the 911 mystery plane: IDENTIFIED

[mhgaffney]

When this story breaks it will be bigger than Watergate.

Know any one in the press? If so, pass it on.

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

[W*GS]

This nonsense has been circling around the whack-jobs' blogosphere for quite some time.

[defenseman]

Yaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn.......dman

[alkemical]

This has been around - and from myself going out to see the area where the plane....."landed"..... I've found a few people that still stick by this story. I'll side with the people in this one.

[mhgaffney]

Lone Bolt -- You convinced me awhile back that FL 77 (a 757) did hit the pentagon. But what are you saying here?

[mhgaffney]

Lone Bolt: Did you read the article?

[The Lone Bolt]

Ahhh, I see. This is all about the remote-controlled plane theory. My mistake. I thought you were suggesting something other than a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

However I think that even if the plane in the shot is what you claim that it is it's hardly compelling evidence of a remote-controlled 757.

Edit: I've deleted my previous post as it sems no longer relevant.

[TheDave]

http://www.thethirteenthstep.com/stfu/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[Dudeskey]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/sucks3.jpg

[W*GS]

So, if the alleged E-4B 747 was controlling Flight 77, how did the crew of that plane overlook the considerable amount of modification done to it to allow for remote control? Also, add in the AA mechanics as folks who didn't say anything...

[defenseman]

1000's would have been in on the cover up. Ain't happenin, not in a million years..dman

[alkemical]

For me - an alternate theory would be more aiken to a tom clancey novel

about 50 people tops, including financiers, etc.

Someone hires/frames "al-quedia" to commit the attacks - as long as you had enough well trained people - it could be done with a small group. That's why i don't believe the gov't did anything to make 9/11 happen.

I mean say china/iran/russia - put it together and needed the legwork - hired al quieda - it could be done.

OR -

Maybe the mossad (i used them because of their fake terror cells in palestine, etc) did it to drag us into the war in the -

With GWB & the American public - manipulation through fear & anger would be easy.

[ak1971]

It was the Jews damnit!

[Barry Ramey]

When this story breaks it will be bigger than Watergate.

Know any one in the press? If so, pass it on.

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Let me guess, the Jews are to blame.

[Stuck In Texas]

For me - an alternate theory would be more aiken to a tom clancey novel

about 50 people tops, including financiers, etc.

Someone hires/frames "al-quedia" to commit the attacks - as long as you had enough well trained people - it could be done with a small group. That's why i don't believe the gov't did anything to make 9/11 happen.

I mean say china/iran/russia - put it together and needed the legwork - hired al quieda - it could be done.

OR -

Maybe the mossad (i used them because of their fake terror cells in palestine, etc) did it to drag us into the war in the -

With GWB & the American public - manipulation through fear & anger would be easy.How did the U.S. government get Osama bin Laden to claim responsibility?

[ak1971]

How did the U.S. government get Osama bin Laden to claim responsibility?

they gave him a mini nuke for later use

[mhgaffney]

How did the U.S. government get Osama bin Laden to claim responsibility?

Simple. They faked the video. Remember, the video was supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan.

You believe that? I don't. It looks like planted evidence, especially since the man in the film does not look like binny.

Bin Laden issued a statement aired on Al Jazeera in Sept 2001 that he had nothing to do with the 911 attack. If he did it -- would be deny it? No I doubt it. If he did it he would brag about it.

Most Muslims do not believe bin Laden was involved.

[ak1971]

Simple. They faked the video. Remember, the video was supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan.

You believe that? I don't. It looks like planted evidence, especially since the man in the film does not look like binny.

Bin Laden issued a statement aired on Al Jazeera in Sept 2001 that he had nothing to do with the 911 attack. If he did it -- would be deny it? No I doubt it. If he did it he would brag about it.

Most Muslims do not believe bin Laden was involved.

do you know Art Bell?

[mhgaffney]

So, if the alleged E-4B 747 was controlling Flight 77, how did the crew of that plane overlook the considerable amount of modification done to it to allow for remote control? Also, add in the AA mechanics as folks who didn't say anything...

Thanks, W*gs, for once you ask a good one.

For all we know remote control hardware is standard equipment in these planes. We do not know what they carry. Have you ever been inside one of these planes? Even if you had -- would you know what you were looking at?

The capabilities of the E-4B are certain to be greater than what has been reported.

My contact tells me the E-4B carries an antenna in a spool which unreels behind the plane when transmitting. But the plane must fly at a slower speed at this time. This could be the only reason the plane was captured on film on 9/11.

Incidentally, the BBC also filmed the plane from Lafayette Park and aired this footage - which corroborates Linda Brookhart. No question, it was there.

As for the FAA -- remember, the E-4B uses a military transponder that sends in code the FAA cannot read -- so the plane would have been indistinguishable on primary radar from a hijacked plane with the transponder off.

Moreover, the FBI is holding the FAA records from 9/11. So the folks at the FAA who responded to the FOIA request did not have this data available to them. Most of the radar data from 911 has never been seen -- not even by the 911 Commission. The White HOuse had a veto over the release of all records to the 911 Commission.

I stated this earlier but most of you don't read -- or you don't comprehend.

Hence the need for a new REAL investigation.

[theAPAOps5]

My contact tells me the E-4B carries an antenna in a spool which unreels behind the plane when transmitting. But the plane must fly at a slower speed at this time. This could be the only reason the plane was captured on film on 9/11.


I think your contact saw a plane obtaining RVSM calibration which stands for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum which is a new technology that allows for reduction of the standard vertical separation required between aircraft flying at levels from FL290 (29,000 ft.) and FL410 (41,000 ft.) from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. This therefore increases number of aircraft that can safely fly in a particular volume of airspace.

The aircraft have to fly low as and over an airport where a person on the ground holds a remote that dials in the RVSM equipment. They continue to fly until its completely calibrated on ground. Then they fly up to the levels mentioned above and calibrate there. All aircraft have to go through this calibration that are not new. Here is what the picture looks like when the calibration cone is in trail of the aircraft:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n224/ApaOps5/RVSM.jpg

So that is my theory but to each his own. :thumbsup:

[Stuck In Texas]

Simple. They faked the video. Remember, the video was supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan.

You believe that? I don't. It looks like planted evidence, especially since the man in the film does not look like binny.

Bin Laden issued a statement aired on Al Jazeera in Sept 2001 that he had nothing to do with the 911 attack. If he did it -- would be deny it? No I doubt it. If he did it he would brag about it.

Most Muslims do not believe bin Laden was involved.
Oh yeah, I remember that claim of yours. 90% of the board refuted all of the "evidence" you provided and we never heard another word about that. You also claimed there was some documentation to back up your claim. You never did explain why it's easier to fake a video than to forge a document. I'd be curious to hear it.

[mhgaffney]

Oh yeah, I remember that claim of yours. 90% of the board refuted all of the "evidence" you provided and we never heard another word about that. You also claimed there was some documentation to back up your claim. You never did explain why it's easier to fake a video than to forge a document. I'd be curious to hear it.

Go watch the video. Compare the guy in the film with a photo of bin Laden. The face, features and everything are different --all except the beard.

If you don't see the difference, show the video to your son or daughter -- along with the photo. They will confirm what I'm telling you.

In other words, even a kid can see that the man in the film is not binny.

[Stuck In Texas]

I have a hypothetical question for you Gaff. I am asking this in all seriousness. I'm genuinely curious about your answer. Here goes: Let's say hypothetically that it's one week after 9/11 and it's been proven beyond all doubt that Osama bin Laden has pulled off the attacks on the U.S. Remember, you don't need to claim bin Laden didn't do it, this is a hypothetical situation where he is guilty beyond all doubt.

Now, here is the question, if that's the case and you are the president - what do you do?

[Bronco Bob]

I have a hypothetical question for you Gaff. I am asking this in all seriousness. I'm genuinely curious about your answer. Here goes: Let's say hypothetically that it's one week after 9/11 and it's been proven beyond all doubt that Osama bin Laden has pulled off the attacks on the U.S. Remember, you don't need to claim bin Laden didn't do it, this is a hypothetical situation where he is guilty beyond all doubt.

Now, here is the question, if that's the case and you are the president - what do you do?

Pardon me for butting in, but here is what I would do. I would go after bin
Laden and his entire network and I wouldn't let anything else sidetrack
me until I got the job done and was sure every member or al-Quada
was either dead or in custody. And I'd damn sure leave the petty dictators
for their own people to deal with.

[theAPAOps5]

I would eliminate all people remotely tied to Al Qeida. You are found tied to them you are given the death sentance. No appeals no nothing if there is concrete proof. I wish we would have concentrated the efforts in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan rather than go after Iraq for their hypothetical threat.

[Bronco Bob]

I would eliminate all people remotely tied to Al Qeida. You are found tied to them you are given the death sentance. No appeals no nothing if there is concrete proof. I wish we would have concentrated the efforts in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan rather than go after Iraq for their hypothetical threat.

A lot more people would be alive in Britain, Spain, Bali, Indonesia, Turkey,
Egypt, the Philippines, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Tunisia after 9/11
if we would have.

[mhgaffney]

I have a hypothetical question for you Gaff. I am asking this in all seriousness. I'm genuinely curious about your answer. Here goes: Let's say hypothetically that it's one week after 9/11 and it's been proven beyond all doubt that Osama bin Laden has pulled off the attacks on the U.S. Remember, you don't need to claim bin Laden didn't do it, this is a hypothetical situation where he is guilty beyond all doubt.

Now, here is the question, if that's the case and you are the president - what do you do?

Assuming you have the proof -- then you go after him.

The problem with your hypothetical -- is that there is no proof. Remember, the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden -- and put him on trial in Pakistan. But Bush refused.

Soon after 9/11 Colin Powell promised to release a dossier with the evidence against bin Laden. But the US government never did release it. Why not? Because they don't have any hard evidence.

In fact, we didn't go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. That's what America thought -- but once again we were lied to. Gen Richard Myers even stated that he never received an order to get bin Laden.

As we now know the siege of Tora Bora was a joke -- all smoke and mirrors. Bin Laden escaped with a caravan of 100 vehicles out the back way -- back across the Pakistan border -- right under our noses. The US could have bombed the caravan -- but we let him get away.

So I have a question for you: Are you a serious person?

[W*GS]

Simple. They faked the video.

Wrong.

[W*GS]

For all we know remote control hardware is standard equipment in these planes.

Wrong.

http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

[Spider]

So the latest is our government did this with remote control planes ?
where do you Shít heads come up with this stuff ?

[REB]

So the latest is our government did this with remote control planes ?
where do you Shít heads come up with this stuff ?

Entertaining isn't it? :spit:

1-2-3-:Broncos:!!!!!!! :charge:

[Stuck In Texas]

Assuming you have the proof -- then you go after him.

The problem with your hypothetical -- is that there is no proof. Remember, the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden -- and put him on trial in Pakistan. But Bush refused.

Soon after 9/11 Colin Powell promised to release a dossier with the evidence against bin Laden. But the US government never did release it. Why not? Because they don't have any hard evidence.

In fact, we didn't go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. That's what America thought -- but once again we were lied to. Gen Richard Myers even stated that he never received an order to get bin Laden.

As we now know the siege of Tora Bora was a joke -- all smoke and mirrors. Bin Laden escaped with a caravan of 100 vehicles out the back way -- back across the Pakistan border -- right under our noses. The US could have bombed the caravan -- but we let him get away.

So I have a question for you: Are you a serious person?
The reason I ask is because I'm surprised that you would be in favor of hostilities under ANY circumstances. Your friends in the peacenik movement are going to be very disappointed in you.

Yes, I am serious. I would ask you the same question, but after reading your posts (including this one) it's pretty obvious that you're not. If you are serious with this stuff, there will be some guys in straightjackets showing up to your house any time now. Enjoy your rubber walls!

[Spider]

Entertaining isn't it? :spit:

1-2-3-:Broncos:!!!!!!! :charge:

LOL sure is , when I first read this ( didnt open the link)first thing through my mind was Bushs bicycle accidents , then I pictured him with a remote control to a big plane ........ The images were not pretty ;D

[mhgaffney]

Even if you have proof -- you don't need armies and navies.

Catching terrorists is police work. You use the existing police network -- interpol.

It works very well. Of course, if your "war of terrorism" is a fraud -- merely a cover for your real agenda, which is to control the world flow of oil and resources, then you start bombing cities, invading countries, setting up prisons that exist outside the law, etc

Meanwhile, you lie to your own people to keep them ignorant. You want your people to think you have noble motives and high principles -- even if the opposite is the case. You call your aggression "operation enduring freedom." All a lie.

Sad to say, this is what has happened.

[REB]

LOL sure is , when I first read this ( didnt open the link)first thing through my mind was Bushs bicycle accidents , then I pictured him with a remote control to a big plane ........ The images were not pretty ;D

LOL

[W*GS]

Even if you have proof -- you don't need armies and navies.

Catching terrorists is police work. You use the existing police network -- interpol.

To a point. In the case of al-Qaeda and their relationship with the Taliban (in control of Afghanistan), sending in the cops to "arrest" the Taliban government wouldn't work.

[elsid13]

So the latest is our government did this with remote control planes ?
where do you Shít heads come up with this stuff ?

The find the rejected X-Fille scripts in the trash and claim them as thier own.

[Spider]

The find the rejected X-Fille scripts in the trash and claim them as thier own.

Man , I never seen x files , never seen 24 , grays anatomy, e.r., American Idol , Lost , Survivor , who wants to be a millionaire ..........Maybe I should start watching prime time TV ............ on a side note , I didnt see friends untill the 5 th season

[Spider]

I do like Reba though ;D

[elsid13]

I do like Reba though ;D

Go figure.

[Spider]

Go figure.

that woman has done everything , TV ,Radio , Stage , theater ...........

