You really tied a lot of things together to bring home a very

convincing argument (not that I needed any convincing). Bush has to be brought down.

     Bush and company are very afraid... they want to bring down as many 

people as they can before they go down ( ie instigating wars left and right).

However, these guys are the mere puppets, there are diabolical forces behind them which will be more difficult to locate.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:26:47 AM

  (0+)

I've got two more articles in the series that I will be posting.

I appreciate your support and am encouraged by the polls. As I recall, something like 80 percent of Americans doubt the official cover story of 911.

Those who were skeptical of Bush's cover story were unfairly called 'conspiracy theorists' when, in fact, it was Bushco who rolled out a cover story that was, in fact, the most outlandish CONSPIRACY THEORY of them all. It was and remains full of holes. It could NOT have happened.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:26:15 AM

  (0+)

Think I'll send this to Obama.

If they ARE serious about excorciating these Neocon criminals from our government, 9/11 is THE place to start unraveling this whole ugly ball of wax, and who has better visability for doing that right now?

There's an investigative/ fact-sharing session on 9/11 to be held in Andover, Mass, next weekend, with important speakers on this subject, including Bugliosi, who wants to bring Bush up on murder charges for this.

(except a knowledgible friend who researches the FBI says he's the mole in the group).

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:21:54 AM

  (0+)

As far as BO is concerned the official story of 9/11 is gospel. That pretty much makes him a co-conspirator and just as guilty as anyone involved in this crime, and as far as I'm concerned he can hang with the rest.

The fact that this government is ignoring a vast number of it's people concerning 9/11 (not one word about it in any way was made at the DNC) pretty much shows they have something to hide. Because when the truth finally washes these criminals from the scene both the Democratic and Republican parties will be buried so deep as to be equated with the Nazi Party.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM

  (0+)

He will not touch 911. Our only hope is that a Federal Grand Jury in White Plains, NY will wrap up its investigation in time to indict Bush as he departs the White House.

Sadly, I have not been able to get any additional information or update with regard to this GJ since the news broke about two years ago that it had convened for the purpose of investigating 911. 

Usually, grand jury investigations, though secret, are plagued with links and witnesses always have ulterior motives for telling what they told the panel. 

Not this time. I hope it didn't just disband amid no publicity. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:02:12 PM

  (0+)

by Larry Chin

     
In his much-ballyhooed acceptance speech, Barack Obama declared that he would "finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11". If Obama wishes to be true to his promise, he could begin with his own running mate, Senator Joe Biden.

Biden and the ISI chief

Biden was one of several top Washington officials who met with Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) on and around September 11, 2001.

The ISI is a foreign branch of the CIA. "Al-Qaeda" is a covert operation that is managed by Anglo-American military-intelligence. Ahmad, the "9/11 money man" who delivered funds to alleged lead suicide hijacker Mohammed Atta prior to the attacks, met personally with Biden on September 13, 2001.

This case, detailed in Michel Chossodovsky's Political Deception: Missing Link Behind 9/11, remains one of hundreds of smoking guns revealing direct US connections to 9/11, for which Biden has never provided a credible explanation.

Biden's tune has remained unchanged, to this day. He wants to "finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban", and (in language that appears to be the new neoliberal "talking point") "take out the ones who actually attacked us on 9/11".

The fact that Biden and McCain, two major shills for the "war on terrorism" lie, are vying for White House power speaks for itself.

When recently confronted by an independent journalist about his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmad, Biden offered a series of non-sequitors, and then had his security guards escort the inquiring individual away.

Biden the insider

Dirty politics and back-door deals are nothing new for Biden, the perfect neoliberal establishment insider who has made a career of opportunism, obstruction, 

BIDEN, the senator of Delaware, the largest tax haven for corporations in the US, has played a key role in virtually every major US policy decision over the past two decades. Every military conflict. Supreme Court confirmations. Cabinet confirmations. Judiciary appointments. Congressional probes (cover-ups) of major political scandals.

Biden, a longtime Council on Foreign Relations stalwart, is a leading architect of "Homeland Security". He considers his "national security credentials" to be "unimpeachable".

Joe Biden and his longtime Senate colleague and war criminal/Keating Five "friend" McCain are as responsible for the current world crisis as anyone else alive.

Obama's bombastic deception

If Barack Obama genuinely wishes to "take out" those who "actually attacked us" on 9/11, he would "take out" the legions of elite sponsors who have made his own rise to power possible.

He could begin with his own foreign policy guru, super-elite Zbigniew Brzezinski, the virtual creator of Islamic terrorism during the Carter administration, who suggested that a Pearl Harbor-like attack, a "massive and widely perceived external threat" would be useful; the man whose vision of "American primacy" and destablization across the Eurasian "Grand Chessboard" has been a lifelong obsession.

Obama might also "take out" the Clintons, and other neoliberal bigwigs supporting his campaign, given the fact that they were instrumental in sowing the seeds of 9/11 throughout the 1990s. Obama should "take out" members of Bush-Cheney, and members of Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies, and a worldwide legion of covert operatives, policy advisors, think tank figures (Project for a New American Century, etc.), and oil executives who "lit the match". He might also tell the truth about the global war for oil.

Obama, of course, will do nothing of the sort. 

Obama will do nothing. He will leave intact the abomination of the Patriot Act, permit illegal surveilliance, torture and renditions. He will endorse the cover-up of the 9/11 Commission, and deepen the militarization of the US homeland.

The winner of the 2008 election: the Big Lie

 Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del) said, "Let me tell you something, fellas. The folks don't care. The average American could care less right now about any of this. You keep talking about public concern. There ain't none."

Today, Bush-Cheney and the respective presidential campaigns hold the people of the world in even greater contempt.

The election is already over.

 the classic neoliberal establishment deception of Obama-Biden?

The "Big Lie" comes with both.
 

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM

  (0+)

of the lie that is 9/11. It is the lynch-pin to all that will fall in it's wake. Every corrupt politician, greedy industrialist, perverted banker, media propagandaist and ancient power-mad dynasty will crumble.

Do to Hurricane Gustav I've been in exile in the deep hills of Tennessee staying with my sister and her husband, and let me tell you, this part of the country couldn't be any more fooled by our whole phony political system. But when 9/11 is exposed, and I say when, because I just can't help but believe that it will, this isn't the Kennedy killings, 9/11 was so blatant and sloppy, there are just so many holes, witnesses and evidence, to possibly keep it covered like they have in the past for me to believe that it won't, and when it does, the outrage these people are going to feel will rip through the halls of the elites with such a fury that the Obama's and Biden's won't have a chance to defend themselves - mainly because there is no defence. How can anyone in power possibly explain they're in the dark about 9/11 when any lay-person can gather enough evidence in one afternoon to convince them it was an inside job? After all, isn't it their job to be politically in-tune? The same of course goes double for MSM. How can you call yourself a "news organization" and completely miss the biggest crime of all time?  

It's been interesting, my sister being as straight an arrow as there is and her husband, who is ex-Naval intel are getting a crash-course education on 9/11 from me. At first they were totally not interested, but now after 4 DVD's and the inability of me to keep my mouth shut, they've gone from "that's bull-sh*t", to curious. And that's all one has to do is get someone looking into it and from there it takes on a life of its own.

Today my brother-in-law asked that if this is truly an inside job, what can we do about it? He understood that neither party will expose this because they'd have to both be part of it. This is a huge step for a man that just a few days ago was talking Palin's praises.

It's going to happen, but as I explained to him, it can't happen fast enough. The cretins that pulled-off 9/11 are still in power and they are well aware of the steam the 9/11 movement is picking up and that because of this it might be the most dangerous times we face, because before they allow themselves to be held accountable they'll scorch this Earth.

We live in interesting times, and we will live to see this played out, because whatever is going to happen is going to happen sooner rather than later.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:11:17 PM

  (0+)

I  reach the conclusion that those who conducted 9/11, did it in a way to cast doubt on what was to be the official story.  They want those who can think to figure it out.  The weakest link in it's being an inside job was that these people are smarter than this.  So it must be true that they want us to know they did it, and the fact that DRG can get his books published and distributed w/o any problem indicates this is true. 

One reason of course is they want us to fear them.  Fear is a great weapon of the elite, and who could not fear a government that would allow or even do 9/11 and then cover it up or ignore all the evidence that has come out.  The Tasers we see repeatedly and handling of the demonstrations just adds to this.  So they got the right terrorized over Al Qaeda, and the left terrorized of their own government (some of them anyways).  Terror for everyone, financial, health, whatever.  They feed on it.

There is another reason of course.  So they can know who questions the official version.    People who can reason and think and resist the propaganda are the greatest danger to those who would impose a Totalitarian regime. Look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc, they all go after the intellectuals and others who would dare to question authority.  In the age of the internet, they can find out who you are much more easily.

The Police state apparatus is in place, so they are not scared of anyone.  It started with Jimmy Carter and FEMA with the bogus TMI accident (sabotage) on it's first day of operation to terrorize people and turn them off nuclear power so as to protect the Petrodollar , and continued through the Clinton years, but it has accelerated and become legalized under Bush over these past 7 years. 

People will not face this truth, they are too fearful, and the elite know this.   But in studying history, I find 9/11 as horrible as it seems to us today, is not without precedent and pales in comparison to many crimes against humanity which did not get live television coverage.  Most genocides and holocausts, and the wars over the last century or two,  were planned by people of the same ilk as who did 9/11. 

