Former Military Officer Comes out for 9/11 Truth

Patriots Question 9/11 has a brand new entry on a former air defense expert and expert on jet turbines. His statements about the lack of interception of the hijacked jets is important. His bio for the 2006 primary for Oregon's 2nd District congressional race is here (page 12)

I take no position on what crashed at the Pentagon, and it is possible that Captain Davis has simply not seen all of the relevant photographs.

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.

* Statement to this website 3/23/07:

"As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".

Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems, "Something is rotten in the State."


I don't think he is advocating no planes.

First of all there is a very good reason the engines would not be found at the WTC. The building was pulverized to dust with explosives.

At the Pentagon there ARE photos of engine parts. There is no evidence what so ever that they were planted. In fact, there was a stand-still traffic jam. There are photographs of the Pentagon one minute after it was attacked by someone in this traffic jam. The planting of debris argument is incredibly weak and there is no evidence to support it. There were also pieces of aircraft on the highway according to witnesses from the light pole damage.

And about the way the Pentagon was struck. There can be no question it was done by remote control. According to witness reports the plane flew into the first floor! First floor! The damage on the first floor is extensive. Look at the composite photos by Jim Hoffman.

If you had videos of that (and were responsible for the attacks) would you release them? There is no way any human pilot could do that.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Good point


Well, he said:

Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

They would be, and yet they weren't, or there would be no reason to employ the subjunctive. Pretty clear statement, I think.

PS: And my best guess is that by "9/11", he refers to 77 & 93 in particular here.

Welcome Capt. Daniel Davis

Good to have you onboard...

You have a very full and interesting CV... Hope your skills and experience come in useful in promoting and investigating 9/11 Truth.

Thanks and best wishes

737 Engine on Street in NY 9/11

This 737 Engine was photographed on the street in NY on 911.

Correct me if I'm wrong

No correction, but certainly an ammendement

By Ommission ' they've' got us all tied up over engine this and engine that, but in locations where there ought to have been more, like the Pentagon, or Shankesville, there is an obvious lack of material, and incriminating evidence.
Like seats for instance. The metal tubular frames and springs of airliner seats are COMPLETELY absent from any photo. There is also NO luggage. The pieces of metal from the Pentagon ALL have i.d. numbers, which would immediately disclose what hit there.
It's the confiscation of all evidence that raises alarms for me.
I have pictures of these things posted, and of the guys who absconded with them.

841 links by story title.
9/11=PNAC Plot
p.s. my latest piece in the Canadian,

He is not advocating - he is assessing

You say - "I don't think he is advocating no planes."

He is not "advocating" anything. He is giving his assessment of what would happen if a plane hit the Pentagon, based on his experience in the industry. At most, he is saying he does not believe that a plane (singular) did not hit the Pentagon.

I've seen a lot of people here talking about remote control the last couple of days. I don't think that is plausible - a plane is a plane is a plane, and the crash physics are the same, regardless of whether an ill-trained Arab fanatic or a fanatic-programmed machine drove the plane.

Why can't you accept what this guy is saying on its own merits, without bringing in your own preconceptions?

sorry buddy, but you must

sorry buddy, but you must have gotten here late. when the thread first appeared it CLEARLY said-"i usually stay away from no-plane stuff but this is interesting etc.". GW must have gotten rid of that statement before you got here. saying that no plane hit the Pentagon doesnt make one a "no-planer" as its known around here and i took exception to that comment.

Crash Physics

Your first point was responed to by Chris.

"I've seen a lot of people here talking about remote control the last couple of days. I don't think that is plausible ."

Crash physics: I don't pretend to be an expert about what happens when a plane crashes into a building. But perhaps you haven't seen these photos:

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Is this more evidence of "tv fakery" or more evidence of "misinterpretations of crash physics".

I tend to believe the latter.

Now if a plane was going into the WTC or say... the Pentagon at four times the speed... do you expect me to believe that it wouldn't completely enter the building?

I'm doing a massive research paper on the eye-witness testimony. My analysis is 60% done. These quotes do not include testimony of the plane hitting the building. There is even more of that. This is just "going inside" the Pentagon.

[The plane] came from behind us and banked to the right and went into the Pentagon.

The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building.

