"a 16 foot hole in the facade"

Disinformation. Well, the plane DID leave a 16-foot entry hole -- and right below that, a 90-foot hole!

"Why didnÂ’t they show us the wreckage?"

Photographs of 757 debris have been shown.

"What would anyone reasonably aim for - a 29 acre target or the relatively miniscule one - on the ONLY reinforced section of the building designed to withstand a frontal attack?"

The author of this bullshit article first discredits himself, and THEN points to actual indication of complicity. Classic disinformation, though almost certainly unintentional. (ie. the author is a dupe)

*****

In the near future, the following will probably occur:

1. The terrorist elements in the US Government release some security camera footage showing a 757 in American Airlines colors and markings impacting the Pentagon.

2. Hard-core no-planers denounce the videos as forgeries. Many will proceed to further marginalize themselves by either claiming vast conspiracies that built replicas of the Pentagon in the desert just to produce the footage or by relying on bullshit sites such as 911studies.com to provide "proof" of photomanipulation. (Perhaps minor editing artifacts are inserted into the footage precisely to prompt such pointless speculation.)

3. Neocon bootlickers commence vicious attacks on a wide front on all 9/11 Truth, shouting that all tinfoil theories have now been refuted and that anyone who continues to believe in them is an unAmerican nutbar.

4. Many regular people who might have been persuaded on the broader issues become averse to any non-sanctioned ideas about 9/11, due to (2) and (3).

5. The terrorist conspirators giggle in glee at how well the Pentagon booby trap worked.

I admit that at this point it is strange, and not just outrageous, that they still have not released the footage: is it merely a ploy, or are they actually hiding something? However, they probably just like to see disinformation doing its work.

I recognize that there remains a very small chance that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not specifically AA Flight 77 with the tail number N644AA, and perhaps even a tiny chance that the model was not precisely a Boeing 757-233. This, however, manifestly does not mean that the Pentagon strike aspect should not be dropped or at least strongly deemphasized, and soon.

Additionally, we need to make clear that we want the tapes released solely for the sake of Truth, no matter what is in them, and not to prove/disprove any specific hypotheses. Practice this line for use in the aftermath of the release: "This material should have been released years ago! When is NIST going to release their computer model? And what about all the CVR and FDR data?"

On the bright side, releasing the Pentagon footage may be their last ace in the sleeve. On the darker side, once they deploy it, we're closer to the next attack...

Regarding the comment: The author of this bullshit article first discredits himself, and THEN points to actual indication of complicity. Classic disinformation, though almost certainly unintentional. (ie. the author is a dupe)"

This rude poster appernetly has no idea who I am, how much work I have done on the subject and did not read anything else on my 500 page website.

If you have something to point out in the way of correcting me say it to me. Don't pull a chicken shit move and insult me in the form of a comment on antother web site. I am seeking the truth. I don't know who "Able" is but I say this to you...talk to me if you have something to say about my writing. OK big shot?

Man...you would think with all the work I have done a little respect would be due and a benifit of ANY doubt would be in order.

Jesse, Editor, TvNewsLIES.org - Host TVNL Radio.

Jesse,

You are here. I am talking to you. (Not that it matters, your article was posted on THIS site, and I wanted to inform the readers of THIS site about your errors.) I did point out specific severe mistakes, care to respond?

I did give you the benefit of doubt: I said you were a dupe, not a disinfo agent.

I can't remember what's on your site, but your 500 pages may not matter much if they contain errors as bad as "16 foot entry hole". Just look at what happened to Griffin: no-757 is 10% of his NPH book, yet only that part is getting attention in reviews.

The 90 foot hole obscured by firefighting foam in the one picture no-planers love so much. See

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

(especially the composite damage picture -- you know, the one that doesn't distort perpectives)

"And next time find out who you are talking about before you open your rude mouth!"

People who spread disinfo out of ignorance always resort to "but I've done so much for the truth". Well, your accomplishments are diminished by your continued belief in no-757-at-the-Pentagon.

