A New Push to Identify an Old Part

click for larger image

Dylan Avery has sent out a renewed call to help identify the item pictured above. It was found on 9/11 on the roof of a police car at ground zero. This item is not new, but we hope that perhaps the growth of the movement (or its counter-movement) can help positively identify this item once and for all.

If you have any insight, or know someone who might, please help out and post either here or at the original Loose Change forum thread.

Update: You can find the video which shows this part here (you may need to rename the .divx to .avi).
Update: This part has been identified and is document here.

Pilotsfor911truth.org might have contacts...

I can't be 100% sure, but I believe that was discussed over at the pilotsfor911truth.org forum.

I believe an engineer was trying to find out...

If JDX or any regulars from PF911T read this could you please check....

Many thanks

EDIT... ps dz, you might want to change title to "a Boeing Plane Part" from "an Old Part"


The aircraft remains are either still in the possession of the FBI or have been destroyed.

Thanks for pushing a new thread at Pilots... JDX...

If "Northwoods" was followed closely, then the part would match with the original aircraft...

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone

Full document, including links to original, text and HTML versions at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Many thanks to you and all at Pilotsfor911Truth.org and best wishes

Ps Enjoyed your recent radio interview with Michael Herzog on RBN, you pilots love chatting :-) was very constructive show too !!!


Thanks for your support Veritas... just trying to do our part ... :-)



Gatekeeper Alert:

This is some replies to last week's issue of the Chico News and Review:


Chico News and Review: www.newsreview.com/chico/Home

Letters to the editor,May 10,2007:

We have seen over the past six years, from George W. Bush and his administration, a level of incompetence that is surpassed only by their corruption and political deceit. So when I hear from your local band of Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists (I say "your" because the CN&R has given them an extraordinary amount of attention and, what's this now, a cover story?!) that Bush is part of the conspiracy, I have to chuckle. This guy couldn't manage a taco truck, and he is supposedly involved in an incredible conspiracy that, to succeed, would require, if not divine intervention, then a government ingeniousness and secrecy not previously known in the annals of American history.

In the name of journalistic responsibility, stop giving credibility to this paranoid nonsense. Please.

Dave Waddell

Editor's note: Professor Waddell is the adviser of Chico State's student newspaper, The Orion.

It's no coincidence that some "Truth believers" profiled are also religious. They are predisposed to imagine a world dominated by an omnipotent, unseen force whose mysterious ways are revealed to a select few. How gratifying it must be to shed all doubt and assume the mantle of the enlightened, to regard evidence that challenges our conclusions as another test of the true faith.

Yeah, 9/11 was a "conspiracy." It was a conspiracy of scope and intricacy unprecedented in history. It required years of planning, tens of millions [of dollars] of investment, and the blind commitment, coordination, split-second timing and total secrecy of thousands of people ranging from right-wing American ideologues to Muslim fanatics.

Bush is an evil genius. Right. And the black helicopters are coming. And Elvis parties with space aliens in Area 51.

Kevin Quinn

Now read this quote:

Dave Waddell Professional-in-Residence

"Journalism at its finest is the pursuit of truth. Finding ? and publishing ? the truth is a meaningful way to spend a life."

And here's his contact:

Phone: (530) 898-4782
E-mail: dwaddell@csuchico.edu
Fax: (530) 898-4839

Education: M.A., California State University, Chico B.A., California State University, Fresno

Professional Experience: Newspaper reporter and editor for nearly 20 years, including 10 years as the Redding Record Searchlight's editorial page editor and three years as city editor.

Awards: College Media Advisers? Distinguished Four-Year Newspaper Adviser, 2006; Chico Rotary Club outstanding educator of the month, 2004; American Society of Newspaper Editors? Institute for Journalism Excellence fellow, 2001; statewide editorial writing award, California Newspaper Publishers Association, 1992.

Research Interests: Writing, reporting, student diversity.

Course Specialties: Adviser to The Orion.

Understand,this person trains dozens of students a semester to do what he does. Maybe somebody can send him a CD (not that he'd watch it).


I was a student of his, I'd tear him a new asshole. He'd kick me out of class, I'm quite sure. For one, I'd explain to him that the official 9/11 explaination is itself not only a conspiracy theory, but an outrageous one that can't be supported by physical facts.