Engine 101… saw the airliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, “Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon.

I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.

I saw it fly right into the Pentagon…’It just was amazingly preciseIt completely disappeared into the Pentagon.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. [Note: this eyewitness claims he watched everything in slow motion due to adrenaline]. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again—only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon…… I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building

My people who did see it enter the building described it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards.

I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge… The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.

I saw it hit the pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next...

It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal.

The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.”

The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. “The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cakeThe aircraft went in between the second and third floors.”

I think I actually heard it accelerate—and then it disappeared and a cloud of smoke started billowing.

It hit the pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next... I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before.

A groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon… The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.

The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon… the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.

The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon’s wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud. Its ability to withstand the initial impact of the jet probably saved thousands of lives.

He also recalled seeing the tail of the plane as it entered the building, followed by a fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact.

The nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me. The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under coal-black smoke, three-storey tall flames and intense heat.

[It] headed for the Pentagon “at a frightening rate… just slicing into that building…“Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane.

It was pretty horrible… he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport.

It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense… A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. ‘Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?’ That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work... There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.

What is particularily ironic is that the "tv fakery" people would call this "tv fakery" if the Pentagon released the videos. 

I strongly suspect this is exactly what will happen when they release the videos.  I also predict that Fetzer will be among these people--since he thinks it's "impossible" to fly a plane into the Pentagon in the way that it was damaged.

Of course, space beams, are entirely "possible" according to this same person. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


The debris at the Pentagon is not from a 757. That is the point. The engine you see next to that guys leg is about 3 foot in diameter. 757 is much larger. The guys should have been able to stand in the engine.

Among others

That was weird

The format got all'd that happen?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Same old nonsense . . .

ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'
"The idea that the engine parts photographed at the crash site were too small to be from an engine found on a 757 is based on a failure to appreciate that different parts of a modern high-bypass turbofan engine differ dramatically in diameter."

Also . . . the images here -

There are a number of parts to the engine, including the fan which would likely shatter on impact. The rest of the parts are about 1/3 of the diameter as you can see here.

Don't rely on the hoax / UFO sites like Rense for your info. Rense is not interested in science, they are interested in something else.

i think its unfair that you

i think its unfair that you characterize this guy as a no-planer. personally i dont think that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but i do think that the planes hit the towers like most of you here. am i a "no-planer"? thats not fair.

It's not a matter of fairness

It's a matter of intellectual rigor. I know that sounds pretentious, but its true. The events are separate.

again, you are late.

again, you are late. you? pretentious? never..........

shouldn't we

Shouldn't we be pushing Patriots Question 9/11 more? I mean it is an impressive array of individuals that are profiled at that site. With attention turning to Loose Change and Rosie/Sheen we see one way they are trying to play defense is by saying that only actors, the 'loony left', people who 'hate America', are questioning 9/11. Isn't the best way to push back to bring up people on this site, and have new people go there to see the amount of 'weight' that is behind this movement?

News editor at The Watchman Report,, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community



Head up, eyes open, fist clenched

Very good point

I agree that the media's venom has now switched to the actors because they have less credentials and they can be easily discredited. The patriots (even more than the 9/11 families, the students, the scientists, the pilots) will not be attacked initially. I also believe that the few people who have not been convinced yet about 9/11 are pursuaded by this type of testimony. Get these guys on tour with William Rodriguez, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Jersey Girls...

AGREE 100%

I agree with you 100% micahyah. is the NUBER ONE website I steer all newcomers to. There is not a kook to be found...only true experts in their fields and totally immune to dismissal.
And there's the added bonus of the links to films and additional sites at the bottom.
Yes it's the perfect intro to the uninitiated.
I think we all owe Alan Miller, the creator of the site, a huge thank you...and the best way to do that is guide people to his excellent site.


that's my point

9/11 truth is an American thing, not a left (or right) thing. I'm very pleased to see *anyone* step up and speak out, but we need to make sure the movement isn't perceived as a leftist movement either. We are the people!

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

I don't know why

people would expect the engines to remain intact.

if they shattered into component parts one might find stuff like this:


these component parts can be seen to correspond to 757 diagrams:

You can clearly make out the comustion chamber housing and turbine disk.


