

[wtmusic]

1. What about the no-building theories?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!! :crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[zbdent]

2. What's all this about New York?

There's a different one than in bloody ol' England?

[DulceDecorum]

3. The Awful Truth

Obtain the N-numbers of the four planes of September 11, 2001.
Go to the:

FAA REGISTRY
Aircraft Registration Inquiry
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

and locate the:

FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp

Now you can verify for yourself that
NO BOEING PLANE WAS DESTROYED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.
NONE.
ANYWHERE.
ZIP.
ZERO.
ZILCH.

Got that,
Mr. Eric Salter?
Now sit down and shut up.

[medienanalyse]

5. Dear Dulce - what about an introduction into basic logic?

Let us imagine a black car involved in an accident.

Witness A claims: The car was black and it had the number Va123456.

Witness B claims: It had the number NH 1238675.

What is the result? Can we argue now: there was no black car and no accident?

Again: I adore your work and energy. I like some of the results. But when it comes to conclusions I must dismiss your findings.

I do not doubt the N-number- story nor the different gates nor the lack of evidence (BUT THIS CONCERNING ALL parts of the 9/11 - puzzle) because the FBI seized everything and gave gag orders to everybody.

But all this does NOT support your theory. It COULD support it if tere were not masses of evidence which contradict your theory which you constantly ignore:

body remains,
wheel
razed lamp poles
witnesses
fuel smell
character of damages

and so on.

additionally there is cause enough to ask questions about the miracle of targeting just the one wedge stabilized with steel beams, which wonderfully suit the needs of an endangered Rumsfeld, causing less damages than could be expected by shreddering the aluminium of the plane. Same with the WTC: why missile, why explosions when the planes did and could do exactly what they should?

What are you heading for instead of finding the perpetrators?

[k-robjoe]

6. Apology, sort of...

"The KEY issue with the Pentagon crash -- to prove US complicity -- is not necessarily WHAT hit the Pentagon, but WHERE the Pentagon was hit (in the nearly empty, under reconstruction section).

None of the various theories of what hit the Pentagon are completely provable. However, the fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one method that minimized casualties is not disputed by anyone - it is proven 100%. This fact is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for official complicity in 9/11, since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground.

(...) That plane went 270 degrees out of its way at high speed, a very sophisticated maneuver with no possible military advantage, to hit the empty side of the Pentagon. There, as in New York, I would argue that they minimized the number of deaths by timing and method of attack. ....
(...)

It's also worth pointing out that Dov Zakheim, PNAC member, who just quit his job as Pentagon Comptroller (the money man), came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.)"

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

This to kind of apologize for taking your thread off your track.

When that is said, I would like to just clearify what I was trying to say on the Rumsfeld thread.

It is that what punched that exithole in that last wall, is most likely to have been a depleted uranium penetrator. (This is not inconsistent with the plane being flight 77.)

The theory that it was small pieces of debris, like a "game load" from a shotgun, won´t do. If you have a look at the picture of the last pillar before the exit hole, at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html
you´ll see that that game load of pieces would have gone smack into that last pillar, and then bounced off and punched through the wall. This could not have happened. But a D.U. element could have done that.

Also, a game load of pieces could not have punched through those last couple of walls, going in a straight line, allthough hitting at an angle.

[TO Kid]

9. Depleted uranium

D.U. is used in nearly all large aircraft as a mass balance for control surfaces- the mass balance keeps the centre of gravity near the hinges to reduce stress and adds weight to minimize flutter. It's the preferred material because it's so heavy.

[k-robjoe]

13. Well

Not according to this :

"Shortly after the previous paragraph was on line, I got an email with :

No Depleted Uranium in Hijacked Jets Crashed in New York and Washington. Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. (SPIEGEL ONLINE, Sep 14, 2001)

According to a company's spokesman, the only planes with a DU counterweight would be the B 747s..."

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html
(At the bottom)

[TO Kid]

15. They'd still need something pretty heavy

Fair enough, Boeing only uses it for 747s (it's also used by Scarebus for some models), but it doesn't negate the fact that the mass balances are compact and very heavy. If a swinging iron ball can be used by wreckers to knock down walls, I'm fairly certain that an object with the weight and density of a cannonball travelling at 300+ mph could win any dispute with a hunk of rock.

[k-robjoe]

16. But then...

Why is it not there? It would be lying there, in the A-E drive, and there would be no mystery.
What made that hole must have been whisked away in secrecy.

[medienanalyse]

17. What are you up to?

Again: and even if it were the fart of a wicked old caveman which erased the holes: who cares?

But it cant be the fart - farts do not stink like fuel and do not produce body remains of passengers or wheels in the rubble.

So about inconsistencies: >>>>"It is that what punched that exithole in that last wall, is most likely to have been a depleted uranium penetrator. (This is not inconsistent with the plane being flight 77.)

I do not know if the nose of planes are stiffened by something. Again: who cares? Cockpit parts were found as well as the body remains of the pilots.

If we take into account

- the need of vertical stability to plow through the air with the speed planes have - and we all know that the difference between the different aggregate states gets smaller increasingly with the speed (so a jump into water is very similar to a jump on hard ground when the jump hight is high enough)

- and that the density between air and water and solid walls is less different than people think (remember the approach of spacecraft into the atmosphere which must be as flat as possible not to be bumped off, back into the space)

- and that the walls were ectra lightly built because of the need of steel in wwII ( that is why they introduced the steel beams in that wedge)

Then there is no mystery at all anymore.

Why the hell is it important to discuss the ways of stabilizing the nose of planes? Why the hell is everybody so anxious to discuss that Rumsfeld KNEW what woiuld happen and that this can be proven?

Why do you invest your time in these stupid technical questions instead of spreading Rumsfelds timeline?
Are not interested that people know what happened in the Pentagon in the hours between 8:13 and 10:30 ?

[DulceDecorum]

29. Do YOU know for sure

WHAT happened in the Pentagon in the hours between 8:13 and 10:30?

Then tell us WHAT happened
and tell us HOW you came to know.

As for your other "evidence"
it remains inconsistent with actual life on planet earth.

Furthermore,
medienanalyse you do NOT answer your critics with FACTS.
Only abuse.
Tell us how come the bodies and flags are found nice and clean and the place is burned to a crisp.
Analyse the photos and explain the damage within the offices of the Pentagon.
Explain how the firefighters managed to get their hose in through those Boeing-proof windows.

The Pentagon crash scene is more ridiculous
than that scene in the film Airplane
where the passengers cast themselves about when told to assume crash positions.

You claim that there were bodies.
Link?
And that there was jet fuel.
Link us to the damn Penta-wings.
We would all dearly like for you to tell us once and for all
WHERDY GO.

[medienanalyse]

35. yes I do know for sure - and I do not know ...

- that Rumsfeld was sitting on his hands waiting for the impact, see: www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

- that all but the allged "hijackers" body remains were identified, see www.medienanalyse-international.de/faksimiles.html

- that a wheel was found, that the whole ground smelled like jet-fuel, see www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren.html and lo
look for the word fuel - the compilation of quotes origins from DU


and I do not know:
- "the bodies and flags are found nice and clean" WHICH ones? Of the passengers of AA77 or of some injured or dead people working in one of the offices may be 20, 40,120 or 140 feet away from the poinr of impact? WHICH? WHOSE? In any greater accident you will find people who got more and who got less inhuries, and when somebody has got nearly none, it is always noticed and accompanied with "thank god"claims or somethink like that. So where is the mystery?

- what are "those Boeing-proof windows"? What are they? Who told that? I only spoke of blast-resistant - which does not ionclude every kind of blast. So some are damaged, others not. Like in every simple accident: some are dameged, others not. Except that in the Pentagon it is less damage than could be expected with normal windows.

As simple as that. What exactly is to be explained? Shall I explain why window numer 345 in the second row was brolen and why window 234 in the first row was not?

[medienanalyse]

36. and some more about body parts

... before anybody claims that bodies of passengers were heavily disrupted but not charred:

I personally would not like to see or smell these body remains. But who ever ignores simple kinetic energy, the facts of the buildings and where the explosion took place, may still believe in wonders and mysteries.

Remember whatt happens with your own body whenn the driver of the car heavily pushes the breaks. the break stop of aa77 must have been enormously. and half of the plane has passed through the first ring before the wings even were in the position to get exploded.

To put it short: the explosion took place two wings back from the place where lots of the body remains can be estimated to have been found.

[Abe Linkman]

37. Did you used to be somebody else?

Are you familiar with the "wit and wisdom" of a Mr. "RH" Somebody? Your
friendly, humble, respectful appreciation of the rest of us traveling the Dark journey does make me wonder.

[LARED]

27. I mentioned a "game load" type of process as a

possibility among many.

The hole punched through the wall is hardly amazing. It is a simple brick wall that was constructed 50 plus years ago. It was not reinforced against blasts, or made of reinforced concrete. It was just a brick wall like millions of other brick walls.

Nearly any reasonably large object or group of objects moving at a high speed with a little bit of weight could punch a hole in the wall like we see. A wheel and other dense heavy parts were found outside the wall. ANY of them or a combination of them could have punched the hole.

Will anyone ever know with certainty the exact way it happened? Probably not. Is there any thing weird or unusual about a simple brick wall having a hole punched in it? NO.

[demodewd]

31. And the B wall?

And yet your "wheel or dense heavy parts" made no impression on the B wall. They just sort of fell immediately limp after blowing out the C wall....evidently.

[LARED]

39. B wall

made no impression on the B wall

How do you know no impressions were made on the B wall?

But of course maybe you're right. Whatever punched the hole in C wall should have continued all the way throught the entire building landing in the parking lot in the Walmart a few miles down the road.

[demodewd]

50. re: wal-fart

From the above photo you can see the "punched out hole" that was supposedly made by the nose of the plane. Pierre-Henri Bunel explains that is was more likely caused by a shaped charge jet stream. Hot plasma jet streams are designed to pierce concrete, they go far inside the building and end up in winds, smokes and heat.

Because a nose gear was supposedly found there, it was considered as a proof that the plane's nose made this hole. It is more likely that this gear wheel rim rolled there, pushed or drawn by the above jet streams.

In any case the wheel rim did not make such a big hole. Where are the plane parts that broke this wall ? These parts should be visible in the A-E drive and even damage the next wall : the B ring wall.

Nope. THE NEXT WALL IS INTACT. NO DAMAGE. ONLY SOME SMOKE SPOT WAITING TO BE WASHED. See it labelled :"smoke spot 3" in the picture below, it's in line with the plane's trajectory. See also these pictures for another view of the B ring wall and of smoke spot 3.

Finally, it seems that no solid matter made this hole. It was made by the forceful pressure of hot gases and smokes. This is much more consistent with shaped charge explosions.


Source: http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html

[LARED]

54. Paging captain obvious

Where are the plane parts that broke this wall ?


Look at the picture.




What do you think that pile of stuff is?

THE NEXT WALL IS INTACT. NO DAMAGE.

Well it is intact as there is no hole. But there is no way you can tell if there is damage or not with that image. Gimme a break. Even if this is no damage whatsoever. So what?

Of course hot gas from a shaped charge designed to burn through reinforced concrete like a hot knife through cool wipe should have left some indication on the wall. I wonder why we can't see it. :)

[demodewd]

56. laying limply..

All those relatively tiny parts laying limply no more than 20 feet from the impressive hole they blew out! And what an impressive symmetrical circle! Of course no airplane part,desk,or whatever managed to chip away at wall B. No sirree... they all lay down in concert after exhausting themselves with that Herculean task of penetrating wall C. This is to be expected of course.And unless one has normal vision it is indeed a truly Herculean undertaking to determine the extent of the damage on the B wall.

[LARED]

60. Here's your chance to shine

If (an if the size of texas) the hole was formed by shaped charge explosions, why is there no evidence on the B wall?

[demodewd]

68. winds...smokes..and heat

"Hot plasma jet streams are designed to pierce concrete, they go far inside the building and end up in winds, smokes and heat." Thus the observable smoke stain on the B wall directly in line with the C wall hole. And notice how specific and localized that smoke stain is...no doubt the jet stream's velocity was enervated by the open air of the A-E drive. :P

[LARED]

72. Well you had your chance

and I must say I'm disappointed.

As this really is kinda pointless, I'll tell you what;

You continue to parrot that make claims of plane bombs and other nonsense to make your case, and I'll continue to use logic and reason based on physics and objective reality to make my points.

Also using words like enervated only makes you look silly.

[demodewd]

82. Hey sweetie..

Hey sweetie...what I've read of your output on the matter that is substantive wouldn't fill a thimble. So put up or shut up.

[LARED]

91. My little demodewd

Hey sweetie...what I've read of your output on the matter that is substantive wouldn't fill a thimble. So put up or shut up.

Substance you want? Sorry the issue does not require a substantive reply as the answer is so simple a child will understand it.

Let me spell it out for you.

A large heavy jet crashed into the Pentagon at around 300 miles per hour.

It did terrible damage to the building. There was the impact, the explosion of the fuel, the subsequent fires. In fact there was so much damage that part of the building collapsed after a short while. A lot of nice people were murdered by some very bad people.

Directly in line with the flight path of the jet there was a hole punched through a brick wall at the very end of the destruction by part of the jet or parts of the building or any combination thereof.

It was a lowly brick wall. Not reinforced with steel or Kevlar fabric, it was just a brick wall doing its very unimportant job of standing there.

In fact to prove to the world that plane and or building parts did the dirty deed, said parts were laying on the ground in front of the hole looking very, very guilty.

That's it. The end of story. Nightie night. :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[Abe Linkman]

94. lared's fairy tale story of the "Evildoers Cave People"

Do you get paid to regurgitate Gov't propaganda? The "Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory is a fairy tale. There is no credible evidence to substantiate it. The Ted Olson lies about Barbara's alleged phone calls
are enough to make OBJECTIVE people highly dubious of BS that sounds like something from Hill & Knowlton or the Rendon Group.

I'm willing to bet that NO DUer (except for the paid and volunteer disinfo people) believes that the almost perfectly round exit hole in the Pentagon was made by a wheel, landing gear, or the nose of a B757.

[LARED]

96. As I said before Abe

Take a poll, take two or three, and let me know how you make out.

[demodewd]

112. Thank you LARED

And you lay claim to be "scientific" in your analysis? Your little yarn reads more like something out of a third grade reader. "how the Pentagon exploded and caught fire...by LARED"...Thank you LARED...you can take your seat now.

[LARED]

118. You're welcome

And you lay claim to be "scientific" in your analysis?

I never said that.

Your little yarn reads more like something out of a third grade reader. "how the Pentagon exploded and caught fire...by LARED"...

There was a reason for that. Anytime you write you always need to consider your audience.

Thank you LARED...you can take your seat now.

What no applause?

[k-robjoe]

34. > "Is there anything weird..."

"Is there anything weird or unusual about a simple brick wall having a hole punched in it? NO."

This is kind of symptomatic. If you don´t see anything in connection, just see everything that happens as if it was completely isolated from everything else - here is a wall with a hole, something punched through, where is the mystery? - if you just practice this kind of thinking to perfection, then you can actually swallow the official story of 911.


On edit : I don´t want to sound like I know what happened. I don´t.
But it´s gonna take quite a bit to convince me that it was punched out by a wheel (and a nosecone(!)) and a heap of scrap going "flipper" between the pillars.

(The comment on the "isolated event" kind of thinking, is a comment on the way of thinking that is done on ALL the events of 911. The big picture. Not on this event isolated.)

[LARED]

42. OK

But it´s gonna take quite a bit to convince me that it was punched out by a wheel

convince me that this so called shaped charge (or some other thing) managed to punch out the hole, but leave the columns intact?

[k-robjoe]

46. The best theory that I´ve seen

so far, is that it was a depleted uranium element, and in the c-ring it left the columns intact, because it was small enough to go in between, ( see the first "map" on http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html ), it only hit the last column before the hole, bounced off and through the wall.( see the pic of the column, on the same site. )

It came to rest on the ground, in the drive, by the opposite wall, where the wall has a part that is charred(?), and was removed in secrecy.

[LARED]

47. Ok

What is the difference between a large wheel or landing gear theory impacting the wall and this depleted uranium element theory?

Where does this depleted uranium element come from?

[k-robjoe]

49. This is where

the thing about punching through one wall after another, hitting at an angle, but continuing to go in a straght line, comes in.

[DulceDecorum]

30. Just the facts ma'am.

And those can be found at the FAA website.

Draw your own conclusions.

The FAA record of N4610
disproved the State Department's denials of US involvement
with the attempted overthrow of the government of Equatorial Guinea.

83-4610/4617 Boeing C-22B Ex-commercial 727-100 operated by ANG 4610 (c/n 18811) was formerly B-727-035 N4610 of National Airlines. National merged with Pan American and aircraft named 'Clipper Pathfinder'. Purchased by USAF Aug 21, 1984. Sold Jan 11, 2002 to Dodson International Parts, inc and then to Dodson Aviation Jan 14, 2002. Registered to Dodson Aviation as N4610. Seized by Zimbawean authorities for carrying suspected mercenaries and military equipment. Dodson supposedly had sold the plane to a South African company, Logo Ltd.

And you would now have us believe that the FAA which has been PROVED CORRECT,
is now wrong,
simply because Judith Miller and friends say so???

Maybe Monica can swallow that
but I cannot.

[dick_eastman]

145. I'm with Dulce -- on evidence for missile, small-plane and Boeing overfly

:kick:

Greetings honest citizens!

An anonymous discussant tells Dulce Dec. to imagine a black car involved in an accident where two witnesses make incompatible claims about the numbers of the license plate. Then he asks if the disagreement over the number is grounds for rejecting the idea that there was a car at all. Yet it is exactly this kind of non-sequitor concluding that the anonymous discussant resorts to next when he says:


> ... I must dismiss your findings.
>
> I do not doubt the N-number- story nor the different
> gates nor the lack of evidence (BUT THIS CONCERNING
> ALL parts of the 9/11 - puzzle) because the FBI seized
> everything and gave gag orders to everybody.
>
> But all this does NOT support your theory. It COULD
> support it if tere were not masses of evidence which
> contradict your theory which you constantly ignore:

This is not true -- if those things support the theory
they support the theory (although maybe not prove it),
and the fact that other facts may not support the theory,
need not alter the fact that the things Dulce mentions
do support her theory. Cat's around a garbage can, do
support the theory that their are fish in the garbage,
and that fact is not altered by knowing that the owner
of the can never eats fish or that there is stale liver
in the can rather than fist -- the fact will remain
cats around the can is consistent with the presence of
fish and is weak support for the fish hypothesis whether
true or false.

> But all this does NOT support your theory. It COULD
> support it if tere were not masses of evidence which
> contradict your theory which you constantly ignore:
>
> body remains,
> wheel
> razed lamp poles
> witnesses
> fuel smell
> character of damages
>
> and so on.

No body remains of passengers filled the grass or were seen and reported by anyone at the Pentagon. The Priest was surprised that there was no one to administer last rites to. Also no family member has come forth saying that they recognized any body part. Forensics were under the control of the Pentagon chain of command -- no inside job would be undertaken without forensics being firmly in on the frame-up.

"Wheel?" One wheel is portable and it was photographed by FEMA three days after the attack. But note that there are no passenger chairs found anywhere -- and only one pilots seat and only one engine -- indicative of a single engine military plane like the F-16.

"razed lampposts" -- I'm sorry, but the lampposts are solid proof that the killer jet that knocked down the first one was not the Boeing that people saw approaching on a line over hotel, Naval Annex and gas station that passes nowhere near the downed lamppost number one. Lagasse as at the gas station and he saw the Boeing pass overhead and a little to the north of him (he could see the starboard windows on the fuselage as the Boeing passed him going from west to east), a little north of him, and the lamppost was southwest of him -- and the plane was flying straight -- so either Lagasse and all of the witnesses who saw the Boeing coming over the Sheraton, over the Annex, over the Cemetery, over the Citgo gas station are pinpointing a locus of points of the Boeings approach that are well north of the course that was needed to knock down pole #1 and to make that 55 degree-angle hit in the wall. THE WITNESSES SAW THE BOEING, AND JUST AS SURELY THEY SAW MOVING ALONG AN APPROACH PATH THAT DID NOT COME NEAR THE SOUTHWESTMOST POLE THAT WAS DOWNED.

And of course the spread between poles mean nothing because two of northernmost poles that came down were in the path of the Boeing. And the poles between the two paths could also have been taken down by off wing cyclonic turbulence of the killer jet, travelling near the spead of sound in the thick soup of the lower atmosphere.

"witnesses" you say??? but there are multiple witnesses who spoke of a plane that followed the plane that crashed but that veered away! there are witnesses who report a plane smaller than a jetliner. there are witnesses who saw radar blip that moved like a fighter jet. there were witnesses who heard a jet and who heard a sonic boom before the crash. Newsmen were talking of witnesses who saw a second plane. All of that is found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/93

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/92

"fuel smell," you say? But the fighter jet that crashed there was carrying jet fuel too, wasn't it? (By the way -- I have not seen this witness statement that you are talking about, but I will take your word that it was made. But if you check the witness statements you will see that one military man smelled chordite, used in missile warheads -- like the warhead that made the white-hot flash explosion.

"character of the damages" -- haven't you seen the pictures showing that to the right of pillar #14 where the nose is alleged to have hit, there is no hole through the still standing interior walls where the engine would have had to have hit had the killer jet been a two-engine Boeing 757? Also there is no sign that any part of any plane touched anything above the second floor -- whereas the tail fin of the Boeign would have reached half way up the fourth floor.

Check out the pictures of the damage at the url above and you will see that the crash imprint is all wrong for a Boeing 757.

So everything you rattle off is not an argument against the small-plane conclusion, but in fact is strong support of that conclusion.

But we also have the pictures taken by the security cameras, showing too-small a plane. showing the smoke trail of a missile fired into the building, and the characteristic missile explosion and the smithereen shards of a blasted missile casing all over the heliport pad.

And you say, "and so on" -- but you have nothing already, and "so on" doesn't buy you anything either.


> additionally there is cause enough to ask questions
> about the miracle of targeting just the one wedge
> stabilized with steel beams, which wonderfully suit
> the needs of an endangered Rumsfeld,

The emptying of the wedge for refurbishing and then the
moving back into the wedge top brass of Naval Intelligence
(which is independent of the CIA and has, in the past, kept
it more honest than otherwise) and auditors of defense spending
-- is certainly suspicious -- but it does not prove the
false-flag inside-job black-op. However, once the overwhelming
evidence and witness testimony identified the Pentagon brass
as perpetrators -- then the moving of people into the wedge
under so and so's orders becomes an issue, doesn't it?



" causing less damages than could be expected by shreddering
> the aluminium of the plane. Same with the WTC: why missile,
> why explosions when the planes did and could do exactly
? what they should?

Actually, at the wtc there was very clear airliner debris
on the ground -- whole sections of side skin with passenger
windows in a row, large and small pieces, not just one or
two planted pieces (which I prove in the URL above) and
shards of a missile.

YOU ASK WHY USE A MISSILE AND A JET FIGHTER? BUT YOU
ASKED ME THAT BEFORE, AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU. HAVE YOU
FORGOTTEN?

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE" First, Rumsfeld and other Neo-cons
are running the Pentagon, and while they want the Pentagon
attacked to draw suspicion away from themselves as
perpetrators, they also want to be sure that it will be
safe to be in the building, albeit on the east, and not
the west side. Secondly, definite personel were targeted
for death (Naval intelligence, spending auditors, people
who give war-instigation plans of Rumsfeld and Wolfowtiz
resistance and could be counted on to investigate and
discover the truth if they were permitted to live -- and
so they needed to be taken out by a surgical attack.
And top intelligence functions are conducted on the
lower floors for various reasons (lower floors are
connected allowing easier movement from one set of
offices to another etc.) and so taking a clumsy
airliner and diving down through a ceiling and
four heavy concrete floors there would be no way
of guaranteeing that the plane would get its target,
would there?