No wonder

Now I know why The Orion never puts anything in their paper about our events. As far as I know, they didn't even do anything on the conference on their own campus. What a putz. It's "professors" like him that give other professors a bad name by association. Good find.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent


9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

Dropped him a line:

Dear Mr. Waddell,

I write to you in response to yesterday's statements in CN&R concerning conspiracy. You seem to extend your argument -- that Bush's apparent idiocy rules out any and all sophisticated "evil-doing" on his part -- to include his entire administration and even likely involved paragovernmental entities. One has to ask: would you go so far as to deem yourself an idiot by association? You seem to judge the entire book by its cover, and total, irrational adherence to that premise allows you to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. As Herbert Spencer once noted, there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

You speak of an "incredible conspiracy that, to succeed, would require, if not divine intervention, then a government ingeniousness and secrecy not previously known in the annals of American history."

The truth is that all that is required for the conspiracy to succeed is steadfast contempt prior to investigation by an ignorant majority.

The truth is that this conspiracy was not perpetrated by omnipotent, unseen forces. The perpetraitors will remain unseen only if one chooses not to look, if one is gleefully content with mocking the book's cover. That is not black magic, that is reliance on the jury's willful ignorance. Mr. Waddell, in the name of journalistic responsibility, stop brushing off "this paranoid nonsense" without ever looking.

Because once you do, the facts speak for themselves: WTC7 was obviously professionally demolished, burying thousands of vital SEC files in its footprint in close to free fall time, thereby ending all pertinent investigations prematurely. The Twin Towers were, with great probability, silently weakened by military grade thermate to induce their collapse -- recent x-ray spectroscopy tests on GZ dust samples provided forensic proof of that -- and a staccato of pre-placed high explosives then ensued, marking the cynical ploy's grand finale. Quite literally, a killing was made -- unfortunate innocents being utilized as 21st century Antigones, fortunate criminals making billions in insider tradings and insurance fraud, never to be investigated. Up until now.

It is entirely within our reach to stop abusing the victims in order to create many more, and to finally bring the true criminals to justice. All it takes is a little courage and honesty. All it takes is opening that book, and seeing what it has to tell us. Reading makes a country great, remember?


interns < internets

perpetraitor - i like! on purpose?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



not my creation, though.

interns < internets

Good letter, but

I'm not sure Spencer wrote that quotation:


I believe...

CSTG stands for "casting" as in metal casting. If you go to Boeing's site, there are a few documents that refer to things like, "MAGNESIUM-ALY CSTG" which means Magnesium Alloy Casting.

If you do a google search for "CSTG, metal", quite a few sites come up. The acronym site also says that CSTG is an acronym for "casting."

Of course, BOEING Casting makes no sense because BOEING is a company, not a metal. Is it possible the piece is broken, and there was lettering above it?

I did a search on BOEING's site, and google for the following configurations:



Nada (except for previous sites looking into it).

And that's the extent of my contribution other than to say this is a good indication planes made by Boeing crashed into the towers.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Let's not jump to conclusions, Jon. I am suspicious of anything

so leading/incriminating found at a crime scene.

What about the "magic passport" that was obviously planted at Ground Zero!

I believe...

Commercial airliners struck the towers on 9/11.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I believe large aircraft stuck the towers, whether they were

commercial airliners is highly debatable.


Commercial or not...

There's still a damn good chance they would be made by Boeing.
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Commercial or not

the same laws of physics apply.

So the same laws of physics don't apply?

In his latest article at Journal of 9/11 Studies, Gordon Ross explained it in relation to the destruction of the Twin Towers:

"In a collision, energy is dissipated in both the impacting and impacted objects in proportion to their relative strengths, characteristics, and construction." (p. 41, second full paragraph)

This common sense notion prompted MIT collision experts to say:

"To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors."

Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625

Colombo, "500 mph!!!!" doesn't cut it. If you want to promote a theory that some plane other than Flight 175 hit the South Tower, you need to be able to explain it. Greg Jenkins has not done it by begging the question of whether NIST's model is plausible. It obviously is not, because it shows the plane passing through the external columns intact and not disintegrating until it hits the core columns.

a couple more things before you drop it

The wings of those planes held the thousands of gallons of fuel so they were not "light and airy". the flashes that are observed at the point of impact were most likely caused by internal explosions that could well have helped the relatively more fragile nose cone to penetrate the buildings' façades. Pointing these things out shouldn't even be necessary since you well know that your claims of faked video are nonsense.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Sure, that section is the most massive

The engines and between the wings is the most massive part of the plane, and I am not disputing some penetration of that section. But the wings are still fragile compared to the steel, and would have been ripped open, causing an explosion. The fuselage would have been crushed before the center of mass hit, causing deceleration and acting to plug any hole formed. The center of mass would have slowed on impact with the external columns, backed by the floors, and would not have slowed only once the plane was completely in the building and hitting the core columns.