[Bronco Bob]

Man , I never seen x files , never seen 24 , grays anatomy, e.r., American Idol , Lost , Survivor , who wants to be a millionaire ..........Maybe I should start watching prime time TV ............ on a side note , I didnt see friends untill the 5 th season

Boston Legal is a hoot. Denny Crane would fit in right here on this board.

[Spider]

Boston Legal is a hoot. Denny Crane would fit in right here on this board.

Boston legal is that a spin off of CSI ?

[Bronco Bob]

Boston legal is that a spin off of CSI ?

No, actually it was a spin-off of The Practice.

[Spider]

No, actually it was a spin-off of The Practice.

I think part of my problem is , i had to deliver some props for that movie children of the corn ,and 2 weeks later some special effects stuff to LA ... well I saw how moves and TV shows were made , even saw a guy going through the motions of fighting , with no one , later on a computer graphic was added to the fight scene............after I saw first hand how phony it all was , i just havent had an appetite for it .................

[Bronco Bob]

I think part of my problem is , i had to deliver some props for that movie children of the corn ,and 2 weeks later some special effects stuff to LA ... well I saw how moves and TV shows were made , even saw a guy going through the motions of fighting , with no one , later on a computer graphic was added to the fight scene............after I saw first hand how phony it all was , i just havent had an appetite for it .................

Boston Legal is more of a comedy. What makes the show for me is
William Shatner (Captain Kirk) He plays this blowhard character
named Denny Crane, very right wing, loves guns, and a big womanizer,
who is always making these weird, off the wall comments.
It's basically William Shatner doing a parody of all the comedians
doing William Shatner.

[Spider]

Boston Legal is more of a comedy. What makes the show for me is
William Shatner (Captain Kirk) He plays this blowhard character
named Denny Crane, very right wing, loves guns, and a big womanizer,
who is always making these weird, off the wall comments.
It's basically William Shatner doing a parody of all the comedians
doing William Shatner.

;D I will have to check it out

[Bronco Bob]

;D I will have to check it out

Tuesday night on ABC. This week Denny puts the moves on Raquel Welch.

[theAPAOps5]

Boston Legal is more of a comedy. What makes the show for me is
William Shatner (Captain Kirk) He plays this blowhard character
named Denny Crane, very right wing, loves guns, and a big womanizer,
who is always making these weird, off the wall comments.
It's basically William Shatner doing a parody of all the comedians
doing William Shatner.

When he got busted getting freaky with the sex doll that was designed to look like the character played by Candice Bergen that killed me. Denny Crane is by far one of the best characters in recent TV.

[Spider]

wait was it the same guy that played the big giant head on 3 rd rock from the sun ? I loved that show ............... I never laughed so hard .......... Man that show was funny

[Bronco Bob]

wait was it the same guy that played the big giant head on 3 rd rock from the sun ? I loved that show ............... I never laughed so hard .......... Man that show was funny

Yep, that was him. He was also Captain Kirk on the original Star Trek.
And the guy that spots a Gremlin on the airplane wing in the Twilight Zone.
Oh, and T.J. Hooker too.

[Spider]

Yep, that was him. He was also Captain Kirk on the original Star Trek.
And the guy that spots a Gremlin on the airplane wing in the Twilight Zone.
Oh, and T.J. Hooker too.

ok I got him .... took me a few to place him as Kirk ......... I never saw twilight zone or TJ hooker , but he was in showtime with Eddie Murphy and DeNiro ...

[mhgaffney]

You'd never know it from the posts on this board, but there are some serious people out there. One of whom had some substantial comments about my Mystery Plane article. This guy is a poster at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I have bolded his most trenchant comments. MHG

Mark,

I read with interest your piece. In a compelling story, I think you hit on most of the key points.

Note a bit of Trivia -- when Donald Rumsfeld flies, he usually takes the E4B -- I think, not because it is more comfy, but because if there should be a nuclear alert, the SecDef has to be able to go to battle stations immediately -- hence, the flying battlestation = E4B.

Although the 55th Wing is based at Offutt AFB, this does not imply that all 4 (or more) 747-400 modified planes are physically AT Offutt -- see http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=99

for information about that.... I think one E-4B is frequently, if not PERMANENTLY assigned to Andrews AFB in Washington, where crews from the 55th wing -- see http://www.offutt.af.mil/library
actually maintain, service etc the very complicated electronics platforms and airframe, engines etc on the aircraft.

So what does that tell us? Little -- other than the 55th public affairs person --- 55wg.pa@offutt.af.mil or see phone number at
http://www.offutt.af.mil/library
should be able to tell you more about where these planes go -- maybe not where they are TODAY -- but air bases they can operate out of (requires a crew of th 55th to be there -- so just ask "what bases does the 55th work at?" before mentioning E-4B.....

You nailed the big story -- which is the TIMING of the Global Guardian exercise. Held in October every year, GG is a master exercise -- StratCom -- that is the 'key' for a number of other subordinate exercises involving spaceCom, airforce, NORAD, etc -- and there are always "bad" red teams trying to outwit "good" blue teams. Exercise planners seem to like to tie in multiple defense units with one go -- maybe saves money, or maybe more fun -- hence crown vigilance, apollo guardian, vigilant warrior, amalgam warrior, etc all in same week and overlapping.

What do you think were the Global Guardian exercise scenarios on 9/11? three guesses....

So why is GG NOT held in September, or august?> this may sound idiotic, but it's one word: Hurricanes. You have bad weather, you have to ground planes, crews can't fly, things get postponed... etc. So that's why October is Global Guardian month. if you can find out WHO WHEN WHY 2001 global guardian was moved up a month, you cracked the case, Sherlock.

Jack

[W*GS]

You'd never know it from the posts on this board, but there are some serious people out there.

"Serious"ly deranged... Isn't Rosie O'Donnell your heroine now?

Note a bit of Trivia -- when Donald Rumsfeld flies, he usually takes the E4B -- I think, not because it is more comfy, but because if there should be a nuclear alert, the SecDef has to be able to go to battle stations immediately -- hence, the flying battlestation = E4B.

Why does SecDef need to "go to battle stations"? He doesn't have launch authority - only the POTUS does.

What exactly does the alleged flight of the alleged E4B over DC prove about 9/11? That it was in remote control of Flight 77? Not at all - and what about the other three planes? Was it in remote control of them as well?

gaffney, as usual, you jump to a conclusion without even considering the zeroth-order problems with the chain of reasoning that leads to it. You cannot make a plausible argument without doing so, and yet you never ever make a rational, reasoned case for your point of view. Why?

[mhgaffney]

"Serious"ly deranged... Isn't Rosie O'Donnell your heroine now?



Why does SecDef need to "go to battle stations"? He doesn't have launch authority - only the POTUS does.

What exactly does the alleged flight of the alleged E4B over DC prove about 9/11? That it was in remote control of Flight 77? Not at all - and what about the other three planes? Was it in remote control of them as well?

gaffney, as usual, you jump to a conclusion without even considering the zeroth-order problems with the chain of reasoning that leads to it. You cannot make a plausible argument without doing so, and yet you never ever make a rational, reasoned case for your point of view. Why?


Did you read my article at the head of this thread?

No need to reply. I already know the answer: No.

What a fool you are to comment about a paper you never even read.

[Bronco Bob]

"Serious"ly deranged... Isn't Rosie O'Donnell your heroine now?



I get the idea Gaff and Rosie are reading from the same playbook.

[W*GS]

I read your paper - and it's not clear to me what your point is.

References listed as "emails from Linda Brookhart" aren't exactly corroborated. For all we know, and based on your past history, you could be making it all up. Also, I'd like to see Brookhart's original "photo" of the alleged E4B - something about it looks suspicious to me. Also, the video isn't substantiated in any significant way - how do we know it was even taken on that day in that place?

[theAPAOps5]

I read your paper - and it's not clear to me what your point is.

References listed as "emails from Linda Brookhart" aren't exactly corroborated. For all we know, and based on your past history, you could be making it all up. Also, I'd like to see Brookhart's original "photo" of the alleged E4B - something about it looks suspicious to me. Also, the video isn't substantiated in any significant way - how do we know it was even taken on that day in that place?

Because they said so. Who are "they" the Pronoun people of course. They know everything.

[mhgaffney]

I read your paper - and it's not clear to me what your point is.

References listed as "emails from Linda Brookhart" aren't exactly corroborated. For all we know, and based on your past history, you could be making it all up. Also, I'd like to see Brookhart's original "photo" of the alleged E4B - something about it looks suspicious to me. Also, the video isn't substantiated in any significant way - how do we know it was even taken on that day in that place?

You can find Linda by googling her. That's how I found her. Try key words from the info in my article -- You can reach her by email. Sorry -- I am not going to divulge her email address.

She was in Washington on 9//11 - at the White House -and took the photo. This is confirmed.

We also know the full history of the photo. Linda kept the original negative. She gave a copy to the FBI -- and also copies to the press. This is the same copy posted in my article - untouched. My webmaster merely used Blow UP software to help people see the Blue Spot -- which is crucial for the ID.

Incidentally, the BBC also captured a video of the E-4B. It aired on the BBC and on Teremundo Spanish TV.

Here's a still from the BBC video.

[alkemical]

How did the U.S. government get Osama bin Laden to claim responsibility?

How do i know the video was the real OBL - why is 9/11 not listed for OBL on the FBI's top wanted list?

[mhgaffney]

The BBC was in Lafayette Park with the other press.

[mhgaffney]

As for the point:

I raised the questions in the article. Why was the world's most advanced C3 plane orbiting over Washington at the time of the 9/11 attack?

Why does the military deny it was present?

Why did the military rechedule the date of the 2001 Global Guardian exercise to happen in September? Every other year it has come off in October-NOvember.

Stay tuned. In my next piece I will take the next step: I will argue that the US military fudged the 9/11 timeline (the pentagon crash time) to conceal the presence of the E-4B over Washington.

[W*GS]

You can find Linda by googling her. That's how I found her. Try key words from the info in my article -- You can reach her by email. Sorry -- I am not going to divulge her email address.

I'd like to see something more substantial than just "I got some email from her", which is complete hearsay, and something besides the carousel of whack-job blogs and websites, which all have the same information.

She was in Washington on 9//11 - at the White House -and took the photo. This is confirmed.

Where was she when she took the photo? When? Pointing toward what direction? Have the online versions been verified as having not been tampered with or edited?

We also know the full history of the photo. Linda kept the original negative. She gave a copy to the FBI -- and also copies to the press. This is the same copy posted in my article - untouched. My webmaster merely used Blow UP software to help people see the Blue Spot -- which is crucial for the ID.

If you're going to make a case that you intend to be taken seriously, you need to do a hell of a lot better provenance than the above. Consider what is required in a court case that uses evidence that has been in the digital world - the person who does the work must keep meticulous and provable notes about each and every step. What was done, what version of the software was used, when, before and after records - things that cannot be tampered with or changed.

Incidentally, the BBC also captured a video of the E-4B. It aired on the BBC and on Teremundo Spanish TV.

As is typical of whack-jobs' evidence, the picture is of so poor quality that determining anything from it is impossible.

If you are serious about laying out a case that 9/11 was an "inside job", you've got to exercise a lot more care in making it. Everything you've presented is incredibly sloppy. I'm not an attorney, but I know how to make a careful and reasoned argument (it's part of my job) and if I was as careless as you are, I'd get laughed at - even for the simplest proofs. You're making a very extreme argument - you need extreme evidence. You've failed miserably in providing credible evidence.

[mhgaffney]

I stated in the article exactly where Linda was on 9/11. She was in the Old House Office Building, which is located immediately next to the White HOuse.

It's a familuar landmark in DC. Are you familiar with the layout, W*gs? I am. I grew up in the Washington area, and there is nothing mysterious here. The facade of the bullding at the right of Linda's photo is a real building -- that can be identified -- and places the photo exactly where Linda said she took it.

As for provenance, bring on the experts. That's exactly what I've been calling for -- a new REAL investigation. They will confirm everything in my article. You have been conspicuously silent on the issue.

You can find a discussion of the material presented in my article at Pilots for 911 Truth, one of the better 9/11 web sites. It's anything but a whack job. Here's a link. In fact, this discussion happened 6 months ago. The Pilots have been on to this for quite some time.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=483

I think you are simply in flight from reality. You don't want to face what it all means. You desperately need to believe in the leaders. But this is your problem. If the recent history of political corruption, scams and non stop lying hasn't wised you up -- probably nothing will.

[W*GS]

As for provenance, bring on the experts. That's exactly what I've been calling for -- a new REAL investigation. They will confirm everything in my article. You have been conspicuously silent on the issue.

I'm interested in the actual photograph - NOT the online versions. Those look very suspicious to me - for one thing, the aspect ratio of the image file is all wrong. Secondly, based on the apparent direction she was taking the picture, the outline of the plane doesn't look right. What sort of heading would it have to be on (as well as climbing or descending) to get an almost-exact plan view like is shown? Is what's pictured the underside? It looks very strange.

Personally, I wouldn't put it past the whack-jobs to (poorly) edit in the plane.

You can find a discussion of the material presented in my article at Pilots for 911 Truth, one of the better 9/11 web sites. It's anything but a whack job.

From what I read, it's just another whack-job site.

I think you are simply in flight from reality. You don't want to face what it all means. You desperately need to believe in the leaders.

There's a big gulf between disputing the "9/11 was an inside job" whackitude and being a slave to the government. You've never understood that.

[Stuck In Texas]

How do i know the video was the real OBL - why is 9/11 not listed for OBL on the FBI's top wanted list?

Why hasn't he posted a video denying he did it? He doesn't seem to have a problem getting his message on the net.

[colosilverado]

So, mininuke doesn't think that this plane might have been scrambled from one of the FOBs, like Andrews, because nobody knew WTF was going on?
It is a command and control plane, to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders and coordinate actions by civil authorities. I guess there were no civil authority or governmental coordination matters to take place...