And you must also ask yourself, why would they but
a four engine decoy plane over washington D.C. doing
dives for all to see -- an exhibition intended to
amaze and draw attention away from something -- but
why bother if the plane that crashed was the Boeing --
why distract peoples eyes, unless there was something
which if seen would have given away the great trick.

Saving the best for last:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/

As we say in Yakima, Washington:

How do you like THEM apples?

Dick Eastman
Yakima,




What are you heading for instead of finding the perpetrators?

[dick_eastman]

164. Eric Salter and A.K. Dewdney write

Discussing the Pentagon Attack

Correspondence with Eric Salter, A.K. Dewdney

(research notes for fellow investigators)



=============

At 9:10 PM -0700 5/27/04, senhor san wrote:

>Dear Eric Salter,
>
>I have just finished reading your critique of the "no-plane" theories
>
><http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html>http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
>
>and find your analysis intelligent and, as far as I can see,
>thorough. I did not need much convincing, however your varied
>reasons for rejecting the "whatzit" hypothesis convinced me of your
>high competence in this kind of analysis.
>
>It so happens that I too have a thesis that denies that an airliner
>hit a building on Sept. 11, 01, as claimed. Is sat that evidence and
>witnesses indicate conclusively that Flight 77 overflew the
>pentagon as a smaller jet fired a missile into the Pentagon ahead of
>its own crash. I have gathered all of the evidence which yielded
>this conclusion on two webpages.
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/
>
>I am asking for your "peer review" of the seperate lines of proof
>-- for you to distribute to the 9-11 investigation community as you
>have your last investigation article.
>
>Can you refute the small plane thesis?
>
> I believe you will render a service to all who seek the truth about
>9-11 if you take on the "small-plane" thesis with the same critical
>eye you have applied to the theory of Webfairy's "whatzit."
>
>Respecting your service to the truth,
>
>Dick Eastman
>Yakima, Washington


From:Eric Salter <[e-mail]>
Date:Fri, May 28, 2004 8:50 am
To:"senhor san" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, (more)
Subject:Re: Dear Eric Salter -- Would you please subject the Pentagon
"small-plane" thesis to your exacting analysis?



Dick,

Thank you for your feedback on my article. As for the Pentagon
crash, I don't think there's much I can do with that one. I took on
the WTC impacts because my specialty is video, and most of the
arguments there focused around the visual record. The only images we
have of the Pentagon crash are from the Pentagon security camera.
That's not much to go on, assuming these images are reliable to begin
with. There have been a lot of charged arguments back and forth
about the Pentagon, and I'm reluctant to take a strong stand on this,
mainly because I haven't studied this issue as much as I should have.
I feel there are strange anomalies in the physical evidence, but what
I really want to see is for someone to track down and talk to the
eyewitnesses about the no-plane scenarios. If there was a fly-over,
there should be a sizeable number of witnesses who would be willing
to entertain that possibility. If the witnesses balk at this, then I
think the case becomes much harder to sell to the public no matter
what the physical evidence. I think the public would generally
identify with these eyewitnesses as people like themselves and would
be somewhat hesitant to question their veracity. Just my two cents.

Sincerely,

Eric Salter

=========================

Dear Eric,

First of all, a good mind is a good mind.. If you don't have a good mind
(a scientific, methodical, logical mind) your video expertise would not
count for much -- and with that kind of mind yhou can contribute anywhere.

I have several compilations of witness statements. Three people saw
a two planes, one reporting it veering away "as the other crashed."

Also I have interviewed Sgt. Willima Lagasse who not only saw
the Boeing headed towards the Pentagon, but was actually
blown into his car by the turbulence as it passed.

I know of no one outside the Webfairy "Hologram" school
who say there was no plane.

Actually there were at least four planes.

Boeing 757 -- seen by all approaching from the Hotel

The Killer jet -- leaving downed lamp posts and holes
in the Pentagon wall indicating an approach more from the
southwest.

The C-130 flown by O'Brian that went through the
smoke of the crash just 30 seconds after the event.
(Either a command plane, a spy plane to spot any
frame-up giveaway signs or a fake debris drop.)

A four-engine large plane that was doing dives in the
forbidden airspace over the Capitol -- photographed
and videotaped and shown on the BBC (a distraction
plane)

So the term "no plane" certainly does not describe
what I have called the "small plane" thesis.

Your specialty is video -- I wish you would look at the smoke
trail in the security camera video , and the white hot exposion
and the change in contrast between the second frame and the
rest. Would a bright flash turn up the contrast in a video
camera?

Also, I was very impressed how the smoke is drawn into
the explosion updraft in pictures 2,3,4 and 5. Compare that
exactness with, say, the Berg video or the fake bin Laden tapes.
(Why be so minutely correct on this aspect, while allowing
really big errors, like the next days date on the video camera?

You say the only images we have of the Pentagon crash are
from the Pentagon security camera - but that is not quite correct.
There are digital camera immages of the wall after the crash and
before its collapse 20 m8inutes later. Of great importance is
whether the imprint on the wall is consistent with a crashing 757 --
and some of that depends on interpreting what is shown.

At any rate, I do not agree that "there is not much to go on" with
the videos -- I see multiple lines of evidence bits (smoke trail, tail fin,
explosion, image proportions and lengths) all pointing to the same
conclusion, all mutually reinforcing "small-plane" thesis.

Also the fact that arguments "go back and forth" should never
deter you -- since if this is the crime of the century then there are
going to be agents of a coverup attempting to mouth down those
pointing out the evidence. You can'b e believe that the people who
bought up all the newspapers and media networks to control opinion
would not also put spin agents and disinfo propagandists on the
internet, do you?


But I certainly agree and bewail the fact that you "havent studied
this issue as much as should have."

Why not, when the evidence is the best around and intelligent people
(Prof. A,K. Dewdney, physics911 group, etc.) have reached definite
conclusions in favor of the small-plane finding.


And yes, there are witnesses and they support the small plane thesis.
Check the quotes.


I implore you to have one good 10 minute look at the evidence on just
this one page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimedata/message/3


You will find your witness information here and in the included link in
that section.

===============================

Item #2:


A.K. Dewdney is well known for explaining fractal geometry to us in the pages of Scientific American, where he has been and editor for eleven years, writing the brain teaser articles each month -- all of them always too difficult for me, btw -- at least over any time frame that I could devote.

I discover to my dismay that he is less impressed with some features of my analysis than I was hoping. Still the letter and the response is instructive.


Date:Thu, 27 May 2004 00:21:59 -0400
From:"Kee Dewdney" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To:"Dick Eastman" <[e-mail]>
Subject:Re: ending it (thanks a lot for all your help)


Dear Dick,

I suppose that we have had little enough correspondence over the last
two years, but I was completely unaware of any rejection by myself
or Mr Longspaugh. The physics911 website was, until recently, run
by Sid Walker in Australia. Sid has gone mising and we are in emergency
modem getting a new, more public, version of physics911 up and running.

As far as I am concenred, you are one of the big names in 911 research.
Over the last year I have been rather upset to see email trafic where
people were calling each other horrible names, disinformationists,
assholes, etc. I may have seen on at least one occasion that you
were a target of this vituperation, but I cannot recall clearly. I can
only recall saying to myself,, "Oh dear, whay do we have to go
through this BS?" I was particularly upset by the attacks on the
webfairy and said as much to Kaminski recently. My suggestion
there was simply to declare the hologram theory as untestable
and to put it onthe back burner for now.

Of all your writings, the most impressive to me were the
examinations of eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash.
I wonder if you would be willing to post it on our new site - when
it's ready. You could include me as a joint author, if you like. that
way i could edit it into really readable form without changing an
iota of your thought. i might even be able to add something useful
myslef. Or you could file it under your own name.

Disentangling he Pentagon eyewitness accounts is of paramount
imortance.

Interested?

All the best

Kee Dewdney


----------

Dear Kee,

The Nazis during WWII, according to B.F. Skinner, conducted
research into when generals start making bad decisions -- and
the found that the one reliable indication was when they began
salting their speach with profanity. While I avoid the "a-h" word
I have been lapsing more and more into "sonofabitch" used
regularly by Truman and Patton, btw. Yet, I consider this usage
a failing.

I have been at odds with webfairy over her hologram theory
and other issues going back a long time -- but had you sent
my your argument that since the theory is untestable it should
be left alone -- I would have simply quoted you on the subject
and then dropped it.

Each bogus idea offered on a new 9-11 site takes out a portion
of our intelligent citizen readership -- until our ranks disappear
into Cantor dust or whatever. I think this is a strategy -- I see
many "no meat" 9-11 sites, all branching to other "no meat" sites,
and the small-plane thesis and physics 911 are never referenced.
Remember the fairy tale where the bad brother meets the little man
in the woods who shows him the tree where the gold is hidden,
and, after exacting a promise from the old man not to remove the
gold or to remove the ribbon, goes and comes back only to find
a ribbon on every tree making it impossible to find the true with
the gold. This is the strategy of the coverup, I suspect.

You say that the most impressive thing I did was analysis of the
witness statements -- which means, I am wondering, that you
do not find the security video camera elements (white smoke trail,
too short a plane given the image of the tail fin, the length of
fuselage that could be hidden behind the obstruction and the
known proportion of 757 fuselage length to its tail; too short
a plane given the image, the obstruction and the known fact
that the Boeing is twice as long as the building is tall) --

but when A.K Dewdney is unimpressed I myself begin to have
doubts, where up til now I have been firmly convinced. So, I am
ready for the worst, why aren't you "impressed" by this
line of demonstration?

At any rate -- if you put what you want about witnesses in the
form of a question I will do my best to scour files and
see what I can provide.

Here is some of what I have -- or are you looking for
some different aspect of witness accounts.



Meanwhile there is witness analysis here:

http://eastman.batcave.net/ (unfortunately this is always -- exceeding
its limit of 40 Meg per day )

and here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimedata/message/4
(scroll down 4/5's to the bottom)

and here
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m7b3.html
(scroll 5/6ths down)

My written interview of Sgt. William Lagasse, witness to the
crash:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/20

Follow-up (Sgt. Lagasse) THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE TWO:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/21


I hope this is of use. Everything I write is for anyone to copy, revise, improve , borrow,
elaborate, correct as they see fit.

(ALthough I reserve the right to call you a sonofabitch if I disagree and it is one of
my high stress days. (God help me mortify the flesh.)

Sincerely,

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington



Robert A. Leonard: The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked skillfully to the right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon's southwest side, then went full throttle directly toward the building."

Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking whoomp."



Terry Morin: "I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines. . .As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash. . .As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. . . .The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon."

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

Timmerman: ...being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building ...

Comment: This witness was north of the crash. He heard a jet louder than the normal air traffic at nearby Reagan National (which includes routine Boeing 757 landings.) When he looked out his window, however, he saw Flight 77 to the southwest, and most significantly, he actually states that the plane he was watching "didn't appear to crash into the building"!!!!

Here is a CNN reporter questioning another witness:

CNN: You got a close-up look at the damage, didn't you?

Wit: Yes, I was right next to the building.

CNN: And what did you see?

Wit: I saw a big, gaping hole and I could see pieces of the plane inside.

CNN: Earlier, an eye-witness told us the plane didn't crash into the building.

Wit: Well, I don't know what it looked like from where he was, but I looked right inside the hole and I know it crashed into the building.

Comment: The man being interviewed by CNN above was also a CNN reporter. No one else reports having seen in the hole pieces of aircraft, and of course the absence of debris commensurate with a mid-sized airliner crash is a topic that continues to be much discussed. Yet here again we have mention of a man who says the plane he observed did not hit the Pentagon.

O’Keefe: saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading.

Comment: In a car it is hard to tell the direction of the sound of a jet. The jet must have been loud to be heard in his car. He heard the loud killer jet, but saw the Boeing "swooping," i.e., leveling out from a dive. He does not say whether he was in view of the actual crash event.

Sucherman: 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.
"My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."

Comment: Here is the classic killer jet observation. No mention of a dive, in fact he goes out of his way to say it was not coming in a steep angle. The killer jet was coming fast, unlike the coasting 757.

Anon2: "I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, it was not a lear jet, it was a bigger plane than that.".

Comment: Obviously this witness falls between the two categories. Not seeing engines would put the plane in the killer jet category. But a larger than Lear jet size is indicated as well as American Airlines markings. Taking it literally, he saw Flight 77 but just did not pay attention to the engines. (Alternatively, the killer jet was bigger than an F-16 and outfitted in American Airlines "drag.")

Campo: It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head.

Comment: This is the Arlington National Cemetary gardener. Like Riskus, his testimony puts the real Flight 77 over the cemetary, from where it would have been impossible for any plane to have rendezvoused with the five lamp posts northeast of the cemetery and then bent its path around sufficiently to reach the crash point at the proper angle to also exit the c-ring hole.

Vaughn: There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank. That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that pattern.

Comment: General Vaugh was not alone in what he saw. Many other witnesses saw Flight 77 putting on an attention- getting exhibition over D.C. as if to draw all eyes to itself and away from the true appraoching killer.


Liebner: I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low.
My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening.

Comment: Captain Liebner does not tell us what he means by "low." Was it 100 feet or 20 feet? But the term "coming in" indicates a descent.

Here are more witness accounts:

Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.

Tom Seibert, in the Pentagon, listened to " what sounded like a missile" followed by a "loud boom."

Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington Naitonal Cemetary when they watched "the jet" approach and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated that he was not confused by normal airport traffic.

Alfred S. Regnery, on the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner "not more than 200 yards above the ground" passed overhead, disappearing "behind black cloud of smoke" was pouring from a "gaping hole."

Comment: Another witness hearing the loud sound and seeing the jet liner and assuming that sound source and object sited are one and the same. But note that he saw an airliner and that it was 200 yards above the ground, not 20 feet.

Terry Scanlon interviewed a Hampton Roads woman who saw a plane following the jet that hit the Pentagon.

Christine Peterson, in her car in front of the heliport ( near Riskus) saw the airliner. As it flew over she could read numbers on its wing. "My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

Comment: It would certainly be jumping to conclusions to say that this witness saw that plane crash. Watching the Boeing she missed entirely the killer jet that came from another direction.

James S. Robbins, from his west-facing office window, one and a half miles east of the
Pentagon, saw "the 757" as it was "diving in at an unrecoverable angle." "I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building."

Comment: The plane was diving. But it must have recovered from the dive at the last second, because the pentagon was not hit by a plane at a downward angle. The killer jet travelled from the entrance hole to the C-ring exit hole without breaking above the floor of the third floor!!! Robbins saw the Boeing that did not crash and the explosion and smoke made by the killer plane that did.

Christopher Munsey headed South on the Interstate saw "a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away." Munsey saw the red and blue markings "as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon."

Comment: A silver twin-engined plane had to have been Flight 77, seen "over the Annex", i.e., over Arlington Cemetary hill, it had American Airlines markings and it was "noiseless," but notice the indefinitness: "it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon" -- there are usually psychologically definite reason why people qualify their speech, in this case, perhaps, pshycological reservations about what he really did see.

Fred Gaskins was driving near the Pentagon as he saw the plane pass about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."

Comment: Near the Pentagon, but still 150 feet in the air. How could it hit those poles? How could it come in for its below-the-third-floor crash through three rings of the Pentagon?


And there is this (with Jim Hoffman):

How could the Pentagon have been approached by a second jet and the witnesses not report seeing two planes at once? The answer rests in part in important new information from the Department of Transportation concerning research on modification of peoples memories of accidents.

Sarah Roberts once asked me, "Why do you impose your "two plane" theory on every witness account you come across?"

I replied that I did so because we are talking about a frameup murder case, and in a frameup the murder weapon is very important and so are the witness accounts of that weapon. But of course it is the evidence and the witnesses that, when taken seriously, impose conclusions on the investigator.

We have security camera proof that the real murder weapon was the plane that came in low and fired the missile. But Flight 77 was the frameup plane -- the plane people were supposed to think was piloted by cunning Arab suicides with box cutters etc. Yes Flight 77 airliner was there, and it really was seen by Robbins, Regnery, Eglas and others -- but seen by Eglas only at first, I am convinced -- before she turned her attention to the hit pole and the freeway traffic around her as she, as she says, stopped on a busy freeway, so that when she was ready to start looking for the plane again her attention was then caught by the split second glimps of the small jet (that we see in the video) crashing into the white-hot missile explosion at the west wall of the Pentagon.

When a jet attacks at high speed from near ground level no one sees it coming -- from the annex to the wall would take about three seconds, and no one was expecting it -- many had been looking at the airliner -- but doing so in a place where airliners coming in low are quite usual, only a mile from Reagan National Airport. However there was also the news that was then coming in from New York, news that conditioned the soon-to-be witnesses to think in terms of hijacked airliners -- and that conditioning was reinforced, for many witnesses, by the long and showy display put on by a mysterious four engine airliner-sized jet that tarried over Washington
D.C., and actually did some attention getting dives over the capital. Here are some pictures of that plane in a dive timed perfectly to coincide with the real Pentagon attack by the small plane with a missile.



The case is solved. We know there were two planes, in fact four planes part of the operation. The killer jet, the Boeing, the four-engined plane doing dives over the Capitol, and the C-130 that followed the Boeing over the crash just 30 seconds after the killer jet hit the wall. That is why I talk about them.



I know why I am here -- because I think organized crime has taken over the government of my country and has perpetrated the murder upwards of 2000 people in a frameup to start a war to attain objectives having to do with oil, gold. opium revenues, and a new Zionist empire over the entire Middle East, and a debt-slavery dictatorship over the US in the form of the perpetual anti-terrorism war state. I do all this for nothing because I don't want to see this happen, to see this continue to happen, to see this succeed.

But no one has ever mentioned seeing that phantom F-16.

True, but air traffic controllers noted that the "blip" was moving in ways characteristic of a jet fighter and military men in the Pentagon heard a jet fighter during the attack.

And an F-16 is just what people would not pay attention to because F-16's are what you expect to see flying around Washington D.C., they are what you would expect to see in a time of threat, when the nation is thought to be under immediate attack. Remember an F-16 was acutally circling the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. In fact the air should have been filled with F-16's.

And what better cover than that the killer jet appear like an aircraft doing the right thing and "chasing" the Boeing, so that even if the psycological factors built into the operation had failed and people had seen and recongnized the killer jet hitting the Pentagon, there would be the ready cover story that the F-16 was merely chasing the Beoing to intercept it and had met with an accident. They did not use that fallback, but in retrospect, from their point of view, perhaps they should have.

I have never anywhere said that any witness recognized the small plane attacker as an F-16, but the F-16 is a plane of the length and proportions (tail fin shape) that fits the security camera video recording of the actual attack. It is a plane that would carry the missile that we see being fired (we see the characteristic smoke plume, that could be nothing else -- and we see the tell-tale warhead white-hot explosion.)


A police officer radioed in "Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon." The important thing here is that it was reported "eastbound," whereas the killer jet was headed north-northeast by the compass. Obviously this officer was looking at the frameup airshow higher up -- he was looking at the plane that soon afterward slipped onto the tarmac at Reagan National. But no one could be expected to take in what was really happening all at once in the course of an action that took all of four seconds on the vicinity stage we have explored above.

No witnesses was in a position to know the "whole story." Each was subjected to, at most, four seconds of seeing Flight 77 on display -- and of course the other distraction over D.C. And then there was the distracting explosion. And those who saw the attack fighter, the actual killer plane, they could not have watched if for more than, at most, two seconds -- as they drove their cars on a busy highway, as they listened to the news from New York, as they managed their vehicles in the confusion, as they mixed in their minds the airliner they had just seen above with the sudden shattering spectacular horrible event that errupted on the west wall of
the Pentagon. They saw what they were conditioned to see, what they were capable of seeing.
Their minds, forty minutes after the first crash in New York were anchored on airliners, on hijackers -- and here really was an airliner above them -- then eyes riveted -- but then just as suddenly confusingly vanished in a flash, an explosion and profusely emitted smoke -- why look for airliners flying away behind that smoke when you are already sure you know what happened?

The psychological dimension was well planned -- and you can rely on it -- better than perhaps you may now believe.

You know the Chinese saying:

"Two thirds of what we see is behind our eyes."

Here is demonstration of how even a mind as good as yours can be tricked
into not seeing things that are right in front of your face.

Rather our apprehension of events is directed by our preconceptions, by a schema that controls subsequent "seeing." These schemata bias the way we view, interpret, and remember events.

Do this very important experiment.

Count the F's in this sentence:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULTS OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

Read and count once more to be sure, then remember the
total. (I'll give you the answer below.)

Now let us talk about the conditionable mind.

According to one mid-1970's poll, 70 percent of Americans remember seeing the assassination of John F. Kennedy on television in 1963. The truth is that although still photos were puglished in magazines, the film was not shown on television until 1776 (Saturday Review, 1978).

But first there were two more F's than the three that you counted.

You counted only the unvoiced frictives, i.e., the "f-sound", but not the voiced frictive "f's" that have the "v" sound, e.g., "of," -- and so your mind was looking for voiced frictives and voiced frictives were all that you found -- even as people were looking for airliners that had been hijacked by crazed Arab fundamentalists or Anarchists or anti-globalists and airliners were all that people saw (except for the extraordinary few -- who believed their eyes and ears and reported jet fighter sounds and smaller planes of a size that "could seat no more than 12 passengers" etc. You were not looking for "f's" that sound like "v's" and witnesses with their minds previously anchored on hijacked airliners crashing into buildings were not looking to see a stealthy ground hugging jet fighter attack.

Social psychologist David Meyers of Hope College, reached these conclusions after a psychological study of witnesses and the variables that affect their reporting of events:

"Studies of conflicting eyewitness testimonies further illustrate our tendency to recall the past with great confidence but meagre accuracy. Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer showed University of Washington students a film of a traffic accident and then asked them questions about what they saw. People who were asked "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other." gave higher estimates than those asked "How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" A week later they were asked whether they recalled seeing any broken glass. Although there was no broken glass in the accident, people who had been asked the question with "smashed into" were more than twice as likely as those asked the question with "hit" to report seeing broken glass. This demonstrates how in constructing a memory we unconsciously use our general knowledge and beliefs to fill in the holes, thus organizing mere fragments from oujr actual past into a convincing memory."

Here is a statement by Dr. Loftus that describes a type of conditioning that must be understood in evaluating the testimony of witnesses of the attack on the Pentagon:

"A former professor of mine at Stanford left to take a job with the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. He had been on the job a short time when our paths crossed, and he said, "You know, there's a great need for good research on traffic accidents, and there's money to support it." Unfortunately, I was studying memeory for words and didn't know much about traffic accidents (except for the few that I'd had myself as a teenager). One day, I was struck with a thought, and I announced to my Geoff: "I'm going to study memory for traffic accidents." Big deal, " he said, unimpressed. His lack of enthusiasm wasnt' surprising, since I had no particular scientific hypothesis, and no specific research ideas. But I started wondering about the interaction between accidents and the words people use to describe them. I talked to colleagues about the accidents they had been involved in, and noticed that different people
described an event in different ways. I began wondering whether I could change the way people remembered their own accidents as a function of the words I used to ask about the event. The experiments I did showed that indeed people's memories for these sorts of events could be modified rather easily. I owe a great debt to the colleague who suggested the title for the article that described this work: "Reconstruction of automobile destrcution." (Elizabeth Loftus, University of Washington)."

So we all selectively notice, interpret, and recall events in ways which sustain our ideas,
but our memories can be modified by planting new ideas about the event during questioning or conversation or even listening to the news.