NIST's pictures of the supposed impact, endorsed by Greg Jenkins, are not plausible.


NIST does not disclose its assumptions, but I predict they assumed penetration of the fuselage, modeled the wings as a rigid projectile, and did not account for dissipation of energy through global inertia of the building. I think they did whatever they had to do to get that plane into the building as shown in the fake video.

NIST's fairy tale is very similar to the car going through a truck without damage before hitting a wall, which is what Gordon Ross said Bazant was claiming with his collapse theory.

The fuselage is light and airy, and there is no way it enters the building as shown. You know that, so you posit an elaborate and risky garage-door-opening explosive to explain that, based on a little flash in a video of questionable authenticity.

No, Real Truther, I don't know my claims are nonsense. Call me stupid if you will, but stop accusing me of being disingenuous.

South Tower Plane Presentation

I really liked your Foot of God article

May I suggest you call this tanker "The Miracle Plane"?

Thanks, but I call the south tower plane

Simulated Hijacked Aircraft Remotely Piloted Monster-Plane-as-missile Military Tanker Drone

obviously the LIVE fly portion of the 9/11 War Games being run, this one for real. Nothing but a slightly more complex version of the one of the Operation Northwoods scenarios involving a swapped drone.

There's just no WAY that plane was the originating flight 175, and so, unless there was a commakaze US Airforce Pilot at the helm, then it was a swapped drone, though it is possible to take over a flight via remote. However, that said, there are some things that are definitely WRONG with this plane, what you might call "anomalies" not the least of which is the sheer MAGNITUDE of the fireball itself (also covered in detail in that article of mine). A similar thread, though not as consise and tightly packed as that one, where I gathered the info, has recieved almost 130,000 views at letsroll.

This aspect is going to be covered at length in Dave vonKleist's upcoming release of "9/11 Ripple Effect" the sequal to "911 In Plane Site" which, according to Dave, will cause his critics to "eat crow".

I cannot WAIT for that film to be released. Any week now..

You see, the essential crux of the entire false flag psy-op involving those plane strikes and falling buildings is a type of slight of hand Occam's Razor trick along the lines of "planes hit, the buildings fell", but, if the south tower plane was NOT in fact flight 175, but something else, then down goes any possibility for a causal connection.

I do hope that people will take another look at the south tower plane, particularly in light of everything else now known regarding CD of the twin towers. After all, aside from the broad daylight explosive near free fall destruction of the buildings themselves, it's the most recorded aspect of 9/11. Why it is dismissed with the derogatory label of "pod" I have a hard time fathoming...

In my view, it is the missing piece in the physical evidence puzzle proving well beyond ANY reasonable doubt whatsoever, that 9/11 really was and could have been nothing other than, an inside job. The plane was not flight 175!

The hypothesis I've offered, is the very best analysis I think people will find anywhere on the Net regarding the south tower plane. A LOT of research went into that.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Thanks for broaching this subject

When I tried to talk about the flights having been faked (as opposed to the planes themselves, which were real--if misrepresented as commercial flights) I ran into a lot of "well what happened to the people" and "you dishonor the victims by accusing them of faking their deaths."

I'll take a look at your articles in more detail, thanks. And thanks for letting me know about Dave's sequel. In plane site was my first 9/11 doc, ordered from TVNewsLies back in the day.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Agree it was not Flight 175" by Ningen

Good thing this is not baseball. Strike five.

Firstly, the MIT group (Wierzbicki) show that the plane could definitely puncture through the exterior wall easily. You completely take the quote out of context, and you know it. In the study, they show the plane only lost 4% of its Kinetic Energy after shearing of the exterior columns. Maybe you have forgotten about the post here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/7941?page=1. I showed that this amount of energy required to peirce the exterior columns is less than about 10% of the energy required to crush the fuselage in the same post. There is absolutely no mystery except to those who have not grasped the basic physics.