BTW, care to comment on the scenario I laid out, about releasing the footage?

Able, sorry but I disagree with your analysis.

If you look at the pictures, there is a section of the building on the left side that is missing at the lower level.

However, with it being below 10ft I doubt this was from a 757 wing. Wheres the LARGE hole that the engine would have gouged into the ground before the building?

I don't think your analysis is correct due to the lack of consideration for these types of things.

I don't disagree that a plane hit the building but I am still not convinced that it was a 757. It would take 5 minutes to answer this question for sure and disprove any wrong theory by checking the traceable parts that may have been found there.

If you can explain how a wing can hit that low and not drag a 7ft engine in the ground, then I'm all ears.

Speaking about lack of consideration, how about the inescapable fact that the conspirators would not have risked somebody, anybody, with a camera taking a good picture of anything else besides a 757 in AA colors? Or were there hundreds of operatives all around the vast Pentagon area ready to make photographers disappear?

Two words:

Norman Mineta =)

anonymous at 4:42pm

At trials, its my understanding, there are credentialed people on both sides and the juries tend to see it as a "wash."

Theres too much coincidental weirdness (Only steel structures to collapse from fire and all 3 on same day plus other oddities about the collapses; 2 more planes that also disintegrate and pretty much vanish, one into a building and one into the earth; the NORAD lack of response, etc.). Too much and then all we've had is baldfaced lying since then about "mobile Weapon labs" and "mushroom clouds" and Saddam Hussein sending "drone" aircraft over American cities.

Loads and loads of shameless lying and our mainstream media pretty much went along with all of that, too. It wasn't until Bush's poll numbers started dropping that Bush's credibility started to be questioned by the mainstream media and thats just over the last few months. HOw many times did they repeat the crap about Bush's being a "straightshooter," all the while the lies were piling up?

"Able, again I don't doubt that a plane hit the pentagon. However, it was not simply a plane. It had to have explosives on board, or there were explosives in the building, or both."

LOL. You made up something new, I see.

How do you get the small A in your name, Sky King?

You actually type it? IDIOT.

Now, Anonymous, that was funny!

Is there an engineering theory that predicts that a metal column will tend to buckle rather than fail straight down? Look through an engineering handbook you might find it there. Also, guess what- perhaps we truthers are engineers. After all, this is an engineering discussion.

Better yet, Here's what we should do. Let's all ask every engineer we know to look at the details of all this evidence. Ask them to think about it and come to a conclusion. That way we could ask questions and learn things. There are a lot of engineers in the US and Canada. Ask em all!

"Is there an engineering theory that predicts that a metal column will tend to buckle rather than fail straight down? Look through an engineering handbook you might find it there. Also, guess what- perhaps we truthers are engineers. After all, this is an engineering discussion."

When you get around to refuting the 200 structural engineers making up NIST, get back to us.

"Better yet, Here's what we should do. Let's all ask every engineer we know to look at the details of all this evidence. Ask them to think about it and come to a conclusion. That way we could ask questions and learn things. There are a lot of engineers in the US and Canada. Ask em all!"

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been trying but they can't even get one to join.

That's predictable since no structural engineer disagrees with the 200 who wrote did the NIST investigation. Not one.

I posted a wonderful resource from Perry Logan, with numerous links to actual data, real science.

Not ONE of you have been able to even deal with it, much less debunk.
Because you can't and you all know it.

You've got to get you arrogant, naive heads out of the sand and start dealing with facts and reality.

OK then it's settled. Everybody should ask questions about this from engineers. What would be a good specific question to ask?

How about this for a question. Do you know how to get a copy of the blueprints for the buildings that came down in NY?

Hey Jesse-Editor at TvNewsLies.org and somebigguy,
Would you consider a new thread that would recieve 'essential questions' from posters? That way when we have the opportunity to ask experts such as structural engineers a question we could whip out a list real quick. My question is: where can someone get a copy of the towers buleprints?

Jesse, a small detail:

NOT a 110,000 ton aircraft

but perhaps a 110 ton aircraft?

no big deal...