Thus there are both physical and psychological reasons why no one said "there is an F-16". A plane that goes by at 600+ mph at 15 feet, while everyone is listening to the radio about New York being hit by airliners, while an airliner four times as long and sheathed in polished aluminum with red, white and blue markings is flying towards the Pentagon over the Sheraton, over the Annex against the sky for most observers and soon followed by a big expolsion -- and everyone
on the radio etc. talking about the third airliner this time hitting the Pentagon etc.

I say that the planners of the 911 mass murder frameup thought they could reliably count
on no one catching the psy-op deception built into their plane
When someone says he saw a plane of a size that could not possibly have held more than at
most 12 passengers, to me that statement does not exclude
the F-16 which holds one or two persons (or no passengers or pilot if it is flying under remote control) but it does exclude the Boeing 757 which holds 170 passengers.


The fighter made a long low, ground hugging approach making it very difficult to see against the
landscape-- in fact since it came in so low, it is practically overhead when it comes into view. Especially as they are in their cars on a busy freeway, watching either the Boeing or the acrobatic distraction plane over Washington, and possibly even the huge C-130 bringing up the rear. We are talking an interval of no more than three seconds plus these distraction plus the planting of suggestion by media both during the attack (while listening to the news out of New York) and afterwards (everyone talking about and asking about "Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon" etc.

The missile begins firing within a second before frame one was taken, somewhere to the left of the location, perhaps just as it crossed the Pike and came over the grass. Of course the smoke of the missile would confuse and distract witnesses even more -- as the testimony about the "bounce" (that never happened) attests.



From pictures of the damage to the Pentagon, there is a clear tunnel that runs from the impact
area of the outside wall through to C ring. That tunnel was made by an engine,
which is the heaviest part of a plane, and the part with the greatest momentum. There is only one such tunnel. Those who speak of this claim it to be evidence of a 757, but this is not correct. There is only one, and it means that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a single engine plane. Furthermore, in order for the engine to make a straight and round tunnel, it would have to have been balanced at the moment of impact; an engine under a wing would be given some angular momentum by the crash, and not leave a straight and round tunnel as it plowed through the building. Only an engine positioned at the center of the plane would leave such a tunnel.


The wall has not collapsed yet and both fire trucks are working on secondary fires after the interior fire was put out. So what happened to the plane? It certainly isn't on this lawn.

Jim Hoffman again:

In the following, I have excerpted quotes from Penny and organized them into a series of topics, each a feature of the theory.

First I summarize the topics and how they relate to the theory.


* supersonic attack jet Sonic booms are not
produced by subsonic jetliners.

* poles clipped by other than 757 flyover
Details in reports about the clipped light-poles
suggest it was not the work of the 757. (How
could the tail of a 757 with level attitude clip
poles when it's 10 feet higher than the wings.)

* engine rev-up
The sound of the supersonic attack jet was
interpreted as the 757's engines revving up
as it crossed the lawn.

* impact before building
People's initial perceptions of the impact
happening out in front of the building are
explained by the 757 disappearing into the
smoke a few hundred feet out in front of
the building.

* shockwave/concussion
There was a pronounced shockwave felt from
thousands of feet away.
Only an explosive detonation (not a jetfuel fireball!)
could produce such a concussion.

* bright flash
The bright flash helped distract people from where the
events were relative to the building.

* exploding engine
The perception that the 757's starboard engine
exploded is explained as mistaking of the impact
and explosion of the F-16 with for engine of
the nearby 757.

* shredded airplane
Of course jetliners don't shred themselves and
throw parts hundreds of feet in the air when they
crash, but the F-16 would when hit by a missile.

* bizarre physics
Perceptions of physically impossible events are
a natural consequence of seeing confusing events.



supersonic attack jet
---------------------

Rains Lon
Eyewitness: The Pentagon By Lon Rains Editor, Space News, was driving up
Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington. I heard a very
loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in
front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact
and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced
it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

Sucherman Joel
I heard a sonic boom and then the impact, the explosion. ... There were
light poles down.


poles clipped by other than 757 flyover
---------------------------------------

Narayanan Vin
The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about
25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging
exit sign above meas it headed straight at the Pentagon.

Owens Mary Ann
The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under
coal-black smoke, three-story tall flames and intense heat

McGraw Stephen
The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us,


engine rev-up
-------------

Ryan James
At that point the plane was slow, so that happened concurrently with the
engines going down. And then straighten up in sort of suddenly and hit
full gas.

Sepulveda Noel
You could hear the engines being revved up even higher


impact before building
----------------------

Anlauf Deb and Jeff
It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the
Pentagon).

Harrington Joe
It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge.
It was like a Hollywood movie or something.

Hovis Tom
I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving
the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.

Kean Terrance
And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke
everywhere .. . . It was very sort of surreal.

Sayer John
At first I thought an airplane had hit in front of the Pentagon,
but when I got closer I saw that it had struck the Pentagon.

Liebner, Lincoln
The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake.
The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.

Narayanan Vin
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed.
But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as
the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before
exploding into a massive fireball.

Morin Terry
I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor
turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the
flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above
the Pentagon.

Munsey Christopher
hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking
"whoomp" as it *appeared* to hit the side of the Pentagon.


Timmerman Donald
I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud.
I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over
Colombia Pike, and as it went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added
power
to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it
behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front
of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was
dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the
wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in
flames. It was horrible.

Elgas Penny
At the point where the fuselage
hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw
a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with
the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage
at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. . . . the
wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion
and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.


shockwave/concussion
--------------------

Anderson Steve
There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it,

Bauer Gary
The blast literally rocked all of our cars.

Dobbs Mike
he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building.

Sepulveda Noel
For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from
the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."
An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole.

Thompson Phillip
The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast
hit us in a wave.

Shaeffer Kevin
Kevin Shaeffer was sprawled by the shock wave,

Yeingst William
Just prior to the impact there were three firemen on the helipad at the
Pentagon. ... They turned and ran, and at the point of impact were
partially
shielded by their fire truck from the flying debris of shrapnel and
flames.
They were knocked to the ground by the concussion.

Owens Mary Ann
I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact.
An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me.

Marc Abshire
his office is on the D ring, near the eighth corrider, he said.
It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the
air shock wave of it, I didn't know exactly what it was. It didn't
rumble.
It was more of a direct smack.

Morin Terry
Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like
a
small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a
2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you.


bright flash
------------

Robbins James S
(from 1.5 miles away) There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a
dark,
mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building


exploding engine
----------------

Tom McClain
I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon
as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft.

Krohn Charles H.
One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and
arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building
and
the new loading dock facility,

Probst Frank
The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer like butter.
The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.
I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this
beautiful airplane just vaporize. It looked like a huge fireball,
pieces were flying out everywhere.
...
the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust,


shredded airplane
-----------------

Faram Mark
all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger
than a half-dollar.

Bouchoux Donald R.
There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by
debris
raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave
hit.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3

[Woody Box]

8. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis

Eric Salter claims that the plane hitting the South Tower (for example) was real, no holographic or video artefact.

You, Dulce, claim that the plane that started in Boston (and *allegedly* hit the South Tower) was not destroyed and still exists.

Synthesis: The plane from Boston was not the plane that crushed into the South Tower.

Keep cool.

[DeadBroke]

10. Remember this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x10112

Since that thread I obtained copies (my sister-in-law has the originals) of all the FAA Registrations for my deceased brother's aircraft that were long ago dismantled for parts. Using your links and applying your theory his planes still exist; but that's the problem, they don't. Your theory doesn't work; if it did, my brothers planes are still flying.

[DulceDecorum]

67. Does the FAA

STILL list those planes on the N-number registry?

Because if they do, then we have a problem.
And your brother
or his estate are in clear violation of civil aviation statues
on the national and international level.

Someone MUST have been lying to the FAA
in order to keep those registrations current.

And now,
since you, DeadBroke,
have presented "proof" that an owner/operator can perpetrate fraud
and have defunct planes still listed as viable entities on the FAA n-number registry,
then you, DeadBroke have also proved
that it is indeed possible for
United Airlines to be flying N591UA under the alias N594UA.

If,
however,
all you have is some piece of paper that says that
once upon a time a certain bloke once registered a certain plane,
then my friend,
you have NOTHING.

Once upon a time,
Brtain "owned" India and they have the papers to prove it.
Once upon a time,
slavery was legal, and so was the Fugitve Slave Clause in the Constitution.
Once upon a time,
the consumption of alcohol was prohibited in these here United States.
Once upon a time,
your brothers planes were legally registered by the FAA.

But all of that has changed now.

Britain does not dare tell India how to run its affairs.
Slavery is outlawed.
The Fugitve Slave Clause has been revoked.
Prohibition has been repealed.
And your bother's planes are NOT legally listed on the FAA registry.

[MercutioATC]

11. JESUS! Will you let this GO already?

American retired the FAA registrations on their planes. United chose not to (or at least didn't file the paperwork).

It's that simple.

Even assuming what you claim bears the slightest merit, WHY would American's planes have crashed while United's didn't? Why, assuming United didn't lose the planes on 9/11, wouldn't they just retire the numbers (since having the planes still flying would involve some complicity between the government and United)?

The fact is, the existance of FAA registration doesn't mean that the aircraft still exists. The owner must file paperwork to remove the registration. If they don't, the existance stays active.

Show me inspection records since 9/11 on either of the United jets. THAT would be something to question.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. I think it's great that Dulce's latched onto this conclusion

As long as Dulce keeps stating such an obvious error, there's no reason to discuss anything she says. Her error here is such that she can now be safely ignored.

[MercutioATC]

21. Hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way.

You may have a point.

[DulceDecorum]

22. THANK YOU

Now please put me on ignore.

[MercutioATC]

23. I would, if your posts didn't have to do with aviation.

As somebody directly involved in the aviation industry, I feel compelled to refute misinformation when it has to do with aviation-related subjects.

...actually, I don't have anybody on ignore and I don't plan on making you the first.

[DulceDecorum]

25. ERROR?

You are insinuating that
the FAA does NOT know how to keep track
of US aviators and their planes.

THEN HOW THE BLANKETY BLANK
CAN YOU SAY YOU KNOW
WHAT THE HELL PLANE
FLEW INTO ANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS????

You info comes from the airports and from the airlines who MUST report this data to the FAA.
But since the FAA is full of crap and can't find its way out of a paper bag
- PROOF BEING THE N-NUMBER REGISTRY DATA ON THE DECEASED PLANES -
then what makes YOU think that ANY of that data is factual?

Your argument poisons the well
that you yourself are drinking from.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Yes, Dulce.

Thank you. Keep up the good work. :loveya:

[MercutioATC]

40. Once again, you ARE in error. That's not the way the system works.

The owner of the aircraft typically files paperwork with the FAA in the event that the aircraft is no longer operable (crashed, parted out, etc). Sometimes they don't, and the registration remains in the FAA's database.

What do you believe happened to American's planes (they filed the paperwork)? Are they still flying? Did they crash? Why do you believe that THEY crashed while United's planes are still flying (other than the FAA database listing)? Would United really be stupid enough to keep registrations active on planes that they had reported as lost?

Again, aside from the FAA database listing (which has been explained ad nauseum) why do you insist that these two planes are still flying?

[DulceDecorum]

58. sez the ATC who does NOT know FAA regs

Sec. 47.3 - Registration required.
(a) Section 501(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1401 (b)) defines eligibility for registration as follows
(b) An aircraft shall be eligible for registration if, but only if --
(1)(A) it is --
(ii) owned by a corporation (other than a corporation which is a citizen of the United States) lawfully organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or any State thereof so long as such aircraft is based and primarily used in the United States; and
(b) No person may operate on aircraft that is eligible for registration under section 501 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 unless the aircraft --
(1) Has been registered by its owner;
(2) Is carrying aboard the temporary authorization required by §47.31(b); or
(3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-3-FAR.shtml

Sec. 47.51 - Triennial aircraft registration report.
(a) Unless one of the registration activities listed in paragraph (b) of this section has occurred within the preceding 36 calendar months, the holder of each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under this subpart shall submit, on the form provided by the FAA Aircraft Registry and in the manner described in paragraph (c) of this section, a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report, certifying --
(1) The current identification number (registration mark) assigned to the aircraft;
(2) The name and permanent mailing address of the certificate holder;
(3) The name of the manufacturer of the aircraft and its model and serial number;
(b) The FAA Aircraft Registry will forward a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report to each holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration whenever 36 months has expired since the latest of the following registration activities occurred with respect to the certificate holder's aircraft:
(1) The submission of an Application for Aircraft Registration.
(2) The submission of a report or statement required by §47.9(f).
(3) The filing of a notice of change of permanent mailing address.
(4) The filing of an application for a duplicate Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
(5) The filing of an application for a change of aircraft identification number.
(6) The submission of an Aircraft Registration Eligibility, Identification, and Activity Report, Part 1, AC Form 8050-73, under former §47.44.
(7) The submission of a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report under this section.
(c) The holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration shall return the Triennial Aircraft Registration Report to the FAA Aircraft Registry within 60 days after issuance by the FAA Aircraft Registry. The report must be dated, legibly executed, and signed by the certificate holder in the manner prescribed by §47.13, except that any co-owner may sign for all co-owners.
(d) Refusal or failure to submit the Triennial Aircraft Registration Report with the information required by this section may be cause for suspension or revocation of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in accordance with Part 13 of this chapter.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-51-FAR.shtml

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
(4) Ownership of the aircraft is transferred;
(5) The holder of the certificate loses his U.S. citizenship;
(6) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

DeadBroke likes to claim that the planes owned and operated by his long-deceased brother are still properly registered with the FAA.
This is simply not true.
And DeadBroke knows it because I have REPEATEDLY pointed out:

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(6) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate;

Those planes lost the right to use the FAA n-number ONE MONTH AFTER THAT MAN DIED.
Even if his wife inherited the plane,
chances are that the property of the deceased still needed to go through probate. Chances are that the plane actually belonged to some company or corporation that the man controlled. In any case, the planes that were being used by the brother of DeadBroke do not appear to have been based and primarily used in the United States during that period, which means that that were probably illegal in the first place.
But I digress.

MercutioATC appears to be bound and determined to totally disregard

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
(4) Ownership of the aircraft is transferred;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

We know for a fact that BOTH American Airlines planes were foreign owned and THAT is the reason why BOTH American Airlines planes were held in trust by Delaware Corporations.
We know for a fact that BOTH planes were removed from the FAA registry by request of the owners.
We know for a fact that the FAA would lose jurisdiction of BOTH American Airlines planes on the date upon which they were registered under the laws of a foreign country.
We know that the the FAA lost jurisdiction of BOTH American Airlines planes on the date upon which they were destroyed.
What we do not understand
is why the FAA AND the FOREIGN owners
BOTH give the date of destruction
for BOTH American Airlines planes as January 14, 2001.
If the date of destruction was given out to be September 11, 2001, we would not have a conundrum before us.
We know for a fact that the appropriate paperwork was filed by the foreign owners or the US-based trustees. But WHY did they BOTH give the January 14, 2002 date when we have been all assured that the planes were totally destroyed or scrapped on September 11, 2001?

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

In view of Sec. 47.41,
we can reach no other conclusion than that
BOTH American Airlines planes SURVIVED the events of September 11, 2001.
The N-numbers are too famous - within the FAA itself - for this to be an mere accounting error.
Something is rotten, and it ain't in Denmark.
http://www.airlineinvestigationunit.com/aiu/ap010830.htm

MercutioATC would have you believe that the FAA has made a simple clerical error.
Fair enough.
What is the FBI's excuse?

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead agency investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11.
<snip>
As the crashes of the four airliners on Tuesday are criminal acts, the FBI is the lead investigative agency and will release all information on the progress of the investigation. News media should direct questions on this investigation to the FBI’s press office at [phone].
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm

Widespread bankruptcies in the industry could hit the pocketbooks of even those who never fly. Airline stocks and bonds, and municipal bonds issued by airport authorities, are widely held by institutional investors including pension and mutual funds.
Shares of the nation's top eight carriers lost $11.8 billion, or 41 percent of their combined market capitalization, on the first day of trading following the attack.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/09/21/news/toll_transportation/

Meanwhile,
Mueller's men prance around in their frilly pink panties
and play with chopsticks from Wong Foo.
So what if planes and economies are crashing,
when there is a run in the nylons and you have just broken a nail?

MercutioATC would have you believe that majority of the employees of the FAA are an incompetent assortment of cabbage and cauliflower.
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/D_0912_N.txt
If that is the case,
then ALL these people need to be terminated forthwith.
http://www.faa.gov/Sept11portraits/ownwords4-1.cfm

MercutioATC wants to know what happened to the planes.
Don't we all?
Perhaps the FAA regulations can provide some clues.

Sec. 47.3 - Registration required.
(b) No person may operate on aircraft that is eligible for registration under section 501 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 unless the aircraft --
(1) Has been registered by its owner;
(2) Is carrying aboard the temporary authorization required by §47.31(b); or
(3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-3-FAR.shtml

So, if the plane is an aircraft of the Armed Forces,
then FAA regs no longer apply.
The FAA only has jurisdiction over CIVIL aviation.
MILITARY aviation, is another ball game altogether.
These FAA regs explain a lot.
But they do not answer the poignant question
Wherdy go?

Well, I dunno.
But I do know that whenever an American plane with a FAA-registered N-number vanishes, (N844AA)
or turns up where it should not be (N4610)
the CIA is usually involved.

[DeadBroke]

65. You can quote chapter and verse ...

.... all you want; but you're still wrong, 100 percent wrong.

"DeadBroke likes to claim that the planes owned and operated by his long-deceased brother are still properly registered with the FAA.
This is simply not true.
And DeadBroke knows it because I have REPEATEDLY pointed out:

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --
(6) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate;

Those planes lost the right to use the FAA n-number ONE MONTH AFTER THAT MAN DIED.
Even if his wife inherited the plane,
chances are that the property of the deceased still needed to go through probate. Chances are that the plane actually belonged to some company or corporation that the man controlled. In any case, the planes that were being used by the brother of DeadBroke do not appear to have been based and primarily used in the United States during that period, which means that that were probably illegal in the first place.
But I digress."

Being curious by nature, always willing to give benefit of doubt, and always looking for stuff to do I decided to put your theory to the test and obtained copies of all the registrations for the planes owned by my brother. I also read his diaries and flight logs and invoices and learned where and when the dismantled planes ended their days. Punching those numbers into your link and then applying your theory these dismantled planes are still up and flying; but they're not. That's the thruth. These planes; well, whatever's left of them are rotting away all over South America.

AS I've stated before; his freight line was based in Houston and in Monterray Mexico. I'll agree that it was a shoestring operation run by an adventurer who failed to pay bills, and who for his entire lifetime refused to follow rules; but tell me, how does the FAA know he dismantled 50 and 60 year old planes for parts, or that he's dead?

[DulceDecorum]

66. The same way

that his wife "knows" that he dismantled 50 and 60 year old planes for parts, and also that he's dead.
We all "know" that Nick Berg died,
heck we haven't seen a snuff film in YEARS.

But to return to the FAA.
DeadBroke,
you may well have actual copies of the FAA registrations of those planes.
But does the FAA still list those defunct planes on their website?

The state DMV has been registering cars for almost one hundred years.
BUT
the overwhelming majority of those vehicles
ARE NOT CURRENTLY LEGALLY REGISTERED TO DRIVE ON THE STREET.
And neither are your brother's planes.

Yes, they probably ALL were once upon a time.
But that was then, and
this is NOW.
Those planes have NOT kept up with the requirements of their registration and they are NOT LISTED ON THE FAA REGISTRY.
You yourself admit that the planes in question are NOT airworthy and were dismantled for parts long ago.
So, what makes you think,
that the FAA, after YEARS of not hearing from your brother,
and after YEARS of NOT receiving ANY Triennial Report
is still listing Pa Kettle's property on the FAA registry?

As for your brother's death,
did his wife ever collect any Social Security benefits?
Did your brother EVER pay any US taxes?
Did they ever bury "his remains"?
Because if ANY of those things EVER took place,
if your brother EVER left ANY trace on ANY US federal database,
then the FAA can bloody well track him down any time it bloody well wants to.

In order to fly a plane, you have to file a flight plan.
In order to fly a plane, you have to purchase jet fuel.
In order to fly a plane, you have to talk to air traffic control.
In order to fly a plane, you have to land and take off from an airport.
In order to fly a plane, you have to leave a great big traceable trail.

And the ONLY way you can get around these issues
is to hide behind someone's military operation.
http://www.faa.gov/arp/planning/map/

Once, your are designated as US military,
the FAA loses jurisdiction over you
and your plane
and your flight plans.
FOREVER.
And the data the FAA has on that plane remains the same.
FOREVER.
And the FAA then behaves like Sgt. Schultz.

[MercutioATC]

69. WHY do people assume that the government has one big database?

It doesn't. The FAA has no idea when the owner of an airplane dies. That's true of pretty much every government agency (the IRS may be a little better, but only because the government pursues its money stream).


as far as your statements:


In order to fly a plane, you have to file a flight plan.
In order to fly a plane, you have to purchase jet fuel.
In order to fly a plane, you have to talk to air traffic control.
In order to fly a plane, you have to land and take off from an airport.
In order to fly a plane, you have to leave a great big traceable trail.

They're all completely incorrect.

You do NOT have to file a flight plan. Avgas (and jet fuel) can be purchased at any small strip with NO paper trail. If you fly VFR, you do NOT have to talk to ATC. Plenty of people have private airstrips (not airports). Simply put, it's very possible to fly and leave no trail at all.

Your turn...

[DulceDecorum]

95. Then WHY

do you keep asking about the potential wherabouts of those September 11 Boeings?

MercutioATC says:
You do NOT have to file a flight plan. Avgas (and jet fuel) can be purchased at any small strip with NO paper trail. If you fly VFR, you do NOT have to talk to ATC. Plenty of people have private airstrips (not airports). Simply put, it's very possible to fly and leave no trail at all.

THAT is wherdy went.

[MercutioATC]

100. I'm not asking. I'm convinced they're in little pieces.

You, on the other hand, seem convinced they're still flying and use the FAA registration database as "proof", even when told that the FAA only knows what the registration holders tell them. No paperwork, the plane remains in the database.

I have no idea what you disagree with about my post that you quoted or what point you're trying to make. I posted it in response to your claim that flying lives a big paper trail. It simply doesn't have to.

[DulceDecorum]

133. The BIG database

does not actually exist - as far as we know - right now.

But CAPPS II does.

Under CAPPS II, passengers would be assigned a color code -- green, yellow or red -- denoting how much of a terrorism risk they pose. The program would assign the risk by checking passengers' personal information against databases owned by Acxiom and LexisNexis and against government watch lists of suspected terrorists and those wanted for violent crimes. A green score would result in no extra screening while a yellow score would lead to more intensive bag and hand-wand screening. A red score would alert the police to arrest or detain the passenger.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,63563,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

1. You buy a plane ticket.
2. The travel agent or airline enters all your personal information into a travel reservations database.
3. TSA than vacuums out all your information from the database and...
4. ...sends your information to private companies (credit bureaus, junk mail senders) to see if "you are who you say you are" while at the same time...
5. ...runs a federal, state and local criminal background check on you.
6. TSA will then assign you a Threat Assessment color, which will then be sent to the airline you're booked to fly on.
7. You show up at the airport. Depending on what the government says, you'll be...

(red) Arrested. The TSA thinks you are a potential terrorist. Either that, or you have outstanding warrants or have been confused with someone else who does.
(yellow) Searched and questioned by the TSA, after which they may or may not let you fly.
(green) Granted the privilege of traveling in your own country. You'll have your bags checked x-rayed and checked for explosives as well as have to walk through a metal detector, just like you do now when flying out of the bigger airports.