Secondly, NIST shows the plane being obliterated as ‘the plane’ reaches the core. The fuselage is cut in half and concurrently obliterated into thousands of parts. A 'global side view' exists as well as an aerial 'global view' (the one posted in at the Journal of 9/11 studies: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf). I know that you know since you posted the side view on your blog (http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html) so I can only infer that the comment you made is disingenuous ---- the fuselage is NOT intact! Furthermore, there are pictures of NIST's finite element analysis of what a wing section with fuel would look like piercing the exterior columns --- the wings are partially shredded and the columns are sheared. The notion that NIST reports an intact plane reaching the core is complete and utter nonsense. Only a cursory glance at the report debunks your position. You are more than wrong --- you are completely misrepresenting this easily proven fact.

Thirdly, the letter in the Journal is not necessarily an endorsement of the impact analysis. I state clearly that I currently find no reason to reject the finite element impact analysis of a Boeing-767 with the WTC towers based upon flawed methodology, misguided assumptions, or contradictions with observation. I use their report to demonstrate a specific misconception that Reynolds and you, Ningen, have purported: little deceleration of the tail-end of the plane violates the laws of physics. It does not. The center of mass deceleration is what is important, and clearly the deceleration of the center of mass is appreciable upon impact. Furthermore, you and Reynolds were misreporting what the NIST report was alleging --- the plane did not decelerate. Clearly, NIST reports a 91% decrease in KE (70% decrease in velocity) once the tail end clears the exterior wall. You were wrong, and so was Reynolds.

Fourthly, the exterior columns where the plane 'tips' were located were not pierced. You are wrong about this. Even the NIST simulations show that the wings tips did not pierce the exterior columns, and this is consistent with observation. Why do you insist on misrepresenting the facts?

Fifthly, your comment (“But the wings are still fragile compared to the steel, and would have been ripped open, causing an explosion”) about an explosion is wholly absurd. Gasoline will not ‘explode’ unless it is spread out somewhat. From this table (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flash-point-fuels-d_937.html), you see that the ‘upper explosive’ limit is 5% for kerosene meaning that kerosene will not readily explode if the mixture is too rich (>5%). Therefore, no large instantaneous explosion concurrent with impact is expected --- the fuel must disperse so that enough oxygen is interspersed with the fuel in order for an ‘explosion’ to occur. Also, the forward momentum drove the fuel into the building --- when a fireball developed, it would have began and have been projected inside the building, not on the exterior. You are wrong again….

It is a good thing this is not baseball. Strike five for Mighty Casey and his ‘no planes’ theory.

Lastly, you never addressed my questions from a previous blog entry:

If you assume for now (until you have had more time to think about it) that the tail deceleration argument does not violate physics, what are the top 4 or 5 reasons, prioritized, which you think the no-plane theory holds? That is, what is the list of the strongest to weakest evidence that you think the theory, to date, has developed?

Given the same assumption, which points 'stand on their own' that completely substantiate the no plane theory, and which points are too weak to justify a no plane theory if left to stand on its own?

You're still begging the question

You can't just take their conclusions as given without addressing their assumptions. All you do in your Letter is say that NIST's theory is correct and consistent with the video -- that begs the question.

To that extent, I can answer your center of mass argument now -- you are basically saying all the visible deceleration occurred in the building because NIST said so. Given their performance on the "collapse," I think it is reasonable for you to show why their conclusion on this matter should be taken at face value.

Wierzbicki said in his Internet article that the fuselage would likely be crushed against the external columns, which form a wall. The plane would have decelerated some as a result, and the impact should have been dispersed somewhat by the plug formed, in addition to the global inertia of the building surrounding the impact area.

I did not take his quote out of context. The absurdity of the video was his initial impression, because it is common sense. I made it clear that I think he has cobbled together a model that purports to explain the absurd.

Karim and Hoo Fatt, also with unrealistic assumptions, showed that the plane lost 46% of its kinetic energy in perforating the columns. They consulted with Wierzbicki on the article, and they specifically say he only considered the energy lost at the portion of a wing impacting one column. I recognize that his article seems to suggest that he added that figure up for all columns.

Look at the other diagrams posted by NIST -- one of them shows the fuselage directly impacting a floor.