Evil floats to the top (the dumb ones in the lower classes get caught in the prison industrial complex).  There are no laws at the top of the food chain.  We are just beasts to them, not worth of being called human, the laws are made for us to protect them. 

Maybe ignorance is bliss after all.  Revolutions never start from the bottom, it is always organized by an opposing power from the top (internal or external).  Unfortunately, under the guise of Globalization, the elite are essentially united globally, so there is no opposing power to rile the masses.   Even in 1776 it is said no more than 5% of the population took part in the Revolution, and it's leaders were virtually all Freemasons as the American revolution like the French revolution was driven by the Illuminati. 

They may not agree on everything, but they do agree that " it's us (them) vs them (us)", so anything that gives us more power over them is not going to happen.  

So a world in which there is a Democracy and government that looks after the general welfare of it's people is history, and has been for some time.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:29:40 PM

  (0+)

Bill Christison is quoted:  "We must force the Bush administration to discuss it."

Who is "We"? 

The so-called opposition (Democrats) cannot forget the charge that they do not "support our troops," no matter to what treacherous tasks "our troops" have been assigned.

What else is there?  The people?  Too many are still unaware.  Yet more choose to affirm their partisan persuasion above the compelling need to examine what is happening.

Perhaps the "We" will ultimately be history, the American electorate lacking the awareness or the intelligence, and the political opposition lacking the integrity and courage.

People tell me that I am angry, and that anger never accomplishes anything.  But they are wrong -- I am fuggin' outraged!  And other than history, only more outrage from the people ourselves -- betrayed by our political choices of whatever persuasion -- will deliver us the truth.

Sadly, we have and will get what we deserve, and mind you, there is more to come!

by Rafe Pilgrim (63 articles, 0 quicklinks, 19 diaries, 84 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:37:32 AM

  (0+)

There is no history. If there is one thing g. w. bush said that was both chilling and true about his ilks cause was when asked about how history would view his legacy he answered, "History?, Who cares? We'll all be dead."

And indeed it is the Lucifarians view that they will leave this Earth devoid of life.

You are right to be out-raged. I hear it all the time that if I would just calm down more people would listen. But how does one remain calm about 9/11? How do you discuss the murder of 3,000 people and watch those that perpetrated this crime use it to kill millions more and not be passionate? We're not discussing the price of tomatoes here.

But we're not the only ones angry. Those that are still caught in the matrix have anger ingrained in them and fined tuned by psych-ops masters of deceit, (MoD) and that anger is directed by said masters to be used against anyone but them. The n-words and Jews of yesteryear, become the Towel-headed A-rabs of today, and the Russians are back to being our "Godless Commies" of yesterday. But the problems remain the same. And the lower-middle class and middle-class are starting to feel the squeeze of the elites pincher's. The MoD are flailing about now trying to direct that anger, and are having only measured success keeping that anger under control.

And indeed, in the Art of War, to use one's anger against them means you expend less energy and get more done.

So what I do now is listen first.

Let me repeat that.

Listen first.

Every one has some anger about something now and it will surface. It could be the price of gas, crime, whatever, so sit back and wait, it won't take long, and ask, as though you really want to know, "what do you think is causing that?"

And than do something amassing, listen again.

They're going to blame someone, not themselves, but someone, or thing. Let them rant.

Then ask,"How many political parties have they had a choice to choose from all their adult life?"

"Two"

"Why vote for either one of them?"

The idea is to direct that anger. It's there. But as people with knowledge it is our job to convey that knowledge to break people out of the matrix first without in their minds having to take sides in that the left/right paradigm trap set for them. Once the idea that it might be something else besides just this or that, right or left, n-word or Jew, but perhaps the very people that have been in charge for the past 10, 20, 30 or so years, no matter what "party" things have gotten worse, they're anger is bigger, and neither party is doing a thing about it.

If you pull come out with "9/11 inside job" right off the bat you can get pigeon-holed fairly easily, but once you find that common enemy, you can direct their anger against those that need it directed to.

Try it sometime. This advice mostly works in one on one or small group situations, with mostly the not well informed, but if you can get one dye-hard caught in the matrix yahoo, they're worth a thousand so-called intellectuals.

Will any of this work? Does it mean we'll overcome and defeat these evil bastards?

Hell if I know? If the people in the so-called "heartland" are any example I'd have to say we might as well suck on a bullet now.

But what choice do we have when we staring at a future that will have no history?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:52:07 PM

  (0+)

And I’m not sure if it’s me, being not as intellectual as you, or you being too profound and/or vague. You’ve made some good, convincing points and you’ve got my attention but I don’t understand how you think we might best proceed.  Most of us are ignorant and brainwashed and fully indoctrinated into believing that a President of the United States could never intentionally murder 3000 of his own as an excuse to invade another country for its oil. And yet the evidence suggesting so is compelling and growing and the president’s inability and unwillingness to try to dissuade us is increasingly clear. In the meantime our representatives in congress and the mainstream media are proving to be incorrigibly unapproachable and complicit. Meek and leaderless. Everyone would like to get rid of the bad guys, but we can’t just lynch them or take to the streets and start robbing our shopping centers. To what end? We need the system, the judiciary, to tell us who the bad guys are. But the administration has already infiltrated and corrupted the judiciary. Now more than ever we need to come together but we are being held apart by the two party system that is supposed to unite us. I voted for Nader last time and I am temped to do so again even though the effects of having done so were disastrous. Still, he and Kucinich and Wexler are the only ones I trust, the only ones who stand up the rest. Would it not be better to do this in stages, i.e. at least get the opposition party in place and work from there to improve matters, seek justice on 9/11, undo the patriot act, etc?

by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:07:37 AM

  (0+)

Excellent new material comes out now and then. Some has been created to enlighten the reader about what can be deduced from the recent NIST report on WTC 7. Here is a short video (9 min) which encapsulates the complete argument. It is well worth watching for education, regardless of which side you are on.

And here is another short video which provides more enlightenment in a different way. Well worth the brief time it takes.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:19:21 AM

  (0+)

I think none of us should assume that ANY 'Flights' flew that day, not ending at Shansville, nor Pentagon nor Manhattan etiher, weird as it may sound to many - but see Morgan Reynolds logical and physics based critique - What Planes? - and also see the amazing September Clues series of short videofakery analyses of the 'coverage' that day. Phoney 'eye-witnesses' planted, but only dots on screens interposed in real time or in subsequent 'lucky finds' - see also 9/11 Amateur series.

Also Len, please check out Judy Wood's reasons for disbelieving the molten metal story of the thermite believers.  She charges faked photos and reports by the FEMA controlled ground crew and hearsay by approved visitors. But if there was molten metal in the basement, how come now huge steam explosions as soon as (from Day 1) they started to hose the site down ? see www.drjudywood.com and www.checktheevidence.com

 UNless we wise up to videofakery in real time and to Directed Eenergy Weapons they can pull such stunts again in the future, e.g. Lockheed Martin hs begun (post Georgia invasion) to boast of how they can zap/fry stuff froma huge distance and do so with no one knowing who did it. Suppose we are shown real/fake satellite footage of Russian tanks approaching Tiblisi and then some vital installations or planes or tanks are zapped with DEW ...... wouldn't most people add 2 and 2 = 4 but really they will have been duped.

 Of course we are all on the same side for prosecution/truth commisisons but we must not suppress truth concerns for tactics of getting an inquiry (by whom, on what basis?) because people need the knowledge of DEW, No Planes and Videofakery right now!

(or at least begin the process of learning, e.g. learning not to sneer, begin to overcome amazement (no time like th present) or else the elite can always steer us into divisions through our personal contempt and fear systems which stop us calmly investigating and discussing together as citizens becoming finally ready for freedom and equality)

Peace!

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM

  (0+)

I'm sorry, but I think you are being conned by Wood and Fetzer.  I am a film professional and the "video fakery" you suggest simply is not possible.  Neither are directed energy weapons of such magnitude. If you rebut me, please include cited and available facts.  There are also more than a few witnesses who saw airplanes.  Please don't say they were holograms, McCain and Palin are funny enough and my sides are hurting pretty badly already.

by Cassie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM

  (0+)

Two key 'witnessess' could not have seen both Flight 77 AND whatever it was that struck the Pentagon. Whatever struck the Pentagon would have passed behind them IF they had, in fact, seen a 757. The  flight data released by NTSB indicates [FOIA] Flight 77 was on a trajectory that differed from that of whatever struck the Pentagon by some 20 degrees; see the analysis of NTSB flight data by qualified pilots and computer experts here.  

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM

  (0+)

in this article: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths. That type of video fakery certainly is possible. Technology Review Magazine even reported on its use as specifically for the purpose of altering world politics by inserting CGIs on the evening news.

The "truth movement" has really got to "wake up" to the facts. There were no plane crashes at any of the four "crash sites".  None. That includes the World Trade Center.

No one reported the deafening sound of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting the tower at full throttle. There were First Responders, however, who saw planes, but specifically reported hearing "nothing". Have you seen the Washington Post article detailing the military's PSYOPS hologram program?

Everything in the above paragraphs is linked to the source in Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths. Take a look.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM

  (0+)

If you are conducting a real investigation you should take nothing for granted and assume nothing. That includes verifying that planes did actually hit. If energy weapons had something to do with this, we are in deep poo-poo. Nobody's going to be able to prove it and nobody's going to believe it. But if this is really something you would like to research, I would suggest looking for the wtcufo videos that came out shortly after 9/11. There were about 3 movies going around from 3 different angles, and three different reporters, that showed what looked like UFO's flying by the trade center at the moment it was hit. One of them hovered for a long time in one spot and then just as the plane was about to crash it flew by at an exceptional speed. These videos have been removed from websites over the years and that Sci-Fi fake one has spread around so much that it's very hard to find these more credible ones. I saved them and might even be able to find them if you are interested.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:13:01 AM

  (0+)

It took me awhile, but I'm sure everyone will think it was worth the wait.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnhuKKl5Fvw

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:05:30 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:50:23 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for posting this vid....I had seen it once before.