All the information collected on you will remain in the reservations database forever. The private companies who own these databases can do whatever they want with your private information. The government can access this data whenever they feel like it: there is no 'delete' button in the reservations systems.
http://www.alaskafreedom.com/akn/how.html

And so, MercutioATC,
CAPPS II is just ONE of the reasons
"WHY people assume that the government has one big database."
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/cappsii/

[DeadBroke]

146. BIG Databases and people who run them

Databases, big or small are only as good as the people who run them.

One of the largest and fastest growing national databases is the NFIRS or National Fire Incident Reporting Systems which also has the accepted nickname “NIFFERS.” It was created several years ago by the NFTC or National Fire Training Center to; make all fire incident reports uniform, to create a tracking system, and to allow victims of fire and their insurance carriers and attorneys easy and timely access to reports.

A NIFFER is electronically filed for every call. Each is sequentially numbered and every agency responding uses the same number. For example: Let’s say a kitchen fire erupts in a home late one afternoon. Three agencies will respond; the police, fire and ambulance. Each will file a report, but with one master incident number the victim or their agent or their attorney will be able to obtain the needed reports faster and easier. Agencies doing follow-up investigations, such as arson teams or crime scene and forensics investigators for example can quickly access the data. Their reports are added under the same incident number.

Year-to-date, quarterly and annual reports can be compiled from NIFFERS with the touch of a button. My volunteer fire department has 4 companies strategically located throughout the town. Each company has one firefighter charged with filing NIFFERS. I am responsible for filing my volunteer fire company’s NFIRS. I and only I can enter information with my password and code. Reports filed can not be changed later; an amendment can be appended. By accessing our NIFFERS we very easily know that most of our structural fires so far this year happened between 5 and 5:30 PM, involved small children and cooking, and caused an estimated average of $8,000 in dollar loss. I also know from NFIRS that our response time is 9 minutes and that there is an average of 5 firefighters per engine. Getting deeper into the database I can compare our data with the other 3 companies, and with our neighboring fire departments, and with the state statistics and with the national.

There is only ONE problem with this database: people; the people who enter the info. There are some, the majority actually, who enter the information in a prompt and timely fashion while others seem to never get around to it. There are some, again the majority, who enter the information properly, by Xing the right boxes and by using the right codes, but there are some – and there will always be some – who make honest mistakes, or just don’t care.

NFIRS is a good database. It even helps with budgeting and can even help to track wear and tear on equipment. It’s an easy system and is of great service to victims of fire, if and only IF those who enter the information do as they should. Databases are only as good as the people who run them.

[MercutioATC]

154. Most people don't KNOW about CAPPS II

People just tend to assume that all of the government's computers are tied together because THEY see the government as a single entity.

My point is that it's definitely NOT the case. Nice CAPPS II segue, though...

[DeadBroke]

77. I don't want to kick a dead horse ...

... but I have very fairly tested your theory and must report that it just does not work.

The planes he dismantled for parts ARE still registered. Some were C-47s made in the 1940s which, back then would make them over 50 years old; so the only way he could get the engine cylinders and other parts he needed was by dismantling. Maybe he should have signed the forms and mailed them back, but he didn't; so what?

[DulceDecorum]

93. If those planes are still registered

then they are, or were, somehow involved in military operations.
Which is why the FAA cannot comment or alter or enforce FAA regs.

You say he was flying C-47s.
C-47s are military planes.

The C-47 is the military version of the famed DC-3 airliner, which revolutionized the civilian aviation industry.
http://www.elite.net/castle-air/c47.htm

Few aircraft are as well known or were so widely used for so long as the C-47 or "Gooney Bird" as it was affectionately nicknamed. The aircraft was adapted from the DC-3 commercial airliner which appeared in 1936. The first C-47s were ordered in 1940 and by the end of WW II, 9,348 had been procured for AAF use. They carried personnel and cargo, and in a combat role, towed troop-carrying gliders and dropped paratroops into enemy territory.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf3.htm

See what I mean?
If they were CIVILIAN planes,
which fall under FAA jurisdiction
then they would be DC-3s and NOT C-47s.

Are you SURE that your brother NEVER ONCE landed in Mena, Arkansas?

[DeadBroke]

99. See what you mean?

Are you kidding? Look, these C-47s were, as I very plainly stated in your "Planes and Pilots" thread, were surplus, that's SURPLUS; and used for freight. What's so unusual about surplus? Thousands of surplus items are sold each week; the Army base near here has sales every month, and even the local post office is presently getting rid of old vans. They were C-47s, even that database link of yours says so. The only thing all this conversation reveals is that my brother stunk at paperwork. Sorry, but your theory just doesn't work.

[MercutioATC]

101. EXACTLY, DeadBroke. Surplus is no longer military hardware and is

subject to FAA registration (as I'm sure you know). The fact that they were originally purchased by the military has nothing to do with how they're registered when sold as surplus.

[DeadBroke]

104. You've lost me ....

.... so, all I can say is that after military use (such as for the Berlin Airlift) these aircraft sat at some Utah Depot until sold as surplus. After they were purchased from the government the original private owners applied for FAA registration. That paperwork BTW is actually in the name of the federal agency which preceded the FAA. When the private owners no longer had use for them or when their business folded, I'm not clear which it was, they sold them off and my brother purchased some of them; and he flew them as long as he could. Some were eventually dismantled, parts used and parts sold, and their rusting carcasses are all over South America BUT according to that database you've linked me to these are still very much registered. Sorry, but all your theory proves is that some people are better at paperwork than others.

[MercutioATC]

107. I take it you meant to reply to DD and not me?

I'm agreeing with you.

DD claims that their status as surplus military aircraft has some bearing on their registration and that's simply not the case. Once an aircraft is sold as surplus, it's registered as a civilian aircraft.

[DeadBroke]

110. Sorry, My Bad!

That's a 10-4, MercutioATC!

[MercutioATC]

115. :) No problem

It's good to have somebody here with first-hand knowledge. Thanks.

[DulceDecorum]

106. DU rules

forbid me from strongly indicating the fallacy of that statement.

Once more, Mr So-called-Air-Traffic-control person,
if a plane is OWNED or OPERATED by the MILITARY
then it is NOT under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

If a plane is NOT owned or operated by the military,
then it is considered to be part of CIVIL AVIATION.
The FAA controls ALL civil aircraft flying within the US.
In accordance with international and federal law,
the FAA registers ALL civil aircraft flying within the US.

Military aircraft = no FAA.
Civil aircraft = FAA.

Got it?

Military surplus can be sold to another nation's military = no FAA.
Military surplus can be sold to a US citizen or corporation = FAA.

Once military surplus is NO LONGER owned AND operated by the military,
then it MUST comply with FAA regulations.

MercutioATC,
your complete and utter lack of knowledge
concerning civil aviation
indicates a military background.
Your disdain of the FAA and its regulations all but confirms this.

To prove my points, I offer the case of certain C-22B
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=89
with the serial number 18811.

It was owned and operated by the USAF as 83-4610.
http://www.jetphotos.net/census/aircraft.php?reg=N4610&msn=18811

It flew missions for the National Guard.
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/boeing/c-22b.htm

It was displayed at the Andrews AFB, Department of Defense Open House on 15 May 1999.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/showreports/mil/show/showreports/andrew99.htm


83-4610/4617 Boeing C-22B
Ex-commercial 727-100 operated by ANG
4610 (c/n 18811) was formerly B-727-035 N4610 of National Airlines. National merged with
Pan American and aircraft named 'Clipper Pathfinder'. Purchased by USAF Aug 21, 1984.
Sold Jan 11, 2002 to Dodson International Parts, Inc and then to Dodson Aviation Jan 14, 2002.
Registered to Dodson Aviation as N4610. Seized by Zimbabwean authorities for
carrying suspected mercenaries and military equipment. Dodson supposedly had sold
the plane to a South African company, Logo Ltd.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1983.html

N4610
is registered by the FAA
BECAUSE IT IS A CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=4610

IT BECAME A CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT ON 05/22/2002.
IT LEFT THE FAA REGISTRY ON 03/12/2004 WHEN IT WAS EXPORTED TO SOUTH AFRICA.

HOWEVER IT IS STILL ON THE FAA REGISTRY.
Why?

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.

(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, until the date upon which --

(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

That plane has not been registered under the laws of ANY country.
South Africa has no record of ANY legal transactions concerning that plane.

Dodson, the current owner of N4610,
is known to associate with spooks.
For more facts on N4610, see the the DU thread "The Dogs of War."

MercutioATC,
your comments are increasing my sympathy towards
Ronald Reagan's decision
concerning the mass termination of the nation's air traffic controllers.

[MercutioATC]

111. What the hell are you talking about? Your post agrees with me.

I SAID that once an aircraft is sold as surplus, it's registered as a civilian aircraft (by the FAA).

...what about that don't you agree with?

In DeadBroke's situation, we're discussing former military aircraft that were sold to a private U.S. citizen. They'd have to be registered with the FAA to legally fly in this country. It's as simple as that. I'm not talking about aircraft sold to entities in foreign countries...that would possibly entail foreign registry. I'm talking about surplus military aircraft sold to private parties and registered in the U.S. as civilain planes.

As far as my supposed "disdain" for the FAA, I have nothing of the sort. I simply know that rules are sometimes not enforced. This registration issue is one of those rules. Again, just because I drive past a police officer at 10 miles over the speed limit and don't get stopped doesn't mean that there are really no speed limits or that the police are corrupt. It means that certain rules aren't enforced as strictly as others.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about Reagan's decision. Frankly, we're the reason you get where you're going safely and, believe it or not, we're highly trained professionals. Like most other professionals, we have an understanding of the system under which we work. Occasionally, we may try to explain it to a layperson.

...unfortunately, some people just won't listen.

[DulceDecorum]

123. Stunk at paperwork?

Maybe the Aurthur Andersen accountants
can use that strategy
as part of their legal defense in the Enron lawsuits.

[MercutioATC]

70. Regs aren't always followed and regs like these are rarely enforced.

The FAA is much more concerned about making sure that flying aircraft are registered than making sure that registered aircraft are flying.

Using these regs as proof of a conspiracy is like saying that nobody really speeds because there are speed limits.

[LARED]

74. Excellent point

I work in a heavily regulated industry (chemicals) by the Federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Many times we call the regulators to get interpretations on the regs there are supposed to be enforcing and often they have no clue about their own regulations require. Regulatory requirements frequently overlap each other, often are in conflict with each other, and on a regular basis just plain don't make sense.

Anyone that thinks any government agency can even remotely enforce every single regulation has never seen the regulators in action. If you just did a cursory review of the federal regulation in an attempt to see if your organization is in compliance with every jot and tittle you would just haul yourself off to jail in about an hour as by that time you would realize you are breaking dozens of rules.

[DulceDecorum]

122. Regulators in action

DeadBroke
and MercutioATC
and now LARED
seem to feel that the fact that a plane is listed on the FAA registry does not mean anything at all.
DeadBroke
and MercutioATC
and now LARED
seem to think that the FAA registry keeps aircraft on the roster indefinitely
when the local DMV is known to bump cars off the registry for unpaid parking tickets.
In their world,
the FAA cares not one whit about scheduled maintenance and routine status reports or enforcing their own regulations.

LARED says:
Anyone that thinks any government agency can even remotely enforce every single regulation has never seen the regulators in action.

Oh dear,
and all this time I though that Walker, Texas Ranger was a real mensch.

It is not only the feds who have regulations governing the registration and maintenance of US-based aircraft,
the individual states have laws as well.
Since DeadBroke mentioned Texas,
let us have a look at Texas statutes concerning the ownership and operation of planes.

Texas Statutes
Transportation Code
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm

CHAPTER 24. OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT
Sec. 24.002. APPLICATION.
This subchapter does not apply
to an aircraft owned by and used exclusively in the service of the
federal or state government.
24.005. AIRCRAFT LICENSURE AND REGISTRATION.
A person may not navigate an aircraft in this state, whether for
commercial, pleasure, or noncommercial purposes, unless the
aircraft is licensed and registered in the manner provided by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
24.011. FAILURE TO REGISTER AIRCRAFT;
OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates
or navigates an aircraft that the person knows is not properly
registered under Federal Aviation Administration aircraft
registration regulations, 14 C.F.R. Part 47, as those regulations
existed on September 1, 1985.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third
degree.
24.012. AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS;
OFFENSE. (a) The failure to have the aircraft identification
numbers clearly displayed on an aircraft in compliance with federal
aviation regulations is probable cause for a peace officer to
further inspect the aircraft to determine the identity of the owner
of the aircraft.
(b) A peace officer may inspect an aircraft under Subsection
(a) if the aircraft is located on public property or on private
property if the officer has the consent of the property owner.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person operates an
aircraft that the person knows does not have aircraft
identification numbers that comply with federal aviation
regulations.
(d) An offense under Subsection (c) is a felony of the third
degree. .....
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm

Once again,
the only way that DeadBroke's brother could legally have avoided jail-time,
is if he was in the employ of either the federal or the state government,
which fact brings us right back to Mena, Arkansas.

The aviator-scofflaw
appears to have dismantled and cannibalized some planes in order to keep others functioning.
If he wasn't beyond the grasp of the long arm of the law,
you betcha that some readers of these pages
would be after his licenses and liberty.
http://www.mopilots.org/stlouis/jul2001nws.htm

Did that son-of-a-gun EVER fill out an FAA FORM 337?
For ANY of those planes?
I doubt it.
And that is one other reason why his planes are "still registered."

Unless sooner surrendered, suspended, revoked, or termination date is otherwise established by the Administration, this airworthiness certificate is effective as long as maintenance, preventive maintenance and alterations are performed in accordance with Parts 21, 43 and 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, as appropriate, and the aircraft is registered in the United States.
What does all this mean?
An aircraft or part is in an Airworthy condition if it conforms/meets its type certificate data sheet or proper altered condition (AD's complied with, STC's, Approved Alterations) and is in a safe condition to fly (been maintained, inspected, annuals/100 hours, etc.).
http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/PHL/airworthiness.htm

Whichever way you slice it,
that man broke the law.
His planes are NOT airworthy,
and according to DeadBroke,
they are dismantled and decaying all over South America,
and he NEVER EVER said anything to the FAA about the condition of his aircraft.

The only question we have,
is how he was legally allowed to get away with it.
And the only answer we can think of,
is that he was involved in covert operations.

[MercutioATC]

125. Alternately, he just never got around to it...

Once again, just because a regulation exists doesn't mean that it's always adhered to or enforced (like speed limits).

Isn't it a little silly to associate everybody who fails to fill out paperwork with covert operations rather than just allowing that sometimes rules are broken and nobody bothers to enforce them (at least not in a regular manner)?

You seem awfully concerned with how people adhere to relatively minor laws. Frequently, they ARE broken, you know. It may not be "right", but it's the way things are.

[DeadBroke]

126. Involved in covert operations?

If bringing mail, medicine, school books, Mormon missionaries, John Deere parts, and Anderson Windows into remote South American mountainside villages aboard shaking 60 year old airplanes held together with baling wire and duct tape are all considered covert operations; well, then he was a good coverter, maybe the best coverter going, and I'm proud of his coverting. Hell, the whole family is.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. How did I not make the short list?

DeadBroke
and MercutioATC
and now LARED
seem to feel that the fact that a plane is listed on the FAA registry does not mean anything at all.

I'm disappointed that you didn't put my name on this list, Dulce. After all we've been through together...

For the record, I find it incredibly amusing that you're here stating that the four planes that people saw crash into those buildings, didn't actually do so.

The planes filmed crashing into those buildings.

According to you, they didn't do so, because you found some discrepancies in the paperwork.

Keep up the good work, Dulce. I'm enjoying the respite.

[demodewd]

128. gross assumption

Seeing planes crash into buildings and assuming they are then specifically certain planes with specific flight and registration numbers are two different matters...aren't they?.... boloboffin?

[MercutioATC]

129. You're absolutely correct...

...and I'm sure the aviation industry (specifically American Airlines and United Airlines who must have been complicit) willingly helped perpetuate the lie and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the public was afraid to fly...

Really, does that make any sense??

[HarryLime]

130. the nonsensical actions of powerful corporations

It makes as much sense as the insurance companies paying Silverstein off from his suit over the Twin Towers collapsing. Any competent lawyer should be able to knock Silverstein's claim out of the courtroom.

[MercutioATC]

131. Well, to each his own...

We're just now getting back to pre-9/11 air traffic volume. This has hit the airlines hard. I find it difficult to see them as helping all of this to happen.

I'm not sure where you stand, Harry. I assume you're supporting the theory that the planes did, indeed, take off with passengers on them but were somehow "replaced" in the air by drones and landed at an unknown location where the passengers and crew were then killed or imprisoned? Even just a link to a post where you've discussed this would be helpful.

[DulceDecorum]

136. American Airlines and United Airlines

lost NOTHING.
Furthermore, those two companies have been intertwining themselves in a manner that is most destructive to regular people,
and the FAA has been constrained.

8/30/01 8:31 PM
DALLAS (AP) -- The Inspector General of the Transportation Department has agreed to review allegations that the Federal Aviation Administration didn't conduct a thorough investigation of American Airlines' safety practices.
In a 14-page letter to Inspector General Kenneth Mead, American Airlines Capt. Rich Rubin accused the FAA's southwest regional office of lax enforcement and collusion with the airline.
http://www.airlineinvestigationunit.com/aiu/ap010830.htm

Liotine informed his supervisors and a corporate vice-president about these violations, but he was ignored. He then told the FAA. Afterwards Liotine, who was president of the Machinists' union local in Oakland at the time, was removed from office by the union and placed on paid administrative leave by the airline. Liotine claims that he and his family have since received anonymous threats.
The FAA inspector who investigated the allegations recommended an $8.7 million fine against Alaska Airlines, but he was overruled by FAA officials in Los Angeles, who reduced the proposed fine to $44,000. However, federal authorities decided to pursue criminal charges, an indication that the violations were conscious and “willful” and involved higher level officials at Alaska Airlines.
In February 1999 federal prosecutors met with Alaska Airlines officials and their attorneys. An FAA inspector who attended the meeting wrote in a memo that the airline appeared to be more concerned with building a legal defense than addressing safety issues. Alaska's concern for safety, he said, “was secondary to finding out what and who we had on them.”
These revelations are part of mounting evidence of more general deficiencies in air safety in the US, and a degree of laxity in enforcing safety standards on the part of the FAA that verges on outright collusion with the airline carriers and Boeing
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/alas-f19.shtml

As you can see, the FAA inspectors
are treated in much the same manner
as that in which Collen Rowley and the Minnesota FBI
are treated by Mueller's fraternity.

Dec. 14 2001 – Continental, Delta and Northwest filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to require British Airways to make available its strategic planning study that includes information pertinent to the case.
Dec. 12 – Delta filed a complaint with the European Commission requesting a formal inquiry to determine if the proposed alliance infringes on EC competition law.
Nov. 27 – Twenty U.S. Senators urged the Bush Administration to deny antitrust immunity. In addition, several state governors have said the alliance will put their states at a competitive disadvantage by preventing them from improving their states’ international air service
Nov. 7 – The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights & Competition conducted a hearing on the proposed American Airlines-British Airways arrangements.
http://www.continental.com/vendors/default.asp?SID=9DE177626E9C43C683B0CE20CE7D4670&s=&i=%2Fcompany%2Fnews%2F2001%2D12%2D17%2D02%2Easp

U.S. Department of Justice Opposes American Airlines-British Airways Combination
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 17, 2001 -- The proposed transatlantic alliance between American Airlines (AA) and British Airways (BA) is so highly anticompetitive that it has been opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), according to three major U.S. airlines.
Under the proposed alliance scheme, American and British Airways would be a whopping 300 percent larger than the nearest competitor on U.S.-U.K routes, with nearly 81 percent of all U.S.-Heathrow travelers seeing competition reduced or eliminated. Proposed combinations among AA-BA and United-bmi (British Midland) would create a level of U.S.-London Heathrow seat concentration greater than a merger between the six largest domestic U.S. carriers or combining the top 21 European airlines.

Friday, January 25, 2002
Department of Transportation Tentatively Approves Antitrust Immunity Covering the Alliances of American Airlines and British Airways, and United Airlines and BMI
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot01002.htm
http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/aboutbmi/presscentre/pressreleases.aspx?year=2001&rid=35

FOR RELEASE: Friday, May 30, 2003
AMERICAN AIRLINES-BRITISH AIRWAYS CODESHARE GETS FINAL APPROVAL
Airlines to Begin Planning Immediately
WASHINGTON – British Airways and American Airlines say they are eager to get to work on a codeshare arrangement, formally approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation today, which allows the airlines to codeshare on a large number of flights beyond the carriers’ gateways in the United Kingdom and the United States.
http://www.amrcorp.com/news/may03/30_aaba.htm

November 25, 2003
MASSIVE NARCOTICS IMPORTATION CONSPIRACY AT JFK AIRPORT EXPOSED -- 25 DEFENDANTS CHARGED, INCLUDING 21 AIRPORT EMPLOYEES
These recorded conversations led to the ensuing investigation, which included court-authorized interception of wire communications over numerous telephones used by WEATHERLY, MICHAEL ADAMS, a baggage handler employed by Globe Ground North American, assigned to BRITISH AIRWAYS at JFK, TYRONE BROWNE, a former JFK employee, and GARY LALL, a baggage handler employed by AMERICAN AIRLINES at JFK.
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsrel/articles/snowstorm_narcotics112503.htm
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/lol.06.html

But the US Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, told Congress that the US government would move swiftly to give aid to the industry, to ensure that the costs of extra safety measures and the increased costs of insurance did not fall on the industry.
The US government has proposed a $5bn handout to help US airlines and assist with insurance liabilities, but has stopped short of the $12.5bn the industry says it needs to stave off bankruptcies.
Pain spreads to Europe
Hours after the US announcements, UK carrier British Airways said it would sack 7,000 people - about 12.5% of its workforce - mothball planes and cut routes because of plunging demand.
United - America's number two airline which is also shedding 20,000 jobs - has been harder hit by the disaster than any of the other carriers.
In addition to losing two of its planes in the suicide bombings, it is more heavily reliant on business travel, expected to be adversely affected by the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1553416.stm

These two airlines’ bankruptcies and American’s financial plight, have been brought about, not by any September 11 victim’s lawsuit, but by the arguably excessive salaries and "bonuses" paid to its management for poorly managing the airlines and for helping to bring about the large downturn in air travel by having failed to protect their passengers from hijacking and sabotage as the law required. And this in spite of both United and American having received their share of the 10 billion dollars of taxpayer money paid to airlines in the above "bailout bill." The U.S. Congress is currently considering additional bailout bills.
http://www.planesafe.org/latest.htm

Mar 7, 2002
The two largest US airlines, United and American, are to integrate their electronic ticketing systems, making life easier for thousands of passengers transferring flights.
<snip>
Now passengers will be able to make the transfer simply by presenting a photo ID and their e-ticket receipt at both United and American ticket counters.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2002/03/1015525770.html

Continental Alleges United/American Conspiracy
Feb 8, 2001
Gordon Bethune, chairman of Continental Airlines, yesterday accused United and American of a conspiracy to create a cartel that would split the US market between them.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bethune also called for the Transportation Department (DOT) to take away routes from his rivals if the deal is approved.
Bethune's strong opposition was unexpected since Continental is in exploratory talks with Delta Air Lines over a potential merger of its own.
But Bethune said he would rather maintain the status quo than be forced into a deal with Delta.
His comments were the latest in an increasing groundswell in the industry and on Capitol Hill against the mergers, whereby United would buy all of US Airways for USD$4.3bn and then sell 20 per cent of the acquired assets to American for USD$1.2bn.
Bethune said that the deal would allow the two largest airlines to eliminate competition illegally in the US and could lead to global dominance.
"Clearly, United and American's plan is to reach detente, build a cartel, and carve up and dominate the US air travel market," he said.
"Ultimately, the same way United and American have split Chicago O'Hare and London Heathrow, they will split the rest of the US and maybe even split global aviation."
http://news.airwise.com/airlines/archive/2001/american2001.html

Let us see how many airlines,
besides Ansett and Midway,
collapsed after the 9:11 high jinks.