Even if it did not hit head on, it would hit two floors off center. The columns are backed by floors that would disperse energy. How can you and NIST argue that the aluminum fuselage would perforate this wall? It's absurd. Karim and Hoo Fatt assumed it through on the baseless assumption that it is of higher mass than the external columns, I assume focusing only on the mass of the portion actually hit and not accounting for global inertia.

Wierzibicki also says that the Sander situation is not comparable, yet you continue to say it proves something. The plane in Sandia decelerated 100% outside the concrete wall.

Why would the fuel not disperse on impact, both around the point of impact and into the building? (I'm not denying that some perforation of the external wall would not occur.)

Read the article by Gordon Ross just posted at Journal of 9/11 Studies. Materials do matter. So does global inertia -- why is Wierzbicki assuming that none of the energy is dispersed through the columns, as in a projectile impact?

The NIST theory you are endorsing sounds a lot like his analogy of a car driving through a truck to hit a wall.

The videos show the wing tips going in. I'm not arguing that this is physical.

I will be collecting your comments and responding in more detail later, and will try to list arguments as you suggest.

Please respond to the questions I posted. Thanks.


Wrong again. YOU were the one misreporting what NIST stated in their report. YOU were the one that stated that NIST reported near zero deceleration. Now you are going to spin it and say, because I correctly interpret the NIST report, that I endorse their entire report, and that I am the one begging the question?

I show how you blatantly screwed up. That is fine, and is no crime in and of itself. However, do not misrepresent my position just because I can correctly interpret their report.

Both the NIST and MIT report show that there is a massive loss of energy before impacting the core. Both MIT and NIST show that large parts of the plane were crushed (MIT) and obliterated (NIST). The only reason there is a discrepancy between the two reports is because NIST actually ran a full finite element analysis which was capable of obliterating the modeled plane concurrently during impact. The MIT study was much more crude dealing with energy balances.



So then why did his report state something entirely different? The published report states that only 4% of the aircrafts energy was required to pierce the exterior columns, and this same amount of energy accounts for only ~10% of crushing of the fuselage. You must be misinterpreting something, because he clearly states that only about 10% of the fuselage would have been crushed upon piercing the exterior columns based upon energy balance. This is a clear conclusion.


There is no ‘suggestion’ about it --- He clearly multiplies the number of sheared columns by the energy required to shear one column (in 2 places). This is not up for debate, regardless of what Hoo Fatt states --- the equation is clearly shown in the MIT report.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html" title="http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html">http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html Even if it did not hit head on, it would hit two floors off center. The columns are backed by floors that would disperse energy. How can you and NIST argue that the aluminum fuselage would perforate this wall?

Why are you trying to position my arguments in alignment with NIST? I make no such claims. I have only corrected your blatant misinterpretation of the report (as well as Reynold’s misconceptions). This does not make me an apologist for the OCT. It makes you and Reynolds promoters of misinformation who can not interpret the written English language (albeit slightly technical).

MIT, NIST, and Hoo Fatt show that the plane can pierce the exterior walls. I gave you the MIT energy arguments. They are simple and easy to understand. NIST gave you a FEA with pictures, but the physics is hidden within the cartoon. Please try to understand the MIT report and the energy arguments --- it is the simplest way to demonstrate that a plane can easily pierce the exterior columns.



You missed the point. The Sandia deceleration is 100% outside the concrete wall AND THE TAIL SHOWS NO DECELERATION! This is not a difficult concept. If a plane (F-4 Phantom) impacts an incredibly solid object (giant concrete slab) where no observable deceleration occurs, what do you think would happen to an impact into a much less rigid object like….. hmmmm…. say for instance… ¼” steel plate where the plane’s energy can easily shear the plate steel? Do you think you would see deceleration then?


It takes time for the fuel to spread out. The ‘explosion’ would not be instantaneous. The momentum of the plane and fuel was moving forward. Everywhere the plane carried fuel and impacted the building, the exterior columns were breached and little debris bounced off the building. The fuel was carried into the building.


Of course materials matter. Wierzbicki outlines his reasons for assuming that the global inertia of the beams is not activated appreciably in the MIT report. Did you need me to summarize it?


The car would not act like a projectile moving at 1/10th the velocity of the plane (60MPH), and the truck does not weigh 250,000 tons, and it is not made of ¼” plate steel. Other than that, your analogy makes perfect sense……

In fact, the MIT study clearly states that a car impacting ‘a wall’ does not normally act like a projectile since the beams are usually bent and not sheared. This is typical in assessing the crashworthiness of buildings.