All this NIST rubbish about 200 scientists. Some questions about NIST:

(1)DID 200 scientists put their name to the final report? Or was the work divided up between them on specific features (such as how long it takes a seat to catch fire!).

(2)What control over the final report did the 200 have? (Not much is my bet).

(3)The NIST report ran a computer simulation of the fire effects of a plane impact on the WTC. They used the variables that gave them the outcome they wanted leading to the point of collapse.

THEN....THEY STOPPED ANALYSING!!

(4)That's right, they DIDN'T look at ALL the collapse: the squibs, the energy requirements for the dust cloud, the pulverisations, the melting, glowing metal found weeks later in the basement area etc.

(5) What scientific credibility are we to give to NIST when it will scrupulously study airline seats catching fire (and even tell us of their cloth composition)but won't tell us about the squibs, explosions or glowing hot remains? (Ans: none)

(6) Insurance companies and other have been calling for a video simulation of the entire impact-collapse process (now standard practice for large fires or accidents). NIST has refused. Why? For the obvious reasons: (a) they haven't done a full analysis, and (b) what they have done doesn't stand up.

(7) Why aren't 200 scientists ashamed to have their name associated with the NIST report when it is incomplete in this way? Why aren't they protesting? Because they have never had responsibility for the overall report, only for specific, requested analysis.

Stephen Jones has specific, real scientific issues that he has properly identified in his published articles. Critics should address those concerns before screaming support for a NIST report that stopped examining just when the questions got really interesting.

Able - bullshit sites such as 911studies.com

please explain why 911studies.com is bullshit, if you would be so kind.
_____________

Hate to say it "anonymous", but my husband is a fully qualified Civil and Structural Engineer since 1989, and he say "there is ZERO chance, not even in a million years, can bulidings collapse the way they did on 911"

So to say not one Engineer disagrees is BUSHIT!! Because of his field of work, EVERY engineer we have talked to does NOT believe the official story.

Do NOT post anymore gov' cover up website links, you moron without thinking outside the BUSHBOX.

After recently completing a PhD in engineering at UMIST, UK, I can say that there are several engineering lecturers and students currently looking at the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7, with the aim of releasing a paper later in the year.
Our suspicions were first raised several months ago after looking at the official explanation offered up by the US Gov., then running the basic initial analysis tests, according to the data provided in the official report.
To simply say that not one engineer questions the collapse of the WTC would be wildly inaccurate, especially as there seems to be more doubt than belief amongst both my peers and senuiors.

Damien, Susan, and Yuan Qiao,

If you beleive so firmly in your statements, then you all should be able to explicity debunk NIST.

I've given you numerous links above.

You can add these papers to them:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

Note that even Steven Jones has not been able to debunk them.

The floor is yours. I want physics and structural engineering analysis, not more unsupported assertions.

It's time to put your money where your mouths are.

Re: anonymous (above),

as mentioned above, but for some reason overlooked by yourself, the results of our research will be out later in the year. At which time I shall provide you with a copy of our findings.

Also, if you are to read my comments again, you will discover that I never made any statements regarding the outcome of said studies, merely mentioning that as a group of engineering students and professors, we are a little dubious of the official explanation.
Putting your money where your mouth is, is not a particularly independent way of basis a study - we are not seeking to find proof for preconceived theories (a fuzzy scientific appraoch method), simply interested in finding out exactly how and why incidents occured in the manner that they did.

anonymous said:

When do you get to the part about providing evidence to support that? You just can't go on making silly claims and expect people to blindly accept them.

Talk about the pot and the kettle. The reason sites like these exist is that there's a growing number of people that have problems with the silly claims made by the US government, blindly accepted by people like yourself who feel that every piece of paper issued by that same government or one of their subsidaries is evidence by rule.

I was always wondering where all the physics and engineering profs & students were!
Aren't the 3 WTC buildings the best practical demonstrations to study/analyze of all time??? (Also, who would want to construct more steel buildings that erupt & implode due to fire?)