Clearly --there were PLANTS whose job it was the PLANT the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY theory from the get go. 

And the interesting thing is how this guy managed to fool the editors back at the station. He was not convincing and it is obvious that he's just repeating talking points. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:32:17 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:09:33 AM

  (0+)

Just watched the documentary "In Plane Sight" (no that's not a typo), and I tell you - there's something very rotten in Denmark.

NORAD HAD to have been given stand down orders on the Pentagon "plane" - there is no other explanation!

No commercial jetliner looks like the ones that hit  the buildings - commercial jets have smooth bellies.

We may all be much older and grayer before this crime comes out in the open - officially-  instead of being relegated to being the theories of nuts and radicals.  And by then most people won't care any more - look at past CIA/US military operations that have come to light - no accountability for thousands killed, and America yawned. As long as the brainwashing and indoctrination of our youth into worshipping our military from an early age continues, the American people will continue to not see the truth when it's right in front of their face. 

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:11:36 AM

  (0+)

Some key 'points' with regard to the Pentagon.

A 757 weighs about 100 tons. Unless Bush has managed to repeal the laws of the conservation of matter and energy, an airliner of some 100 tons will leave behind 100 tons of debris in ANY disaster short of a nuclear weapon! 

Secondly, a 757 has TWO rather large engines; both are made of STEEL in order to burn kerosene (jet fuel). If a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon, BOTH of those engines would have survived a fire that would NEVER have been hotter than the combustion INSIDE the airliner engine. 

Thirdly, ONLY ONE engine was found. The ROTOR from the engine was photographed beisde a man of about six feet. The ROTOR was about ONE THIRD the size of a 757 engine.

It has been said that airliner debris 'vaporized! In fact, NONE of it would have vaporized! If there had been two such engines, two such engine would have been found. ONLY ONE was found and it was about one third the size of a 757 engine. 

NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) flight data indicates that at some 273 feet, flight 77 COULD NOT have crashed into the Pentagon. 

NTSB flight data also indicates that Flight 77 was not only TOO HIGH (at 273 feet) it was on the wrong trajectory to have damaged the poles that were said to have been damaged by whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon. 

That means that either 1) Flight 77 managed to strike the Pentagon from two directions and two altitudes at the very same INSTANT (IMPOSSIBLE) or 2) while 757 was about 200 feet above the Pentagon roof, something else (something smaller with a wide wing span) swooped down LOW, damaged the poles, scooted across the lawn and struck the Pentagon just like the little fuzzy gif that was released.

But whatever that 'something' was, it was NOT Flight 77. 

Since a rotor, about one third the size of a 757 rotor was, in fact, photographed on the lawn, I would suspect that whatever struck the Pentagon was a remote controlled craft that uses a Rolls-Royce engine with a rotor that is, in fact, about one third the size of a 757. Such a craft would have left among the wreckage only ONE such rotor. In fact, only ONE such rotor was found. That's because whatever hit the Pentagon only had ONE such rotor. A 757 can be ruled out. A 757 has two engines and both are about three times the size of whatever left a single rotor behind. 

The US has a craft that could have done precisely what appears was done! It is called the Global Hawk, manufactured by Northrup-Grumman.  There's a pic of the craft here! The Air Force has removed its data sheet that had been here! There are several pics here!  Here is the Data Sheet from Northrup-Grumman.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:45:53 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:09:32 PM

  (0+)

It may be NEW to you...but it's not new! The information I cited IS what you insist upon calling the 'Black Box'.

I've seen FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS AND THEY ARE NOT BLACK! This data clearly indicates that after takeoff, Flight 77 NEVER dropped below 273 feet!


1) There is, in fact, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Hani was ever on board.

2) In fact, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that ANY of the said hijackers were ever on Flight 77.

None of their names show up on the ONLY official document that would be admissible in court: the OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE CORONER. [A 'flight manifest' is not 'official evidence'; besides numerous 'flight manifests' have just been typed up AFTER THE FACT in order to shore up the official theory. But that is NOT EVIDENCE that might be put before a grand jury or introduced in court. ]

3) Based upon Flight data, Flight 77 COULD NOT have damaged the poles; it was too high and on a trajectory that differed by some 20 degrees a trajectory that would have damaged the poles.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:41:42 AM

  (0+)

I agree with an article I read on this site some months ago. ALL politicians, Government employees, civil servants ARE COMPLISET IN 9/11 IF THEY HAVENT SPOOKEN OUT about these treasonous crimes. That goes double for Obama, Mcbushane and everyone in the MSM.

by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 466 comments [68 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:25:38 AM

  (0+)

will pass a "bill" making Treason okay if its done by the POTUS..just like they have every other criminal activity this administration has undertaken...no wonder Nancy can't "find" any crimes that Bush has committed....(she and the rest of them, Obama included, would just make them legal any way)

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM

  (0+)

RE:  Aubrey...

That's called begging the question (or just plain lying)

NO ...that is NOT called begging the question. Look it up. I don't think you understand what begging the question is.

Both black boxes from AA 77 were also recovered,

It's the black box data that I have cited! My article is based on the black box data. It was released in response to an FOIA request. I have that data from the beginning of the flight to end.

Hate to burst your bubble there, sport, but thousands of people witnessed the plane debris and bodies at each of those crash sites, many of them first responders and other civilians. 96% of UA 93 was recovered, along with both black boxes, and most of the passengers were identified through DNA.

Hate to burst your bubble sport ---but the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] didn't say that the black box was reovered among the wreckage.

An airliner of 100 tons will leave behind 100 tons of wreckage. Show me! Prove it! Bush put forward a theory! Those who assert must prove! If you support Bush's theory, PROVE IT!

SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE!

If there had been that much wreckage, one wouldn't have to rely upon the unreliable assessment of witnesses in a state of shock. An airliner of some 100 tons will leave behind 100 tons of debris. Unless you and your buddy Bush have figured out a way to repeal the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Both black boxes from AA 77 were also recovered, and every passenger on it except the hijackers and one infant was ID'd through DNA.

Cite it! Post it! I have a copy of the ORIGINAL, OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT from Flight 77. There is not a single Arab name on it!

And if you're STUPID enough to think that the FDR was planted, but the "conspirators" could figure out how to put the right altitude in it, you're beyond hope.

Strawman fallacy! You attribute positions to me that I have not taken. Secondly, you have failedc to address ANY issue I have raised.

I posted NTSB flight data [black box].  Flight 77 could NOT possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. According to the data, as 'something' was crashing into the Pentagon, Flight 77 was still about 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon. 

DOES BUSH'S STUPID THEORY EXPLAIN THAT???? NO!

Had 77 CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON, it would have left behind some 100 tons of debris. It didn't!!! 

No one of any credibility whatsoever is stupid enough to believe that 100 tons of debris was ever at any time recovered from the Pentagon. Also ---recovered from the Pentagon was ONE  --and ONLY ONE --engine rotoer. It was about ONE THIRD the size of the the rotor that is found inside the engines of a 757. 

Would you have me belive that the second rotor 'vaporized' as was once said of all the missing debris? Are YOU that STUPID?

Because of the way FDRs record, there are no readable frames for the last 2-3 seconds before a severe crash disables them, and at the rate of descent of Flt. 77, and at 800 fps, the 273' altitude figure is correct. You "no-plane" nuts are pathetic. Jeezus, nitwit, do you think that both frickin' airlines

That statement is simply misinformed and contradicts one of only two almost useless photos that were relased.

1) you are wrong --it's NOT 3 seconds. Experienced pilots and computer experts concluded that the time lag was about one half a second, TWO SECONDS at most;

2) experienced pilots say that even if it was the full TWO, an experienced pilot COULD NOT POSSIBLY have dropped 100 tons of airliner from 273 feet to within a foot to a yard of the Pentagon lawn and THEN level it for a crash within a period of one half a second to two seconds at most! 

CLUE: NO ONE COULD HAVE PULLED OFF THAT MANEUVER!!!!

HANI HANJOUR, who could not fly Cessanas competently, who trained on a simulator, most certainly COULD NEVER HAVE PULLED THAT OFF! And there is no evidence that even places Hani Hanjour at the scene of the crime! NONE as in NADA ....AS IN ZIP! 

the NTSB and the FAA were all in on the "conspiracy" too?

I'm citing NTSB data! What makes you think I'm including them in a conspiracy. Facts are facts. The conspiracist is Bush who put forward the most outlandish theory of them all. Moreover, it's a STUPID theory and STUPID people have fallen for it. Bush's officicial conspiracy theory explains absolutely NOTHING and raises many more issues than it expains. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:03:02 PM

  (0+)

... with Mr. Notsobright, you're way above this Mr. Murphy wannabe.