I think you are missing the point...which is the size of the parts and the number found.
A passenger airliner has multiple engines 9 feet in diameter.
A drone missle has one 3 foot engine....the size in your photos.


Nobody likes my pictures, apparently.. :(

No, I'm not really pouting--but to echo your concern, I did post a picture above illustrating your point . The next logical question is what would be the outside diameter of the destroyed engine in Mr. Albanese's picture? One should be able to either find the specs or work back from the pics and get a guess-timate...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Ahhhh CJS.... I love ya picture...

You forgot to mention...

The women in the picture is a 2 and 1/2 foot midget though ;-)

They are big engines though, six tons, 8ft diameter, but a lot of the space is turbine fan blades (I believe)...

Best wishes

PS... Just for you

Yep, that looks about right!

And, cheers! ;-)

PS: LOL-- I don't think they ever had 2 and 1/2 foot stewardesses!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

De Havilland...

... maybe best known for the DHC Beaver flying remote bush locations, once introduced its "Mini-Beaver". An instant hit for adventure seekers with tighter budgets, the "mini-beev" as she was nicknamed, came equipped and crewed with matching mini-G string for added excitement.

evidence of nothing

Those photos do not constitute evidence of shit, they're just photos. No authentication or chain of custody, no date/time, no field scale, no squat. If in fact such parts had been recovered from the site, it would have been a matter of mere hours to cross check with maintenance log books to confirm parts had in fact been installed and currently documented in-service on airframe at time of crash. A trifle to perform, without an inkling of "National Security" to be concerned with releasing such clear confirmation for all the world to see.

That such a simple task has NEVER been done... with a government playing-dumb about such a long standing NTSB mainstay of investigation... allowing confusion and speculation to run rampant and the subsequent loss of tranquility... is a gross crime in itself against the American people and humanity as a whole.

Don't post those pictures again, and ask "but why?"

"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

Foresic reconstruction of the aircraft

I've asked this at a debunker site before and got the predictable run around:

Isn't a forensic reconstruction REQUIRED of all aircraft crashes, reguardless of cause? I don't mean that computer simulated rubbish--actual physical reconstruction.

Mighty strange that hasn't been done with flight 93 where, alledgedly, over 90% of the plane was recovered....

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Cataloging of recovered parts and/or evidence.

I'm unable to imagine any automatic imperative for forensic "reconstruction".

However, cataloging of a few damn parts... cross checking with logbooks... and taking care not to spoil evidence that may be needed in a criminal prosecution... you know... so that people will retain trust in government... would seem a prudent, natural, and unsuspicious thing to do.

To NOT do it... seems a tad suspicious.

Damn sleepwalking Americans.

Agreed...especially if

Agreed...especially if you're going to claim most of the aircraft was recovered(Flight 93). I mean, how else would you know?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Pop Mechanics or Mark Roberts

or some other tool said the FBI has reconstructed the plane. But no one gets to see it unless they write to support the official fairy tale.

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

"Yes, we put it back

"Yes, we put it back together--but we can't show you unless you have clearance"?

Right. So the next step is for someone to LIE, say they support the 911fairy story, and could they, pretty please, send a pic to help with their debunking efforts.

Who's up for it?

Meanwhile, we're having a blog sing-a-long at Screw Loose Change:

In the comments, down near the end...but I don't think they've "grokked" the concept--no one's joining in....

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I support the official fairy tale.

Can I see the reconstructed plane now? :-)

why on earth would you need

why on earth would you need clearance to see a reconstructed 757?You can see 757's all day long at the airport & according to the official stort there's nothing special about this one except it crashed into the Pentagon.So,why would you need clearance?You wouldn't..I think al qu cia da knows what a 757 looks like!. If they had recontructed ' it ' & if 'it' were a 757 they would have splated the pictures far & wide.Quess what?No pictures.What does that tell you?

Deep breaths...'re starting to sputter... ;-)

Yes, it boggles the mind, doesn't it? Davin Colburn(?) told Goyette something simular about a pic of WTC 7 Popular Mechanics got to see but wasn't in the book-- a pic that supposedly shows a quarter of the lower floors "scooped out" and unstable---Davin claimed to have seen this pic but couldn't explain why it didn't get into the book.


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.