[alkemical]

Why hasn't he posted a video denying he did it? He doesn't seem to have a problem getting his message on the net.

Maybe if i were someone else, I'd know the answers. (http://www.scifi.com/xfiles/cast/bio/csm.html) I just find a few things odd with the OBL side. How... irrelevant he's become - yet seems to always appear on cue....

[mhgaffney]

How do i know the video was the real OBL - why is 9/11 not listed for OBL on the FBI's top wanted list?

We know why. For the same reason the US government never released a dossier summarizing the evidence that binny was behind 9/11.

Because there isn't any.

[W*GS]

We know why. For the same reason the US government never released a dossier summarizing the evidence that binny was behind 9/11.

Because there isn't any.

Uh-hunh. Lemme guess - al-Qaeda is merely a figment of some pernicious person's imagination.

Got any of those answers for my questions?

[alkemical]

Uh-hunh. Lemme guess - al-Qaeda is merely a figment of some pernicious person's imagination.




Why not?

[defenseman]

Why not?

You've got to be joking...dman

[alkemical]

You've got to be joking...dman

Some extent - yes -
But no use hunting for a dead guy, eh? (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html)

[W*GS]

Why not?

Sigh.

[alkemical]

Sigh.

With no proof that Bin Laden is dead or alive - the probablities exist for both situations to be plausible. Of course if Pearson publishing doesn't say it - it can't be true.

[W*GS]

With no proof that Bin Laden is dead or alive - the probablities exist for both situations to be plausible. Of course if Pearson publishing doesn't say it - it can't be true.

Likewise, if some paranoiac's website says it, it could be true, right?

Where's Elvis and/or Bigfoot when ya need 'em?

[alkemical]

Likewise, if some paranoiac's website says it, it could be true, right?

Where's Elvis and/or Bigfoot when ya need 'em?

I'm suprised you'd stick up for a company that has such anti-jewish sentiment. Pearson is a well documented in being anti-jewish in their media corporation. Ah well, birds of a feather....

[W*GS]

I'm suprised you'd stick up for a company that has such anti-jewish sentiment. Pearson is a well documented in being anti-jewish in their media corporation. Ah well, birds of a feather....

Someone piss in your corn flakes this am?

[alkemical]

Someone piss in your corn flakes this am?

Pearson & Hearst publications are major media outlets that relay on marketing themselves to make money. Just as alex jones, etc does. Now if the agenda of an alex jones type is important - so must be those of major-media.

What you consume intellectually is just as important as in a diet for food. You are what you eat. Just food for thought.

[W*GS]

Pearson & Hearst publications are major media outlets that relay on marketing themselves to make money. Just as alex jones, etc does. Now if the agenda of an alex jones type is important - so must be those of major-media.

You're assuming that the agendae of everything and everyone who says or writes anything seeps through equally.

[defenseman]

Pearson & Hearst publications are major media outlets that relay on marketing themselves to make money. Just as alex jones, etc does. Now if the agenda of an alex jones type is important - so must be those of major-media.

What you consume intellectually is just as important as in a diet for food. You are what you eat. Just food for thought.

If everyone observed this unwritten standard, we wouldn't have the problems we do today now would we...dman

* Consume and "read" and "understand" are three different things for sure.....

[alkemical]

You're assuming that the agendae of everything and everyone who says or writes anything seeps through equally.

Doesn't it? Isn't that why you read the economist and not mises? Isn't that why some read newsmax & not commondreams.org?

[alkemical]

If everyone observed this unwritten standard, we wouldn't have the problems we do today now would we...dman

* Consume and "read" and "understand" are three different things for sure.....


This is my point. Anyone can read anything that tells you how the "outside" world is working - but you are only really taking their word for it. By taking their word for it, and using it to shape your world view - you have just been "programmed".

[W*GS]

Doesn't it? Isn't that why you read the economist and not mises? Isn't that why some read newsmax & not commondreams.org?

Certainly people gravitate towards the views of others most like their own.

That does not mean that each of us is constricted in our opinions to just those views.

But why should I argue with a self-confessed paranoiac?

[alkemical]

Certainly people gravitate towards the views of others most like their own.

That does not mean that each of us is constricted in our opinions to just those views.

But why should I argue with a self-confessed paranoiac?

Yes wags, they do move towards views and groups that give them a sense of community. It does constrict you to those views and opinions. That's the point. If it then falls outside of what your "source of information states", whom are "you/they" more likley to believe? An outside source of information, or a comfortable source of information? People will gravitate to "whom" they "trust".

It's reflected in how Major News media tries to rip down blogs/bloggers for not being journalists - when infact - each side has the same amount of credibility.

Am i going to trust Foxnews about hillary clinton now that Rupert Murdoch is funding her? Or should i trust the news-media-empire that endorses Obama with news about hillary?

With major media outlets having been caught, using fake news - produced by the executive branch of gov't - why shouldn't i be wary? Just like with anything printed from Hearst, the man defined yellow-journalism - why should i "trust" his "rags"?

I guess if i confess to being "self-confessed paranoiac", it may mean i'm crazy - but it doesn't mean i'm wrong.

[Spider]

Likewise, if some paranoiac's website says it, it could be true, right?

Where's Elvis and/or Bigfoot when ya need 'em?

Elvis is in Kalamazoo Michigan working for Wal Mart selling VCR's and DVD 's .....Bigfoot , that would be one of my Brothers 14eeee boot ;D

[mhgaffney]

If you clowns want to discuss BIGFOOT or ELVIS -- then go start a trivia thread.

This thread is about the following plane, which circled over the White House at the time of the 9/11 attack.

This is not just ANY plane. It's the doomsday plane, the world's most advanced command and control platform.

The question is: What was it doing there? Why does the US military deny it was present?

If this is news to you -- then I suggest you go back to the top of this thread and read my article.

[colosilverado]

If you clowns want to discuss BIGFOOT or ELVIS -- then go start a trivia thread.

This thread is about the following plane, which circled over the White House at the time of the 9/11 attack.

This is not just ANY plane. It's the doomsday plane, the world's most advanced command and control platform.

The question is: What was it doing there? Why does the US military deny it was present?

If this is news to you -- then I suggest you go back to the top of this thread and read my article.

I said why i think it was there, but you didn't say anything about it. Why? Oh, because I am a sheeple and don't know the truth. How do you expect any of us to give you the ounce of credibility that you obviously want so desperately when you can't even have your diatribe proofread by someone?
Geee, the military and government doesn't want tinfoil hat wearing people knowing the SOP of these planes? Wow, what a conspiracy. I'll bet there were a few satellites orbiting over the NYC/DC region, too. Care to tie those in? Oh wait, couldn't we have just taken down the towers with scalar weapons? An E4B flew over the area, controlling the plane and at that instant, we hit the pentaon with a weak blast from a scalar weapon to test them out...just like the Russkies did with our space shuttle a few years back, right?

[elsid13]

Man I can not understand the whole fish taco thing. It just doesn't work for me.

[Spider]

If you clowns want to discuss BIGFOOT or ELVIS -- then go start a trivia thread.

This thread is about the following plane, which circled over the White House at the time of the 9/11 attack.

This is not just ANY plane. It's the doomsday plane, the world's most advanced command and control platform.

The question is: What was it doing there? Why does the US military deny it was present?

If this is news to you -- then I suggest you go back to the top of this thread and read my article.

you are right that isnt any plane , it is a ufo disguised as a plane ..... dime to a dozen donuts , Gary Coleman is the pilot ......

[Spider]

Man I can not understand the whole fish taco thing. It just doesn't work for me.

so you dont like women hey ? ;D err wait the other fish taco .... never mind

[colosilverado]

so you dont like women hey ? ;D err wait the other fish taco .... never mind

MMMMMMM, fiiish taco with a side of thigh.

[ak1971]

I think John Travolta is at fault...the plane is parked at his home

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b37/ak1971/plane.jpg

[ak1971]

If you clowns want to discuss BIGFOOT or ELVIS -- then go start a trivia thread.

This thread is about the following plane, which circled over the White House at the time of the 9/11 attack.

This is not just ANY plane. It's the doomsday plane, the world's most advanced command and control platform.

The question is: What was it doing there? Why does the US military deny it was present?

If this is news to you -- then I suggest you go back to the top of this thread and read my article.


please provide a link to amazon so we can buy your book, I need some toilet paper

[mhgaffney]

I just received the following email from a journalist based in Texas who saw my article about the mystery plane over Washington. When you post an article like mine, you hope for more disclosures.

You shake the tree in the hope something will fall. Well, it just did.

I am not revealing this person's last name.

Remember, you saw it first here, first. MHG

Dear Mr. Gaffney,

I recorded the entire day of 9/11 with various networks 'represented'. Most notably, the early hours I recorded were mostly from NBC. Virtually all of the various 9/11 filmakers have used my CBS footage of WTC 7 collapsing. (Always knew there was something rotten about that.....I believe it's the Smoking Gun evidence needed for prosecution.)

On these recordings, I have NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaschevski responding in fear to this "low flying white plane" on video tape.

My plan is to now re-use this footage for my Cable Access television show in Austin, Tx. as a result of you bringing it up. I've always been curious about this "white plane." Nothing was ever mentioned about it after 9/11 and your article just might help bring some things to light.

Let me know if this footage is something that might be of interest to you.


Jeff
Austin, Tx.

[broncocalijohn]

I just received the following email from a journalist based in Texas who saw my article about the mystery plane over Washington. When you post an article like mine, you hope for more disclosures.

You shake the tree in the hope something will fall. Well, it just did.

I am not revealing this person's last name.

Remember, you saw it first here, first. MHG

Dear Mr. Gaffney,

I recorded the entire day of 9/11 with various networks 'represented'. Most notably, the early hours I recorded were mostly from NBC. Virtually all of the various 9/11 filmakers have used my CBS footage of WTC 7 collapsing. (Always knew there was something rotten about that.....I believe it's the Smoking Gun evidence needed for prosecution.)

On these recordings, I have NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaschevski responding in fear to this "low flying white plane" on video tape.

My plan is to now re-use this footage for my Cable Access television show in Austin, Tx. as a result of you bringing it up. I've always been curious about this "white plane." Nothing was ever mentioned about it after 9/11 and your article just might help bring some things to light.

Let me know if this footage is something that might be of interest to you.


Jeff
Austin, Tx.

Please dont tell Jeff, the local access cable show guy, about orangemane.com. We dont need two of you crack pots over here.

[SPfloppy]

I have read some ridiculous crap on this forum before from 911 theorists but this is right up there w/mini-nukes. Bottom line in any incident terror, street crime, domestic homocide ect. is that the most likely answer is the answer. Al Queda planned, trained for and executed the attacks on 911 without the US government or George W. Bush. Seriously it is time we all grow up and stop this BS. It is insulting to anyones intelligence Miss Odonell or Gaffney or whatever your name is

[alkemical]

I don't think the gov't was involved in 9/11 - But i'm also not sold on it being as/is 100% as what has been reported in the news & through our gov't.

So for me:

Gov't committing 9/11 would need too many people overall to accomplish.
Mini-Nukes - sorry that's pushing the edge of it. COULD there have been some new "alien tech" that was used to complete the destruction of the towers? Of course - but the probabilities are so far off the charts -

For me - if it were a conspiracy run by a small "few" - then i'd say someone either paid for Al-Quieda to do it - OR - somone "imitated" al quieda to manipulate us into a situation in the ME.

I have some other situations during 9/11 that make me question - but have not found proof either way to convince me of something being "the truth".

[defenseman]

you are right that isnt any plane , it is a ufo disguised as a plane ..... dime to a dozen donuts , Gary Coleman is the pilot ......

Hilarious! Nice.......:~ohyah!: ...dman

[defenseman]

I don't think the gov't was involved in 9/11 - But i'm also not sold on it being as/is 100% as what has been reported in the news & through our gov't.

So for me:

Gov't committing 9/11 would need too many people overall to accomplish.
Mini-Nukes - sorry that's pushing the edge of it. COULD there have been some new "alien tech" that was used to complete the destruction of the towers? Of course - but the probabilities are so far off the charts -

For me - if it were a conspiracy run by a small "few" - then i'd say someone either paid for Al-Quieda to do it - OR - somone "imitated" al quieda to manipulate us into a situation in the ME.

I have some other situations during 9/11 that make me question - but have not found proof either way to convince me of something being "the truth".

Now that could be true possibly. I'm sure there are some events having occurred where the "real" and "full" story didn't get out. Bay of pigs is one of my question marks in history and our 'full' involvement in it. But, that's for another day...dman

[W*GS]

This thread is about the following plane, which circled over the White House at the time of the 9/11 attack.

You still haven't proven that it was indeed over the WH on 9/11. The two images you've provided are far from conclusive. Heck, how do we know the Discovery Channel image isn't from something else entirely? You've also neglected to address my concerns about the alleged photograph. But, if you keep true to form, you'll ignore those objections and questions and keep building your castle on sand...

[Spider]

You still haven't proven that it was indeed over the WH on 9/11. The two images you've provided are far from conclusive. Heck, how do we know the Discovery Channel image isn't from something else entirely? You've also neglected to address my concerns about the alleged photograph. But, if you keep true to form, you'll ignore those objections and questions and keep building your castle on sand...

hey!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats a magic plane , loaded with magic fairy dust ........ the markings clearly give its identity away ;D

[elsid13]

hey!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats a magic plane , loaded with magic fairy dust ........ the markings clearly give its identity away ;D

Fairy Dust wonder why that is offered as side at some upscale eateries. Nothing like some fairy dust on some fries

[colosilverado]

Wellll, I did bring some fairy dust back from the Mars when I was captain of a space cruiser. An alien was selling it in a back alley to raise money for his uber remote control that would fly airplanes into any building he fancied, but he could find any on Mars. He said he was gonna head to earth and crash some planes there. He was going to hitch a ride from Darth Vader after he and the Klingons did some partying with some Mark Gaffney dude that they abducted and did a brain replacement on. They said they had a hard time boring through the concrete without using their laser vision, but they did manage to fit a marble in there. They mentioned that it would rattle around quite a bit, but they figured that it might slip into the right hole once in awhile to enable him to have some appearance of sanity. Guess they were wrong.......