No, the videos do not show the wingtips going in. You can not tell if sections of the wing tips are being obliterated or not. Since the columns were not sheared, the wings must have been obliterated. The volume of the section of wings which impacted the exterior columns would be *much* less than 5% of the entire plane (I'm just being conservative here --- it is probably much less than 1%). This would be very little visible debris.


OK. Please respond to the questions I posted. Thanks.

Just like Salter . . .

You ignore the most important part of my article. We all agree that the plane showed little or no deceleration. NIST's analysis of the Scott Myers video merely confirmed that, and my argument to Salter was that whether 0 or 18% (or 10%), he should have cited the Hoo Fatt article that shows much higher loss of kinetic energy to perforate the external columns. NIST does not cite to this article, and I am assuming they relied on Wierzbicki.

The columns were not a 1/4 inch steel plate - they were box beams of 1/4 inch (9.5 mm) plates, 356 mm on each side. They formed a wall. backed by massive floors

You said there is no reason to question the NIST findings, and used that to argue that the plane pierced the tower's external wall and decelerated after perforation. How can you say you are not following NIST's findings? You explicitly stated that you had no reason to doubt them. Accusing me of accusing you of supporting the OCT is a blatant straw man - I never said that. I said you were taking NIST's findings without question.

The point is not whether I misunderstood center of mass and thought deceleration of the tail was a proxy for the entire deceleration --- that point appears well-taken, though I'm not sure if I was looking only at the tail of the plane.

The point is whether the videos are plausible, and whether the entire plane would enter the building without any deceleration or deformation or disintegration, then disintegrate and decelerate.

I have made my doubts about the assumptions of Weirzbicki and Hoo Fatt clear. As far as I could see, NIST has not released its assumptions. If you have seen them, please tell me where in NIST's report they may be found.

The tail of the plane in the Sandia video did not decelerate because all of the kinetic energy was being dispersed in disintegration of the plane. When the tail reached the wall, it decelerated. The process has to be followed to its end, and the question is whether the end shown in NIST's diagrams is plausible. I am arguing that the external wall of the World Trade Center, backed by steel and concrete floors, is much more like the Sandia wall than like a porous membrane.

There was no reason for the wing tips to disintegrate to the point of not being visible. The Sandia website states that fairly large wingtips remained, and they can be seen to some extent. And the videos do show the wingtips entering.

I agree that Wierzbicki clearly states with equation that he added up the loss for all columns. Perhaps Hoo Fatt was mistaken, but she clearly said he did not, and there is still some question in my mind. Regardless, Hoo Fatt found much higher loss of kinetic energy to perforate the external columns. She also said he was wrong to include the mass of the engines spread over the wings to create a more massive wing.

They both assume that the fuselage perforates the external wall, which is not plausible. Wierzibicki says it is likely the fuselage would be crushed, but does not include it in his model according to Hoo Fatt. Hoo Fatt says she included loss of energy from impact of the fuselage, yet still assumes it perforated because it was more massive.

Wierzbicki states it is possible the rear portion of the aircraft would be subject to progressive crush rather than cutting, but then rules it out as "speculative." In fact, the rear portion would be subject to the same progressive crush as the front of the fuselage, and would pile into the crushed fuselage and wing area. The plane would go splat, and you would see the results outside the building. It assume it would drive partially into the building at the most massive portion between the engines, but not all the way in to hit the core columns to the point that the entire plane disappears seamlessly. I maintain that this is absurd.

Substantiate your claims

I hate spending my time correcting my position, but here we go:


The plane decelerated upon impact, including the impact with the exterior walls. It is not as if the plane slices through the exterior walls without any loss of energy. In fact, MIT shows that a 4% reduction in KE is expected just from the exterior columns. NIST shows a 91% reduction in KE once the tail end clears the exterior walls, but this includes the concrete floors and exterior walls.


Wrong. I said I currently had no reason to reject their analysis. Stop mischaracterizing my words. The exact phrase is here:

I currently find no reason to reject the finite element impact analysis of a Boeing-767 with the WTC towers based upon flawed methodology, misguided assumptions, or contradictions with observation. Within this letter, I will use the NIST impact results to illustrate the flawed methodology employed by many proponents of the ‘no planes’ theory, namely the mischaracterization of the plane deceleration during impact and confusion between instantaneous versus average velocity and deceleration.