Things are moving faster and wasting time on those that come to these sights to slow us down with their diatribes isn't worth it. If they haven't been convinced by the time they've gotten to this site that 9/11 was an inside job, they're either too stupid to ever "get it", or worse, and in either case they aren't worth the effort.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:54:24 PM

  (0+)

with Mr. Notsobright, you're way above this Mr. Murphy wannabe. It's the price we have paid for having neglected science (and/or math/logic) in school. In Texas, EVERY CHILD GOT LET BEHIND! Thanks to Bush, Texas beat out Mississippi for DEAD LAST in education. Things are moving faster and wasting time on those that come to these sights to slow us down with their diatribes isn't worth it. If they haven't been convinced by the time they've gotten to this site that 9/11 was an inside job, they're either too stupid to ever "get it", or worse, and in either case they aren't worth the effort. Exactly! Bush may run into problems after leaving office. A Federal Grand Jury is investigating 911 and Bush's involvement in it. There are also several groups and a law school putting together a war crimes indictment. And there are several European groups who are organized to provide Bush transportation to The Hague! I also understand that Bush's Nazi getaway in Paraquay may have fallen through! When he leaves office, Bush may, literally, have no place to run, no place to hide from process servers and NUMEROUS indictments --some for the capital crimes that he has most certainly committed. He'll need much better lawyers than the Two Stooges --John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:37:23 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM

  (0+)

I think that's proof enough that the IVY LEAGUE has lowered their standards. Also Little Bush attended Harvard and Yale and he is just marginally more intelligent than Ms. A. Smith.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:31:26 PM

  (0+)

On going now for a long time. I hope that you and all of the other patriots who dilligently spend their time on this, provide all the information to and/or attend the following:

http://war-crimes.info/

 Thank you from the bottom of my heart and soul.

by Kahnaya Wasahtoha (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:45:35 PM

  (0+)

Good luck.  I and many others are convinced that our elected representative government  are determined to continue in the 911 scam, the Patriot Act and the "War on Terror" as it does provide comfortable backchannel corporate rewards for the supposed representatives.  Beats the money they get working for the sheeple.  Take both, and get away with it, while the we get less.   9-11 was not allowed to happen, it was US made to happen, and the so called "chatter" of the AlQaeda was CIA created noise.  Anyone that has looked knows that the WTC buildings came down through a very well planned expert demolition, as shown in very many videos taken while it happened.  Sure, the Pentagon lied to the Co-chairs of the Commission, and the commission knew it at the time, the commission intentionally overlooked very many of the obvious things they should not have.  Why did they not insist on proper interiew with Bush and Cheney, both had a lot to gain from 9-11, yet were never really questioned on any of their suspicious activites.  Like to add that Hamilton was also used in another government scam, where he was used to soften the impact of the tyranny of the Iran/Contra treason, for easy public consumption, and the crimes of our governent were never really substantially dealt with, and probably still go on routinely yet today due to the "help" of Hamiliton(former D-IN).  The intent of the 9-11 commission was little different.   Just another scam to cover a scam.

by Philip Dennany (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:03:48 PM

  (0+)

"I am also an esperienced journalist with more than thirty years major market and network experience. I've covered crashes from airliners to fighter jets. Guess what! I have NEVER seen any crash of any size at any speed less than that of LIGHT that did not leave behind as much wreckage as it had mass before the crash." -- Len Hart

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:23:32 PM

  (0+)

People like you never cease to amaze me, Alan Williams. Few people have actually visited the Pentagon crash site or Shankesville and spoken directly to officials. For one thing, officials have made it clear that they will answer no significant questions about 9/11, supposedly for "security reasons". Most of rely on a variety of media sources. Provide we are prepared to research diligently and honestly such "research" is perfectly acceptable. The conceit and condescension of those who would attack critics of the official 911 theory never ceases to amaze me. We had another regular government shill, Roark Howard, who used to advance questions just like yours. And -- just like you -- Roark [you just gotta love the Ayn Rand touch!] -- commented all over opednews on everything 9/11. You're not related, are you? I'll put to you the same questions I put to Roark Howard:

Did you weigh out the debris of Fl 93?  Did you walk around with the investigators at Shankesville? Did you interview every witness personally? Do you wear a helicopter hat?

You assume that it is critics of the official theory who must provide an explanation. But neither in logic, law, science or morality is this the case. In the law, as in science, it is those who assert a claim who have to prove it. So it is the official theory that requires evidentiary justification. The American people are fully entitled to know what happened to Fl 93. Standard investigations by the NTSB and FAA were forbidden by the Bush adminstration and most of the relevant evidence has been concealed. There are significant evidence discrepancies that need to be answered. It is possible to politely disagree, even respect, those supporters of the official theory who bring evidence to their arguments and who argue sincerely. You don't fit into that category. It is not for some superficial critic like you to tell the American people what they can and can't know about the events of 911.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:02:04 AM

  (0+)

I really like the Existential Cowboy … but my view is that the issues discussed in this article are too contentious and the evidence for ‘no plane’ is not compelling to me. 

As far as the Shanksville crash.… there apparently was a great deal of debris … just not in the ‘hole’. The german news team observing the site from a helicopter report and they show on their video, debris extending along and about for miles. 

Clearly the government lied about that plane’s demise and their story about the ‘let roll’ passengers, likely bogus.

Regarding the Pentagon … Mike Ruppert called it long ago … a honey pot. And Jim Hoffman’s analysis is the most credible (shows pretty clearly that there was damage/debris commensurate with a hit by an airliner. Regardless of the flight path as postulated. And the movie, ‘In Plane Sight’ has credibly been argued to contain significant disinfo.

There is so much evidence of complicity and involvement by, at least some in our government and elsewhere across the whole spectrum of events that day and leading up to it … and subsequent to it that I always wonder when the Pentagon (in particular) is focused upon. 

As far as other physical events issues, the WTC 1, 2, and 7 destructions have much more substantial evidence supporting the demolition hypothesis (regardless of the JREF-ers and Pentagon ‘Information Operation Roadmap’ operatives who occasionally come here to spew disinfo). But even those astounding events need not be a focus. ALL of the many events of that day (with some of that very credibly presented in Jason Bermas’ ‘Fabled Enemies’ documentary) provide the real grist for the mill.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:41:50 PM

  (0+)

And the movie, 'In Plane Sight' has credibly been argued to contain significant disinfo. I appreciate your comments, but, with all due respect, my article is not based in any way on the film you mentioned. I haven't even seen it! My position is that it is simply fallacious to ASSUME that an airliner struck the Pentagon upon mere assertions to that effect by the Bush administration. 1) If a 757 had struck the Pentagon, it would have left behind about 100 tons of debris. I believe that the debris recovered was but a small fraction of that! But --that's NOT THE POINT! The point is, none of that debris was ever weighed, traced or examined! TWA 800, for example, was very nearly re-built! No such attempt was made at the Pentagon. 2) It is Bush who asserted a theory! It is Bush who must prove it! It is simply fallacious to ASSUME that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and especially so when the BLACK BOX DATA never indicates an altitude below 273 feet after take off! It's up to Bush to explain that discrepancy if he wishes us to believe his absurd and outlandish theory.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:30:14 AM

  (0+)

I am the author Damien referred to in Len's article (I also post as kenj on occasions). I am not claiming that no plane crashed at Shankesville, just that a smaller plane or missile did so. There are at least three witnesses who have insisted that the plane was smaller than a 757-200. The hole is only 75 feet wide and the plane was 128 feet wide. I invite you to check out some of the links in the above article.

I don't subscribe to the "no plane" or holograms theories. I don't think the evidence supports those claims. Clearly, there were aircraft of some type. What is in question is what aircraft exactly?

Remember, neither the FBI or the NTSB undertook any steps to confirm the actual identities of any of the planes allegedly involved in 911.

In Aug 2006 a Russian plane, almost identical in size to Fl93, crashed in Siberia. They recovered 140 bodies and huge amounts a debris. But nothing like that at Shankesville. 

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:16:14 AM

  (0+)

Great post, Ken.

Of course --something crashed into the Pentagon! But it was NOT Flight 77. 

And you are correct, some eyewitnesses COULD NOT have seen what they said they saw. Other reported seeing something OTHER THAN a 757. In fact, one of the first reports I saw that day were witnesses describing a small craft. 

I cannot prove but suspect that the 'craft' was a Global Hawk. The Air Force has pulled it's internet page re: the Hawk. But there is plenty of specs etc at the Northrup/Grumman site. 

A hawk explains the lack of airliner debris, the fact that only one rotor was found etc. Too bad the wreckage was carted off and presumably destroyed. There might have been enough to have re-assembled it! 

But, if Bush is culpable (and I believe he is), re-assembling the HAWK is the LAST THING that he would want and he would most certainly NOT order that such a thing be done. 

A HAWK means: INSIDE JOB! 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:39:40 AM

  (0+)

 As the economic collapse begins to effect more and more people, the questions of why we went to war will become more common. It is self-evident that the expenditures on the emperial conquest has bankrupt the nation. People will need to find a reason for their suffering and will focus attention on the war, and the rational for going to war.

 There is no Criminal Statute of Limitation for murder.  http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:04:56 PM

  (0+)

Let's remember that the impact point at the Pentagon was the Contract Audit Division of the Pentagon the day after Rumsfeld announced 1 Trillion dollars of unaccounted for spending that couldn't be tracked down. I always remember what Sherlock Holmes used to say:

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth.

by Ishmael1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:10:08 PM

  (0+)

It will blow your mind. It's about 75 pages printed out and I am not even done reading it all but I can't forget what John Lear STATES this all was. Holograms.

Here's the site, enjoy (and he does speak of the planes "impossible altitute" to fly into buildings at the speed they claim). Go read and find out how knowledgeable this man is and how he knows so much (he's part of the invention crew). It's an interview.