[mhgaffney]

I have read some ridiculous crap on this forum before from 911 theorists but this is right up there w/mini-nukes. Bottom line in any incident terror, street crime, domestic homocide ect. is that the most likely answer is the answer. Al Queda planned, trained for and executed the attacks on 911 without the US government or George W. Bush. Seriously it is time we all grow up and stop this BS. It is insulting to anyones intelligence Miss Odonell or Gaffney or whatever your name is

The neo con Wolfowitz does not agree with you. After September 11 he argued that the attacks were too complex and sophisticated to have been carried out by a rag tag bunch of jihadists.

Wolfowitz believed that only a government with huge resources could have done 911. He argued that Saddam was behind it -- and as we know this fueled the war hysteria that led our nation into the current abyss in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As we now know, of course, Saddam had NADA to do with 911. Yet, Wolfowitz's point is well taken. Many others drew the same conclusion --

though they don't include the knee jerks on this board.

[mhgaffney]

You still haven't proven that it was indeed over the WH on 9/11. The two images you've provided are far from conclusive. Heck, how do we know the Discovery Channel image isn't from something else entirely? You've also neglected to address my concerns about the alleged photograph. But, if you keep true to form, you'll ignore those objections and questions and keep building your castle on sand...

In the first place, there are three still shots -- not two. And they are all mutually corroborative.

The BBC filmed the plane from Lafayette Park, across from the White House.

Linda snapped a shot of the same plane from just outside the White House. I could show you the exact location -- within 10-20 feet.

Surely you don't expect Linda to turn over the original negative to you....

Why are you not calling for a new REAL 911 investigation -- to vet the photos and confirm or disprove them? This is the only way this will happen.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO CALL FOR A GENUINE INVESTIGATION?

[Spider]

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO CALL FOR A GENUINE INVESTIGATION?

I think anna nicole smith has been investigated more then one way if ya know what I mean :~ohyah!:

[broncocalijohn]

The neo con Wolfowitz does not agree with you. After September 11 he argued that the attacks were too complex and sophisticated to have been carried out by a rag tag bunch of jihadists.

Wolfowitz believed that only a government with huge resources could have done 911. He argued that Saddam was behind it -- and as we know this fueled the war hysteria that led our nation into the current abyss in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As we now know, of course, Saddam had NADA to do with 911. Yet, Wolfowitz's point is well taken. Many others drew the same conclusion --

though they don't include the knee jerks on this board.

So all were too complex yet you seem to find soo many mistakes on the actual "faked" 9/11. Which one is it? They are so complex and sophisicated yet couldnt cover up big mistakes to actually make sure we believe the plot.
You also stated BBC filmed some shots of the white plane yet you have told us the BBC was involved in the 9/11 cover up. Again, what side are they on? BOTH?

[SPfloppy]

Again Mr Gaffney one person's guess (Wolfie) does not make a policy. Before you object and give me bad intell arguments and Bush bashing really think about what led to this conflict. Law was followed, congress voted it was legal in spite of faulty intell. Also your assertion that this "mystery plane" had anything to do with a us led 911 attack actually falls right into the same line of thought that Wolfie was on if he said that Al queda couldn't have done it. Both arguments are speculative and not based on all points of view nor actual proven evidence

[W*GS]

In the first place, there are three still shots -- not two. And they are all mutually corroborative.

Or all mutually wrong.

Surely you don't expect Linda to turn over the original negative to you....

I wouldn't believe any online version of her photo, certainly. Why do you?

Why are you not calling for a new REAL 911 investigation -- to vet the photos and confirm or disprove them? This is the only way this will happen.

I'm satisfied as to the overall story by the 9/11 Commission.

When are you going to show us how a couple of clocks break the entire thing?

[Bronco Bob]

When are you going to show us how a couple of clocks break the entire thing?

Yeah, wondering about that to. Maybe we so thoroughly demolished that
article that Gaff gave up on it? Nah, too stubborn for that.

[The Lone Bolt]

The neo con Wolfowitz does not agree with you. After September 11 he argued that the attacks were too complex and sophisticated to have been carried out by a rag tag bunch of jihadists.

Wolfowitz believed that only a government with huge resources could have done 911. He argued that Saddam was behind it -- and as we know this fueled the war hysteria that led our nation into the current abyss in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As we now know, of course, Saddam had NADA to do with 911. Yet, Wolfowitz's point is well taken. Many others drew the same conclusion --

though they don't include the knee jerks on this board.

I'm still not sure I follow this argument. How difficult would it be to bring a group of undercover jihadists into the US?

The United States admits approximately 900,000 legal immigrants every year, and annual immigration is swelled by another 300,000 people who illegally cross the borders of the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about 5 million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States.

http://www.closeup.org/immigrat.htm

I find it easy to believe that this could be accomplished without US gov't detection.


And what other expenses would they need? Rent for apartments, food money, other minor living expenses, flying lessons, plane tickets for run-throughs as well as the actual hijackings, right? Would all of this be prohibitively expensive? Why?

And how hard would it be to take flying lessons, get plane schedules, take a few flights on those planes to check them out, and then chose flights to hijack? I'll bet that before 9-11 I could have accomplished all of these things without the help of any government, and you could have too.

Please explain to me how all of this is so impossibly difficult or expensive that a reasonably well organized and funded terrorist group couldn't pull it off. Can you address all of the points above with details? Can you explain it without wild exaggeration such as "Bin Laden could not have planned and orchestrated it all by cell phone"?

You keep repeating this claim but have yet to back it up with any logic.

[W*GS]

After September 11 he argued that the attacks were too complex and sophisticated to have been carried out by a rag tag bunch of jihadists.

As if 9/11 was the first act of terrorism al-Qaeda had ever committed.

[mhgaffney]

When are you going to show us how a couple of clocks break the entire thing?

Soon. The best is yet to come. Don't go away...

[mhgaffney]

How difficult would it be to bring a group of undercover jihadists into the US?

And how hard would it be to take flying lessons, get plane schedules, take a few flights on those planes to check them out, and then chose flights to hijack?

Please explain to me how all of this is so impossibly difficult or expensive that a reasonably well organized and funded terrorist group couldn't pull it off. Can you address all of the points above with details? Can you explain it without wild exaggeration such as "Bin Laden could not have planned and orchestrated it all by cell phone"?


It isn't up to me to present evidence clearing bib Laden. That's not the way our legal system works. It's up to our government to present evidence that incriminates the suspect -- - bin Laden

The point is: they never did. I'll bet you five bucks if they had the evidence they would have told us. But they never released the dossier promised by Colin POwell.

FRom what I understand the FBI's web site has a post that lists binny's crimes -- but there is no mention of the WTC attack. I wonder why. Duh.

Regarding your first question, it's be real easy to bring terrorists into the country on demand -- especially IF they'd been recruited by US intelligence agencies from the start, provided with visas, papers, military training etc etc.

If you are in the business of staging covert opetations -- you occasionally need patsies -- i.e., throw away assets. So you recruit dysfunctional misfits like Lee Harvey Oswald, Mohammed Atta etc.

You give them protection, training, $$$$ to live high on -- then when you need them you reel them in - set them up -- and let them take the rap.

And the American people are none the wiser.

[W*GS]

When are you going to show us how a couple of clocks break the entire thing?

Soon. The best is yet to come. Don't go away...

Yeah, yeah, you've teased us before with this line...

And yet, regardless of the hours of research you claim to have put in, within a few minutes, the latest chapter of your whackitude is shot full of holes. It's not even difficult to do.

Clearly, you're scrambling all over the place to make various bits (I wouldn't call them "facts") fit your agenda.

Why do you persist in such fruitless endeavours?

[The Lone Bolt]

It isn't up to me to present evidence clearing bib Laden. That's not the way our legal system works. It's up to our government to present evidence that incriminates the suspect -- - bin Laden

The point is: they never did. I'll bet you five bucks if they had the evidence they would have told us. But they never released the dossier promised by Colin POwell.

FRom what I understand the FBI's web site has a post that lists binny's crimes -- but there is no mention of the WTC attack. I wonder why. Duh.

Regarding your first question, it's be real easy to bring terrorists into the country on demand -- especially IF they'd been recruited by US intelligence agencies from the start, provided with visas, papers, military training etc etc.

If you are in the business of staging covert opetations -- you occasionally need patsies -- i.e., throw away assets. So you recruit dysfunctional misfits like Lee Harvey Oswald, Mohammed Atta etc.

You give them protection, training, $$$$ to live high on -- then when you need them you reel them in - set them up -- and let them take the rap.

And the American people are none the wiser.


Well that wasn't my question.

You continue to insist that it would be impossible for a reasonably well financed terrorist org to pull off the logistics and funding of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in the US on 9/11, and that only a government with vast resources could pull it off. And yet you have provided no logical reason whatsoever to support this assertion.

I ask you again: what is your logic? Can you address each of the issues above and explain to me exactly why it would be "impossible" for al-Qaeda to pull it off?

I never asked if it was Binny's or your responsibility to clear him. I asked you to explain the logic behind your insistance that only the U.S. gov't could have pulled off 9/11. Go over each of the issues of funding and logistics above and demonstrate to me that al-Qaeda or any reasonably well financed terrorist org could not have done it.

[mhgaffney]

Well that wasn't my question.

You continue to insist that it would be impossible for a reasonably well financed terrorist org to pull off the logistics and funding of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in the US on 9/11, and that only a government with vast resources could pull it off. And yet you have provided no logical reason whatsoever to support this assertion.

I ask you again: what is your logic? Can you address each of the issues above and explain to me exactly why it would be "impossible" for al-Qaeda to pull it off?

Go over each of the issues of funding and logistics above and demonstrate to me that al-Qaeda or any reasonably well financed terrorist org could not have done it.

First, of all, I never said the US gov't did 9/11. Most of the gov't was innocent - like the citizenry. What I've said is that 911 was a covert false flag operation involving elements from the US military, the US intel community, and high individuals in the White House. There was also the involvement (or at least tacit approval) of certain Wall St bankers and insurance tycoons who wanted the WTC demolished for their own selfish reasons.

The whole operation was carried out by relatively few people -- I'd guess 100 or less.

While a foreign terrorist group surely could have done the hijackings -- they could not have planted explosives in the WTC. A recent paper -- I'll get the link up ASAP -- has shown that the plane impacts did NOT cause the initial seismic spikes. No, the spikes were caused by explosions that ripped through the towers 10-20 seconds BEFORE the planes even hit.

This confirms eyewitness testimony by WTC workers in the lower levels who heard/felt/saw these explosions -- BEFORE feeling the plane impact high above.

Folks on this board have been deaf and dumb to these eyewitness accounts -- which are mutually corroborative -- by credible people, including trained professionals.

Once you understand that the planes and fires did not cause the collapse -- the rest is simple logic. Foreign terrorists could not gain access to the towers to plant the charges. Hence, it was an inside job.

Also, this leads by a relentless logic to the use of new technologies, such as remote control. Once the conspirators planted the charges they were committed. They had to insure that the planes hit the towers. Assuming the hijackers were on board -- they were not reliable pilots -- could not be counted on to fly the planes to Manhattan, let alone hit the towers.

The 911 Commission Report states that Hani Hanjour was the most experienced pilot in the group -- yet he flunked a simple flight test on a Cessna one month before 911. Use your intelligence. Assuming the "jihadists" were on the planes -- they were convenient patsies.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well it appears that you're changing your tune Gaff. Before you were insisting that the official version of events was "impossible" because only a government with vast resources could pull it off. Now you're saying that your version is impossible for any terrorist org to execute, which considering the vast resources and technologies your theory requires I'm inclined to agree.

However you seemed to have abandoned your original position that the official version, not your own, could not have been done by a reasonably well funded and organized terrorist group (which you then cited as "proof" that the official version is false). I'll accept that as an admission that you were wrong.

[Bronco Bob]

Well it appears that you're changing your tune Gaff. Before you were insisting that the official version of events was "impossible" because only a government with vast resources could pull it off. Now you're saying that your version is impossible for any terrorist org to execute, which considering the vast resources and technologies your theory requires I'm inclined to agree with that assertion.


The problem with Gaff's version is that not even the US government could
have pulled it off. Just too many unexplained and unproven assumptions
in Gaff's version. He still has yet to explain to me how a (fusion) mini-nuke
is supposed to work without a fission device to set it off, for example.

I mean the government that Gaff is claiming was able to pull of this flawless
9/11 incident is the same government that has completely botched the
Iraq invasion, botched the Katrina rescue effort, nominated Harrier Myers
to the Supreme Court, is on the verge of losing Afghanistan, can't
even fire some federal prosecuters wihtout creating controvery,
and couldn't even get its version of Social Sercurity passed in a
Republican dominated Congress.

[mhgaffney]

The problem with Gaff's version is that not even the US government could
have pulled it off. Just too many unexplained and unproven assumptions
in Gaff's version.

I mean the government that Gaff is claiming was able to pull of this flawless 9/11 incident is the same government that has completely botched the Iraq invasion, botched the Katrina rescue effort, nominated Harrier Myers to the Supreme Court, is on the verge of losing Afghanistan, can't even fire some federal prosecuters wihtout creating controvery, and couldn't even get its version of Social Sercurity passed in a
Republican dominated Congress.

Well, someone pulled off 9/11. It happened -- so it is obviously possible.

Consider the following paper -- which is a quick down load:

Seismic Proof

by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/ 200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

In this paper Ross and Furlong show that the original seismic spikes occurred 10-20 seconds BEFORE the planes hit the towers.