ZURICH, Switzerland -- Airlines across Europe are reporting drastic falls in passenger numbers and profits in the wake of the U.S. suicide bombings.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/03/swissair/

Swissair and Sabena will not be the last airlines to seek protection from their creditors. Several of America's ten largest carriers are in danger of collapse, despite last week's government bail-out. Among the weakest financially are America West, Northwest, Continental and US Airways. In Europe other once-proud flag-carriers, such as KLM of the Netherlands, may be weeks away from oblivion.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=808370

So, to recap.
American Airlines and United Airlines each "lost" two international Warsaw Convention codeshare planes, - which were flying on US domestic routes - on September 11, 2001.
(We will ignore, for the moment, the fact that some of those flights were chartered by parties who shall remain nameless for the time being.)
Somehow or other, BOTH airlines "forgot" to complete FAA paperwork that was "necessary" for the US Government payoff.
Both airlines laid off HUNDREDS of workers - without penalty - in the face of an oncoming merger.
Somehow or other, BOTH airlines managed to "persuade" the US government to grant them anti-trust immunity in two separate deals that would have destroyed international aviation as we knew it.
Both airlines received HUGE amounts of money IMMEDIATELY after September 11,2001.

MercutioATC says:
...I'm sure the aviation industry (specifically American Airlines and United Airlines who must have been complicit) willingly helped perpetuate the lie and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the public was afraid to fly...

As for the airlines
http://www.stormingmedia.us/04/0494/A049423.html

As for the passengers
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/05/84711.php

As for the planes
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/defimg.asp

As for the FAA
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/craf.htm
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=173

As for the ATC
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=84
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=135
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=165
http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=362
http://www.titan.com/about/

(As many of you know,
the dial-up crowd experiences difficult loading
after a thread achieves more than one hundred posts.
Therefore, I have re-posted this message here:
THE PILOTS AND THE PLANES
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=10112&mesg_id=12289
and I can hardly wait for y'all to come over and join me.)

[Bolo Boffin]

138. Re: The Dial Up crowd

Why can't the dial up crowd do like I do?

I don't ever load the "view all" page. I stick to the page that has links to title headings, and read the posts one at a time.

That way, I never have to load a huge page, and easily keep up with a discussion. The Mark function lets you quickly see where you've left off in a conversation, and you can click down the posts one by one. There's absolutely no need to start a new thread, Dulce.

Another point to consider: Why 100 is this magic number for you, I'll never understand. Difficulty in loading is more a function of how long the posts are rather than the number of posts. Sometimes people here like to ramble on with page after page of links and non-sequiter quotes, so even a thirty post thread can get difficult for dial-up crowds to load. But I doubt that we'll hear a call from you to limit post size for the enjoyment of the dial up crowd.

:loveya:

[demodewd]

140. no assumptions here...

I don't assume that either airline was"complicit". Certainly those who had put options on either came out rather handsomely. And don't forget the nice bailout Bush & Co quickly gave them...right?? Whats a few hundred million compared to the trillion plus terrorist war? What terrorist event or assassination in recent American history(40 yrs) are you willing to concede as a strong possibility as being a false flag operation?

[LARED]

132. On the short list and proud of it

I was thinking that if DD really screwed down her investigative hat, she would be tracking down the registration numbers of the planes the DID crash on 9/11 instead of the ones that she thinks are still flying around.

Obviously planes did crash, so there must be a paper trail for those now destroyed jets that end on 9/11/01.

Sic'em DD. You go girl.

[DulceDecorum]

135. Your keylogger program is working well

You must have checked in before I removed your name though.

[Bolo Boffin]

137. Keylogger program?

Heheheeee...

Dulce, Dulce. You never cease to amuse. Have an extra extraordinary day today!

:loveya:

[HarryLime]

4. Should be rejected?

Thanks for posting the link, k-robjoe. What part of Eric's analysis do you find compelling?

[k-robjoe]

7. The whole of it

I don´know what else to say.
I don´t see any arguments for holograms (or for the planes having been manipulated into the videos) that makes any sense.

( When it comes to the lump of flight 175, and the strange flash as flight 11 hits, he doesn´t rule out anything, but he is right that there are better cards to play. Cards that won´t be dismissed as nuts by just about everybody. )

( Ofcourse, if anyone comes up with something very substantial about the lump or the flash, that´s a different matter. )

[HarryLime]

12. Don't run away

"I don´t know what else to say."

Aw come on. Give us one point that you think the article makes that withstands scrutiny.

[k-robjoe]

14. No really

If there is like lots of things in there that don´t withstand scrutiny, please inform me.

But I´m not gonna play hide and seek, or what to call it.

[dinyc]

19. I really

liked this article. I was going to post it myself. I think all of his points are spot on.

I know that people cannot have faith in the official investigation and I share these frustrations. But at the same time that doesn't mean that a seal of approval and belief should be granted to every John or Jane Doe who comes along with some kind of whacked-out explanation based on what they interpret from some Grade Z images they've manipulated.

Over 40 people from the two flights out of Logan have been identified by the New York City Medical Examiner's Office. The most logical explanation of how they got from the Boston area to the NYC area is they were on the planes that left Logan and crashed into the WTC.

[HarryLime]

20. Tell us more!

"I think all of his points are spot on."

How about telling us what point you think really works?

[dinyc]

24. well ok then...

His breakdown of working with crappy resolution, high compressed video makes obvious sense to me. This has been pointed out by other posters on DU. I recorded the Naudet film the night it was televised. It looks and sounds more realistic than the quicktime versions I've seen on the web.

He explains in technical detail why the theory of Flight 175 as a hologram or a cartoon is positively stupid.

He's smart enough to include the perception angle with regards to the size of those buildings. THEY WERE HUGE. If you don't live in the NY area or were never in or around the buildings you have no idea how they just completely dominated. Easy to see why some would see a large jet as a small plane depending on where they were standing, when they noticed the airplane or how familiar with the WTC they were.

(Also, I'd bet 98% of the people doing online analysis of what happened at the WTC have never been in NY....If you went on vacation and something happened to your house while you were away, would your first choice of an investigator be some guy in Austria looking at pics of what happened? )

Are we also to believe that the planners of 9/11 would fly an incongruous small plane ***MY ADD — or anything that doesn't very closely approximate a 767*** into a city whose attention was riveted on the WTC, and which is always swarming with camera-toting tourists to begin with? One good image would have brought the official story down and the 'War on Terror' with it. What would the planners have to gain by rolling the dice on such elaborate high-tech trickery, when crashing airliners into the WTC towers was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole operation? It would be an example of infinite risk for no gain.

Add — a city with a very, very heavy major media presence, all of whom would be in attendance downtown once there was a disaster happening.
Add — a city that is home to millions of residents, many of whom own video cameras.

Another thing he doesn't address but I'd like to:
The FBI and other agencies were all over the Naudet Brothers video before it was broadcast. Anyone who has done any work with video or sound knows that mixing and editing involves sometimes literally dozens to hundreds of repeat watchings/listenings. Seriously, the film people, law enforcement and whoever else might have had a say in the production of this movie, with the luxury of the raw footage at their disposal, missed the fact that Flight 11 was not a real plane but "the web fairy" has it all figured out? Please.

[HarryLime]

26. narrow the conversation down

dinyc, I'm the author of one of the sites. I would like to discuss what Eric is saying. But you have to narrow it down--I'm not guaranteeing a weekend making a single reply.

Pick a point that Eric makes that you say works. Then we'll chat about it. Thanks.

--Harry

[dinyc]

28. Are we

typing or doing the tango Harry? :hi:
I've given 4 points and 3 added comments on the article, dealing specifically with what happened in NY. Point 4 is a direct quote (minus my additions).

Pick one and go with it.

[HarryLime]

32. what technical detail?

"He explains in technical detail why the theory of Flight 175 as a hologram or a cartoon is positively stupid."

The article is long and filled with a lot of stupid statements. But if you make enough dumb comments people will believe that an argument has been made. If you could tell us where his analysis works for you I'd be glad to talk about it.

I'm not trying to Tango with ya. However, I didn't plan to spend my weekend posting on DU.

[HarryLime]

38. ok here's one

dinyc, here's an example of Eric's sloppy work:

" speculates that the lack of reflected sunlight (specular highlights) on the plane through part of it's progress indicates that it is a fake, computer generated object...

"The following mpeg movie shows very clearly the position of the smoke cloud from various angles, and how it was directly in-between the sun and the path of the 767:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/2ndplanevarious_a.mpg ."

The visually anomaly being discussed can be found here:
1. http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=Lighting1*11.asp&PageNum=11
"The Sun vs. the South Tower Plane" from http://www.911hoax.com

also:
2. http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=FirstVideo*3.asp&PageNum=3
"First Live Video was from North" from http://www.911hoax.com


In the first link, we have a view of 175's arrival that is as far to the south (i.e., left) as we will see that also has clear indication that we've got a real plane.

In the second, we've got an image from the North that shows 175 arriving from the South.

Now, look at the video that Eric says "very clearly" discusses the analysis. When you look at it you'll realize that Eric has taken a video where:

1. the southern sky is less revealed than in the two examples I just mentioned.

2. the smoke plume does NOT match the smoke plume in the second example.

When I discusssed with Brian Salter Eric's sloppy labelling of the footage Brian said:

"<Eric> picked footage that best illustrated what was going on with the smoke."

Which is someone lying about an author's first lie. The footage chosen is not revealing much of the southern sky, in contrast to the two examples I have given.

So, Eric (and Brian) are both practicing intellectual dishonesty in order to spread what is known as 911 Half Truth.

If you have any more specific points to discuss just let me know.

Harry

[LARED]

41. Regarding link number 2

http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=FirstVideo

Starting with the first frame, it appears we are looking at the north and west walls of the North Tower from a north by northwest perspective.

Yes that is correct.

Oddly, the camera moves from this location at some point. How? Why? One would think that this camera angle was obtained from a nearby building. However, in the fifteen minutes between the North and South towers being hit we are to believe that an entirely new camera location was secured.

Have you ever hear of those flying machines called helicopters? I hear they are so sophisticated that they even have cameras mounted on them with direct links back to them news buildings. In fact the video link provided is without doubt taken from a helicopter. http://www.911hoax.com/Second_Crash_Cartoon_001.mpg

Also, evidently the smoke changes direction between frame #1 and frame #2. However, September 11, 2001 is remembered by many as an unusually beautiful, windless day.

Well, I have too admit it right up front that I don't get up around 1400 feet in the air much, but I've been told by reliable sources that it's almost always windy at that height even if it purtty calm down on the ground.

When examining the second frame it is useful to remember (911 skeptic) Webfairy's observation that bad painters seldom include the hands of their subjects in their pictures. This is because rendering hands is hard. Similiarly, the camera location starting with the second frame seems unusual because it is the one spot where we will see as little detail as possible. The South tower isn't even seen. The spot where the plane makes impact isn't seen. The fireball will be barely noticed.

It is also useful to remember that those fellers up there in the air taken that video and then sending over to the new guys in the big tall building did not know another big ol plane was going to be hitting that tower. But, I'd bet if the knew, them old boys woud'da gotten a much better shot of all the flames and smoke and stuff. Of course if you's really interesting in seeing the flames and stuff there is lots of other videos that do show it. All you's go to do is look around them CT kook web sites.

Frames 2, 3 and 4 have purplish smoke. That and the fireball in frame #4 all contribute to a decidedly cartoon look. Finally, where are the buildings in the background? New York's famous skyline seems to be a midwestern town in this sequence. Overall, the scene seems to lack enough colors from the visible spectrum. The more one looks at the scene as a whole the more artificial it appears.

I love cartoon and watching all the time on my big screen on the trailer and I gotta tell you it don't look like a cartoon to me. Also, me and the boys used to work up around that Manhattan place right across the river from the towers and I can tell you surer that a hound has fleas that south of the world trade center there just ain't no tall building.


Overall, the location of the camera, the unrealistic fireball, the purple smoke and the strange silhouetting of the plane look very contrived.

Contrived? Even us that ain't got the investigative gift that some do, love a good ironic ending.

[seatnineb]

43. LARED VS LARED

Well,well,well ...........
To quote LARED from post 41........
Sat May-22-04 12:24 PM

“Have you ever hear of those flying machines called helicopters? I hear they are so sophisticated that they even have cameras mounted on them with direct links back to them news buildings. In fact the video link provided is without doubt taken from a helicopter.”

Then enter one NYPD helicopter unit ......................

“Daley, who was flying over ground zero in New York City on September 11, showed the audience a gripping video taken in the cabin of his NYPD Bell 412 during the attacks. At one point, his helicopter was about 150 feet from the hijacked Boeing 767; indeed, the commandeered commercial airliner DOVE TO AVOID DALEY’S HELICOPTER .”
http://www.defensedaily.com/sar2001/wrap3.htm



And then enter the other NYPD helicopter unit.............

We saw the second plane".
“Peculiar”.
“Where is this guy going?”.
“HE WENT RIGHT UNDER OUR HELICOPTER”.
“His wings rocked three times banking left and right.”
“I prayed this was a bad dream”.

This is the testimony of Donald T Gromling.
A Pilot of the NYPD aviation unit.
His helicopter was first on the scene after the 1st tower was hit.

This reference can be found in:

LIFE : One Nation:America Remembers September 11,2001
Published By Little,Brown,2001/2002
There is a photo of Gromling posing with Co-Pilot Timothy Hayes on page 147.

Geee........LARED .......
These NYPD helicopters where a downsight more closer to this phantom 175 than any of those C.N.N, A.B.C or N.B.C helicopters ever were ..........


But in order to justify the reason why this footage(whatever it may comprise of) has never been released to the public ............
LARED wrote the following :

Tue Mar-23-04 12:00 PM from post 59
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x9571#9728

“ My guess is any video taken by the NYPD would be of a similar or less quality than the other video's that are in the public. The video equipment in a police helicopter is designed to track stuff on the ground, not track objects at high speed. “

“As you aptly point out, filming (or for that matter shaping a photo) of something with clarity at a high velocity is difficult. There is no reason I can think would have high speed taping equipment.of NYPD aircraft “

And for extra emphasis LARED also wrote in post 65 of the same thread :
Tue Mar-23-04 04:27 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x9571#9736

“Abe ...I am making the assumption that the NYPD released the tape to the media in my comments. I based this (perhaps incorrectly) that seatnineB assumed the tape was available to the media. “

“The basic issue is still there. Assuming there is nothing to see on the tape, why bother to make it public. Why is anyone creating a mystery out of nothing. As pointed out in a number of different ways by a number of people there is no reason to suspect that the NYPD has any video of flt 175 that is useful. “


But today on Sat May-22-04 04:24 PM LARED wrote:
It is also useful to remember that those fellers up there in the air taken that video and then sending over to the new guys in the big tall building did not know another big ol plane was going to be hitting that tower. But, I'd bet if the knew, them old boys woud'da gotten a much better shot of all the flames and smoke and stuff.

So come on LARED .......
The C.N.N footage shot from a distance is useful enough for you........
So what about that N.Y.P.D. footage shot at 150 feet from flt 175.......?????

[LARED]

44. ???????

The C.N.N footage shot from a distance is useful enough for you........


Ummm, yes - it was useful enough to point out that the video was shot from a helicopter, rather than a building. This was in response to a supposed "big mystery" as to how the angle changes in only a few moments.

So what about that N.Y.P.D. footage shot at 150 feet from flt 175.......?????

Sure, what about it? Is there some point to your comparison?

[LARED]

45. Does anyone in CT land own a dictionary?

You state;

But in order to justify the reason why this footage(whatever it may comprise of) has never been released to the public ............
LARED wrote the following :

“ My guess is any video taken by the NYPD would be of a similar or less quality than the other video's that are in the public. The video equipment in a police helicopter is designed to track stuff on the ground, not track objects at high speed. “

In what ##$$%%^$%$ world can someone state I am trying to justify something when I start out saying "Here's my guess."

[HarryLime]

51. you can do it Lared

"but I've been told by reliable sources that it's almost always windy at that height even if it purtty calm down on the ground."

Come on Lared, you have to pretend you've got some intellectual honesty. Recall that 9/11/01 was a beautiful, nearly windless day in NYC. Recall also that the my point is the smoke in several videos with the second "plane" arriving doesn't match each other. For example, the example that Eric found from Plague Puppy's site bears no relation to the cartoon images I found.

So, next time you chime try to keep up with the points being discussed. OK?

[LARED]

53. Tell me your kidding

Recall that 9/11/01 was a beautiful, nearly windless day in NYC,

Sure I recall the weather that day and you are absolutely positively correct. Except wind conditions are given for ground level. You know; where the people are. The wind at 1400' is always, let me repeat that always, going to be blowing faster than it is on the ground. Where I work we have open steel structures at only go up about 150 feet. It is always windier up than it is at grade. If you were practicing some intellectual honesty you would not even bring up such a silly argument. In reality the plumes indicate it was a pretty clam day at 1400 feet. I bet it typically blows much harder.


As for the smoke plumes not matching. There is no discernible difference between the two. I have no clue what you are talking about. The only guess I can make is that in desperately trying to create a mystery the author forgot basic geometry.

[HarryLime]

55. Very funny Lared

"There is no discernible difference between the two."

haha.

Interested parties can compare the smoke plumes themselves.

http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=FirstVideo*3.asp&PageNum=3
"First Live Video from the North"-->http://www.911hoax.com

http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=ZoomEast&PageNum=15
"Eastern View of South Tower Impact"-->http://www.911hoax.com

I don't have a lot of time to waste on Lared. If anyone else wants to have an intellectual conversation about the subject matter I welcome the conversatin.

[MercutioATC]

57. Actually, LARED's right.

There are rare exceptions, but the wind on the ground is almost always MUCH less than at higher altitudes. Ask any meterologist, don't take it from me...it's just a fact.

[HarryLime]

61. sure, on the distraction point he's right

...so what's the need to introduce a distraction which doesn't answer other problems?

If I say that smoke plumes are not consistent across the documentation causing LARED to offer the observation that automobile traffic is more dense at ground level than in the clouds--it bears no relation to the issue at hand.

[MercutioATC]

71. How is it a distraction? It directly refutes your claim.

You stated "Recall that 9/11/01 was a beautiful, nearly windless day in NYC."

Sure it was, on the ground between a lot of buildings. Things can be very different, even at 1000 feet. Combine that with the turbulence caused by a rising mass of air (heated by the fire) and there's no reason to think there wouldn't have been different conditions at the tops of the towers than at ground level.

[HarryLime]

73. Remember what we're talking about

MercutioATC, you are ignoring what the topic is about. You're disputing my comment about there not being much wind at ground or the height of the towers. However, Eric Salter had said that the reason that UA 175 was in shadow was the strong smoke. I said that two views that are better than the one Eric chose indicate not much smoke to silhouette the plane.

So, you can't have it both ways. (Actually, others on this board live with logical complications all the time.) If there was very little smoke where UA 175 first is seen from the south there should be no shadowed plane. If there was heavy smoke at the most-southern perspectives we've got, then it doesn't match other documentation revealing little smoke going that far south.

[MercutioATC]

75. I'm not taking issue with the fact that it might not have been smoke

(I don't think it was). I'm simply saying that "it was reported as a calm day" by people on the ground has nothing to do with winds aloft.

It being a calm day on the ground has little to do with the way smoke moves hundreds of feet in the air.

So, I agree that it doesn't seem to be smoke causing the shadow but disagree that the ground conditions are proof of this.

[HarryLime]

76. that's what I've been saying

I realized as soon as someone said that the wind direction is given at ground level that introduced a discrepancy with what I was saying. However, this slip does not explain the inconsistencies of the smoke plume. That's the issue that Eric Salter fails on.

[MercutioATC]

78. From what I saw, the smoke plume "changes directions" because the camera

angle changes. I haven't seen pictures with recognizable landmarks that would suggest any incongruities in the plume.

Remember, too, that it IS possible to inadvertantly reverse a negative, effectively changing the perspective. The video record aside, there were tens of thousands of people who saw the smoke plume. Wouldn't it be silly to intentionally manipulate the direction of the plume unless you were trying to fabricate "evidence" of a conspiracy?

[HarryLime]

79. please look again

"I haven't seen pictures with recognizable landmarks that would suggest any incongruities in the plume."

You don't see any incongruities in the two pics Lared posted (#59)?

"Wouldn't it be silly to intentionally manipulate the direction of the plume unless you were trying to fabricate 'evidence' of a conspiracy?"

I think from past propaganda stunts that they knew that disputing the video scam that took place would lead nowhere. The general public still hasn't figured out how much of the mainstream news is propaganda.

[MercutioATC]

80. What incongruities am I supposed to see?

I see one picture taken with the smoke plume in the foreground blowing back over the second tower and another picture taken from another angle which shows the smoke still blowing over the second tower. Even the fireballs from the second hit line up from the different perspectives.

[HarryLime]

81. looking at the two pictures

Lacking anything to call them I'll call the small one at the top of post #59 the Cartoon, and the one below it as the Dark shot.

The contrast levels between the smoke and the buildings cannot be more dramatic. The Cartoon shot has a rather dark building seen from the north side. There is not much contrast between the dark wall and the darkest regions of the smoke.

Moving to the Dark shot, there is an extreme contrast change between buildings (which are as beige from the north side as the east side) and the darkest regions of the smoke.

I can't image that Eric Salter can conceive of a reason for this. You take two videotapes of this occurrence at 9:03 a.m. (morning light from the East) and I can't expect this much variation of contrast.

Also, I can't imagine what filter process would make the Dark shot. A neutral density filter that doesn't filter steel towers? Whatever process that can be invented by the debunkers also flies in the face of the idea that this was amateur footage.

There are more anomalies with the two pics. The smoke on the north face of the WTC is different in the two pics. Also, the large preponderance of very light smoke in the cartoon shot is nonexistent in the Dark shot.

btw, i still love the lack of any building detail in the Cartoon shot in the lower right, with just the tip of a building to the lower left.

[MercutioATC]

83. They were taken with two different video cameras...

...different equipment, different settings. Frankly, I'd be much more surprised if the contrast levels were identical. I dabble in photography on the side, and I could get a much greater variation in contrast with my camera with different settings. That two different cameras show the same picture with different contrast and detail levels should be no surprise.

Any professional photographers out there care to comment?

[HarryLime]

84. that doesn't explain the contrast

Two different cameras shot by amateurs with dramatically different contrast scales and color temperatures. Morning light is distinctive; and at 9:03 a.m. it is just a couple of hours past the Golden Hour.

Meanwhile, the Dark shot clearly has the wrong light. If you say that the dark sky is caused by stopping down the lens then so too should the towers be darker. Any filter applied to the sky would also be seen on the towers, which are both very bright.

[LARED]

85. Although I can think of 100 reasons why there are differences

between the two images, you believe the differences point to one of them being a fake. Correct?

So lets make a huge assumption and say you are correct.

Now what?

What would be the point of faking or doctoring one video shot out of dozens taken that day?