THERES NO DEBRII except some cessna pieces and all 3 flights WERE NOT cessnas!! Again, it will blow your mind. It's up to you if you believe it or not. Read the 75 pages and then we will talk.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:01:35 PM

  (0+)

I don't have a PhD, but I'm an engineer and the story does not wash from any angle. Evidence that might prove the Story true has been destroyed, remains secret or simply doesn't exist. The financial evidence is all over the place.

How can you argue with people who think a jet fuel fire can vaporize the same titanium engine that burns jet fuel for 30 years without deformation?

How can you argue with people who think the unprecented collapse of building 7 due to fire is unremarkable?

How can you argue with people who actually think that NORAD cannot scamble a jet to defend the Pentagon?

You can't. They must be really scared. Still, they cannot possibly be as scared as the despicable cowards who perpetrated this attack on innocent civilians.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:45:43 PM

  (0+)

Great post, Jack! You summed up the FATAL holes in Bush's outlandish theory.

That so many people were fooled dramatizes the NEED to improve science education at all levels of public education.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:20:58 AM

  (0+)

You can't. They must be really scared. Still, they cannot possibly be as scared as the despicable cowards who perpetrated this attack on innocent civilians.

Some have sought refuge in Pakistan, and some have been captured or killed, and there is no evidence that any of them were in the US government. Care to post a link proving that any official claim was ever made that a plane engine or any titanium vaporized on 9/11, or do you just like straw men? 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM

  (0+)

"Care to post a link proving that any official claim was ever made that a plane engine or any titanium vaporized on 9/11, or do you just like straw men?"

Neither. That is the explanation I have been given by intelligent and otherwise reasonable people who defend the Story after being shown the perfectly round hole on the inner walls of the Pentagon. They clam that it was caused by the aluminum fusilage which then vaporized. There are no holes, inner walls or outer walls, where the massive engines would be.

There is no evidence that any jet engines hit the Pentagon. No holes and no engines. Therefore, unless they vaporized - impossible under the conditions - there were no jet engines.

"there is no evidence that any of them were in the US government"

That is not even remotely true. There is actually quite a bit of evidence. Destruction of evidence (at WTC) is a crime, which was not committed by people who "fled to Pakistan."

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:32:29 PM

  (0+)

How many people were in on this "conspiracy"? You've just implicated American Airlines, the FAA, the NTSB, the FBI, FEMA, NIST, thousands of people at the crash sites, and all of the MSM, to name some of them. You obviously weren't at the Pentagon, are not an aviation inspector, and don't have the slightest idea what was found there. Why don't you contact some of the people who were actually there and find out what they really witnessed, instead of just making up your own facts? You're also not much of an "engineer" if you think 757s ramming concrete walls at ~500 mph leave the same shaped hole as 767s hitting an exterior like the WTC towers, with windows separated by closely-spaced, thin-walled, 14" square steel tubes wrapped in 1/10" aluminum. And if you think it would be even remotely possible to fake an enormous event like the crashing of a 757 with 64 people aboard into a large, fully-occupied office building, you're not even sane. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:20:51 AM

  (0+)

Your post is replete with straw men, red herrings and ad hominem. Congratulations. You're adept with logical fallacies, and that proves my point:

There is no point arguing with someone like you. 

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM

  (0+)

Here are some of the agencies whose members, unlike you and your fellow "no-plane" nuts, were actually at the Pentagon on or after AA 77 was flown into it on 9/11:

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

Feel free to enlighten them.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM

  (0+)

I never claimed there were no planes. That's another straw man.

Do you claim that jet engines were recovered at the Pentagon?

 Why don't you produce the survellience video that would prove it?

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:22:12 AM

  (0+)

I have already posted overwhelming evidence that AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, and your claim that something else did is absolutely ridiculous. I personally don't know exactly what happened to every piece of the plane, but it's as doubtful that the majority of both engines wasn't recovered as it is that the NTSB and American Airlines inspectors there wouldn't have noticed and reported it. Why don't you start contacting the people who were there, including those inspectors or the organizations they represented, to explain to them what they "really" saw in the Pentagon? I've given you plenty of information to help you do it.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM

  (0+)

Your "overwhelming evidence" features eyewitness testimony, which is widely considered a poor grade of evidence. Eyewitness testimony is subject to all sorts of voluntary and involutary tampering.

Except a few frames released by the Pentagon, the videos that we know exist were not released. Why is that? The most likely conclusion is that they do not reinforce the official story. Otherwise, why encourage these "crazy conspiracy theories?"

The few frames that were released show a vapor/exhaust trail only, maybe 20 feet above the ground, flying at over 500 mph (you can derive the minimum airspeed with simple geometry and trig).

Do you believe an inexperienced pilot flew a commercial airliner like that? I don't. Sorry, but it's virtually impossible. Plus there is no need for the pilot to make such a risky and difficult approach. The target is much better at a steeper angle.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:56:46 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:36:32 PM

  (0+)

"And how could you know what videos exist if they didn't release them?"

Aren't you familiar with the security cameras at the hotel and the gas station? The ones that were confiscated 15 minutes after the attack? This was reported right after the attack by employees of those establishments. Why would they make it up? Why was confiscating those videos a top priority? We're talking about the first 15 minutes. Don't you think the top priority would be "are any other attacks coming" and "is everybody getting needed medical assistance who needs it?"

"How would you apply simple geometry and trig to data recorded at 1 frame/sec for an object moving at ~800 fps, since it wouldn't record a "vapor/exhaust trail..." 

Sorry. I am not going to give you a lesson in arithmetic. All you need to do is look at the video released by the Pentagon and figure it out. If you need help, ask your local high school math teacher.

None of the 100+ people who saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon has ever reinforced your "theory" that a large airliner didn't fly into it. 

Not true. Didn't you see the news report where one TV journalist said it sounded or looked like a missle? That's a first person account, which you selectively claim is "overwhelming evidence." First person accounts are just not that reliable.

Just show us the videos from the gas station and the hotel. Go ahead and fake one up if you think it's so easy. I don't think it's so easy.

Want an example?

Side-by-side comparisons exist of two broadcast news videos of the WTC, taken from a helicopter. It was above the towers, looking down. You could see the roof. In one video, you could see the water and shoreline. In the other video, you could only see sky...

Every other detail was identical. Therefore, one of them was altered. Technically, fake videos are very easy to make, but getting every little detail right is extremely difficult.

Show us the video from the gas station and the hotel.

The flight recorded by those videos must agree with the black box data and radar data. I am sure you are familiar with this site: www.pilotsfor911truth.org. It has a laundry list of aviation and various professionals who are distinctly not "nuts".

The other evidence I claim is the picture of the inner Pentagon wall - the one with one hole. You claim it is a fake. A photo like that could be faked, but it was released very soon after the attack - and long before there was a '911 truth' movement.

That single hole was allegedly caused by an aluminum fusilage which allegedly vaporised. Meanwhile the two titanium engines caused no holes. One only needs a rudimentary knowledge of kinetic energy to appreciate the adsurdity of that claim, yet intelligent people make it in support of the Official Story.

The Official Story changes and adapts to fit the facts as they come in, which makes complete sense in the context of the false flag operation that PNAC claimed was necessary to muster public support for the war.

Evidence exists of intent to commit a crime by the very same people who were in charge at the time. They had the motivation, the opportunity and evidence exists that 9/11 was an inside job.

Is there proof? No. But it's definitely not a crazy, wacko claim. It's a very serious charge.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:49:06 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:37:44 PM

  (0+)

The hole was sufficient in width to accomodate both engines and the fuselage,

Not a chance. I saw the picture.

...which didn't vaporize prior to penetrating the walls, and the outer portions of the wings obviously sheared off;

obviously not true since there was no evidence of "sheared wings"

At 800 fps, the low-density, hollow tube and its contents were still extremely heavy, and at impact, its volume decreased greatly, resulting in a smaller, more dense mass of material still traveling at great speed into the walls. 

So you're saying aluminum compressed along the direction of travel, but didn't deform so it could punch through 12 brick walls? Then, after it was done punching through the brick walls, this super dense ring of aluminum magically vaporised, which is why no one has seen it.

And the engines?

The intelligent people who investigated this incident don't think it's absurd to conclude that it would breach concrete walls, so what do you know that they don't?

I am not being paid to cover this up.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:29:12 PM

  (0+)

I am not being paid to cover this up.

Cover what up? Were all of the first responders, firefighters, coroner's people, cleanup personnel, Pentagon workers, etc. being paid to cover something up? Jeezus, that's thousands of people who were right there at the scene and either don't know what they saw, or aren't saying, so that's one heck of a conspiracy. Have you contacted American Airlines to tell them that their $65 million plane may be OK, because its wreckage wasn't found there, and that their inspectors were all paid to cover up what was really found? How did both black boxes get there, or were they planted? And if so, doesn't anyone in the US government know the elevation of the point where the "missile" hit, since you or your pals have claimed that the FDR showed the wrong altitude, apparently unaware of the way they record data?   

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:31:14 PM

  (0+)

"The hole was sufficient in width to accomodate both engines and the fuselage"

Not even close. See for yourself:

click here

One (1) perfectly round hole, after punching through at least 6 brick walls, whatever-it-was it was not deformed. Therefore it was intact and moving fast enough to shear the bricks when it exited this wall.

Notice that there are no holes to the left or to the right where the wings (with engines) would be - if whatever-it-was had wings with engines.