What caused these spikes?

The answer is that there were explosions in the basement of the WTC -- even beforee Fl 11 and Fl 175 hit the towers.

37 witnesses who were there on 9/11 saw/heard/felt these explosions.

There is also physical evidence.

The WTC elevators were NOT continuous from the upper floors where the planes hit -- to the basement. Therefore, the destruction in the basement/lobby was NOT caused by leaking jet fuel.

The descriptions of the blast damage also indicate that the force of these blasts came from below -- and caused local damage. No way that a plane 80-90 floors above did this.

The seismic evidence is decisive. There is no way jihadists could have planted bombs in the WTC. Ergo, it was an inside job.

Case closed.

[mhgaffney]

The link did not copy properly. Try this.

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

[mhgaffney]

You clowns who assume that the US government is too inept to do 9/11 are merely projecting your OWN incompetence, your own lack of imagination, your own inabilities.

The fact is that US intelligence agencies have been doing large scale covert operations at least since the end of WW II. They are real good at it!

The CIA set up a terrorist network in 16 countries in Europe that did all kinds of covert operations. They did this for 45 years -- and very successfully -- until the end of the Cold War.

The truth only leaked in 1990.

If you don't know about it -- it's because the US media haven't reported it. Here we are 17 years later, and Americans still don;t know.

We in the US don't like to look at ourselves in the mirror -- and see ourselves as we really are.

[elsid13]

You clowns who assume that the US government is too inept to do 9/11 are merely projecting your OWN incompetence, your own lack of imagination, your own inabilities.

The fact is that US intelligence agencies have been doing large scale covert operations at least since the end of WW II. They are real good at it!

The CIA set up a terrorist network in 16 countries in Europe that did all kinds of covert operations. They did this for 45 years -- and very successfully -- until the end of the Cold War.

The truth only leaked in 1990.

If you don't know about it -- it's because the US media haven't reported it. Here we are 17 years later, and Americans still don;t know.

We in the US don't like to look at ourselves in the mirror -- and see ourselves as we really are.

Really what do you do for living? I'm just curious who employs an individual such as yourself???

[W*GS]

In this paper Ross and Furlong show that the original seismic spikes occurred 10-20 seconds BEFORE the planes hit the towers.

They do no such thing.

Re-read

http://911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

Please.

[Bronco Bob]

Really what do you do for living? I'm just curious who employs an individual such as yourself???

Gaff is self-employed. He's a professional nut. :rofl:

[mhgaffney]

They do no such thing.

Re-read

http://911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

Please.

All you know how to do is cite this disinfo address. Same old same old.

Did you even read Ross and Furlong's paper? Go back and read it BEFORE you knock it.

We have several data sets -- and all are mulutally corroborative.
1. the original seismic data.
2. the eyewitness accounts of explosions.
3. The physical evidence for explosions in the basement, i.e., the local nature of the damage in relation to the layout of the WTC's elevator shafts.


You have assumed that the first seismic spikes recorded the plane impacts. But if you stop and think about it -- this is implausible. Why would a plane impact 1,000 feet above the ground cause a seismic spike? In fact, there's no reason to expect a spike, since the building itself should absorb the force of the impact.

No, something else caused the initial spikes.

You need to stop assuming and start investigating.

[Spider]

All yo' knows how t'do is cite this hyar disinfo address. Same old same old, cuss it all t' tarnation. Ju even read Rost an' Furlong's paper?
Who be Furlong =



Git back an' read it BEFORE yo' knock it. We haf sevahal data sets -- an' all is mulutally co'robo'ative. is there a pop quiz ?

1. th' origeenal seismic data.
what in the hell did you just say ?

2. th' eyewitness accounts of sploshuns.
can I get an amen brother .......testify

3. Th' physical evidence fo' sploshuns in th' basement, i.e., th' local nature of th' damage in relashun t'th' layo't of th' WTC's elevato' shaf's. Yo' haf assoomd thet th' fust seismic spikes reco'ded th' plane impacks. But eff'n yo' stop an' reckon about it -- this hyar is implausible. Whuffo''d a plane impack 1,000 feet above th' groun' cuz a seismic spike? In fack, thar's no reason t'speck a spike, on account o' th' buildin' itse'f sh'd abso'b th' fo'ce of th' impack. No, sumpin else cuzd th' initial spikes. Yo' need t'stop assumin' an' start investigatin'..
sounds like my basement when it floods... pain in the ass I tell ya

[W*GS]

All you know how to do is cite this disinfo address. Same old same old.

It's very clumsy of you to claim "911myths" is merely a "disinfo" site. You've done nothing at all to show that, in any way. You merely state it as such.

Did you even read Ross and Furlong's paper? Go back and read it BEFORE you knock it.

I read it. The key piece of information is the time of the impacts, and how that correlates to the time of the seismic recordings. Their allegation (which you accept without actually understanding) is that the impacts following the first seismic spikes. That is wrong. The paper I pointed to explains in detail how R&F misinterpret and misstate the times of both the impacts and the seismic events. If you read it, you would know that.

No, something else caused the initial spikes.

Yeah, the thud of your credibility hitting rock-bottom.

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.debunking911.com/meeting.htm

[mhgaffney]

It's very clumsy of you to claim "911myths" is merely a "disinfo" site. You've done nothing at all to show that, in any way. You merely state it as such.

If you read it, you would know that.



Yeah, I read your rebuttal at
http://911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

All this paper does is muddy the waters.

here's a quote

"...if there was an explosion of this power, then wouldn't you expect it be reported by rather more people? Here are just two relevant accounts."

Wrong. They cite 2 accounts of people who felt the plane impacts. But there were a lot more than 2 eyewitnesses to the explosions in the WTC basement. In fact, as Ross and Furlong state, there were at least 37 eyewitnesses in the WTC basement who heard/felt/saw the explosions BEFORE the plane hit the tower.


The paper goes on to contradict itself. They write:

"If these 2 accounts are describing the plane impacts, then what we're being asked to believe is that they didn't register seismically to any significant degree, despite causing effects comparable to an earthquake."

If you actually look at the verbatim account of one of those 2 eyewitnesses, it supports the conclusion that the building absorbed the force of impact --

Here's what one of the witnesses said:

"When the first plane hit the North Tower on about the 90th floor it was nowhere near as dramatic as you would think on the 65th floor, just 25 floors down. There was a definite explosion but it did not sound that bad."

The plane impacts did NOT cause seismic spikes. So what caused the initial spikes? The answer is given by the 37 witnesses in the basement who saw/felt/heard the explosions before the impact.

These pre-impact explosions killed and injured a number of people.

Why are you willing to swallow a whitewash while discounting the many eyewitness accounts who were there and know what happened?

[colosilverado]

...I hope all of the folks who have had their quotes used out of context and twisted and posted out there start pursuing some sort of legal action to make these whackos like gaff stop.
Let me get this straight, the only people who support the whole conspiracy theory are people who weren't actually there, have an axe to grind with the govenment/Bush/whatever? Right? We don't have a large quantity of the victims, victims families demanding an inquiry into this.

The only way that anyone will start to believe you conspiracy theorists is if you can show these people (with verified backgrounds as being there on 9/11) on a major news outlet, not some random local access channel in HeeeHaaaaw Arkansas stating that they are demanding an inquiry. I'm not talking just one or two people who may share your anti-government views either that might have worked in the towers and survived.
My challenge to you, Gaffffffff, is to put your money where your big mouth and ego are and start a grass-roots campaign to get these people together and PROVE TO US that this happened. PROVE IT. All of your squealing is just that...a little boy crying wolf.

You and your buddies need to do something concrete and get together and prove it. Unite! Show the world you're right. I am pretty forkin' sure that the news outlets would be allllll over this, wanting to break the big one, if they thought that anything you or any of these other twits have advanced was remotely credible. Your buddy has a local access cable program, so he should have the stroke to get it started, right? Don't you think there are some freelance journalists working for a major outlet that would be all over this trying to make a name for himself? Wouldn't these news outlets LOVE to break the story that is BIGGER THAN WATERGATE? They love to point out governmental ****ups.
Better yet, don't you think that the victims would want justice? Out of all of the organizations that have popped up post 9/11, don't you think that attorneys would be allll over the fact that the US government might have done this? Wouldn't they want to make a name for themselves and make some serious coin on top of it? Couldn't they organize an effort to make that voice heard? Couldn't they start up something that would empower the victims to come forward if they thought that they were victims of a governmental action and not terrorists? Couldn't they get a lobbyist group or two behind them with a band of attorneys?

Someone with your ability to organize should have no problem with this, no?
http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/pages/bio.htm
:peace: :peace:

Ohhhh wait, there's burden of proof. Nevermind.......
Hilarious!

[mhgaffney]

Let me get this straight, the only people who support the whole conspiracy theory are people who weren't actually there, have an axe to grind with the govenment/Bush/whatever? Right? We don't have a large quantity of the victims, victims families demanding an inquiry into this.

The only way that anyone will start to believe you conspiracy theorists is if you can show these people (with verified backgrounds as being there on 9/11) on a major news outlet, not some random local access channel in HeeeHaaaaw Arkansas stating that they are demanding an inquiry. I'm not talking just one or two people who may share your anti-government views either that might have worked in the towers and survived.

Don't you think there are some freelance journalists working for a major outlet that would be all over this trying to make a name for himself? Wouldn't these news outlets LOVE to break the story that is BIGGER THAN WATERGATE?



Silverado, you don't understand the nation you are living in.

There are hundreds of witnesses -- people who were there - firemen, policemen, emergency responders, etc who agree with me.

I heard from a man who lives on Staten Island. He knows guys in the NYC fire department. They all know for a fact it was an inside job. But they can't talk about it public - or they'll lose their job. Men who have families have to keep their mouth shut.

None of these firemen were allowed to give testimony before the 9/11 commission. They were pointedly excluded. You didn't know this?

There were many other eyewitnesses -- people who were there and heard/saw/felt the explosions -- who wanted to testify before the 9/11 Commission -- but were also excluded.

There is a whole web page set up by the NY Times with the testimony of more than 500 NYC firemen, police, emergency providers etc. The city of NY refused to release this information for years. These tapes were made on 9/11 -- but were only made public after a court battle. Now ask yourself, why would the city of NY suppress this eyewitness trestimony? Nor did the 9/11 Commission consider this eyewitness testimony.

Why were the blue prints of the WTC also suppressed? The FEMA and NIST scientists who did the official studies were not even allowed access to the full set of blue prints. Why?

As for the media, evidently you are asleep. In the 1990s there was a series of mergers and buy outs. As a result, a tiny group of men now control 90% of the US media, including all of the major networks. These owners don;t give a damn about the truth. The only thing they care about is $$$$$.

This is why the press does not report the facts about Iraq, Iran, and US foreign policy in general. They merely regurgitate what the gov't tells them.

It's also why there is no longer any investigative journalism in America. Muckrakers were once a respected part of the US newsmedia -- but today are a vanishing breed.

[mhgaffney]

Here is the NY Times web page with the testimonials

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[W*GS]

Silverado, you don't understand the nation you are living in.

No-one understands the universe you're in...

I heard from a man who lives on Staten Island. He knows guys in the NYC fire department. They all know for a fact it was an inside job. But they can't talk about it public - or they'll lose their job. Men who have families have to keep their mouth shut.

Why would a firefighter (much less more than one, as you allege above) value his job more than the lives of 3,000 people, of whom 343 were fellow firefighters and paramedics? Do you really believe firefighters are that crass and selfish? Why?

What you claim makes no sense at all. Nonsense, in short. As usual.

It's also why there is no longer any investigative journalism in America. Muckrakers were once a respected part of the US newsmedia -- but today are a vanishing breed.

"Vanishing" isn't the same as "no longer".

In any case, when you go off on a tirade against someone who's not as familiar with your bilge as the rest of us, it's really pathetic (and amusing). Clearly, none of the facts that have been repeated to you time and again by myself and others have penetrated into your brain. You repeat the same lies, evasions, and half-truths, endlessly. You need a new act.

The one thing that is to your credit is that you've dropped the mini-nuke crap.

[W*GS]

Another demolition of the demolition whackitude:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[colosilverado]

Silverado, you don't understand the nation you are living in.

There are hundreds of witnesses -- people who were there - firemen, policemen, emergency responders, etc who agree with me.

I heard from a man who lives on Staten Island. He knows guys in the NYC fire department. They all know for a fact it was an inside job. But they can't talk about it public - or they'll lose their job. Men who have families have to keep their mouth shut.

None of these firemen were allowed to give testimony before the 9/11 commission. They were pointedly excluded. You didn't know this?

There were many other eyewitnesses -- people who were there and heard/saw/felt the explosions -- who wanted to testify before the 9/11 Commission -- but were also excluded.

There is a whole web page set up by the NY Times with the testimony of more than 500 NYC firemen, police, emergency providers etc. The city of NY refused to release this information for years. These tapes were made on 9/11 -- but were only made public after a court battle. Now ask yourself, why would the city of NY suppress this eyewitness trestimony? Nor did the 9/11 Commission consider this eyewitness testimony.

Why were the blue prints of the WTC also suppressed? The FEMA and NIST scientists who did the official studies were not even allowed access to the full set of blue prints. Why?

As for the media, evidently you are asleep. In the 1990s there was a series of mergers and buy outs. As a result, a tiny group of men now control 90% of the US media, including all of the major networks. These owners don;t give a damn about the truth. The only thing they care about is $$$$$.

This is why the press does not report the facts about Iraq, Iran, and US foreign policy in general. They merely regurgitate what the gov't tells them.

It's also why there is no longer any investigative journalism in America. Muckrakers were once a respected part of the US newsmedia -- but today are a vanishing breed.