[HarryLime]

86. but they're all fake

911 was a video hoax. there were no planes striking the WTC. If you have a plane partly sticking out of the WTC that isn't burning in a way that would suggest that kerosene would be melting steel then it destroys the illusion that this is why the towers collapsed.

[LARED]

87. Harry it was not a fake

I used to work at a manufacturing facility across the Hudson from the WTC. Flight 175 flew directly over the heads of about a dozen people I know. They watched it impact the tower. They tracked it for about three or four miles. There was no hologram, no fake videos, no missiles, nothing like that.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people that watched it happen from the streets and buildings of Manhattan.

Harry if you really believe that 9/11 was a video hoax, that no planes struck the WTC. Get help.

[HarryLime]

88. clever

Get help? That's a clever retort.

Meanwhile I've interviewed witnesses who claim that UA 175 suddenly appeared; i.e, it was not visible as part of a lengthy arrival. This is consistent with longshot views of UA 175 which begin with it just a few thousand feet from the WTC. UA 175 never arrives in this footage--it is already in the frame.

There are visual discrepancies and anomalies with every video purporting to be 175. Once you get used to looking for them they always show up.

Lared, what manufacturing facility did you work at?

[LARED]

89. I worked at

ICI Fluoropolymers at the end of East 22nd street in Bayonne. It is just southwest of the towers on the Jersey Side. It is now owned by Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers USA.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&zoom=8&mapdata=kqnq0HTj%2frpweZHeGcZRiaOmqXBmDk0nJZvjkQI%2byfBngzpWqbk7I5LuaYsYRUMwCJjhHDmp%2fWjNtOEV7hW0JyBz%2fxlNWcce%2bk9AwgO1Bmo6979q3HUPZJiejP51c22wLb%2f1qK2BVbTQjceb0qwFBxEuSxFL1ktDFZFlWSPuipgHrstzGsdF6jyV4wG6gtcVeZLrfj8uA3SWafTjkdzFj7is80V1452HzLH8PsKizlm3hjl0ZU2rUeNK8iDIUiG9bPrMv1wI3PrHKOd268nUDexC1KRz%2bnJ%2bBs%2bf8VS2gcqDUTcZfenEcgrnzCN0rjc90qYhovr0fO8P2%2b5h4DLTx5u4fJ89MWml

[LARED]

113. Before you rest your case again

how about explaining how all the videos from dozens of different individuals and organization are part of the "hoax."

While your at it you can explain how all those people that saw a plane impact the tower were deceived?

[HarryLime]

114. "Let me see the managing editor of CNN!"

"how about explaining how all the videos from dozens of different individuals and organization are part of the 'hoax.'"

The flip side of this is explain how the three networks + CNN managed to have such spectacular amateur footage later in the day on 9/11/01. NYC must have been absolute chaos, and the news agencies were buzzing with activity. Someone who shot a great view of UA 175 then somehow gets on a bus/cab/subway/walks to the news agencies. Then this person gets past security. Then this person rushes up to an editor with a videotape and is immediately given an audience. They instantly screen it and presto, it makes TV history. It just doesn't seem likely to me.

However, back to your question. It was only the three main news agencies and CNN that obtained (and shared) this footage.

Remember also that the news agencies are known to employ Psyops personnel:
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.html

[LARED]

116. Did they?

The flip side of this is explain how the three networks + CNN managed to have such spectacular amateur footage later in the day on 9/11/01.

I don't recall this being the case. I remember they had footage from aircraft and photographers on the ground. It seems to me it took a few days to start seeing amateur videos.

[DeadBroke]

119. You got it!

That IS how it works.

About 5 years ago I worked on the renovations at CNN’s studios in NYC, which are located at 8th Avenue and 34th Street. My union hall sent me there to assemble and weld stage equipment that for the most part hung from the ceiling beams for lighting and sound equipment.

When you enter the lobby there’s a coffee shop and small deli on the left, a newsstand to your right, and also a corridor leading to a Blimpies sandwich shop. At the end of the lobby, just before the elevator banks there are two security stations; one just for CNN, and one for the other building tenants. Each station has several uniformed attendants with handheld metal detectors and walkie talkies. There are also several security cameras in the lobby and monitors behind each station. The fire alarm panel is located there. There is also a couple of wall mounted TVs showing whatever CNN has on. The freight entrance is on 33rd Street and also has similar security.

Whenever someone walks into that lobby with home video footage of something or another, the security guard immediately scans them with the metal detector wand while another guard searches their bag or package. After that, a call is made upstairs and the person is escorted up.

There is a viewing room outfitted with a security camera just off the CNN reception area. The room has a cart with several devices for playing and viewing videos. It’s got a table with chairs for about 6 and the room also has a coffee maker and water cooler. A CNN representative meets with the person, explains policy, and has what I think are release forms of some sort. The security guard stays with the person while he or she is on CNN properties.

FoxNews has a similar set up. Each of NYC’s newspapers has someone in the lobby for walk-ins with photos of some sort. An ironworker friend of mine walked in to the NY Daily News and was paid $250 for the photos he had just taken of a man threatening to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (or maybe the Manhattan Bridge – not 100% sure). They took and developed his film, liked what they saw, and paid him.

CNN's location on 8th Avenue was in a direct line with the Trade Center. Much of their coverage was from their roof.

Living in the NYC-NJ metropolitan area I saw lots of Trade Center coverage. As I stated before in other threads, other videos do exist; there is the footage shot by a person on a NYC-NJ ferry, there is footage shot across the bay at the Staten Island Termimnal, and there's some video shot by someone who went atop their roof on a Newark apartment building. There was also video shot from Brooklyn and at the bottom of the screen it shows FDNY units crossing the bridge. All these were shown over and over again in my news area, and have appeared in documentary films as well.

[LARED]

120. Thanks

once again for the excellent personal insight.

[MercutioATC]

102. No, the point of view explains the contrast...

One shot is of the shadowed side of the towers and one is of the lighted side.

...it's amazing what effect light has on contrast...

:eyes:

[HarryLime]

103. forgetting a few details, are we?

"One shot is of the shadowed side of the towers and one is of the lighted side."

Recall that on the Dark shot I referred to there is no shadow on the north sides of both towers.

Recall also that that the smoke on the north face of both pics doesn't match.

Also, the lack of light-colored smoke on the east sides of the towers doesn't match the Cartoon shot.

[MercutioATC]

105. I completely disagree. The shots (if adjusted for perspective) match

to me. I really don't see what you're seeing.

1) There wouldn't be a shadow if the corner of the tower in the bottom shot were facing the sun. Both facing sides would be sunlit.

2) You can't SEE the smoke on the north face in the bottom shot (North is the side on the right facing away from the videographer).

3) The difference in color is due, again, to the perspective and the angle at which the sunlight hits the plume.

Additionally, the fireball matches very well between the two photos when adjusted for perspective.

The angle and height of the plume also coincide in the pictures.


There's really nothing out of whack with these photos.

[HarryLime]

109. Mercutio, I rest my case (n/t)

[MercutioATC]

117. And I, mine (n/m)

[OudeVanDagen]

108. take a minute

and check out the photos of another NYC aircraft crash .... 5-20-46, when the Coast Guard crashed into 40 Wall Street ... what about those old pictures ... care to analyze them too?

[DeadBroke]

90. On May 16, 1977 ...

... a PanAm NYC to JFK air taxi helicopter was landing on the 59th floor rooftop helipad of the PanAm Building (now MetLife Building) when a landing gear collapsed. It killed 4 passengers waiting to board and a broken rotor blade killed 1 person walking on the street below.

The PanAm Building opened in 1963 and this rooftop NYC to JFK air taxi helicopter service began in 1965; but due to landing difficulties caused by winds it was stopped three and a half years later; but PanAm tried again, restoring service on a trial basis in February 1977 just 3 months before the crash.

Searching this 27 year old incident one can find old newspaper stories and articles basically stating wind at the 59th floor helipad was always the major problem for this PanAm service.

[LARED]

59. Harry you're such a kidder

Lets compare the images at the time of impact

From the north. Wind is blowing the smoke plume over the south tower



From the southeast The wind is blowing the plume over the south tower



Come on Harry, this silly ploy may work on bumpkins and rubes, but it ain't going to fly around here. The author of those web pages should be ashamed of themselves for trying to to pass off such obvious deceitfulness as a mystery.

[HarryLime]

62. I rest my case (n/t)

[LARED]

63. Normally when one rests a case

they have presented one prior to declaring it closed.

So what's your case? Please explain as I do not understand what your point is.

Does anybody?

[seatnineb]

121. Fake?

Did your friends see this,LARED

http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/f-15.htm

Still convinced that this picture is authentic?

[LARED]

124. Fake?

Yes of course the link is a fake.

Why?

Also what friends are you talking about?

[seatnineb]

134. To fake or not to fake..

That "link" just happens to contain footage courtesy of Fox News via the Gamma Press...........



http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/f-15.htm

So when you pathetically try to refute Harry.....you imply this picture(before the object is seen streaking past the WTC) is genuine........

But when confronted with the subsequent frames(displaying this anomolouse object )...you say it is fake!...........

Oh dear..........

[LARED]

139. Do you believe in fairies too?

The video is an obvious fake.

That "link" just happens to contain footage courtesy of Fox News via the Gamma Press...........

Not even close

That link is from http://www.attackonamerica.net/f-15atwtc.mpg found on this web page http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/f-15.htm

It is not a link courtesy of Fox or Gamma Press. It is a video that was copied and then altered to have rubes believe there was an F-16 zipping by just as the tower was hit.

How do I know? Well the video itself is preposterous. An F-16 flying by on an angle that would crash into the street. An F-16 flying so fast it is a blur compared to a jet traveling at 400 or 500 MPH. You do you think your kidding?

I also have a video I copied off the Internet and recently loaded that somehow has no shadow moving by in the blink of an eye. BTW this video clearly show why the so called "pods" suddenly show up. The plane is banking on the approach and just before it hits the tower the underbelly is exposed to the sun.

WTC Crash

[seatnineb]

141. It is Foxes/Gamma Press Fairy.......

Not mine.

LARED wrote....
"How do I know? Well the video itself is preposterous. An F-16 flying by on an angle that would crash into the street. An F-16 flying so fast it is a blur compared to a jet traveling at 400 or 500 MPH. You do you think your kidding? "

I aint kiddin no-one buddy....
Beacause LARED....
I actually agree with you.....

But it looks like who ever tampered(created) with this image did it within at least 2 days of 9/11.
And then put it (back?)into worldwide circulation(with Foxes/gamma press permission I assume) for all and sundry to see.

I have this footage taken from Italian State T.V recorded on 9/14/2001!
The program was called "Porta a Porta(Door to door)" and was shown on RAIUNO(one of Italy's 3 State owned channels)......
Porta a Porta is a seriouse program(shown nightly) where politicians come into the studio and discuss well ........whatever.....
On this particular occcasion it was 9/11......
But it looks like no-one on this program gave a damn despite the fact that the footage with all it anomalies was repeated(in slow motion) several times over....
The traumatic psycological impact of 9/11(especially around the time of the disaster) seemed to have supressed many peoples ability to even raise a simple question mark.....

But that was then.
This is now........

That particular footage is fake.......
From tip to toe.....
From START to finish......

[dinyc]

142. Really? Two days?

I was under the impression this footage made its debut later, and on this site http://kiti.main.jp/. (Left box click UFO then click 4th link from top)

The UFO claim became the missile from an F-16 claim sometime later. I don't think anyone claimed that the object itself is the F-16. Obviously I can't speak to what was on Italian TV on 9-14-01, but this is the first time I've heard someone mention this. I don't believe it is a missile or a UFO. I'm also skeptical as to why someone from the major media would alter the clip to show something that isn't there. That object is the only fake part of the clip. Believe it or not, aircraft hit the WTC, it caught fire and collapsed, and it isn't there anymore.

[HarryLime]

143. living in a fantasy

"Believe it or not, aircraft hit the WTC, it caught fire and collapsed, and it isn't there anymore."

You might as well say believe in the Tooth Fairy if the Bush Regime tells us to.

[dinyc]

147. LOL! fantasyland?

Listen Hologram Man, you gave up any chance of being the arbiter of fantasy/ reality a long time ago.
:spank::spank::spank:

FYI, the last 3 letters of my screen name, dinyc, gives you a clue as to my location.

Intrepid online investigators like yourself should pay us a visit. Talk to people, get a feel for the real environment, give Google and your 60 pixel x 60 pixel images a rest for awhile. Although once you arrive, I would advise you keep an open mind and drop the "tooth fairy" stuff. People here tend to be a wee bit sensitive about 9-11 whether they're down with the Bush Administration or not.

[HarryLime]

148. If you can make it there you can make it anywhere

dync, i don't advocate the hologram theory. However, I still have a big website full of reasons not to believe in planes hitting the WTC. It is http://www.911hoax.com . Feel free to read it and then comment about it.

As for interviewing people in NYC--I've done that. Eyewitnesses confirm my theory.

Last time i was in NYC was a few months back for the big anti-war march. (I saw Sean Lennon and Yoko up close.) I love that town.

[LARED]

149. Abe, please comment on this

Eyewitnesses confirm my theory.

Thanks in advance

[HarryLime]

150. Whose Abe?

A survey of eyewitnesses that I found on the internet strongly suggested the possibility that neither flights 11 or 175 actually struck the WTC. I personally interviewed one who claims to have seen 175 appear out of nowhere. (He actually said that he saw two objects strike the south tower; the second of which has been discovered on video by the Web Fairy.)

Some of the witnesses who supported the official story seem fake to me. However, it would be very difficult to explain why on this forum.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. Have you not met AbeLinkman, Harry?

I bet the two of you would get along famously.

A survey of eyewitnesses that I found on the internet strongly suggested the possibility that neither flights 11 or 175 actually struck the WTC. I personally interviewed one who claims to have seen 175 appear out of nowhere. (He actually said that he saw two objects strike the south tower; the second of which has been discovered on video by the Web Fairy.)

Some of the witnesses who supported the official story seem fake to me. However, it would be very difficult to explain why on this forum.

I nominate this post as Best 9/11 Forum Post Ever. I think I'll print it out and hang it on my wall. Whether or not you're serious about what you post, this is a darkweave masterpiece. M.C. Escher's got nothing on you, Mr. Lime.

[HarryLime]

152. bolo

Bolo you can tell us why what I said compares with M.C. Escher's surrealism. Or you can resume this fantasy you are daydreaming where you are making sense to others.

[LARED]

153. It's a gem for sure

So I'll second the nomination.

Congrats Harry.

Although I sort'a like seatnineb's new notion that's trying to hump the idea that the altered 9/11 images and videos in cyberspace are faked by the government.

[seatnineb]

155. LARED and Dinyc.....you guys win......

LARED and Dinyc speak the voice of reason,rationale and great wisdom...

If LARED or Dinyc could provide a link,real time video or a photo of the original footage minus the alteration that was made to that Fox/Gamma Press footage I would be most grateful.I promise to retract my wholly audacious,irrational and downright barmy accusation that the said footage is fake.

Thank You.

And you guys take all the time you want.

I think you are both going to need it.

[LARED]

156. Ok

If LARED or Dinyc could provide a link,real time video or a photo of the original footage minus the alteration that was made to that Fox/Gamma Press footage I would be most grateful.I promise to retract my wholly audacious,irrational and downright barmy accusation that the said footage is fake.





Save the file, then play it.

You big mystery is a bug going across the lens. If you watch carefully you can track it across the screen. It is always in front of the smoke, It is not in any other video. It is a bug flying by at the wrong time.

[seatnineb]

157. LARED Hypophesis

On Wed May-26-04 10:07 PM
LARED wrote........

"It is not a link courtesy of Fox or Gamma Press. It is a video that was copied and then altered to have rubes believe there was an F-16 zipping by just as the tower was hit. "

But on Sat May-29-04
LARED wrote.......

"You big mystery is a bug going across the lens. If you watch carefully you can track it across the screen. It is always in front of the smoke, It is not in any other video. It is a bug flying by at the wrong time. "

So LARED which is it?

[LARED]

161. It's a bug or something similiar.

Having the regular speed video and looking at each frame confirms this to me.

What do you think it is?

[seatnineb]

165. The bug that scared Fox News......

I dunno what that object is........

But I do know that one-winged planes cannot fly......


http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

[LARED]

167. one-winged planes ??????????? n/t

[seatnineb]

168. Fox's/Gamma Press's one wing-plane

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dinyc]

166. hehe

I personally interviewed one who claims to have seen 175 appear out of nowhere. (He actually said that he saw two objects strike the south tower; the second of which has been discovered on video by the Web Fairy.)

Ok so to this witness a large aircraft, flying at 400-500 mph, appears out of nowhere? Makes sense I guess. The plane is flying pretty fast, there was alot going on at this point--large building on fire, people falling/jumping, other people on the street are hurt etc etc.

But then, this witness can see this missile that was fired, what, a 1/3 of a second before this plane that was traveling too fast for him/her to see impacts the builiding? He/she can see something that has to be "discovered" on video?

Is that what you're saying Harry?

Sounds pretty fake to me, but i wouldn't be able to explain why on a messageboard. :crazy: :crazy:

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

160. Very funny

I think if any of you could refute the research and conclusions of Dick Eastman, you would.

Dick has been refuted many times. I guess before you showed up. No one even wastes time on his fruit loop theories.

Btw, I'm waiting for your comments regarding the eyewitness testimony confirming that 911 is a hoax.

[Abe Linkman]

162. lared: Please provide a link to your refutation of Eastman's work.

btw- after I posted that, I tried to guess what kind of BS excuse you'd come up with, and you know what? I guessed that you would say EXACTLY what you did!

You people are getting to be way too predictable. Maybe you should you all (assuming there's more than one of you) go on a retreat and try to come up with some new sales pitches. Your schtick is stale.

[demodewd]

163. Tell me LARED..

Tell me LARED...what official government conspiracy explanation don't you uphold? Oswald and JFK? The Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Do you buy into the official RFK explanation...Oklahoma City? Was wellstone possibly wacked or was that just an accident do mechanical failure?

[Abe Linkman]

169. Still waiting for your link, lared.

Hitting the alert button (something neither you nor the other ever does, I know)...isn't the same thing as providing the link to your refutation of the research of Dick Eastman. I don't think there is such a link. I think your only refutation is your claim that you've refuted his work.

Not even bolo has tried to refute Mr. Eastman. Silence is consent. Back to distractions and diversions away from the truth about the silly "Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

When they bring out Osama this summer during the Democratic Party's convention, or later on during the Republican Party's convention -- maybe he'll take credit for the "attacks" -- but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Face it; the "Cave People Did It" story is a fairy tale, told by ____.

[Bolo Boffin]

170. Still waiting for Dulce's pictures, Abe

You will hurry her up, won't you?

I don't have to refute Dick Eastman. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton had Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman killed to distract from her Congressional testimony doesn't need to be refuted. Nothing Eastman says is worth discussing.

[Abe Linkman]

171. Forget the ad hominen, bolio -- address the issue, if you can

No, you don't HAVE to refute Eastman's research. But, since you're trying to imply that you could, why not go ahead and give us the benefit of your refutation. Assuming that you won't also rely on the "lared" dodge of "it's all been refuted before --- but I'm not going to tell you where".

Nothing about airplane photos is worth discussing unless and until you can refute what Mr. Eastman says about what happened at the Pentagon.

Come on bolo, show us what YOU got.

[demodewd]

174. remember the bulge

Anyone who is too obstinate and cornered in their own belief system to see the bulge on Flight 175 is living in AlQaeda lalala land.

[LARED]

172. Dick Eastman's theories can be summed up in one word

sophistry.

I and others have debunked his theories multiple times. So if you are interested, do a search in the archives and find them. I am not doing your homework for you.

Btw, I'm waiting for your comments regarding the eyewitness testimony confirming that 911 is a hoax.

[demodewd]

173. time to unload

LARED...can't help but notice you don't have a star next to your name. Come on Tightie...unload and help out DU a bit!

[LARED]

177. Iv'e been considering doing that

Who put you in charge of fund raising? Are you searching out other DU'er without stars and asking them to unload is it just me?

[demodewd]

178. just wondered

I've just noticed the preponderant input on your part on this forum and wondered why you haven't shown a token of appreciation. And by the way ...you didn't respond to my previous question..so I'll ask it again..tell me LARED...what official government conspiracy explanation don't you uphold? Oswald and JFK? The Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Do you buy into the official RFK explanation...Oklahoma City? Was Wellstone possibly "wacked" or was his unfortunate demise most assuredly just an accident do to mechanical failure?

[LARED]

179. Short answers

Oswald and JFK?

Oswald did it. Was it government involved in the assassination? I very much doubt it.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident?

Not very familiar with the conspiracy angle, but I will say that if Johnson was involved not much would surprise me.

Do you buy into the official RFK explanation...

Yes.

Oklahoma City?

Personally I think the Feds were trying to set up a sting operations using McVeigh, Nichols and possibly some non-Americans. And they blew it.

Was Wellstone possibly "wacked"

No. Planes go down all the time. Why would Wellstones be whacked?


Happy?

[demodewd]

180. Well...well

Well...this explains a whole lot. How do you explain the gaping hole in JFK's skull? The bullet entered in his left temple area and blew out a rather large portion of his skull.Oswald could not have fired this shot!
Observe..

[LARED]

183. I have no interest in debating the JFK murder

Why not start another thread and see if anyone else is interested?

[Abe Linkman]

186. lared: Ducking a red herring isn't very impressive.

JFK's murder is a fact.
The circumstances under which he was murdered raise questions that many researchers believe point to a major conspiracy. Just as Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA-created Patsy; so was Osama bin Laden. Just as LHO could not have acted alone, and certainly couldn't have shot the President from in front of the motorcade, neither could Osama have pulled the "attacks" of 9-11. People who support the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory of 9-11 either don't know the facts, don't know enough U.S. history to know to raise questions about the facts, or else have a hidden agenda.

[LARED]

187. Abe's hyperbole reaches new heights

I only suggested demodewd take his red herring and start a new thread with someone that wants to discuss JFK.

I'm not interested it.

And strictly for your amusement I will apply logic 101 to your statement. If LHO was a CIA pasty it does not mean OBL is one.

Logic Abe, try it once and a while.

[dinyc]

193. Hidden Agenda

Interesting you've brought this up. If you are naturally predisposed to conspiracies, have you ever considered this may work against you?
That the person telling you what you want to hear is the person you should avoid? Surely if you have studied US conspiracies you have come across COINTELPRO. Some of the info related to 9-11 is sooooooooooo stupid, and easily refuted, ya just gotta wonder. I know I do sometimes.

[Abe Linkman]

175. I don't know anything about what you're talking about. However;

I'm still waiting to for YOUR refutation of Dick Eastman's research and conclusions. If all you have to say is that you've already answered the question, then I'll take that for exactly what it's intended to be: an excuse for your inability to refute the research and conclusions of Mr. Eastman. Why am I not surprised that you can't refute his work?

[LARED]

176. Which part of I'm not doing your homework is unclear?

Abe, Dick Eastman's excellently woven fairy tales make for a great read. Take the time, search thought the archives for yourself, sit back and enjoy. Then get back to me with your completed assignment.

I know this may be a shock to you, but I don't keep track of the fairy tales that have been debunked and I'm not spending the time to do research for you.

On the other hand if you want to believe Dicks tales without hearing both sides, go ahead, don't let me stop you.

[Abe Linkman]

181. In other words, you won't refute what you CAN'T refute!

lol

[LARED]

182. Your laziness to do the search doesn't mean I can't

debunk Dick Eastman's fantasy theories. It means I won't do it again.
They have been repeatedly show as nothing more than sophistry by me and a number of other folks.