In case you find this confusing, it is not just a semantical game I am playing. I, as a scientist, always doubt everything, forever skeptical. There is a big difference between "finding no reason to reject" a hypothesis and "having no reason to doubt" a hypothesis.


The videos are plausible. They are backed up by the MIT energy balance equations which are certainly plausible. They are corroborated by the NIST plane impact analysis which I currently have no reason to reject. The plane did suffer major deformation &/or obliteration while *CONCURRENTLY* decelerating as reported implicitly in the MIT report and explicitly in the NIST report. You know why they agree on this point? Because it is basic physics.

You have not given one argument to support the videos are implausible. Please do so. Back your notions up with a physical argument. If you think the videos are disallowed by physics, you need to show which physical laws are violated, and explicitly show this. I have shown that the MIT report correlates reasonably well regarding the fuselage section using physical arguments. The NIST report shows a plausible explanation as to why the fuel bearing wing sections penetrated the exterior columns. I am sure a simple scaling of the MIT report energy balance equation would show the same thing since such little KE of the entire plane (4%) is needed to shear the exterior columns.


No. This is not the reason that the Sandia video showed almost no deceleration of the tail end. Just because the plane was loosing energy in obliterating the front of the plane is not the reason the tail did not decelerate. The deformation of the plane at the point of impact did not effectively couple to the rear of the plane. The momentum of the plane was transferred to the bits of plane flying outward and the concrete block, and the tail end did not decelerate.

This is completely synonymous with the Boeing impacting the towers in this regard. The deformation of the front of the plane was not effectively coupled to the rear of the plane (inertially). By the time the tail end breached the exterior wall, some of the concrete flooring had been obliterated due to the impact of the front 85% of the plane. The horizontal sections of the tail, as pictured by NIST in this case, could fit pretty well inside the hole inside the building without being obliterated at ‘the end’, as you put it. That material had already been moved out of the way. I see nothing wrong with the NIST model especially in light of the fact that the hole in the building shows quite a bit of material removed at that point. The momentum of the plane was transferred to the bits of plane and to the tower, and the tail end did not decelerate.


Yes, there is a reason and I gave it to you. The volume of material which represents the small section of wings which collided with the un-breached exterior perimeter columns I am sure is something like ~1% of the volume of the plane. If it was obliterated into tiny pieces (like most of the plane from the Sandia video), it becomes a question of resolution as to whether you can see such a small amount of debris or not. It is perfectly plausible that the videos are not able to resolve small debris in small quantities.


No, Wierzbicki did not assume, he showed mathematically that the energy required to pierce the exterior walls was only 4% of the KE of the plane. This amount of energy only represents ~10% of the energy to crush the fuselage. This is most definitely not an assumption.
Show that it is implausible without just making blind statements. I am growing tired of them.


You can maintain anything you want, but it does not justify your belief one scintilla.

There is a big difference between shooting down someone’s argument as opposed to supporting your own claim. You have done neither effectively, and you have done none of the later. It is incumbent upon you to substantiate your claims:

You maintain that Wierzbicki claims that the plane can breach the exterior walls are ill-founded. You maintain that the plane would ‘go splat’. Substantiate your claim.

You maintain that the plane would only partially drive into the building. Substantiate your claim.

You got me

I can't substantiate it. It's just common sense. The law is the law of stomping the beer can against the barbecue grill -- I'll have to test it again as I was a bit tipsy last time, but it should still hold.

You keep citing to MIT's study, when Hoo Fatt's study shows 46% loss of kinetic energy to penetrate the external columns, not 4%. Part of the difference is from deformation of the fuselage that Wierzbicki addressed elsewhere, which is another problem because he ignored the decelerating effect of the fuselage. It is still a huge difference that you should address.

I have a rough idea of what Hoo Fatt is saying when she says that Wierzbicki only considered the portion of the wing that hit one column. I think she is talking about global inertia, and saying that scaling up from one column is not accurate. Regardless, she said it, and Wierzbicki reviewed the article, so there is enough there that you should address the significance of Hoo Fatt's data, and whether NIST addresses it or uses MIT's assumptions.

You lost me in your first paragraph on me playing semantics in saying you were accepting NIST's findings without question.


YOU were the one misreporting what NIST stated in their report. YOU were the one that stated that NIST reported near zero deceleration.