Again, I CHALLENGE you, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING Mark Gaffney to provide us tangible proof. You and some attorneys can UNITE these hundreds of people, out of the thousands that were there. (Thousands who say that there is no conspiracy)
You obviously have the ability to draw people of your kind together. DO IT THEN. PROVE IT TO US! Come up with something solid and concrete and get it on the news.
You ignored my remarks about the E4B, you have ignored WAGS and everyone else on this board and continued to throw out random quotes by people who have no credibility other than in your little world out there in Oregon. Nobody sees you post where the big boys are, as WAGS or someone challenged you to do. You just keep yapping to us and a few of us respond because it is amusing. You can't even prove it to a bunch of us sheeples here on a Bronco forum, pal! I guaranfrickintee that if I felt like taking the time to refute your offers of 'facts' and your diatribes, I could. I just don't feel like wasting my time lowering myself to your level when a few doses of reality from all of us will do.
I realize that this is your only audience other than the handful of people who have been duped into buying some of your drivel and a few of your buddies who you play grab-ass with, but do you think that these people could effect change if they were really motivated? C'mon. You yap about the media wanting to make money. How about the attorneys? These sharks are out there circling everywhere and can't wait to make their mark. If you have something that miiiiight potentially make them a buck or a name, they're on it. Why is there no movement then? The legal system is ****ed up in this country and the attorneys get paid regardless of the results of the trial/proceedings. Yes, I know there might be a few out there with actual morals and I know there are attorneys on this board who are going to start crying. We need to revamp the system badly, but the lawyers are way too firmly entrenched. It would have to originate from an equally powerful entity.

So, the media won't break a story if there's no money in it? BS. They all want to break THE BIG ONE. That is for sure. Try to debate that. Go ahead and prove it.
I realize that the media has agendas and their own point of view that they can't wait to advance. That is why I quit watching the news, taking the paper and such. I don't trust anyone in the government either. They are, after all, largely a group of attorneys....lol.

I'm sure the 9/11 commission had all of the witnesses and accounts that they wanted. Otherwise they'd still be meeting. Blueprints? Who the **** cares about blueprints. I've seen documentaries with the guys who built the ****ing towers who said what happened and how. You think they might know more than any so-called experts that you conspiracy theorists can dream up? Oh, the government is shutting them up, right? If you watch the rate of speech of the guys who built them and their other 'tells' and such, there is nothing there that says that they are lying about what happens in those videos. They aren't being threatened into making the documentary.

Give me a break. Go put on your tie-dyed shirt and chain yourself to a tree where you belong. :flower:

[W*GS]

gaff, let's suppose there was an "explosion" in one of the basements of the WTC before the plane hit.

What purpose did it serve?

[Tom H.]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

[mhgaffney]

gaff, let's suppose there was an "explosion" in one of the basements of the WTC before the plane hit.

What purpose did it serve?

I've explained this numerous times. You still don't get it.

The WTC was a very well built high rise steel structure. It required numerous explosions to weaken it enough that a final series of charges would bring it down.

Remember, most of the WTC was not affected by the plane inpacts or fires. Most of the building retained its full strength. So, why did it fall at nearly the rate of gravity -- nearly a free fall -- with no resistance??

Answer: Because many charges were set to explode from the first plane impact to the final moment. I believe the conspirators messed up -- since explosions started even before the planes it.

[W*GS]

The WTC was a very well built high rise steel structure. It required numerous explosions to weaken it enough that a final series of charges would bring it down.

How were the charges for these "numerous explosions" placed without anyone reporting anything unusual?

Answer: Because many charges were set to explode from the first plane impact to the final moment. I believe the conspirators messed up -- since explosions started even before the planes it.

So why bother with the planes? Why not simply fill the underground garages with Ryder and U-Haul trucks packed with explosives, i.e., 1993 writ large, and avoid the "messed up" part entirely?

Like that guy commenting on Paulsen - your 9/11 whackitude requires a combination of "Mission: Impossible" and Barney Fife...

[Rigs11]

How were the charges for these "numerous explosions" placed without anyone reporting anything unusual?



So why bother with the planes? Why not simply fill the underground garages with Ryder and U-Haul trucks packed with explosives, i.e., 1993 writ large, and avoid the "messed up" part entirely?

Like that guy commenting on Paulsen - your 9/11 whackitude requires a combination of "Mission: Impossible" and Barney Fife...

How were the terrorists able to hijack 3 planes without anybody reporting anything unusual? How were the selling of stocks made days prior to 911 without anyone reporting anything unusual? Why were saudis who were relatives of Osama allowed to fly when all other flights were grounded? Unusual?Here have a gander for yourself..But really look at the site. It's got links.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

[W*GS]

How were the terrorists able to hijack 3 planes without anybody reporting anything unusual?

They hijacked four, not three, and lots of people reported the hijackings. As it was, the passenger screening system then in place worked as intended.

How were the selling of stocks made days prior to 911 without anyone reporting anything unusual?

Those activities were investigated and found to have no connection of any kind to 9/11.

Why were saudis who were relatives of Osama allowed to fly when all other flights were grounded?

False. The flights with OBL relatives didn't leave before the general ban on aviation was lifted. As it was, Richard Clarke okayed their departure.

Unusual?Here have a gander for yourself..But really look at the site. It's got links.

You're waaaaay behind the curve, for one thing.

And a can of Vienna sausage has better links.

[W*GS]

Here have a gander for yourself..But really look at the site. It's got links.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

One serious flaw in the above website:

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

The impression from the above is that the 6 Aug PDB mentions hijacked planes being used to attack the WTC, but in fact, the memo says nothing of the sort. If this is the best you got, Rigs, you got next to nothing.

[Bronco Bob]

The WTC was a very well built high rise steel structure. It required numerous explosions to weaken it enough that a final series of charges would bring it down. Actaully it wasn't. It was only built well enough to stand
up on its own. Back in the days of the Empire State Building skyscrapers
were built with massive overkill because they didn't really understand
how to build tall building so they build them far stronger than they needed
to be. By the time the WTC towers were built, they could build them
much weaker because they understood just how much was needed to
keep them standing under ordinary circumstances.


Remember, most of the WTC was not affected by the plane inpacts or fires. Most of the building retained its full strength.

Obviously. The planes only hit near the top of building.


So, why did it fall at nearly the rate of gravity -- nearly a free fall -- with no resistance??

Pancaking. As the top hit each floor the momentum caused the floor it hit
to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall.


Answer: Because many charges were set to explode from the first plane impact to the final moment. I believe the conspirators messed up -- since explosions started even before the planes it.
Where is your proof? And you still haven't explained how a mini-nuke is
supposed to work.

[alkemical]

One serious flaw in the above website:

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

The impression from the above is that the 6 Aug PDB mentions hijacked planes being used to attack the WTC, but in fact, the memo says nothing of the sort. If this is the best you got, Rigs, you got next to nothing.

ya but didn't the french tell the CIA of a hijacking plot - i also believe the russians told the CIA as well......

[alkemical]

Actaully it wasn't. It was only built well enough to stand
up on its own. Back in the days of the Empire State Building skyscrapers
were built with massive overkill because they didn't really understand
how to build tall building so they build them far stronger than they needed
to be. By the time the WTC towers were built, they could build them
much weaker because they understood just how much was needed to
keep them standing under ordinary circumstances.



Obviously. The planes only hit near the top of building.



Pancaking. As the top hit each floor the momentum caused the floor it hit
to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall.


Where is your proof? And you still haven't explained how a mini-nuke is
supposed to work.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

FEMA's Building Performance Study

Figure 2-2 of of FEMA's Building Performance Study, labeled "Representative structural framing plan, upper floors", is one of five illustrations in the report that depict core columns. Each of these illustrations depicts the core columns at their minimum dimensions, and none depict them at their typical dimensions.
In May of 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released its Building Performance Study, of which Chapter 2, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", was devoted to explaining the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. It advances the "truss theory" or "pancake theory", in which the supposed failure of floor-truss-to-column connections is the initiating event in a series of chain reactions ending in total collapse. Added commentary in our archived copy exposes many deceptive techniques employed in the article. 3

Key elements of FEMA's theory depend on misrepresentations of the Towers' construction made possible by their vague descriptions. For example, to explain other collapse of the core their Study states:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

Contrary to the FEMA's hedged assertion that the core columns were freestanding, construction photographs clearly show that large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

FEMA's report seems crafted to hide the structural significance of the core columns, if not their very existence. Examples of features of the Report that minimize or conceal the core structures include:


Figure D-13 from FEMA's Study, bearing the caption "WTC 1 or WTC 2 core column (C-74)", is the only photograph in the Study that shows an identified core column
The absence of any illustrations showing core columns of typical dimensions
The repeated use of the term "service core" to describe the cores, and avoidance of terminology describing their structural role
The use of illustrations that imply the cores didn't exist, such as Figure 2-20
The only photograph of a core column in the Report (Figure D-13) being of an atypical column of very small dimensions
The inclusion of only floor plans that show core columns of very small dimensions with no clarification that the core columns that ran most of the Towers' heights were of much larger dimensions
NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers
In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:


Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on the 78th through the 83rd floors.
The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns.

The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?

[W*GS]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html[...]Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?

The South Tower had much greater loads placed upon the surviving structural elements than the North Tower, because the impact zone was lower. There's no need to posit that NIST was "struggling" to account for the different times-to-collapse.

[alkemical]

The South Tower had much greater loads placed upon the surviving structural elements than the North Tower, because the impact zone was lower. There's no need to posit that NIST was "struggling" to account for the different times-to-collapse.

"...Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact?..."

[Tom H.]

It doesn't look like a glancing blow to me. Yikes!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6147&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1175131672

[alkemical]

easy.... mini nuke

[mhgaffney]

It doesn't look like a glancing blow to me. Yikes!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6147&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1175131672

Tom, what you are looking at here is a large part of the jet fuel burning OUTSIDE the tower.

[mhgaffney]

Actaully it wasn't. It was only built well enough to stand
up on its own. Back in the days of the Empire State Building skyscrapers
were built with massive overkill because they didn't really understand
how to build tall building so they build them far stronger than they needed
to be. By the time the WTC towers were built, they could build them
much weaker because they understood just how much was needed to
keep them standing under ordinary circumstances.

Pancaking. As the top hit each floor the momentum caused the floor it hit
to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall, causing the floor it hit to fall.



It's true what you say about the early steel frame buildings. But this doesn't diminish the strength of the WTC.

Its outer perimeter wall had a factor of safety of greater than 5, meaning it could support 5X the design load before even beginning to show signs of damage. It was made extra strong to accomodate hurricane winds -- and was made of the latest high strength steels.

The perimeter wall design is known as a Vierendeel Truss -- and when pierced it behaves like an arch. This is why the large hole punched by the planes did not seriously compromise the outer wall.

Just how strong was itl? According to the builders, it was so strong that even if you severed ALL of the perimeter columns at the base on one side, including the corner columns, the tower could still resist a 100 MPH wind.

And you describe this as weak?

[W*GS]

Hey gaff... Instead of softballs, try this one:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1553314&postcount=141

[Bronco Bob]

It's true what you say about the early steel frame buildings. But this doesn't diminish the strength of the WTC.

Its outer perimeter wall had a factor of safety of greater than 5, meaning it could support 5X the design load before even beginning to show signs of damage. It was made extra strong to accomodate hurricane winds -- and was made of the latest high strength steels.

The perimeter wall design is known as a Vierendeel Truss -- and when pierced it behaves like an arch. This is why the large hole punched by the planes did not seriously compromise the outer wall.

Just how strong was itl? According to the builders, it was so strong that even if you severed ALL of the perimeter columns at the base on one side, including the corner columns, the tower could still resist a 100 MPH wind.

And you describe this as weak?

None-the-less, each individual floor wasn't designed to have a multi-story
building fall on it from at least one story up. Which is what you had after
the floor at the impact level collapsed on the floor below it after the heat
from the flames had weakened the supporting steel trusses. Each floor
was only designed to support the static load of the floor above it.
Try this experiment:
Carefully set a 5 lb steel weight on an egg. The egg won't break. Now take
this 5 lb weight and drop it on the egg from a few inches above it. See the difference?

[colosilverado]

Tom, what you are looking at here is a large part of the jet fuel burning OUTSIDE the tower.

Just think of what it looks like INSIDE.

[colosilverado]

Hey gaff... Instead of softballs, try this one:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1553314&postcount=141

It is called cherry pickin'. He can't do anything other than quote various other sources that have already been debunked. He saw a post like Tom's and immediately ignored the whole list of names in there that were OBVIOUSLY in on this conspiracy. It covered way too much factual data which he can't wrap his head around. He will come back with a statement like, if you don't believe what I say, you sheeple will never understand the way the world works.
He obviously has nothing. Nada. Zippo. It is really quite amusing right now!

[Bronco Bob]

Tom, what you are looking at here is a large part of the jet fuel burning OUTSIDE the tower.

What you fail to realize is it wasn't just jet fuel burning inside the building.
These were an office buildings. They had carpets on the floors, cubicle walls,
wiring, furniture with foam padding on the chairs, wooden tables, computers
with cases, keyboards, printers made of plastic, file cabinets filled with
papers, hell even human bodies (fat burns) and their clothing. This stuff
doesn't burn up all at once, it can burn for hours. And some of it burns
a lot hotter than kerosene.

Try this simple experiment. Get a stopwatch, a thermometer, an aluminum
pan, and a can of charcoal starter fluid. Fill the pan half way with starter
fluid and put the thermometer over the pan . Light the starter fluid and
start your stopwatch. When the pan is no longer giving off heat, stop the
stopwatch.
Now get some charcoal and put some charcoal in the pan. Pour the same
amount of starter fluid on the charcoal. Put the thermometer over the pan
and light the starter fluid. Start your stopwatch and when the pan is no
longer giving off heat, stop your stopwatch.
Now report back to us which gave off heat longer, the pan with just starter
fluid in it, or the pan with starter fluid and charcoal in it.