So stop whining about it and start looking for them. :cry:

[Abe Linkman]

184. Ha Ha -- You Won't because You Can't, because He's Right.

So stop trying to fool people into believing that you've ever refuted the research and conclusions of Dick Eastman. You haven't, and we know it.

It's one thing to divert attention by arguing about "technical" issues. Dealing with the powerful case presented by Eastman (and others) presents challenges that not even the best and brightest spinner can handle. (mind you, I'm not including YOU in that category)

[LARED]

188. Abe cut the crappola

You are smart enough to know the difference between can't and won't. Your school yard bully techniques are getting boring and they won't work on me.

[Abe Linkman]

190. The truth isn't "crapola", lared. The truth is, you can't refute Eastman.

People who can't answer questions but refuse to admit it, often resort to tactics like you have resorted to.

Since your reasons for being here are obvious, you would most certainly put forth an effort to refute Mr. Eastman's research and conclusions if you could.

[MercutioATC]

189. I have a "technical" issue for you, Abe...

Doesn't Eastman claim that all of the passengers from the four planes were loaded onto UAL93 and then shot down? It seems that SOMEBODY would notice that there were a few too many body parts on the ground afterwards. It also seems to me that if any DNA testing of remains was done, it'd be a little strange to find SO many different samples.

Can nobody reason any more? We're not talking about an extra passenger or two, we're talking about a 300% increase in passenger load.

...which begs the question, why load all of the bodies into UAL93? Why not dispose of them is a less risky manner?

...really, sometimes these theories are just ridiculous.

[dinyc]

191. Yes...

Part of the really big problem with the "no plane" or "swapped plane" theories in general — Some of the people identified as being on the planes...
Are you ready for this?

WERE FOUND AT THE APPROPRIATE CRASH SITES!
and
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE LOCAL MEDICAL EXAMINERS!


Holy cr*p!
Get Larry King on this.

[Abe Linkman]

192. I have a "technical" response for you, "mercutio"

First, just out of curiosity, it's funny that all of you have such similarly odd monikers. Wait, wait. I know. It's merely a coincidence.

I'm no more of a spokesman for Dick Eastman than you would claim to be for the Rendon Group or Hill & Knowlton.

Ask him, not me.

btw - WERE there ANY "bodies" found spread over the eight mile debris field left by FL 93 (or what has been politely called FL 93)? If so, how do you know that? Were you there?

[MercutioATC]

195. "similarly odd monikers"?

Similar to what?

All I'm stating is that Eastman obviously doesn't have the sense to think his theory through logically. You disagree?

[demodewd]

194. what's ridiculous?

I think you can take a particular theory and discount some of it to a greater or lesser extent. I prefer the Eric Bart theory over Eastman's though I can't effectively refute his smaller plane idea altogether. Some have theorized that it was a Global Hawk model with its unusual wing length(in proportion to the plane). I prefer Bart's plane of a similar size with AA markings to AA Flight 77. I agree with you that the loading all bodies onto #93 has its drawbacks. I prefer the grounding of the first 3 flights and then maybe piggybacking them into the Atlantic under night cover(with the passengers and crew already dead from gassing). But you come on this forum basically with the intent of discounting all thoeries that aren't the "official" one...right? So for you its all theories are ridiculous...maybe some more ridiculous than others... but all ridiculous...right??? That's the tone I get from you.

[MercutioATC]

196. I couldn't give a damn what's "official" and what's not.

Any plane-swapping theory has one drawback...it's called RADAR. Even if the primary targets of the "decoy" planes weren't noticed at the time (and they likely would have been) they would have been caught in subsequent reviews of the tapes. Likewise, the grounded "real" flights would have continued to give RADAR returns to wherever they went. Too many people had access to those tapes for it to be a real possibility.

I come on this forum to clear up the tall tales spread by the media (and some on this forum). There are a lot of people that have no comprehension of how ATC works. I'm here to tell them.

They can make their own determinations, but at least they'll be making them based on information provided by somebody who has some actual experience, not somebody who simply posts a lot of links.

[demodewd]

197. Attn: radar

Radar and your knowlege of it does not explain the photographed pod on the undercarraige of supposed Flight 175. Radar does not explain the flame throwing missile that enters the South Tower a split second before the plane does.Radar doesn't explain the apparent multitude of amomalies associated with the Pentagon crash.Radar doesn't explain the white flash recorded just prior to the crash initiation of the North Tower.

[MercutioATC]

198. What I THINK you meant to say was...

1) Radar doesn't explain what appears to be a bump on the underside of the aircraft. True, Radar doesn't. If you'll let me know what theory you buy into, though, I'm sure I have an answer...I've dealt with that here before.

2) Radar doesn't explain the flash that appears as the plane hits the tower. Again, true, Radar doesn't. Neither does calling it a "flame throwing missile" with absolutely zero proof of any missile (show me the missile in the film).

...and the rest are much the same. No, Radar doesn't explain it, but other things do.

[demodewd]

199. The bump in your brain.

NOTHING explains the bump on the underside of the plane except that it shouldn't be there and it is huge. If you can't comprende that's your problem. But you see what you believe and you believe the "story" so you've been conned. "and the rest is the much the same"..blah blah...condescend...blah. Yeah I get your message Cleveland. Condescend.,..condescend...blah blah blah blah blah blah..condescend...blah blah blah.... I've got answers for everything because I've been conned. And I'm a bad ass radar expert so I can condescend because I'm so smart and I've got all the answers..blah...blah...blah. And I'm from Cleveland and I'm a professional with all the answers..about the bump and everything...blah blah blah.

[MercutioATC]

200. What the hell was THAT rant about?

All I was pointing out was that things like the "flaming missile" are hardly widely accepted theories. You acted as if they were and I was simply ignoring them. I'm not, I don't believe them.

I've made it clear that I don't have all the answers, but I've also taken the time to specifically discuss the flaws I see with every theory you brought up. You act as if I'm saying "I'm the expert, so shut up". I've never done that.

I really don't understand the personal nature of the attack.

[Abe Linkman]

201. You don't "believe"...or you don't "know"? Which is it?

Are you trying to say you don't know about the missiles or are you suggesting that you believe that what looks like a duck is actually something else? Have you been instructed to "believe" or "know" something in particular? (okay, try it this way: Was something "suggested" to you?)

[MercutioATC]

202. The two are mutually exclusive?

I can't prove it's not a missile, so I "don't know".

I see no reason to shoot a missile when a large commercial aircraft filled with jet fuel is less than a second away from hitting the building anyway, so I "don't believe".

Again, many things are technically possible, but make no sense. I think that should figure into the equation when deciding which explanations are plausible and which aren't.

[dinyc]

203. Can I

ask a question?

NOTHING explains the bump on the underside of the plane except that it shouldn't be there and it is huge.

If this statement is true, how come it took almost 2 years to find this bump? It didn't start getting a lot of play until last summer. It's origins are the very dubious Serendipity.com. They believe that missiles were fired into Tower 1 also.

I find it odd that people (like you) would commit to this "research" so wholeheartedly when it's possible to have a US Government-sponsored scenario without going to such bewildering lengths. There are a number of explanations for these anomalies, especially since they are all based on dubios quality photographic evidence.

How do you account for passenger parts and DNA showing up at Ground 0/Fresh Kills if the planes were switched? The NYPD and the FDNY and other law enforcement agencies barely cooperate even when their lives depend on it. There have been numerous instances where local agencies couldn't or wouldn't cooperate with the Feds or vice versa. So how do all of these agencies, including the Office of City Medical Examiner who is identifying victims, come together to fake dead people found at the site, since according to your pet theories, they can't be there?
Dr. Hirsch, Chief Medical Examiner, was injured in the attacks.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html

survivor/witness stories:
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/9-11survive.html
http://www.bjkresearch.com/ny/
http://www.outtacontext.com/dichotomy/d_pairing.php
http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/PDF/AtlantaJournalX3.PDF

[demodewd]

204. re: the bump

Perhaps it took two years to discover the "bump" because no one would actually be looking for it and you don't see it unless the video is slowed down. But the "bump" is there. It is there on all and various video angles that I've seen.And the flame is there just prior to the plane entering the building. Any site would be "very dubious" to you would it not unless it conveys the conventional perception? As for the accounting of the passengers' DNA? I find it "dubious" that any DNA would be recoverable from that horrific explosion(Flight 175) that certainly would have totally engulfed the plane.But then we are told to believe that Mohammed Atta's passport survived the inferno too!!

[MercutioATC]

205. Demo, you DO know what it takes to incinerate bone, don't you?

There was plenty of DNA left after the crashes. Some would be lost, sure, but the majority wouldn't be incinerated beyond evaluation.

[Abe Linkman]

206. Then, Wherdy Go? n/t

n/t

[demodewd]

207. Westlake

Well I guess it didn't incinerate Atta's passport so maybe you're right. Seriously I'd like to know more about this.Sure there was plenty of DNA...but from the Flight 175 inferno...I have serious doubts. Wonder why there is no video that refutes the pod ? You would think that it would be up on the internet by now. But no refutation. Odd..don't you think...Westlake.

[DulceDecorum]

216. We saw Louise Kurtz

and her HAIR
which withstood up to 1,000 degrees.

Tell me, MercutioATC,
WHAT does it take
to ruin that woman's hairdo?

[MercutioATC]

218. Did she (or the passport) withstand 1000 degrees, though?

Any explosion forces things away from the center. Those things get a miniscule portion of the heat exposure. I'm no physicist, but it hardly seems illogical to expect that some of the debris would have sorvived with little heat damage (the portion that was blown away from the initial explosion).

[DulceDecorum]

233. Yup, 1,000 degrees and counting

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2002 — Sheila Moody doesn't mind wearing purple pressure gloves to smooth the burn scars on her hands. She just has to think of her former office mate LOUISE KURTZ WHO LOST HER FINGERS AND HER EARS, or the 184 people who lost their lives.
<snip>
"When I got out of the building, I heard someone call me, 'Sheila!' and I looked up and it was Louise. She was sitting in the back of a police car. She got out and came over to me. I could see that she was burned because there was a layer of skin hanging off her arm, but she wasn't bleeding. HER HAIR WAS MATTED LIKE IT WAS REALLY SINGED, but other than that she looked fine."
<snip>
Kurtz had suffered burns to her face, back, legs, feet, arms and hands. She lost her fingers and thumbs to amputations necessitated by deep burns. Moody said it was as if Kurtz had been "baked by the fireball" that experts say reached as high as 1,600 degrees.
http://www.dod.mil/news/Sep2002/n09092002_200209093.html

And I so dare you
to utter ONE word
about sloppy reporting
concerning the article above.

Instead, Kurtz concentrates on the progress she has made since returning home. The bandages that for months covered her entire face are gone. Her hair has grown and now tickles her neck. It masks the fact that she no longer has ears. The surgery in August will help restore the shape of her lips.
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2002/vol6n37/EveryDaySep11-en.shtml

[MercutioATC]

234. Yes, people have been burned by fire before. What does that have to do

with saying that some of the debris would probably have been thrown clear of the most intense heat by the force of the explosion?

[dinyc]

208. You're not very

up on your facts are you?
It was Satam M. A. Al Suqami's passport found in the rubble.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_suspects.html
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/terrorist_page.htm

Too much time spent looking at the bump:headbang: rock on. it probably grows larger the longer you stare at it. :headbang::headbang:

And how can you say what would've happened to the passengers on 175? (Atta wasn't on 175 or are you in the dark about that too?) If you read any of the survivor/witness stories I posted you would see that people were finding remains on the streets from the Flight 11 impact before Flight 175 even hit. Obviously people from the buildings, and possibly from the planes were thrown from the area as a result of the collision and explosion. Same thing happens in car wrecks all the time. And I doubt very much that the explosions completely torched either one of the planes or their contents, 'specially the 2nd one since most of the fuel exploded (outside).

[demodewd]

209. pardonez moi

Excuse the mistake, but it being Al Suqami's passport doesn't change the incredulous scenario. Remains of #11 on the streets doesn't prove that they were passenger remains...no proof there. Obviously. I'm not arguing that there were no remains. So what's your point?

Can you show us a video of #175 that doesn't have the pod/canopy? Would not there have been innumerable copies made that very day? And they were all tampered with? All those probably thousands of video copies all photoshopped? What are the odds of that? Astonomical.

[MercutioATC]

210. The "bump" issue has been dealt with repeatedly here.

Personally, I believe it's a shadow left by the uneven bottom of the aircraft (the belly has two "pectoral ridges", it's not smooth).

What's your explanation for the "bump"? I'm not looking for a statement that it's unusual, I'm looking for how that fits into your theory. Did the "real" plane take off with a bump? Were the planes switched in the air leaving us with a "decoy" that crashed? What's your explanation?

[demodewd]

211. They(we) will never forget

That's one big ass bump leaving a shadow larger than the either one of the engines. You're equating something that has been "dealt with" as something that has been dismissed? By bolo or Lared? Flight 175 was brought down and substituted by a military version of the 767 with a missile pod attachment that shot a flame throwing missile a split second into the building to insure that 1. the plane would be completely disintegrated by the missile's intense heat and 2. insuring that the heavily fuel laden plane would burst into a monstrous display of explosion and flame to effectively inbed in the minds of the public a treacherous spectacle that they will never forget.

[MercutioATC]

212. Well, I have two issues with that theory...

1) A 767 loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight doesn't need any help bursting into flame when it hits a big building at that speed. The "missile" just makes no sense.

2) Any substitution of the airplanes would have still left primary radar targets where they shouldn't have been. They don't make stealthy versions of the 767, military or not.

Granted, #1 is a judgement call, but the radar targets just didn't exist. How was the replacement plane put in Flight 175's place?

[Bolo Boffin]

213. Actually, Merc, #1 isn't a judgment call

http://wtc.nist.gov

The NIST study of the WTC collapses has recreated a computer model of the initial fireball, and their only parameters were the fuel in the jet.

No flamethrowing missile required.

Both your common sense and advanced computer physical modeling confirm: there was no missile fired from 175.

[demodewd]

215. not required but present

No flame throwing missile required but present along with two observable areas on the undercarraige spewing out aerosol jet fuel just before the plan takes entry.

[demodewd]

214. possible Military Retrofit 767 Tanker

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=982&start=0

"The plane above, on the bottom undercarriage of the 767, the plane is spraying out two very large and powerful streams of atomized jet fuel from the forward position of what I now agree is a piping/hose system from the forward part of the aircraft, in the center of the reflection/flare and below, as well as the same thing in the rear.

There is absolutely no doubt this is liquid fuel being streamed/sprayed/atomized out the bottom of the 767 in two locations, right before impact. Check the blowups, and it's especially easy to see and near impossible to miss.

All this information is presently being organized for formatting;

But the basics can be given;

We were able to come to agreement on 99.9% of all of our beliefs, but not before many knock down fierce arguments on both sides;

1. The 767 is a Military Retrofit 767 Tanker, possibly, but not neccessarily a kc767;

2. It has no Windows

3. It also has a pod on the bottom, as well as a smaller piping/Canister/Hose system attached to the pod in the front of the undercarriage pod, extending 1/2 way to the cockpit or so, as well as in the rear, extending to almost the tail of the 767."

[MercutioATC]

217. Again, NOT stealthy.

Though it turns my stomach, I can't pass up the opportunity to "borrow" a quote from another poster here:

The primary radar targets..."wherdy go"?

[Abe Linkman]

219. Right, mercutio -- The retro-fit work on the plane is easy to see.

I hadn't realized there are no windows on that plane. Thanks for pointing that out, Demodewd.

[MercutioATC]

220. How could you possibly see that there are no windows?

With the bank that plane is in, the windows would be outside the camera's field of view (try looking at the right wing instead of the left...it gives a pretty good indication of the degree of turn).

[demodewd]

221. peepee

You see the plane do a peepee just before it enters the building...right?



Do you see the peepee?

[MercutioATC]

222. You're talking about those two vertical white lines fore and aft of

the wings? What makes you think they're anything but glare?

Please notice that the two "peepees" are in the same location as the two pectoral "fins" (I'm not an airline mechanic or pilot...I don't know what they do) shown on a standard 767 in this picture:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/458481/L/

Seems to be a more logical explanation than vapor being forced at a 90-degree angle from a plane travelling at hundreds of knots.

[Abe Linkman]

223. By looking at the plane.

"How could you possibly see that there are no windows?"

Windows? WINDOWS? Right. Wherdy Go?

[MercutioATC]

224. You DO realize that reply made no sense, right?

I asked a simple question. Do you see the bank to the left as exhibited by the right wing and horizontal stabilizer on the tail? With that degree of bank, the windows wouldn't be visible.

You disagree?

[Abe Linkman]

225. YOU know that Cave people couldn't have flown that way, right?

I pointed out a simple fact: the plane doesn't appear to have any windows.

Now, a simple question for you: How in the world could an untrained person have flown a plane like that?

One more, while we're at it: I believe you claim to be an air traffic controller. If you are one, did you receive more training than the alleged pilots of those flights on 9-11? Is your job harder than that of a commercial jet pilot...even if the stresses are similar?

[MercutioATC]

226. Who said they were untrained?

I seem to remember a story from a couple of years ago where a kid stole a small airplane. His experience? Miscosoft's Flight Simulator.

That aside, who said that they were untrained?

I did most likely recieve more ATC training than the terrorists did flight training. My job's not harder, it's different. I can't fly a plane or perform surgery. I'd like to see the pilot or surgeon who could do my job. They all require specalized training, training the terrorists very well could have had (flight training, that is).

[Abe Linkman]

227. You must be referring to the one that crashed into the Pentagon.

THAT "small" plane was most likely an F-16, flown the same way planes are flown in cyberspace: via remote control. But, the evidence of what happened in NY & PA doesn't suggest an F-16 was used for any of those incidents.

btw- Who said that ANY Cave People boarded ANY of the flights on 9-11?
If there was evidence of that, the Government would have released it. Remember; the Gov't promised to release proof of OBL's involvement with 9-11. WHERDY DAT GO?

[MercutioATC]

228. I didn't claim any small planes were used on 9/11...

Nice try, though..

Abe, I have serious issues with the "official" version. Bring me something credible and I'll look.


...just imagine....converting a CIA operative...ummm...I mean an air traffic controller....

[demodewd]

229. Rocky River... er...Westlake

There's nothing anyone could bring to you that you would deem credible. No matter how many round pegs you have to jam into your square holes...you'll fit the obvious anomolies to fit the conventional version. Forever. Amen.

[MercutioATC]

230. When did I say that I believed all of the "official" version?

Again, I'm open to the probability that lies were told. I just need something that makes some sense.

...and I think we're way past cities...you can use my handle if you'd like...

I am flattered, however, that you took the time to look at a map...

[demodewd]

231. a looooong time ago.

I had a roomate from Rocky River...a loooong time ago. Anyway...it looks "official" to me. Like I said there ain't no "conspiracy" knuckle ball or change up that you're not going to hit out of the park(in your mind anyway) even if it is in Jacobs Field. So tell me of one little itty bit of suspicion that YOU have that differs from what Grandpappy Rumsfeld might tell you. I'm holding my breath. So hurry.

[MercutioATC]

232. Gee...holding your breath? I'll take my time if it's all the same to you.

Do you always use bad baseball references when people disagree with you?

All I'm willing to commit to is that, having questions about the "official" story, I'm more than willing to look at other views. To date, I haven't seen one that 1) I couldn't punch multiple holes in or 2) just made any sense.

I'm pretty sure that we're not being told the whole truth, but I really think it's a matter of a bunch of old men trying to cover their asses. I din't see a MIHOP scenario.

[Abe Linkman]

235. In other words, Rummy hasn't yet, but if he ever does, you'll let us know.

"I'll take my time if it's all the same to you."

btw - Tell us your theory about where the magic passport was, and how it got from wherever it was, to where it was found...and why you believe it's reasonable that the passport is the ONLY such thing to have survived that Hollywoodish explosion and those massive fires (paper survived; but those huge buildings couldn't stand the heat).

[MercutioATC]

237. You DO understand that heat dissipates as you travel away from the center

of an explosion, right? Yes, the sustained fires were enough to weaken the central supporting columns of the towers (and it took some time). Debris that was initially blown away from the center of the explosion would have sustained minimal heat damage.

As far as the fires being "Hollywoodish", have you seen video of aircraft exploding? There was a DC-9 that crashed and burned on landing somewhere years ago. The fires are quite "Hollywoodish" without the use of missiles or atomized jet fuel. The fact is that when you crash a large airplane loaded with fuel into something hard (be it a building or a runway) you get a big explosion. It's not that hard to figure out.

[demodewd]

236. MercutioATC

The powers that be who control the most powerful Capitalist Empire the world has ever known make things happen...they don't let things happen. The pod and pipes on the plane is easy to see. Easy. If you don't see it you are victimized by your own belief system which in turn controls what you see. I really have nothing left I can say to you. Have a good one... Tim from the CA mountains

[MercutioATC]

238. Demodewd

I agree that we're probably not going to convince each other. I seriously don't see the pipes and I don't believe the bump is anything but a shadow for the following reasons:

1) If the plane that crashed were the REAL flight, the pilot, ground crew, caterers, tower, and possibly the passengers in the terminal would have seen it when the plane was on the ground. A pilot wouldn't have taken off with a strange "bump" on his plane.

2) If the plane that crashed was a replacement, it would have had to been substituted in midair. I've already explained how both aircraft would still have primary radar returns, even if their transponders were turned off. This just doesn't seem to be a valid scenario.

So no, I don't know what the bump is beyond doubt, but other factors prohibit it really being there. All we're left with is a video artifact or a shadow since the plane couldn't been substituted and the bump couldn't have existed on the real plane.

I also fail to see the need for any tubes or missiles. The plane would have made enough of a "bang" without them. They'd be needlessly redundant systems that would have increased the chance that somebody would find something amiss.

If you do come up with anything more concrete, I'm always willing to revise my position.

[Abe Linkman]

239. mercutio: No plausible explanation for what the bump is?

Since YOU don't know what the "need for any tubes or missiles" would be (or at least, you SAY you don't know)...we are left with the conclusion that since you can't explain the "need" for the "bump", you simply deny it's reality.

You also said: "They'd be needlessly redundant systems that would have increased the chance that somebody would find something amiss."

You DO realize, don't you, that lots of people have found so much amiss about the "Cave People Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory, that supporters of that fairy tale have been reduced to defending it only by taking pot shots at the other side.

If you do come up with a plausible explanation for how the Official Story version played out, I'm always willing to revise my position.

[MercutioATC]

240. Fair enough.

...but I think you misunderstood my position on the "bump".

I don't disagree with the assumption that it's not a shadow because I can't explain it. I disagree with the assumption that it's not a shadow because I see no way for a plane with an actual "bump" to be there and I have plenty of reasons to state with conviction that it could not possibly have been there.

I'm not just dismissing it, but because there's not enough hard data on the "bump", I'm relying on other facts I know to be true to reach a conclusion.

[Abe Linkman]

241. The bump is there, but you don't think the bump is there. Right?

That pretty much sums it up, and if you are a supporter of the Official Story version then obviously you can't acknowledge anything that undermines the likelihood of the "Cave People Did It" conspiracy theory.

Since most objective observers have reached the conclusion that the bump is not a mere shadow; in order for you to dismiss THEIR conclusion ( a necessity, since the existence of the "bump" raises disturbing questions about the validity of the Official Conspiracy Theory), you are reduced to saying that you're "relying on other facts I know to be true to reach a conclusion".

[MercutioATC]

242. Exactly.

Like the "vapor streams" coming from under the plane (which I see as sun glare off of the two pectoral fins that are clear in any file photo of a 767) I believe that the "bump" is a shadow caused by the uneven belly of the 767 (the 767 is not cylindrical).