So if the fusilage was moving fast enough to shear the bricks, why aren't the engines - which are much more massive - still moving?

What on earth can stop the jet engines but can't stop an aluminum airframe?

Nothing.

Does that hole look big enough to be a commercial airliner?

I don't think so.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:47:20 PM

  (0+)

This is absolute junk science and sophistry. There was an obstacle course of walls and poured concrete columns inside the Pentagon, and that picture is of the last wall that was penetrated. The hole could very well have not even been centered on the original trajectory, and there's no way of knowing from that one picture what actually went through the hole. I was referring to the entry hole in the exterior wall, and you'd need a lot more information than you have to derive any significance from that photo. There were investigators there with all of that information, and more training and education to interpret it than you have, so what are you saying? Were they all in on the conspiracy too, along with the airline that owned the plane, and the thousands of others who viewed the crash site, including those who removed the human remains and identified almost everyone on board? Your arguments are getting sillier by the minute.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:42:23 PM

  (0+)

The hole in the interior wall is round. The bricks are sheared. Whatever made that hole was not deformed or compressed. Aluminum does not compress. Cylindars do not compress. They either deform or they don't.

If the fusilage didn't deform, then it must've arrived intact, which it didn't.

If the fusilage did deform, then it couldn't have punched a perfectly round through several brick walls.

Commercial airplanes are not designed to punch through brick walls.

Commercial airplanes are not designed to maintain their shape on impact.

Commercial airplanes are not designed to hug the ground to hit ground targets.

Missiles are designed to do all of this things.

Let's see the videos from the hotel and the gas station.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21:59 PM

  (0+)

We see defenders of the Official Story are reduced to claiming the following:

"...the low-density, hollow tube and its contents were still extremely heavy, and at impact, its volume decreased greatly, resulting in a smaller, more dense mass of material still traveling at great speed into the walls. "

This explaination is simply self-contradictory.

Low density, hollow things (like aluminum fusilages) are not "extremely heavy" compared to high-density, comparitively "solid" things (like titanium jet engines)

If the volume decreased greatly, then the shape was surely deformed. Judging from the hole in the inner wall, the shape was deformed radially (concentrically) rather than axially (in the direction of travel). In essence, the fusilage "shrank" as it passed through the brick walls.

This is the transformation that would be necessary to turn a hollow fusilage into a better brick-shearing projectile, but I cannot imagine compressing a hollow metal tube- say 20 -50% radially without deforming the cross-section into a non-circular shape.

The force necessary to make a radial compression would have to be perpendicular to the direction of travel. Where did this force come from? Fusilages are not designed to collapse concentrically, and I do not believe the Pentagon has a defensive "force field" that acts on projectiles as they enter buildings.

"It's volume decreased greatly...still traveling at great speed"

So a force was present to sufficient alter the volume greatly, but did not alter the velocity. This defies Newton's Laws of Motion, and contradicts the initial claim that the fusilage is extremely heavy.

One cannot alter the shape of a heavy thing without transference of energy. The energy in question is kinetic, and since it would need to be expended, the projectile would have to slow down.

But because the bricks are sheared as the shape is passing through the last of the inner walls, I claim that whatever-it-was was still moving very quickly.

The physics and the evidence does not support the theory that a hollow aluminum tube was was magically deformed into a missile-like shape while it was passing through numerous brick walls and yet not slowing down appreciably.

This is only one example of the fanciful imagination required to defend the Official Story. I didn't make it up. The dufus who proposed it is on record and, unfortunately, the world is full of dufuses.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM

  (0+)

The fact that we can see that the bricks are neatly sheared, punched through, is evidence that they offered no concentric force. They simply gave up, gave way. They yielded.

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:13:59 AM

  (0+)

You are absolutely correct.  Certainly ---criticis of the Bush official conspiracy theory need assume NOTHING at all. There are, in fact, NO ASSUMPTIONS associated with any critcism of the official 911 fairy tale. 

 NOT ONLY was the hole in the front much, much, much, too small to have accomodated a 757, there was a PUNCH HOLE out inside the inner ring. 

 EVEN IF one belived a 757 could have somehow SQUEEZED into a tiny hole out front --how did it managed to SQUEEZE out of an even smaller hole in the inner ring?

The official conspiracy theory does not even address the EXISTENCE of the inner hole; it most certainly DOES NOT and cannot explain it! 

There are phots of the hole, the inner 'court yard', the debris. There is NOTHING among the debris that could account for the hole. 

I challenge Bush conspiracists to PRODUCE A SHRED OF WRECKAGE that would account for that hole that is consistent with Bush's 'official conspiracy theory'. 

Of course --to be expected --the inner hole in the inner ring has NEVER been explain consistent with the official conspiracy theory.

Until it is, the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, must be discarded as false, which, of course, it is.l 

The official conspiracy theory is utter bullshit, a pack of lies. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:39:12 AM

  (0+)

 EVEN IF one belived a 757 could have somehow SQUEEZED into a tiny hole out front --how did it managed to SQUEEZE out of an even smaller hole in the inner ring?

Before applying your (half) vast engineering skills to the forensics at the AA 77 crash site, why don't you actually try to learn something about it? The hole in the inner ring was way too small for a 757 to have gone through, but who in the world claimed that it did? And when are you going to contact American with the good news about their plane, now that you've done all of this "research"?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM

  (0+)

"...but who in the world claimed that it did?"

Most defenders of the official consiracy story maintain that the hole was make by an airplane, dispite a complete late of photographic or video evidence.

Critics of the official consiracy story observe that the independently observable evidence indicates it was a missile.

If a plane didn't make that interior hole, what did? (according to your "experts"?)

Please clarify: are you suggesting that the hole on the inside and the hole on the outside were made by different projectiles?

by Jack Flanders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 2:24:00 PM

  (0+)

The real smoking gun on the Pentagon is not what hit it, but that DC was undefended so long after the 2nd WTC Tower hit.   You can give me excuses like FAA did not tell the military a plane was coming until too late, or we did not have many fighters available due to military exercises, or we sent what fighters we had out into the Atlantic searching for hijacked aircraft that were not there.  To all of this I say BS.  

The country was considered under attack after the 2nd aircraft hit.  The more relaxed hijacking procedures would not apply after the 2nd plane hit, it would have been upgraded to unknown enemy attack within US borders.  In fact, Tenet said in his autobiography he knew we were under attack after the first plane hit.  If you do not have enough fighters to defend the entire country,  and you do not know which plane is an enemy combatant, the first place you use your limited resources to defend is Washington DC.  Anything flying over restricted DC airspace when the Pentagon was hit should have been shot down.

Anyone believing otherwise is, well, never mind. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:37:26 AM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:01:26 AM

  (0+)

Great post and right on, Munich!!!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:50:33 AM

  (0+)

How did you "cover" these crashes, Len? I assume you went to the scene and either witnessed it close-up or talked directly to those who had.

That's precisely what I did! Have you ever seen charred bodies? I have! And I have the credentials and citations from the ABC Network, CBS network, TSN network, AP, UPI, TAB and several MAJOR MARKET radio/TV outlets. I've paid my dues. I don't owe you shit! 

You, rather, owe this forum A SHRED of evidence to back up anything that you've said. You've just mouthed off lacking evidence to back up your absurd defense of an equally absurd theory for which there is absoluty NO evidence. 

 CITE SOME! 

None of that is relevant to this topic. In any case, the list above is incomplete due to space and time. 

The HOLES in the your defense of Bush's bald face lie would be there were I a cub. Your attempts at ad hominem are to be expected from your failed mentality, your flawed mindset. Statistical studies have been done of folk like you! Google: Stanford Study, GOP

I suggest this topic as a doctoral project for someone's thesis.

At least I hope that's what you did, and actually I doubt your employers would have settled for anything less

See above! That's precisely what I did! Now --cite your credentials!

In addition to some 100 tons of wreckage, show me some creds!

SHOW ME ONE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT WITH THE NAME OF A SINGLE ARAB HIJACKER ON IT.

At last, stop trying to change the subject!

Because if you simply wrote about it from afar,

Last time I checked the rules of evidence and logic are universal. None are afar. You attempt to change the subject is sophomoric and stupid and you would be penalize for each attempt in a formal debate.

minus any information from people on the ground who witnessed the crash/rescue/recovery, it wouldn't be worth much as far as being a reliable source of accurate information.

None of that would be relevant to my case which I will repeat in the hope that, in the interim, you have learned something of the English language:

1) show me some 100 tons of wreckage;

2) show me an official autopsy report containing the names of the 'said' hijackers;

3) disprove the Flight 77 flight data which the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] released to Pilots for 911Truth.org et al';

4) explain to me HOW a 100 ton airliner that was about a bit over 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon at within about half a second of impact could possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and likewise damage the poles!

And no, I'm not talking about peripheral views, I'm talking about people directly involved in finding and processing aircraft debris and human remains.

Having lost on substance, you're just raising strawmen and red herrings. In fact, Alan, you have failed to address the substance of a single issue I've raised.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove a theory which you have said you believe.

If you believe it, show us why!

If you believe it, prove it!

I beat the the pants off you in this 'debate' and you didn't even know it! It's only fun debating folk who know when they gotten their sorry ass whipped!

And just exactly what is your method of measurement of the amount of aircraft debris?

Wrong again, alan! I merely told YOU how you may disprove me and you won't do it!

It's not my fault that you are full of sh*t and utterly incapable of a simple refutation.

If you wish to DISPROVE my assertion that the total wreckage gathered up from the Pentagon is NO WHERE NEAR 100 tons --then all you have to do is weigh it! Prove me wrong!

