9/11 Revisited

[Rippon]

John Farmer used the fact that planes brought down the main WTC buildings as the starting place for his inquiry.

I am not dealing with only John Farmer who said that the 9/11 Commission Report was almost entirely untrue.

I am am giving fact after fact regarding that day that goes wholly against the government-sponsored work of fiction.

The whole point of the inquiry was that if planes did not bring down the WTC main towers then all of the questions above are moot.

Which means the subject is up for discussion since planes did not bring down those three buildings --they were demolished by controlled demolition. Pay attention to the real experts : Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

But as the fact is that planes did bring down the WTC main buildings, the questions need to be answered.

It is most certainly NOT a fact.

You consistently ignore the subject of Building Seven...how odd of you. It's like you feel uncomfortable about that issue or something.

 

[TCassidy]

Here ya go! LOL!

 

[Rippon]

Regarding the Pentagon incident on 9/11, here are some witnesses:

Bob Pugh --photographer:
"I'm looking for wreckage...I can't see anything that I recognize. I can't see the tail, I can't see the wheels. I can't see the engine. There's no chairs, there's no luggage, there's no logo...The largest piece I saw was maybe 2 by three feet...The foam trucks were beginning to show up...[the hole] was 16 feet diameter, 20 feet tops."

Lt. Robert Medairos --Watch Commander of the day
" They said it was a plane, and I didn't see any pieces of any plane, and I couldn't believe a plane hit the building."

Barbara Honegger --military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen. Larry Arnold (NORAD) "reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building."

Major Douglas Rokke U.S. Army (Ret.)
"No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn't make the turns with a 757. You couldn't fly it over the light poles. You couldn't even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence."

 

[TCassidy]

9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

 

[TCassidy]

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

 

[Rippon]

Regarding the Pentagon incident:There was aDept. of Defense briefing the next day --September 12.
There was no mention whatsoever of "Flight 77"," Boeing 757", or "American Airlines."

 

[Rippon]

Here ya go! LOL!

There is nothing there. Can't see anything in your post.

Please give some substance to your post.

 

[Reynolds]

Do you remember the first reports? Like Dan Rather' s liikening the collapse of WT7 to a controlled demolition. Or the live premature BBC account of that same building hacing fallen, yet visible in tge live background.

One of the most telling evidences that finally convinced me was the initial circular hole in the Pentagon, no evidence of wing wreckage, no airplane parts visible at all.

It is not up to me to convince you. I,suspect your mind is made up. My responsibility is to say what I remember. And *our responsibility is to sift and evaluate the evidence and reports.

First reports, always wrong.

 

[asterisktom]

First reports, always wrong.

People who say "always" are almost always generalizing. First reports are often the unvarnished evidences before the tweakers, handlers, and fabricators are able to arrive at the scene.

Of course people who will not admit that their government is capable of this seriousness will not even entertain this notion.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, Dan Rather, the well known structural engineer

His on the spot observations are certainly more credible than those, for example, who imagine a plane can plunge into the ground and just disappear like a pat of butter in oatmeal.

 

[Reynolds]

People who say "always" are almost always generalizing. First reports are often the unvarnished evidences before the tweakers, handlers, and fabricators are able to arrive at the scene.

Of course people who will not admit that their government is capable of this seriousness will not even entertain this notion.

For years, I watched cases in the news that I was investigating. Their lack of accuracy was staggering. If 10 people see something happen, when interviewed, they saw 10 different things.

Our government is capable of anything. They had no need to manufacture 9/11.

 

[Reynolds]

His on the spot observations are certainly more credible than those, for example, who imagine a plane can plunge into the ground and just disappear like a pat of butter in oatmeal.

That has happened many times.have you looked at the Ariel photos of
Fighter crashes in Vietnam? They don't disappear, they bury themselves.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Present credible facts and change my mind. Most of the "facts" used by the conspiracy crowd are easily disproven.

How about this one for starters? The cellphone calls that were described as taking place between aircraft flying at altitude and the ground were technically impossible. They didn't happen. Want to go on?

 

[FollowTheWay]

The plane was traveling at over 500 feet per second. A high quality security camera has a 1/10 of a second reaction time to send a frame of a picture. In that time the plane moved over 50 feet. All you see on the screen or on the video recording is a slight blur. The background still lingers for that same time so even the blur seems to be transparent and you can still see what is behind the object being recorded.

The still photo capture option on the video camera takes a still shot once every 1/2 second. In that time the plane moved forward 200 feet. A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long. You do the math.

The reason the video was not released earlier was that it was part of the investigation into convicted plotter for al-Qaeda, Zacarias Moussaoui. As evidence it could not be released until the trial was over. No great tin foil hat conspiracy, just our criminal justice system at work. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."

The hole in the Pentagon wasn't large enough for an aircraft like the one assumed to penetrate. Where did the wings go and actually more specifically where is the damage that would have been done by the engines? They would have caused more of an impact damage than the nose of the aircraft.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Over there you may not be familiar with the supposed suicide of David Kelly who provided the information that led to the allegation that the case for invading Iraq was being "sexed up."

The inquest results are sealed for 70 years.

The people of New York voted to have a much more thorough investigation than the one that was done. That request was blocked by a Federal Judge. Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to be interrogated under oath by the commission? Why was the President seemingly not concerned when he was told about the impact of the second plane and just went on listening to a story about a pet goat? Why didn't the Secret Service immediately pick him up and rush him out of the building. Bush said later he thought the U.S. was under attack. If so, the Secret Service's job was to get him out of harm's way immediately. He was a sitting duck in a known location and could easily have been killed if we were under attack. Why couldn't the nation with the strongest military in the world scramble aircraft to intercept the hijacked places after they went o9ff their transponder? That was the protocol. We couldn't protect our two most important cities from this attack? There was plenty of time to do so. These questions go on and on and on.

 

[TCassidy]

The cellphone calls that were described as taking place between aircraft flying at altitude and the ground were technically impossible.

No, they were not impossible. Boeing 757s, at that time, came equipped with Air Phones, seat back phones. Most of the calls were made with those seat back phones. A few were made from cell phones, which work fine from airplanes. The "no cell phone" rule is about electronic interference, not about the phones not working while the plane is in the air. In fact the FAA no longer prohibits cell phone use while the plane is in the air. It leaves it up to the individual airline. Modern cell phones are no longer incompatible with electronic navigation equipment. And haven't been since the 1990s.

 

[TCassidy]

The hole in the Pentagon wasn't large enough for an aircraft like the one assumed to penetrate. Where did the wings go and actually more specifically where is the damage that would have been done by the engines? They would have caused more of an impact damage than the nose of the aircraft.

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon

 

[rsr]

I'm suspecting Tom is in fact a party to the conspiracy. What other explanation could there be?

Except the correct one, of course. But that can't possibly be true. (See the First Law of Conspiracies.)

 

[Reynolds]

How about this one for starters? The cellphone calls that were described as taking place between aircraft flying at altitude and the ground were technically impossible. They didn't happen. Want to go on?

They were made on airphones. I talked on them all the time in flight back in that era.

 

[rsr]

Sigh. Now Reynolds is part of the conspiracy. Where will it end?