And again, I am not a supporter of ANY version of the story. Personally, I don't have enough data, so I don't feel qualified to form a complete theory. I simply know facts that make a great many of the conspiracies impossible.

[Abe Linkman]

243. mercutio & other supporters of "Cave Men Did It" -- Hypothetical for you:

Assume, for sake of civil discussion that there IS a "bump" on the 767, and that an F-16 DID fire a missile into the Pentagon...
if both were true, then how, in your opinion, would the video images we've seen look any different?

[MercutioATC]

244. Well...

If there were a "bump", I'd imagine it would or wouldn't show in pictures, depending on its placement. If an F-16 did fire a missile, we'd have seen the F-16.

That doesn't solve any of the issues about the lack of primary radar targets or the lack of necessity for either a "bump" or a missile.

The only theory I've seen that I can't refute is the possibility that the real planes were fitted with remote control devices that were hidden and activated once the planes were in flight. I don't personally adhere to this theory, but I have no facts that would refute it.

If we know that things that are not made stealthy leave radar targets (something as small as a bunch of runaway mylar balloons will leave a target) and we know that no radar targets that fit any of the scenarios were reported, how do we reconcile this fact with the belief that the planes were "switched" in flight?

If we know that the pilot does a "walkaround" before every flight and didn't report any "bump", how do we reconcile this fact with the belief that the real planes had been somehow modified before takeoff?

I don't understand how, in the face of facts (not observations based on a low-res video) people can continue to pursue these claims.

[Abe Linkman]

245. You see a bump and call it a shadow. I see a bump and call it a bump.

"If there were a "bump", I'd imagine it would or wouldn't show in pictures, depending on its placement. If an F-16 did fire a missile, we'd have seen the F-16."

The "bump" IS seen and an F-16 is most consistent with the images that were released. If the Gov't would release the security camera images from the service station, we would know for sure whether it's an F-16 or
some other similar size jet.

I don't know who told you that they believe the planes were "switched" in flight, because that doesn't make any sense. What IS plausible is that the original flights landed at airbases & all aboard them were transferred to FL 93. The plane (with the bump) which fired a missile into the WTC before entering it had no passengers, and may well have been flown via remote control (like the other killer planes...except for FL 93, that is). Therefore, when the pilot did a "walkaround", he walked around a perfectly normal aircraft.

People who don't buy into the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory have never relied solely on the little actual evidence that the government was unable to suppress from getting out.

People who DO buy into the "Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory seem to me to fall into one of several categories:
A.) Comfortably numb with whatever the Gov't tells them.
B.) Believe that the Official Conspiracy Theory makes sense and that if the Gov't wasn't telling the truth, we would have more solid evidence of a coverup. (never mind that the Gov't has never released the evidentiary proof they claim to have...except for obviously fake tapes of Osama "Patsy" bin Laden.)
C.) Disinformation agents (from the Rendon Group, Hill & Knowlton, and who knows what other firms).

Ted Olson's lies ought to be enough for any rational person to know that the Official Conspiracy Theory is only the latest in a long line of Gov't complicity in conspiracies to start wars. The biggest difference this time is a war against a tactic ("Terror"), not an actual enemy -- at least not until Iraq was included in the war target.

[MercutioATC]

246. To be completely accurate:

We both see a dark area. You call it a bump and I call it a shadow. The truth is that it's simply a dark area. Neither of us can attest to exactly what it really is.

Your scenario (having the planes diverted to a military base) still encounters the problem of the lack of primary targets. Even when the planes shut off their transponders, their airframes still reflected radar. These primary targets continued to the crash sites. No primary targets were seen travelling toward other destinations from where the real flights were. You claim that the flights weren't switched in flight. When were they switched, then? The real planes took off. Where did the remote-controlled planes come from?

My other question is why, if the passengers and crew from all four planes wound up on UAL93, weren't too many "pieces" found at UAL93's crash site? Increasing the passenger load by 300% would leave WAY too many body parts at the crash site.

See, there are real issues with most of these theories that present bigger holes than the "official" explanation (or at least the basics of the "official" explanation). These issues are based on facts (like the physics behind how bodies reflect radio waves), not assumptions based on what we think we see in a grainy photo. I'm not buying into anything. I am, however using the facts I know to be undoubtedly true to filter data as it's presented.

[Abe Linkman]

247. If it's a lump, it's a bump. And if it's a bump, whatzitz purpose?

Researchers in Spain did an extensive scientific analysis of the "bumps" and found that the bumps are definitely not shadows. I don't have the web site at hand, but I'm sure that many DUers are familiar with it. If your only (or main) purpose is to defend the "Cavepeople Did It" conspiracy theory...by way of taking shots at non-believers, then it isn't surprising that you don't know about this research - I guess. Except that it has been cited in threads here, many, many times.

As far as switching planes; I want to modify what I said. I misunderstood what "switching" planes meant. Now that I realize that it merely refers to the possibility of sending up a "killer" plane to take the place of the original flight; I DO agree it's a very good possiblity. As far as landing at an airbase (probably in West Virginia) and having a rendezvous with the other flights there, I think that's a very real possibility, too.

Regarding the mush from FL 93; obviously, there wasn't too many "pieces" found. At least, I haven't read anywhere that such was the case.

I don't see how anyone who has done ANY studying of 9-11 beyond the lies told by the Government, can STILL maintain that the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory makes any sense.

If you base your case only on a limited number facts, then your conclusion will not be a very informed one, because today, we know far more facts than we did whenever the "Cavepeople Did It" storyline was handed down to the public.

Do YOU believe Ted Olson's claims?

[MercutioATC]

248. Once again, I don't claim to be an expert on 9/11 theories, just ATC

Having done it for 13 years, I know the procedures, the systems and the various technologies involved. Think of me as a plumber. I won't form an opinion on a claim that the government is controlling the weather to flood your basement, I'll just tell you exactly what is and is not possible as far as your drainage system goes.

As a "plumber" I know how radar works. Planes reflect radio waves. If there were planes in the sky that nobody's talking about, there would still be radar returns. That's a simple fact that's not open to interpretation.

As a "plumber" I know that 767s (even military versions) and F-16s do not enjoy the benefit of stealth technology. If they were in the sky, they would have been seen.

As a "plumber" I know that pilots do a walkaround of the aircraft before every flight. Has a "bump" been on the real plane, it would have been seen.

Taking off my plumber hat, I'm also able to make decisions based on what does and does not make sense. Firing a missile or spraying atomized jet fuel seconds before the crash does not make sense. There was no danger of incomplete penetration of the building or a lack of some pretty spectacular pyrotechnics without them. A 767 full of fuel makes one hell of a bang when it hits something solid.

I've heard all sorts of talk about the "bump", but not one coherent analysis of how (if it IS a real bump) it serves any purpose. I've heard it said that the bump is remote guidance equipment. Why would you need an external bump for this equipment if you were dealing with a stripped-down 767? There would be plenty of free space within the fuselage to contain such equipment. I've heard it said that the bump is some sort of missile launcher. Show me ANY missile launcher that is that shape and takes up that much space (if it IS a bump and not a shadow, it's BIG). I've heard it said that the bump is part of some system to spray atomized jet fuel to increase the size of the fireball. Given that a big plane full of fuel will make a pretty big fireball on its own, spraying fuel just makes no sense.

I'm not here supporting any cohesive theory. I am here to explain what is and is not possible (or probable, given simple facts).

[Abe Linkman]

249. Unresponsive, dismissive, and evasive

"I am here to explain what is and is not possible (or probable, given simple facts)."

Unfortunately, you are ill-equipped to do either, and that is partly why you haven't. The other part is unmentionable, according to DU's strictly enforced rules (free speech collides with rules against certain speech).

So, what we are left with is your posturing...as an authority figure on 9-11 who quickly retreats to the status of merely being an ATC employee, whenever it's convenient.

You are unresponsive, dismissive, evasive, and have a very elementary feel for the complexities of 9-11.

Ted Olson lied, and you haven't denied it, because you know it's the truth, and that if you acknowledge it, then logically, the fairy tale
BS "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy theory quickly dissolves into the pixels on your CRT.

[Bolo Boffin]

252. Once again, Abe, I plead with you

Do not ignore this request.

You state, as you have stated before:

Ted Olson lied, and you haven't denied it, because you know it's the truth, and that if you acknowledge it, then logically, the fairy tale BS "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy theory quickly dissolves into the pixels on your CRT.

If Ted Olson lied about talking to Barbara, how is this a death blow to understanding that al-Qaeda operatives hijacked those planes?

***We still have the testimony of other people on other planes who were able to call their loved ones and others.

***We still have the evidence that Atta et al. purchased their tickets, and boarded those planes.

***We still have Osama bin Laden on tape talking about his part in planning this operation.

Ted Olson's story is one small part of this wealth of evidence. It is not the dealbreaking revelation you continue to assert it to be.

Please respond to this: If Ted Olson had not told this story, how would anything have been any different?

***We still would have heard the testimony of the phone calls from other planes.

***We still would have found the evidence of Atta et al. purchasing the tickets and boarding the planes.

***We still would have discovered that tape of Osama bin Laden.

***Ann Coulter would still have felt the emotional need to increase her rants geometrically in order to take up the slack Barbara Olson left off.

In short, nothing would have been different.

I'm sorry, something would have been different. Joe Vialls would have one less bright, shiny object in his life.

Other that that, Abe, what would be different?

Please do not ignore this question again.

[MercutioATC]

253. I really don't understand your hostility.

Actually, I'm more than qualified to explain ATC and related issues. I'm sorry if you don't like the explanations, but I am more qualified than most (you included, unless you have some expertise that you haven't divulged) to shed some light on certain facts about how little-understood systems work.

I've never claimed to be "an authority figure on 9-11". As a matter of fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid any such claims. My expertise lies in ATC and its related issues. It's hardly my fault that basic physics disagree with some of the views presented here. Once again (and this seems to be something we have trouble getting past) I'm not advocating any particular theory. I'm simply explaining what's possible and what's not.

As far as being "unresponsive, dismissive, evasive", I challenge you to show where I've refused to offer my views on any issue that's been presented to me. Were I being evasive or dismissive, I'd ignore questions like "Show me ANY missile launcher that is that shape and takes up that much space (if it IS a bump and not a shadow, it's BIG)." or "Your scenario (having the planes diverted to a military base) still encounters the problem of the lack of primary targets. Even when the planes shut off their transponders, their airframes still reflected radar. These primary targets continued to the crash sites. No primary targets were seen travelling toward other destinations from where the real flights were. You claim that the flights weren't switched in flight. When were they switched, then? The real planes took off. Where did the remote-controlled planes come from?" and just attack the character of the poster. I haven't done that.

Finally, since I'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a conspiracy theory debunker, I really don't care what Olson says. Once again, I'm not supporting any explanation, I'm explaining what's impossible or improbable based on the procedures and technologies currently used.

I AM curious, however, how you reconcile the lack of primary radar returns and the shape and size of the alleged "bump" with your opinion of what went on that day.

[Abe Linkman]

254. Stick to your CRT

Uniformed opinions are not helpful to those of us who don't buy the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

Back to your CRT, and thanks for playing.

[MercutioATC]

257. That's your response??? That's actually sort of amusing.

...especially from somebody who just accused ME of being evasive and dismissive. Actually, my posts should be very helpful to people who "don't buy the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory". I'm giving you technical details that should help you refine your positions. I can only think of a couple of other DU'ers that are doing that. Arguments are stronger when they take into account immutable facts and have rational answers to rational questions.

Which brings me to the question:

Do you or do you not have a response to my last two questions? I've answered your questions...all I'm asking is that you return the courtesy.

[Abe Linkman]

258. Your details may be helpful to your fellow O.Story supporters, but not me.

Back to your CRT.

[MercutioATC]

259. Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not posting just for you.

...so I guess I'll stick around.

Any time you come up with answers to the questions I've asked, please feel free to post them.

[Bolo Boffin]

261. You may be waiting a while for those answers, Mercutio

As you can see, Abe has once again avoided answering a question I've been asking for a few months now.

Abe loves interrogating, but he's not good at answering questions at all. Oh well...

[Abe Linkman]

264. PR Spinning all day, all night. No waiting. Constant spinning.

As anyone can plainly see, there are some people whose mission here seems to be little more than disinformation spinning. Thing is, only THEY know for sure who they are. I don't have a clue. Do you, bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

268. Just answer the question, Abe.

You never answer the question.

[MercutioATC]

271. I take it you're referring to me. Could you specify what "disinformation"

I've spread? Everything I've said has either been undeniable fact or carefully considered opinion (and I believe I've made it clear numerous times exactly what falls into which category).

Until you can factually refute anything I've stated, you really have no business making accusations of intentionally spreading disinformation.

[k-robjoe]

262. I´m not going to

get into this discussion.
My position on this for the moment is to wait and see. It doesn´t make sense with this bump there, but then again, what can it be, a shadow? But you have seen the pics from right underneath as well, right, and it sure doesn´t look like a shadow on those.

Here is a site with some closeups as the plane impacts the wall.
(And it does seem like there´s more to it than a shadow, not?)

http://pod.batcave.net/

[Abe Linkman]

263. After you. (remember your partner bolo's friend TED OLSON)

Now, back to that CRT.

[MercutioATC]

266. I've already told you that I have no interest in what Olson has to say.

I'm not presenting an explanation of 9/11. I'm simply presenting facts.

Why are you so insistant on linking me to Olson? I've made it clear (repeatedly) that what I have to say has nothing to do with his assertions.

[demodewd]

251. Global Hawk?

Abe... Someone suggested that a Global Hawk flying out of Wright Patterson AFB at Dayton replaced AA 77. In that it is made primarily of fiberglass it would have disintegrated thus explaining the apparent lack of plane pieces on the "Pentalawn".Also...how about the possibility of gassing the passengers on the first three flights,bringing the planes down via remote interception of the computers. Disposing of the planes and passengers either by remoting them into the Atlantic or burying the evidence on some base. That way Flight 93 remains would only account for those of only Flight 93 passengers?

[Abe Linkman]

256. Sounds very reasonable to me, demodewd

I've read the theory about disposal via Atlantic, but hadn't heard about the fact that a Global Hawk might be constructed primarily of fiberglass. THAT certainly goes a long way towards explaining all those little pieces of debris at the Pentagon.

Your point about FL 93 remains is a good one, but what about the remains of the passengers of the other flights? If they were planted in the Atlantic, how would the lack of their remains be explained to the families. I guess they could have been told that none were found...due to the intensity of the crash, explosion, fires, and the fact that two of the planes crashed into the upper floors of the WTC.

Thanks for your posting.

[demodewd]

272. the evil ones

They(the evil ones) could have gotten some good DNA samples before disposing of the bodies. Just makes me cringe to think about and talk about this. No wonder it hasn't been brought up. Yuuuuck.

[MercutioATC]

260. As far as the Pentagon crash is concerned? You may be right.

There's not enough video/photographic/forensic evidence released to prove otherwise. Eyewitnesses don't seem to all agree, but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

That still doesn't address the issue of the lack of primary radar targets showing the planes diverting to these supposed "airbases".

[Abe Linkman]

265. You wanna talk about Ted Olson's lies, NOW. I'm still waiting.

Without Ted's lies, the whole dynamics of the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy theory would collapse into bolo's "film" script.

[MercutioATC]

267. See Post #263.

I'm not claiming to agree with Olson. In fact, his assertions have nothing to do with the facts I've presented.

Can you cite a single time I've stated otherwise?

[Bolo Boffin]

269. Your ability to "wait" to talk about Olson is incredible

You have yet to start talking about Ted Olson, other than to persist blindly with this "mother of all lies" Joe Vialls crap.

Nothing about the 9/11 attacks or America's response to it would be different if Ted Olson had never spoken about phone calls from Barbara. You know this is true because you refuse to deal with the issue.

You are so busted.

You wanna talk about Ted Olson's lies, NOW. I'm still waiting."
Posted by Abe Linkman

Without Ted's lies, the whole dynamics of the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy theory would collapse into bolo's "film" script.

What film script are you talking about?

Please, for the love of all that's holy, please explain exactly how the "whole dynamic" of understanding al-Qaeda to have carried out these attacks would be any different without Ted Olson's story.

You must deal with this question. Failure to deal with this question will now be considered an admission that you no longer consider the "mother of all lies" scenario to be viable.

Answer the question, Abe? How would anything be any different?

[Bolo Boffin]

270. Over here, Abe! Questions to be answered!

Stop trying to distract in woody b's thread and answer the question over here...

: )

[dinyc]

250. Hey supergenius—

What IS plausible is that the original flights landed at airbases & all aboard them were transferred to FL 93.

Flight 93 was tracked from the time it took off until it crashed correct? Now if it landed to pick up other passengers how did no one notice that?
If it was substituted with another flight 93 how did the passengers on the original Flight 93 end up in a field in Shanksville?
Since there doesn't seem to be any crosspoints between the two WTC planes and Flight 77 how did all of those passengers end up together?
Under what pretense would the 11 crew members from Flight 11 and the other crew members from Flight 175 and Flight 77 get aboard a plane that they wouldn't be working on?
And what is with the airbase(S) thing? Do you imagine there was some kind of air- taxi service happening while all other planes were being forced to land and none were taking off? Yea no one would notice that either.

[dinyc]

255. do you know what incredulous means?

Remains of #11 on the streets doesn't prove that they were passenger remains...no proof there.
And the proof of your "bump" outside of you and 1 or 2 other deluded :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: is where exactly?

The City Medical Examiner reported finding passengers from Flight 11 and Flight 175, people reported remains on the streets immediately after impact. Sure is a good possibility that some of those people were passengers. A lot stronger a possibility than they went down in Shanksville I think. Both flights impacted the building at a high rate of speed, both flights had engines shoot out the opposite sides of the building, flight 11 totally demolished the central core.
And while many people have made a big deal about the passport, there was mail from aboard the planes that was found afterwards. This was in a New Yorker article in the fall of 2001. There is a possibility that the remains found prior to the collapse were identified as passengers, but no one has made a big deal about it because most people believe that the planes carrying passengers impacted the buildings.


Can you show us a video of #175 that doesn't have the pod/canopy? Would not there have been innumerable copies made that very day? And they were all tampered with? All those probably thousands of video copies all photoshopped? What are the odds of that? Astonomical.

Why am I being charged with proving a negative? You have nothing but some crappy videotape of an object moving at almost 500mph and unless you are ex-military/weapons, you are calling it proof of something you have absolutely no experience to be talking about.

Seriously, do give us your résumé on all of that weapons platforms you have worked on and when/where you did this work. Then tell us how you augumented this weapons experience with your what is, I'm sure, years and years of stellar work in aeronautical engineering, or firsthand experience with passenger and military jets, and then come back and talk to me about proof.

[demodewd]

273. they'll all doctored...hehehe

I don't have to have a resume to know what the undercarraige of a commercial jet normally looks like and it certainly doesn't normally have a huge canope tumor with pipe extensions.Again show me a photo that doesn't display this ANOMALY. There must be thousands of copies of the original. They must be all doctored...hehehe.

[MercutioATC]

274. Are the "pipe extensions" the vertical white lines on the belly?

I'm just asking because I don't see them.

I'd ask you the same question I asked Abe. If it actually IS a bump, what's its purpose? I know of no weapons delivery system that's either that shape or that size, do you?

[Abe Linkman]

275. Now, you're a weapons delivery system expert, too?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

276. No, I'm asking a question. Demodewd says there are pipes that I don't

see. I'm asking if the vertical white lines are the "pipes".

I'm just trying to get a handle on what others are seeing.

You have an issue with that? Hell, the post wasn't even addressed to you...

[LARED]

64. Addtional info

Also, evidently the smoke changes direction between frame #1 and frame #2. However, September 11, 2001 is remembered by many as an unusually beautiful, windless day.

THe smoke did not change direction between frame 1 and 2 the video camera changed position.

Who are you trying to kid?

[dinyc]

48. confused

In the first link, we have a view of 175's arrival that is as far to the south (i.e., left) as we will see that also has clear indication that we've got a real plane.

Please clarify what you mean in this sentence.

And lemme ask a question--
Do you agree with this statement:

As you aptly point out, filming (or for that matter shaping a photo) of something with clarity at a high velocity is difficult.

[HarryLime]

52. quick reply before I head out the door

"In the first link, we have a view of 175's arrival that is as far to the south (i.e., left) as we will see that also has clear indication that we've got a real plane."

"Please clarify what you mean in this sentence."

There were a couple extreme longshots of the South Tower hit but the "plane" we saw wasn't conclusively one.

* * *
And lemme ask a question--
Do you agree with this statement:

As you aptly point out, filming (or for that matter shaping a photo) of something with clarity at a high velocity is difficult.
* * *

That's actually a major point of mine.

[dinyc]

92. So

why are you taking the position that no planes hit the WTC, because of what you see/don't see on the photographs/videos when from the get-go you also admit that it would be very difficult to photograph fast moving objects with clarity?

The fact that this would be difficult under the best of conditions, combined with the stress and panic of the moment, and multiple things happening simultaneously (fire in WTC1, approaching plane, gas explosions, people jumping/falling) could explain alot, couldn't it? The fact that the area that is under observation is quite a huge space and there are many vantage points also probably explains alot. Especially if some of the photos/videos were not shot by pros. And then you have to consider what happened between the time the images were shot and when you got your hands on them. There is no reliable chain of evidence, in fact it's a bit disingenuous to call this stuff "evidence" in the first place. In total, it attempts to be a representation of an event. It is not the event and it's not foolproof, and I don't know why anyone would expect it would be.

As you aptly point out, filming (or for that matter shaping a photo) of something with clarity at a high velocity is difficult.
* * *
That's actually a major point of mine.

[HarryLime]

97. for clarity

When you meant "clarity" I immediately thought of the Naudet brothers's first hit (i.e., Flight 11 hitting the North Tower). The "plane" is rather out of focus. Ironically, the building isn't. That doesn't make sense because when the plane impacts the building they are at the same distance from the camera.

There are innumerable visual anomalies with the 911 footage. My site (http://www.911hoax.com) discusses some of them. Everytime I look at some video involving planes striking the WTC I see problems with it.

[dinyc]

98. Harry

The building isn't moving at 400-500mph.

The "plane" is rather out of focus. Ironically, the building isn't. That doesn't make sense because when the plane impacts the building they are at the same distance from the camera.

[HarryLime]

185. Eric Salter's Silent Plane Theory

Here's another point that Eric makes:

* * *

<911hoax.com> also speculates that the sound of the impact is missing from the pieces of footage, assuming that the sound of the impact would be distinct from the explosion. He offers no scientific analysis to back this up. Neither does he offer an example of a similar crash where the sound of impact was distinct from the explosion.

* * *

Well, we've got video evidence showing that as UA 175 enters the South Tower it only produces a single flash. Then the entire plane enters the steel building. No wings tear off. No engine falls off. Not even a beverage tray breaks off.
http://www.911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=BoeingButter*8.asp&PageNum=8

So, visually we know that when planes fly into steel buildings at 450 mph they enter as smoothly as a hot knife through butter. Thus, Salter's demand that I explain why a plane flying into a steel building would make some impact sound. (I dunno, friction?) After all, he can PROVE that planes enter buildings without suffering any damage along the way.

In this crazy world that people like Salter live in the irrational is always brought in to justify the insane.

[dick_eastman]

144. "no-plane" (e.g. attack of the holograms etc) prevent unity behind truth

:kick:

Greeting Democrats for Peace, Justice and a Living wage for all.


Each "no plane" or "hologram" advocate has been opposed to the Pentagon "small plane" evidence and findings all along.

They know that if 9-11 investigators can't agree, then the public won't be with them now or ever.

Incidentally, the small-plane finding has finally appeared at rense.com and 911crimefile has the easiest and most complete evidence demonstration.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3