What??? You you say you can't do that because Bush ordered it destroyed or melted down ---or worse???? Well, that's tough Alan! That's what you get when you support a goddamned liar, a known mass murderer, a ne'erdowell, a deserter and lay-about coward who never bothered to read a single report while despoiling the Texas air and beating out Mississippi for DEAD LAST in education! 

Listen up, dipwad: THAT YOUR BOY BUSH ORDERED THE DESTRUCTION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF A FELONY CASE OF MASS MURDER IS NOT MY PROBLEM! It's YOURS if you wish to defend his sorry indefensible, lyin' ass, you must accept the consequences of your stupid decision!

"Well, I didn't see any debris from where I was standing"? You have no idea how much debris was actually recovered from the site, do you? How could you possibly, when you steadfastly refuse to talk to anyone who might actually be in a position to know?

Sorry, Alan! You're not merely an incompetent debater, you've now proven yourself a liar and attributing positions to me that I never took.

I repeat: if you wish to prove me wrong, show me some 100 tons of wreckage! Otherwise, explain to me how Bush managed to repeal the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. I suggest you do your homework. Look up that all up in a high school physics text! See --I'm just trying to help you. But you are so pig headed, you won't bother to read or follow suggestions. That's not my fault.

Just shut the f*ck up and show me the wreckage!

Show me the bodies and the official autopsy report.

Well...actually, never mind on that second point. I already HAVE the official autopsy report! So ---if you try to show me a BOGUS report put together AFTER THE FACT in order to shore up the fatal holes in Bush's conspiracy theory, I will know that you are lying.

And this nonsense about the hijackers not being on the autopsy list?

In fact, they are not! Request the list and see for yourself. If you wish to prove me wrong, get the frickin' list and post it! Embarass me! I DARE YOU! Show me an OFFICIAL AUTOPSY LIST containiing the name of a single 'said' hijacker! I am not interested in your gum flapping; I'm interesting in the list itself. It either lists Arabs who were autopsied or it does not! This is simple. Only liars make it hard!

Until you do that I am NOT refuted. [Here's your homework assignment: look up 'refutation'. Learn its meaning. Use it in a sentence! Write a paragraph explaining it! When you have done that: refute me!!! Otherwise, save us all the aggravation and just shut the f*ck up until you have something to say!]

Did it ever occur to you that list was of people identified, and not a complete account of every sample of remains found?

If they were unidentified, then where did Bush come up with his list of Arabs?

If they remain un-identified what is the SOURCE for the list of names that were said to have been on Flight 77. Clue: those names were NOT on the original flight manifest and were added --significantly ---LATER! Now why was that?

Did it ever occur to you to do your homework before you premise a statement on stuff about which you know nothing? The list was released to under an FOIA request. Did it ever occur to you that until the bodies of hijackers are, in fact, identified there is NO REASON to believe that they were ever on the flight!

You are working backward from pre-conceived notions, when, in fact, there was no compelling reason or probable cause to believe that Flight 77 was ever hijacked save for the Bush contention --after the fact ---that the airliner had been hijacked. Don't bother citing Olson's phone call unless you specify WHICH of many versions he told. That call was impossible and Olson is a liar.

It's common knowledge that they did indeed find samples of remains not matching any of the passengers or pentagon workers, but indeed matching the number of hijackers, and indeed a set of brothers, which is consistent with two of the hijackers being such.

I don't believe in 'common knowledge. I believe in hard and verifiable evidence. You've posted none of that.

I repeat and this time you will be graded: Bush asserted a theory. Those who assert must prove.

If I told you that the moon was made of green cheese you would be justified in demanding that I cough up some evidence to suppport my case.

Bush puked up a stupid theory for which THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

The burden of proof is upon him and his gullible minions to prove it! Put up or shut up! Show me the wreckage! Show me the bodies! Show me a scrap of hard evidence in support of this ludicrous and outlandish conspiracy theory which even the FBI doesn't believe. BTW --Bin Laden may be 'wanted' but significantly NOT for his alleged involvement in a fictitious and outlandish plot.,

There WAS identifications of some of the hijackers at the WTC, because they had some reference DNA. At the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, they simply didn't.\

File an FOIA request, get and cite it!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:13:50 AM

  (0+)

Just shut up and show me the wreckage!

Just shut up unless you were at the Pentagon crash site right after 9/11. And instead of demanding that the OP file an FOIA request, do it yourself and get back to us. Jeezus, how many people and organizations were in on this "conspiracy" of yours? I've already given you a list of thousands who must have been, including American Airlines, the people who owned the plane.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:23:50 AM

  (0+)

Disinformant, your list was ridiculous. Nobody claims all those people were involved in the conspiracy. Why do they have to be involved just because Albury says they must be involved. What a waste of space your useless argument was and any idiot can see through it. Maybe your name should be "I'll bury".

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:14:07 PM

  (0+)

and don't agree with your  no-plane insanity, then they had to have been "conspirators." Ditto for all of the government agencies I mentioned, and American Airlines, to name some others.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:36:29 AM

  (0+)

So, Doofus, how do you explain that Mohammed Atta, who, among other hijackers, was IN THE EMPLOY OF THE CIA until less than 2 months before 9/11, was later discovered ALIVE in Europe.

Are you one of those idiots who beleive his passport could have just 'Happened" to flutter pristinely to the top of all that wreckage!?

C'MON! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:21:42 AM

  (0+)

Why don't you prove this twoofer nonsense about Atta? Barbara Olson, who was a passenger on AA 77, was also found alive in Europe a few years back, and I know it's true because I read it on the Internet. And why wouldn't a passport "flutter pristinely," when so many other combustible objects from both planes were found scattered all over the area in good condition after being thrown clear of the fires at impact? It landed on the pavement, Bimbo, not on top of a debris pile, and it wasn't Atta's, it was Satam al-Suqami's, another of your favorite Islamic terrorist heroes. If you're going to spew this nonsense, at least get your story straight. And why don't you get an interview with Muhammad Atta, since he's available? You could become another frickin' Barbara Walters with a scoop like that.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:54:26 PM

  (0+)

 Strawman fallacy! Attributing positions that were not taken.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:12:02 AM

  (0+)

Strawman fallacy! Attributing positions that were not taken.

The Barbara Olson myth was offered for comparison. What are you referring to as a fallacy?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM

  (0+)

This is the eighth or ninth of my comments on this thread alone that's been flagged, very likely by the same person with whom you claim to agree. What is dumb about pointing out to a no-plane "theorist" that the owner of the $65 million plane that allegedly didn't crash into the Pentagon seems to think that it did? Doesn't "Just shut up and show me the wreckage!" qualify as a "real dumb comment," considering the fact that it's not there anymore, since hundreds, if not thousands of cleanup workers, or "conspirators" if you believe it wasn't there in the first place, removed it? Here's a list of some of the agencies whose personnel SAW the plane's wreckage in the Pentagon: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

Did they join American Airlines on the "conspirators" list? The wreckage was the airline's property, and of minimal evidentiary value after a few days, so why not just contact them and find out where it is? They've already paid out millions in claims from relatives of people killed inside the Pentagon by their plane, and if they saved any of its remains, I'm sure they'd have no reason not to show them to you, as my flagger has requested. 

Btw, is it considered 'real smart' to flag a comment that was read 5 days ago, or do you think this individual missed it until now, even though he wrote the article and has followed it up with his own comments on a daily basis?  

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM

  (0+)

Show us video of the plane hitting the pentagon. It's as simple as that. Why won't they do it? Why should we believe you if you can't provide a simple thing like that? What are you hiding???

And we're supposed to believe the passport of a hijacker remarkably survived the blast? Maybe we should start making buildings out of passports.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:58:33 AM

  (0+)

Show us video of the plane hitting the pentagon. It's as simple as that. Why won't they do it? Why should we believe you if you can't provide a simple thing like that? What are you hiding???

And we're supposed to believe the passport of a hijacker remarkably survived the blast? Maybe we should start making buildings out of passports.

Combustible debris survived all four crashes on 9/11, so you're just spouting nonsense. And 1 frame/sec surveillance cameras generally don't record objects going 800 feet in that short time period, so you're saying that if you didn't see a video of it in flight, the wreckage wasn't there, and all of the eyewitnesses were lying? More foolishness, but typical of the 9/11 "truth" movement, and if a Pentagon video had shown AA 77 right before it hit, you'd just declare it a fake anyway. That's what "no-plane" nuts do.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:55:21 AM

  (0+)

Combustible debris survived all four crashes on 9/11

The passport didn't just survive, disinformant, it turned up a block away from the Trade Center. They didn't find it in the rubble at ground zero, it somehow flew through the air and got found.

And 1 frame/sec surveillance cameras generally don't record objects going 800 feet in that short time period, so you're saying that if you didn't see a video of it in flight, the wreckage wasn't there, and all of the eyewitnesses were lying? More foolishness, but typical of the 9/11 "truth" movement, and if a Pentagon video had shown AA 77 right before it hit, you'd just declare it a fake anyway. That's what "no-plane" nuts do.

Whatever, disinformant. Show us the video from the hotels and neighboring businesses that were confiscated from the FBI. If you can't do that why should we believe you.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:55:03 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:56:10 PM

  (0+)

"The passport found in the debris near Vesey Street was hardly the only evidence that Satam Al-Suqami was aboard AA 11, nor was it evidence that he was one of the hijackers."

You said it, not me. Who do you suppose would want to plant evidence like that???