[colosilverado]

Tom, what you are looking at here is a large part of the jet fuel burning OUTSIDE the tower.

If you look closely, you can see the a likeness of gaff in the smoke....

[alkemical]

This should help explain the "mystery plane". Interesting read too.


http://www.stthomas.edu/aquin/archive/041202/anaconda.html

UST grad guides bombers in war

http://www.stthomas.edu/aquin/archive/041202/Images/anaconda.JPG

First Lieutenant Anthony Kuczynski, a 1998 St. Thomas alumnus, flew about 70 missions over Afghanistan in an E-3 Sentry like this one. Kuczynski helped direct fighter jets over combat zones. USAF/Getty Images



By Dave Forster, Aquin editor

Unlike most Americans on the morning of Sept. 11, St. Thomas graduate Anthony Kuczynski wasnít watching the news. He was flying toward Pittsburgh alongside two F-16 fighter jets.

ìI was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner,î said Kuczynski, a first lieutenant in the Air Force and an E-3 Sentry pilot. ìIt was one of those things where it was an absolutely surreal experience.î

E-3 Sentries, also called Airborne Warning and Control Systems, are modified Boeing 707s with advanced radar and surveillance tools, technologies that Kuczynski and his crew use to direct fighter jets to their targets. Kuczynskiís E-3 Sentry was one of the few military planes in the sky during the opening moments of the terrorist attacks.

ìWe were the only show in the air,î said Kuczynski, a 1998 UST graduate.

Less than four years after leaving St. Thomasí Air Force ROTC chapter, Kuczynski found himself in a six-month-long military deployment that began in defense of U.S. airspace, included hundreds of hours of combat missions, and ended with ìOperation Anaconda,î the deadliest mission for U.S. troops thus far in the war in Afghanistan.

Just as Kuczynski and his crew were about to intercept United Airlines Flight 93 on Sept. 11, passengers on the hijacked plane apparently rushed the terrorists, and the airliner crashed southeast of Pittsburgh. From there, Kuczynski went to orbit an area near Washington, D.C., for the next 15 hours.
Earlier that morning, when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash, Kuczynski thought he was involved in a planned military simulation. It didnít take him long to realize it was real.

ìWe sometimes do scenarios where weíre protecting the United States from bombers coming in from unknown areas,î he said. ìBut we never really thought that thereíd be a threat that was taking off from the United States.î

Kuczynski heard a lot of rumors after Sept. 11 about how President Bush would respond to the attacks. He knew within days after the hijackings that the military would be called upon; on Sept. 25, Kuczynski was headed to Afghanistan.

ìWe knew it was only going to be a select few who were going to get a chance to be part of the initial strike,î he said.

Kuczynski said he got his chance by ìcomplete flukeî when a couple of people ahead of him got sick and werenít able to go. Only weeks before, he had returned from a tour in ìOperation Southern Watchî in Saudi Arabia, where he watched for Iraqi troops in the southern no-fly zone. Kuczynski was tired, and he wasnít looking forward to another long, grueling trip oversees so soon.

I was pretty burnt out,î he said.

Besides the lack of rest, Kuczynski had only four days to get his gear in order and to buy extra supplies he wanted to take with him.

Basically they told us to get ready for a 90-day deployment, and oh, by the way, youíve got three days to do it,î he said.

Kuczynski couldnít tell his family where he was headed, although a lot of people could guess, he said. Before he left, he wrote rent checks for the next five months. He still cannot say where he flew from in Afghanistan.

Kuczynskiís destination was a rustic, run-down airbase in the middle of a hilly Afghan desert. The base had ìno showers, no nothing,î he said, ìjust a runway with a couple of hangars on it.î

One of his first tasks was to build the tent he would live in for the next three months. After that, Kuczynski helped turn the dilapidated base into a functioning command center for hundreds of troops.

ìWe landed and the next thing we knew we set up a complete working airport,î he said.

Temperatures at the base often reached 110 degrees, but Kuczynski tried to sleep during the day to work on the base at night. After most of the ground work was finished, Kuczynski and the other troops spent much of their time resting and caring for themselves personally, he said, ìwaiting for that day when weíd be tapped on our shoulders, and told that, ëHey, youíre on crew rest and in eight hours expect to be flying a combat mission over Afghanistan.í ì

Kuczynski, who spent Thanksgiving Day at 35,000 feet over Kandahar, flew about 355 combat hours on 35 missions in his first rotation in Operation Enduring Freedom. He and his crew led bombing runs to clear the way for ground troops. Humanitarian aid, usually in the form of food or medicine dropped by C-130s, followed each of the missions, he said.

Kuczynski returned home for Christmas, but two days after New Yearís he was on his way back to Afghanistan. He said he enjoyed the time with his parents but dreaded the thought of leaving again so soon.

ìI was living in a tent where youíre dirty all the time and thereís sand every where, and then to go home to a nice house where you can shower every day and have really good food, and then to know that youíre going back to really long hours and bad weather and bugs and insects, it shakes you up a little bit,î Kuczynski said.

Back in Afghanistan for Operation Anaconda, Kuczynski had a few close calls with al Queda forces who had spotted and targeted his plane, he said, but he never was seriously threatened. He said he likely was flying a mission during the March 4 battle in which seven U.S. troops were killed.

Kuczynski spent most of his combat hours supporting special operations forces when al Queda or Taliban forces got too close. The United States sent only its best troops to Afghanistan, he said, and those he met were some of the smartest, most professional people he has ever seen.

When Kuczynski returned to his home base in Oklahoma last month, one of his roommates took his place.

ìI have a lot of close friends who are still out there doing the job,î Kuczynski said.

Although he has little more insight than the average citizen into President Bushís plans, Kuczynski said it is ìdefinitely possibleî that U.S. troops could see action in other countries after Afghanistan. He said he probably would be back in Afghanistan if U.S. troops are still there nine months from now.

For now, Kuczynski is trying to pay his bills and get caught up with friends he hasnít spoken to in six months.

ìI consider myself lucky to have been a part of [the war],î he said.

Dave Forster can be reached at dmforster@stthomas.edu

[alkemical]

They state they didn't shoot the plane down, but did have orders to.

[Bronco Bob]

They state they didn't shoot the plane down, but did have orders to.

As I recall, their first priority was to intercept Flight 93, but it crashed
before they had a chance to get to it.

[alkemical]

That's pretty much what the above story states. It also states that this recon plane was in the air for hours that day -

Like i said - i have questions about certain aspects of the 9/11 deal - This just about removes doubt i had on flight 93 - though i still have some suspect details from people i've talked to personally in the area.

MY overall stance is that the gov't doesn't help themselves with the secrecy & expansion of gov't that keeps growing and the treating of citizens like inmates more and more - that's what helps fuel many of these stories. Since the credibility is hosed - it's hard for any credible truth to be taken at face value.

[mhgaffney]

None-the-less, each individual floor wasn't designed to have a multi-story
building fall on it from at least one story up. Which is what you had after
the floor at the impact level collapsed on the floor below it after the heat
from the flames had weakened the supporting steel trusses. Each floor
was only designed to support the static load of the floor above it.
Try this experiment:
Carefully set a 5 lb steel weight on an egg. The egg won't break. Now take
this 5 lb weight and drop it on the egg from a few inches above it. See the difference?

It doesn't matter. You are ignoring the laws of physics. Even if the collapsing load overwhelmed the steel supports below, a true structural collapse would have taken MUCH longer than what we all observed..

The structural members and columns below were NOT weakened by fire or crash. They were at full strength. They would have resisted the collapse for a period of time -- however short, maybe a half second -- maybe a third of a second per floor. Remember, this was a 110 story building. The resulting collapse would have taken much longer --

Yet the WTC collapsed in a near free fall. You can only explain this with explosives.

There's no getting around it.

[mhgaffney]

Just think of what it looks like INSIDE.

The jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes. The source here is the NIST report. Don't believe me? Do some homework for a change.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

[mhgaffney]

How were the charges for these "numerous explosions" placed without anyone reporting anything unusual?

So why bother with the planes? Why not simply fill the underground garages with Ryder and U-Haul trucks packed with explosives, i.e., 1993 writ large, and avoid the "messed up" part entirely?


I've answered these questions several times on this board. You keep asking them again and again because you don't listen. Why not? Well, maybe because you don't have the intel God gave you.

Since you don't believe in God -- you'll just have to take my word for it.

There were known security breaches at the WTC in the months before the attack -- Just days before, most of one tower was shut down. The security cameras were off. Crews were in the buildings moving around.

Check out these sites:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

Should we be surprised that Bush's brother was a principal with the company, Securacom, that had the security contract for the WTC? Or that Bush's cousin was the Securacom CEO? I think not.

As for the planes, you need to bone up on covert operations -- and how they are carried out. To sell a false flag operation to the American people you need a scapegoat -- patsies!

Wake up , W*gs, you been sleeping for too long. The US intel community did the same kind of operation in Europe during the Cold War. They did it again in S America in operation Condor.

They did it in Iran in 1953 -- and in numerous Central American countries also in the 1950s -- and many times since.

The CIA, NSA and other agencies exist outside the law. There is no accountability. They kill whomever they want, bribe whomever, threaten, intimidate, smear... whatever. It's a wild west show.

That's how it is in the world of covert ops -- and sooner or later it was bound to come home to America. It did on 9/11.

[mhgaffney]

What you fail to realize is it wasn't just jet fuel burning inside the building.
These were an office buildings. They had carpets on the floors, cubicle walls,
wiring, furniture with foam padding on the chairs, wooden tables, computers
with cases, keyboards, printers made of plastic, file cabinets filled with
papers, hell even human bodies (fat burns) and their clothing. This stuff
doesn't burn up all at once, it can burn for hours. And some of it burns
a lot hotter than kerosene.



You are talking out of your A-hole.

Hours and hours? The S Tower fell in less than 1 hour and the N in one and a half hours. That's not enough time for even an inferno to weaken huge steel beams.

Look, read the NIST report. The NIST scientists admitted that the fuel load inside the WTC was less than expected -- only about 4 lbs of combustibles per sq ft. In the core area the burnables were even less.

Remember this was a steel and concrete building.

The NIST also analyzed the steel samples recovered from the wreckaga and determined that none of them reached a temperature of more than 450 C for 15 minutes. In fact, the vast majority of the steel samples never exceeded 250 C.

This is not nearly hot enough to weaken enormous steel columns and explain the collapse we witnessed. The NIST scientists had to fudge and fudge and fudge their computer model to get the towers to collapse. Their gerryrigged computer model is not the proper way to conduct science. They worked backwards from the desired result -- a structural collapse -- and tweaked their program until it worked. Again, this is dubious science.

If you never read my NIST paper read it now
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

[colosilverado]

The jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes. The source here is the NIST report. Don't believe me? Do some homework for a change.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

Hey numbnuts, WTF would I read anything that you have diced up and misquoted so that it serves your agenda? I swear, you cherry-pick through so much and anyone's challenges go unanswered. Like I said, it is fun just to watch you grasp at anything you can to make some sort of case. You are so utterly transparent and a disgrace to the whacko cause because you suck at backing up your assertions and don't counter most people's posts or take them up on their challenges. Maybe if you did that, you MIGHT gain an ounce of credibility. That is obviously way too tough for you, though.
Any moron like you can go out and start up a website and put diced up quotes and articles up on it to try to pimp their cause, be it factual info or not. Gee, that is original. Obviously there aren't any people with any kind of credibility that side with your type or we'd have a huge lawsuit going that would be making headlines every freakin' day. That would keep the ratings up, would it not?

You are really starting to piss me off, quite frankly. I hope the government is keeping a close eye on psychos like you. I am close to going out to Chiloquin Oregon and






snatching your tinfoil hat.
PS, does that tinfoil hat mess up your awesome comb-over? I'll bet you're a hit with the women.

[mhgaffney]

As I recall, their first priority was to intercept Flight 93, but it crashed
before they had a chance to get to it.

Then why was plane wreckage scattered over 8 square miles?

Why was mail from mail bags falling like confetti?

Why were body parts strewn to the four winds?

Why was there almost no wreckage found at the alleged crash site?

[colosilverado]

You are talking out of your A-hole.

Hours and hours? The S Tower fell in less than 1 hour and the N in one and a half hours. That's not enough time for even an inferno to weaken huge steel beams.

Look, read the NIST report. The NIST scientists admitted that the fuel load inside the WTC was less than expected -- only about 4 lbs of combustibles per sq ft. In the core area the burnables were even less.

Remember this was a steel and concrete building.

The NIST also analyzed the steel samples recovered from the wreckaga and determined that none of them reached a temperature of more than 450 C for 15 minutes. In fact, the vast majority of the steel samples never exceeded 250 C.

This is not nearly hot enough to weaken enormous steel columns and explain the collapse we witnessed. The NIST scientists had to fudge and fudge and fudge their computer model to get the towers to collapse. Their gerryrigged computer model is not the proper way to conduct science. They worked backwards from the desired result -- a structural collapse -- and tweaked their program until it worked. Again, this is dubious science.

If you never read my NIST paper read it now
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

Too bad it was the floors that caused the problems.

[W*GS]

It doesn't matter. You are ignoring the laws of physics.

Thanks for the unintentional laugher.

Yet the WTC collapsed in a near free fall. You can only explain this with explosives.

Wrong.

[W*GS]

Once again, your whackitude requires that "Mission:Impossible" be blended with Barney Fife...

I've answered these questions several times on this board. You keep asking them again and again because you don't listen.

I ask because you never answer with anything rational. For someone who claims to have figured out 9/11, you sure can't figure out the simplest, largest, and most obvious problems with your whackitude.

There were known security breaches at the WTC in the months before the attack -- Just days before, most of one tower was shut down. The security cameras were off. Crews were in the buildings moving around.

How long does it take to rig a building for controlled demolition? Think hours and people. Now multiply that by at least a factor of three (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, as you allege), and then add another 2x or so to account for the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 were 110 floors each.