Take a look at the latest Pentagon analysis pages here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

Seriously, it bothers me how so many seem to think 911studies.com is non-retarded.

The author, Jack White, believes the moon landing was a hoax. He has no concept of perspective. He often fails to grasp the fact that physical objects can be moved in the real world. He ascribes BIZARRE motives for explaining the supposedly "manipulated" images, in a way that contradicts reality ("they wanted a photo of firefighters in action so they kept the Pentagon burning for three days").

I could offer examples, but that would involve revisiting his site, which I want to avoid.

Able,

I've been into digital photography and image manipulation (mostly in photoshop) for around 10 years, and I was positive at least half of his arguements were just misunderstandings of depth of field and perspective when i looked through the site 2 weeks ago..

I think this page alone shows that White cannot be trusted:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies116.htm

(There is only one tower in the picture. The South Tower has already collapsed.)

Able, you can find my email link on my WTC 7 blog:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

"the results of our research will be out later in the year."

You can address the links provided already if you so choose.

"Putting your money where your mouth is, is not a particularly independent way of basis a study - we are not seeking to find proof for preconceived theories (a fuzzy scientific appraoch method), simply interested in finding out exactly how and why incidents occured in the manner that they did."

I agree - which is why those here should not be asserting something for which they have provided no evidence - explosive demolitions and that the towers could not have fallen as the NIST studies demonstrate.

You also may note that the most aggregious unscientific behavior is that by Scholars for 9/11 Truth that asserts without yet providing any evidence:

"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."

I would appreciate it if you would join other structural engineers and PhDs in demanding that SF9/11T either provide the evidence, modify the statement toi delete the word "only", or retract the statement immediately.

In the meantime, none of the others have taken up my challenge.

"Scholars for 9/11 Truth that asserts without yet providing any evidence..."

Au contraire, they provide a lot of arguments for their claims. They are actually examining the "global collapse" itself, which NIST self-admittedly did not do.

As regards WTC-7, the NIST lead investigator had recently this to say in a New York Magazine interview:

"NIST did have 'some preliminary hypotheses' on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. 'We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.' Then Dr. Sunder paused. 'But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.' "

No wonder, as all the evidence had been destroyed before their "investigation" even began. As I've implied before, it is ridiculous to even use the term "investigation" in this context. How blind can a person be not to see *any* problem here?

People, please! The "no-757-hit-the-Pentagon" claim is the weakest argument in the 9/11 Truth portfolio, BY FAR. Let's stick to what we DO know, not what we don't. Hundreds of eyewitnesses said they heard explosions at the WTC. Similarly, hundreds of eyewitnesses said they saw a 757 slam into the Pentagon. Some were DOD personnel, many were not. You cannot trust the claims of one group of eyewitnesses and then completely discount the other group's claims when it doesn't suit your purposes. That kind of practice hits right at the very heart of your- OUR- credibility.

Please see these two critical links-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
[Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
[ The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics]

"Au contraire, they provide a lot of arguments for their claims."

They haven't presented any evidence.

"They haven't presented any evidence."

Hehehe! Very funny.

But what about the non-investigation of WTC-7, which is only the third-worst building disaster in the world?

this is from anonymous:

"In the meantime, none of the others have taken up my challenge."

No-one owes you an explanation anonymous. (You don't even have the guts to use your name.) And there's a more important reason: I DON"T OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH. That's right. You come on this blog and challenge people to prove to you while you steadfastly ignore the challenges of others here. So who cares about you? Not me, that's for sure.

You believe in accountability do you?

Then you won't mind joing Scholars for 911 Truth in calling for all evidence to be made available to a new inquiry?

What? That's a problem for you?

Oh, I forgot, we're supposed to meet YOUR standards. Frankly, who cares.

But, if you are serious about a reasonable exchange of ideas then start explaining why it is the NIST inquiry STOPPED right at the point when the buildings started falling.

Don't want to do that? Then you need to stop asking other people to take you seriously.