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:03:27 PM

  (0+)

"I'll bury" said it, not me...

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:50:23 AM

  (0+)

Wait........is the worlds greatest living spook, Ms. Albury Smith, really insinuating that the only camera at The Pentagon that could have recorded the crash was a security parking camera.

This cointelpro hack just keeps getting funnier by the minute.

Note how many times Ms. Albury Smith uses the word "nut" or a derivative of.

This shill is just following disinformation rule #5 that was handed out to him by his supervisor. Here's #5 in it entirety. 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "nut", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16:52 PM

  (0+)

I haven't changed my user name to imitate yours, stalked and harassed you on here, called you a "shill," spewed profanity at you, wished you were dead, or resorted to any of your other childish tactics, Dave, and I address issues far more than you do. Surveillance cameras aren't designed to capture images of objects going 800'/sec, since they record at only about 1 frame/sec, and dozens of cameras around the Pentagon wouldn't have enhanced security against any threat I can think of, so why do you assume that they even existed? And why do you think the DoD would publicly reveal all of the details of Pentagon security anyway? If this is your proof that AA 77 wasn't flown into the Pentagon by hijackers on 9/11, it's absolutely pathetic. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:37:46 PM

  (0+)

Why would you jump to conclusions that somebody would create a fake account just to mock you? Why would anybody do that? Smith is a very common name you know. It sounds like you might be a little paranoid. Have you experienced this before? Since you have already swallowed a number of coincidences in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, I don't know why you would immediately make baseless accusations like this without proof. Did somebody hack your account or did you forget to take your pills or something? This doesn't sound like your M.O. at all.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:09:32 AM

  (0+)

You characterization of the 'debris' is completely meaningless and irrelevant. 

 Did you weigh it? Was it, in fact, traced? Were there ANY attempst to reconstruct the craft as there was in the case of TWA 800

 Just show us 100 tons of debris!

If you were correct AND if Bush had not ordered the evidence destroyed, you would not have a problem meeting that challenge! 

That's not my problem. That's yours. 

 another challenge: prove that you are not a paid troll!!!! 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:02:29 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM

  (0+)

I don't know about all of you but, I have been dealing with this sh*t for going on seven yrs.

Ya, we have a lot of 911 groups and blogs and shows and movies but, there is nothing being done about this AT ALL!!!

When are we going to have someone like MLK that can lead the people and actually do something about this issue?

I know that we have the fluoride drinking zombies that follow McPalin and Barrack OBiden but, there are a ton of people just like us out there and we aren't doing a damn thing about anything!

We need some one like Denise K & Ron P to stop what they are doing and call for a civil disobedience strike and do it now!

We are sinking and losing every minute of every day and the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be to get it all back!

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:01:24 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:31:43 AM

  (0+)

The wing span of a Global Hawk is 116.2 feet. in fact!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 9:07:08 AM

  (0+)

The wing span of a Global Hawk is 116.2 feet. in fact!

That's an interesting tidbit. Now would you care to tell us how much Global Hawk wreckage was found in the Pentagon?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM

  (0+)

 " is, is this real world, or exercise?"

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQ4VWjnCTQ

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM

  (0+)

Why did they have to "stand down" if there were no planes, as some of you nuts have claimed?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:42:56 PM

  (0+)

they show a jet buzz by the world trade center breifly before the hi-jacked "jet" impacts.  Coincidence perhaps?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM

  (0+)

The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn.

No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.   The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack.

He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.   The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair

[my note: EVEN DON RUMSFELD IS ON VIDEO TAPE TALKING ABOUT THE 'MISSILE' (his word) that 'crashed into this building (pentagon); Rumsfeld also referred to the MISSILE that brought down Flight 93]

No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.   Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.   Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.  

These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11. They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder.

Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq.  --John Kaminski

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:45:37 PM

  (0+)

Wtf is WRONG with you, goofball? ad hominem!!! I've already explained to you several times WHY the recovered FDR showed a higher altitude than the impact zone at the Pentagon, Your explanation is bogus! All that is EXPLAINED, rather, in the numerous references I've posted. You're comments are simply irrelevant and betray the fact that you never bothered to check out my references. You obviously didn't read the article OR the references. you're basing your goofy "theory" on your lack of understanding of the data in it, I don't have a theory| But you subscribe to the GOOFY theory Bush put out! You are a gullible conspiracy theorist of the worst sort. Where's you tin foil hat --you know the one Bush sent that protects you from Arab Terrorist mind games! I doubt that you've ever taken the time to look at the data! while totally ignoring the fact that more than 10,000 eyewitnesses SAW the wreckage of AA 77 inside of the Pentagon Wrong again! No one belives that 10,000 witnesses saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon! That's just absurd and stupid on its face! Prove it! No credible researcher has EVER made that outlandish and stupid claim. all but one of its passengers were identified through DNA Bullshit! Cite it! Post a certified copy of the DNA report! And explain HOW the DNA was obtained when the OFFICIAL CORONERS REPORT (of which I have a copy) does not list a single 'said' hijacker. I repeat: there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WERE ANY ARABS --PILOTS OR NO --ON THE FLIGHT! Show me the wreckage and show me the DNA! both black boxes were found. I have already cited the Flight Data that was released by NTSB. That data DISPROVES your assertion that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. In fact, what you call "black box" proves that many of your 'witnesses' COULD NOT have seen what they said they saw. Secondly, some of your OUTLANDISH '10,000' said that they saw a smaller craft, some even talked about seeing what they thought might have been a 'privately owned' aircraft strike the Pentagon --NOT a 757. At last, any lawyer or prosecutor worth his salt will tell you that 'eyewitness' testimony is the LEAST reliable form of 'evidence'. And I never said that they were black and everyone knows they're not, so why do you feel that it's necessary to tell me that at least twice? Because you are an idiot and have a lousy, repulsive personality! Do you just like to jabber? Not as much as you do! But when I 'jabber' I make sense. You don't! They're called "black boxes," You repetition on this matter makes you sound stupid! As for Hani Hanjour, he got an FAA commercial pilot certificate in April, 1999, and had sufficient training to steer a 757 into a large building ... So what!!! Besides --you can't even provide official evidence that Hani Hanjour was on the flight! For that matter, there is absolutely no proof that ANY of the said hijackers were on ANY of the flights. even if he couldn't fully qualify as a pilot on one, and his Cessna flying abilities are about as relevant to this topic as his proficiency on a skateboard. Says you! But I don't believe you! An no one else does either! But even IF Hanjour was on the flight AND even if this skinny little guy armed only with a box cutter managed to overpower the pilot and take over the controls, he COULD NOT have pulled off a descent of some 200 feet and level off in the span of about one second or less in ANY aircraft and most certainly not a 757. It would have been impossible even IF he had been on the flight! there also weren't 19 pilots, I didn't say there were! I said that the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY had CLAIMED that there were 19 ARAB HIJACKERS! Being an idiot, you don't know the difference, do you? so you can stop lying about that too. I haven't lied about anything and you can stop lying about that!!! The next time you call me a liar, I will file a written complaint to the owner with the owner of this site! And if that doesn't work, how about I file a lawsuit against you for defamation of character and LIBEL? How much money do you have? There were at least four half-assed, semi-trained pilots, minimum one per plane, and they had enough experience in navigation and Boeing simulators to get the job done So you say but it doesn't prove anything. Nor does it disprove anything I've said. I told you how to refute me! Show me an official autopsy report with the 'said' hiajckers listed on it ---signed and/or certified by the coroner! That is evidence that is admissible in court. You mere assertions are not! And they mean absolutely NOTHING!!!!! The Pentagon maneuver was just not that difficult, but he had to do a 270 because he misjudged the approach altitude. You "no-planers" are completely frickin' nuts. If you think its so easy, then try it! Experienced pilots say you are wrong! I say you're nuts! Can you tell me how much 'energy' is required to move, in a controlled manner some 100 tons several hundred feet in one half a second while maintaining sufficient control and still have enough time left over to level off and fly level across the Pentagon lawn. Now THAT is what I call an OUTLANDISH CONSPIRACY THEORY! The distinguishing characteristic of OUTLANDISH CONSPIRACY THEORIES is that they require one to suspend the laws of physics, in this case, the conservation of matter and energy. OUTLANDISH CONSPIRACY theories require that you believe in 'magic'. Well --I don't believe in magic. I don't believe David Copperfield really made the Statue of Liberty dissapear. I don't believe some other guy really walked through a wall, I don't believe he levitated over a building in Las Vegas. And I don't believe Hani Hanjour could overcame a pilot with a box cutter and flew a 757 into the Pentagon. I also don't believe any ONE of the several conflicting stories that Ted Olson told about an IMPOSSIBLE phone call he got from Barbara. Magic! The 'black box' data proves that the maneuver was never even attempted! Secondly, you have conveniently IGNORED the fact that the OFFICIAL FLIGHT DATA RELEASED BY THE NTSB indicates that the 757 was not ONLY at an altitude of 373 feet, some 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon, it was on a trajectory that COULD NOT HAVE struck the damaged poles. The trajectory difference is 20 degrees. Put another way, IF whatever struck the Pentagon ALSO struck the poles, it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN 77. Clue: SOMETHING ELSE HIT THE POLES! ANOTHER CLUE: Only ONE rotor was photographed on the Pentagon lawn before the arch criminal who ordered all this also ordered the evidence destroyed. That SINGLE rotor is too small to have been from a 757 ---an aircraft which has TWO engines and would have left behind identifiab