Also, how did the demolition crews (how many were involved?) manage to hide what they had done from the thousands of people that were in all three buildings every day? Obviously the security guards were in on it too - how many people is that, now?

Another problem - how could they be sure that the demolition would work once the plane impacts and fires had done their damage? How could they know a priori where the planes would impact and what the damage would be from the impacts and the resulting fires? According to you, despite all this careful preparation, they were undone by a few seconds of bad timing.

Please explain.

Oh, and also explain how what William Rodriguez described as a "rumble" mutated into an "explosion". Do you confuse the two? Think a heavy truck going down a nearby street, or distant thunder, and fireworks on the Fourth of July from the same distance. Do they sound the same to you?

And one other thing - how is it that of the thousands of NYFD personnel that were at the WTC on 9/11, and saw 343 of their fellow firefighters die that day, none of them are willing to go public with their (as you claim) knowledge that it was an "inside job"? Do you honestly believe that the surviving NYFD firefighters and others are that heartless? A job is more important than those 343 who died? A job in a department that's covering up the "real" cause of those hundreds of deaths?

As for the planes, you need to bone up on covert operations -- and how they are carried out. To sell a false flag operation to the American people you need a scapegoat -- patsies!

So why the planes? Why not like I said - a garage full of car bombs? Was the bombing in 1993 also a "false flag" operation? What about the other al-Qaeda bombings? Were those also?

Wake up , W*gs, you been sleeping for too long.

You've been sniffing glue for waaaaay too long. Billions of your neurons no longer function. Or else you're just plain sick.

[Bronco Bob]

You are talking out of your A-hole.

Oddly enough, that's the way I regard what you post.



Hours and hours? The S Tower fell in less than 1 hour and the N in one and a half hours.



I didn't say it did burn for hours and hours, you dope. I said it COULD
burn for hours and hours. To show you that the fire didn't die out
after all the kerosene was burned. Your BS claim was that the kersosene
wouldn't have burned long enough or hot enough to bring down the building.
When it was pointed out to you that it wasn't just kerosene
burning, you start making up things to try to wiggle out of it.


That's not enough time for even an inferno to weaken huge steel beams.

They weren't huge steel beams. They were lightweight steel trusses.
The whole point of using trusses was to make the building light
and less expensive to build. Huge steel beams sort of defeats the purpose.
An hour is more than enough time to heat a lightweight steel truss.



Look, read the NIST report. The NIST scientists admitted that the fuel load inside the WTC was less than expected -- only about 4 lbs of combustibles per sq ft. In the core area the burnables were even less.

Still more than enough, especially in a confined space. What you
basically had was an oven. And oven gets hotter than an equivalent
flame out in the open.

Remember this was a steel and concrete building.

The main structural elements were steel. Concrete without steel
reinforcement is relatively weak.


The NIST also analyzed the steel samples recovered from the wreckaga and determined that none of them reached a temperature of more than 450 C for 15 minutes. In fact, the vast majority of the steel samples never exceeded 250 C.

Obviously. The majority of steel never even had a flame near them.
Only the steel in the area of the crash site. Are you now going to
claim that out of the tons and tons of twisted, mangled wreckage
someone was able to determine the exact steel truss that collapsed
and let the rest of the building on top of it fall? Talk about someone
talking out of the A-hole.


This is not nearly hot enough to weaken enormous steel columns and explain the collapse we witnessed.

The point is the steel in the crash site did get hot enough to become too
weak to support the load above it.


The NIST scientists had to fudge and fudge and fudge their computer model to get the towers to collapse. Their gerryrigged computer model is not the proper way to conduct science. They worked backwards from the desired result -- a structural collapse -- and tweaked their program until it worked. Again, this is dubious science.

You know, this is exactly what you are doing, gathering
up widely disputed assertion, tossing out the ones that don't fit
your claims, and cherry picking the ones that do. The only
difference is you started with the claim it was an inside job,
and then have spent the rest of your time massaging the data
to make it fit your claim. People have time after time picked
apart your claims, and you have either come up with new
and even more outlandish claims to try to support the first
claim, or more often just ignored them.


If you never read my NIST paper read it now
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

Why would your paper say anything different than what you are saying here?

[Bronco Bob]

The jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes. The source here is the NIST report. Don't believe me? Do some homework for a change.


See, this is what I mean about you ignoring posts that don't fit your
agenda. It was already pointed out to you that there wasn't just
kerosene buring inside the building, that there were combustables
capable of buring for hours, and yet you still ignore them and
just use the idea the kerosene would have burned off in 10 minutes
as somehow proof there wasn't enough time to heat up the
lightweight steel trusses supporting the building.

[Bronco Bob]

Then why was plane wreckage scattered over 8 square miles?

Why was mail from mail bags falling like confetti?

Why were body parts strewn to the four winds?


Why was there almost no wreckage found at the alleged crash site?

Because it was going really, really fast when it hit the ground?

[The Lone Bolt]

How long does it take to rig a building for controlled demolition? Think hours and people. Now multiply that by at least a factor of three (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, as you allege), and then add another 2x or so to account for the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 were 110 floors each.

Also, how did the demolition crews (how many were involved?) manage to hide what they had done from the thousands of people that were in all three buildings every day? Obviously the security guards were in on it too - how many people is that, now?

My favorite take on this is from the article you provided earlier (and muchas gracias BTW!):

The 9/11 Truthers claim that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Okay.

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Shows like this are all over The Discovery Channel. Do these people realize how all of the insulation and paneling must be stripped away from the support beams? Do they not understand how these beams must be cut open and the explosives placed with great care? Have they not any idea of the amount of time this takes – months – and the forest of wires that runs through the structure to the detonating mechanism? Have they given no thought – none? – to what an enormous job this is, and how much work goes into getting these explosives exactly where they need to be?

Apparently not. They just figure someone leaves a suitcase somewhere, I guess.

Anyone who has ever – ever – seen what is required to bring down a building of that size knows that the site is a disaster area of det cord, pulled paneling, and huge bundles of explosives taped to the structural columns across many floors.

Has no one considered that this all had to be started after everyone went home on Monday night and before people reported for work the next day? On multiple floors of two of the busiest public spaces in the world? No one noticed this on Tuesday morning? Hey Jim, what do you suppose that huge bundle of plastic explosives is doing there where the water cooler used to be? And where do those wires go?

Well, must be some logical explanation. Let’s get some coffee and bagels. :rofl:

Now you’re talking!

Of all the people in those buildings that morning, no one – no one – saw any wires anywhere? No one asked why the drywall was torn down and replaced with grey stuff duct-taped into place? None of the firemen rushing into those burning towers, checking all those floors for survivors – none of them noticed the building was rigged to explode? That it might possibly be worth a small call on the radio?

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Oh, and also explain how what William Rodriguez described as a "rumble" mutated into an "explosion". Do you confuse the two? Think a heavy truck going down a nearby street, or distant thunder, and fireworks on the Fourth of July from the same distance. Do they sound the same to you?

Rodriguez was formerly in show biz, and he can get an awful lot of free publicity from claiming that he heard explosions in the WTC1 basement that day. Coincidence?hmmm...

And one other thing - how is it that of the thousands of NYFD personnel that were at the WTC on 9/11, and saw 343 of their fellow firefighters die that day, none of them are willing to go public with their (as you claim) knowledge that it was an "inside job"? Do you honestly believe that the surviving NYFD firefighters and others are that heartless? A job is more important than those 343 who died? A job in a department that's covering up the "real" cause of those hundreds of deaths?


:thumbsup:



You've been sniffing glue for waaaaay too long. Billions of your neurons no longer function. Or else you're just plain sick.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mhgaffney]

The following is a short audio clip from NBC's reporting of the 911 attack. The voice you hear is Bob Kur, who at the time was NBC's senior White House correspondent. The woman's voice at the end is Katie Couric.

http://alkali.colug.org/~kaha/whiteplane.mp3

Notice, Kur reports that the large white jet made a low pass at slow speed, which corroborates my post at the start of this thread.

Also, we've found yet another still shot of the white plane. This may well be a part of the BBC video. But this one aired on the Spanish network, and notice the caption says it flew over the pentagon. Which is certainly possible. There were reports from Arlington of a large whiite plane that circled.

Notice you can clearly see the blue spot at the rear of the plane -- which is where the blue stripes meet on the fuselage. I will post again the close up from Barbara's photo for comparison. You can easily see it is the same plane.

The USAF continues to deny that any of its E-4Bs where in the air over Washington on 9/11. Obviously, they are lying.

Remember -- you saw it here first! MHG

[mhgaffney]

Here is the close up of Linda Brookhart's photo. Oops -- I think I referred to her above as Barbara. Slip of the tongue. Sorry. MHG

[W*GS]

A closeup view of the leader in gaffney's 9/11 "inside job" whackitude:

http://images.snapfish.com/3446262%3B23232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E2335%3D653%3D978%3DX ROQDF%3E23239:735%3B%3B%3B:ot1lsi

[Hotwheelz]

"Logic is for sheep" mhgaffney (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)

[mhgaffney]

You'll notice the knee jerks won't comment on the evidence itself. Instead they ridicule me. So typical of people who are in denial.

I'll respond with more facts. Here is the verbatim test of peter Jennings's coverage of 9/11, where he mentions the plane circling the White House.

ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

ABC News
September 11, 2001

Archived at
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/abcnews091101.html

(Scroll to the bottom)

Announcer: This is an ABC News Special Report.

JENNINGS:

The White House, of course, is--is--is--has leapt to the forefront of people's concern this morning. And there is a plane circling the White House at the moment. And they're clearing the grounds there. We have--that's a report which may be misleading in that it may presume an attack where as we just discovered a moment ago that what we had was an additional airplane in New York airspace was a security operation. I think probably most Americans know that there is no building in the country which is--which is heavily defended--I shouldn't say deemed secure--but...(network audio difficulties)...but a battery of anti-aircraft missiles on the top of the White House itself.

We've had incidents, as you know, in the past, several years ago where a small aircraft landed in the White House--in the White House garden and the pilot mentally deranged, as I recall at the time, was killed. But the White House is certainly, certainly been very heavily defended. And this plane circling the White House adds to the trauma that people are feeling today but we have no idea precisely what that means.

[mhgaffney]

Why was the world's most advanced command and control platform circling the White House on 9/11? This is the most restricted airspace on the planet.

Why was the news coverage of this event forgotten? It has since been scrubbed from the official narrative of what happened.

Why did the 9/11 Commission Report fail to mention this plane?

Why does the US military deny that it circled over Washington on 9/11?

Stay tuned. Soon I will present evidence that the US military FUDGED the 9/11 timeline to conceal the presence of this command platform over Washington on 9/11.

Not to be missed!

MHG

[W*GS]

Making your posts big and bold doesn't make them better, gaffney.

You're still dodging these:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1557963&postcount=172

Why?

PS - The "stay tuned" act is getting tiresome. I expect something truly amazing, and all I get is reheated whack-job blog leftovers. Grogan time...

[elsid13]

Just so everyone knows that on 9-11 the AF launched AWACs from Andrews to provided C2 functions. Andrews is about 15 miles from downtown DC. But don't let the fact bother you Gaffeny

[W*GS]

I hate to indulge ol' gaff...

But if any plane can fly over DC, wouldn't an E-4B be just such a plane?

[mhgaffney]

Just so everyone knows that on 9-11 the AF launched AWACs from Andrews to provided C2 functions. Andrews is about 15 miles from downtown DC. But don't let the fact bother you Gaffeny

I've checked it out and there were no AWACs planes in the Washington area until hours after the attack.

The AWACS is easy to identify because of the radar dome on its back. The plane captured on video/photo over DC was NOT an AWACs -- but an E-4B. No question about the ID.

There was a C-130 that took off from Andrews and shadowed Fl 77 before it hit the pentagon. The C-130 is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

But why does the report fail to mention the E-4B that circled over the city?

The airspace over Washington is the most restricted on the planet. It has a special designation P-56 and is restricted to all but cleared police and military traffic to 18,000 feet.

[Bronco Bob]

There was a C-130 that took off from Andrews and shadowed Fl 77 before it hit the pentagon. The C-130 is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.



What happened to the claim that there was no airplane involved, that it was
a missile that hit the Pentagon? Where did all the pages of documents go
"proving" there was no trace of an airplane inside the Pentagon, that no
one even saw a place fly into the Pentagon?

You guys can't even keep your stories straight.

[colosilverado]

Bump....

C'mon Gaff, we're waiting for THE BIG, EARTH SHATTERING STORY.
Never mind that you can't even refute anything on this board, let alone anyone who actually might take the time to research the conspiracy theory and slap your stupid ass down.

[mhgaffney]

The AWACs planes are based at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma -- not Andrews. There was only one that flew east on 9/11 -- and as I said it arrived much later in the day.

Bronco Bob is having a senior moment. Or maybe he just did not read the 9/11 Commission Report. (Tell the truth, Bob, no faking!) The report mentions the role of the C-130. I have never disputed its presence -- though I have raised questions about the role it played.

My views about Fl 77 evolved earlier this year - partly because of Bob's helpful posts -- a link persuaded me that Boeing 757 parts were found inside the pentagon.

FYI, My next article will be up soon -- perhaps by week's end.

Have patience! In depth research requires care. Checking out loose ends takes time.

But here's a peek: The title will be

DID THE US MILITARY FUDGE THE 9/11 TIMELINE?

I'll give you three guesses.
MHG

[W*GS]

DID THE US MILITARY FUDGE THE 9/11 TIMELINE?

Your evidence being what looks like two (perhaps not even that) battery-operated clocks from (as you claim) the Pentagon.

You sure are good at building upside-down pyramids. On sand.

[Bronco Bob]

gaffney must be heartbroken that Rosie is leaving the view. Unless gaffney is actually Rosie.