I am stunned by the illogic of this argument. Stop conflating the video deceleration with the deceleration NIST models inside the building. I find it hard to believe that you are not able to see the difference. The discussion was always about deceleration visible in the videos. I'm not spinning anything. It is you that is spinning your complete failure to address my argument that Hoo Fatt's data shows higher kinetic energy loss. This isn't about whether you can read that NIST graph and lecture me about what it means. It's about whether NIST's claim is physical. Yes, you are still begging the question, transparently.

I show how you blatantly screwed up.

I didn't screw up, and if I somewhat misconceived the problem of deceleration, along with Steven Jones, the main point remains valid.

Both the NIST and MIT report show that there is a massive loss of energy before impacting the core.

And both show almost no loss from the external columns. GIGO. My point remains that Wierzbicki created a model that defied his common sense, based on assumptions that you have not addressed.

Why are you trying to position my arguments in alignment with NIST? I make no such claims.

Really? You are saying that their model is plausible. If you are just trying to correct my misconception, fine, I stand corrected. Now explain how that fuselage enters the tower virtually intact rather than being crushed like a beer can against the massive steel wall backed by steel and concrete floors.

NIST gave you a FEA with pictures, but the physics is hidden within the cartoon.

You can't be serious. The physics drew the cartoon, and are hidden, yet you endorse this cartoon. I take this to mean that you have not been able to find NIST's assumptions. By any academic standard, that makes the cartoon worthless.

Please try to understand the MIT report and the energy arguments --- it is the simplest way to demonstrate that a plane can easily pierce the exterior columns.

I have shown ample understanding of the MIT report and you know. I am getting tired of your rhetoric and your misrepresentation of my arguments.

You missed the point. The Sandia deceleration is 100% outside the concrete wall AND THE TAIL SHOWS NO DECELERATION!

So the tail went though the wall? I already explained what I think happened. The disintegrating fuselage provides no resistance to the tail, and the tail does not decelerate until it hits the wall.

This is not a difficult concept. If a plane (F-4 Phantom) impacts an incredibly solid object (giant concrete slab) where no observable deceleration occurs, what do you think would happen to an impact into a much less rigid object like….. hmmmm…. say for instance… ¼” steel plate where the plane’s energy can easily shear the plate steel? Do you think you would see deceleration then?

That's a box beam of 1/4 inch steel plates, 14 inches square, backed by steel and concrete floors. I'm not denying some penetration. I'm saying how can there be no evidence of impact like seen in the Sandia video? It is mind-boggling how you compare these two completely different videos.

Of course materials matter. Wierzbicki outlines his reasons for assuming that the global inertia of the beams is not activated appreciably in the MIT report. Did you need me to summarize it?

No, I need you to analyze his analysis.

The car would not act like a projectile moving at 1/10th the velocity of the plane (60MPH), and the truck does not weigh 250,000 tons, and it is not made of ¼” plate steel. Other than that, your analogy makes perfect sense……

Read Wierzbicki - he says "Projectile impact velocities may exceed, by an order of magnitude, those that were encountered in the WTC Towers impact."


The plane is closer in velocity to a car than to a high-speed bullet.

In fact, the MIT study clearly states that a car impacting ‘a wall’ does not normally act like a projectile since the beams are usually bent and not sheared. This is typical in assessing the crashworthiness of buildings.

I will read Wierzbicki again, but I could not see how he got from the above comparison of crashes and projectiles to the claim that the plane was a rigid projectile that did not activate global inertia. I know that one way he did it was by lumping the engine weight in with the wings to create a box beam wing of much greater thickness than the width of one side of the column, and claim this made it a rigid body. Like you, he seems to be trying to claim this is like a bullet hitting a piece of sheet metal, when the box beam columns are much stronger. I see no reason for the claim that energy was not dispersed by global inertia. Relative the plane, the building is much more massive.

Addressing specifics

My answers before were general, and I whipped it off. I will try to address your claims more specifically now.

1. Fuselage penetration

I showed that this amount of energy required to peirce the exterior columns is less than about 10% of the energy required to crush the fuselage in the same post. There is absolutely no mystery except to those who have not grasped the basic physics.

You have not shown that. You quoted Wierzbicki's findings. I agree that they seem to have added the totals for each column, but still think I am missing something because Hoo Fatt, in a paper reviewed by Wierzbicki, said that "They considered only one column and a portion of the wing that interacts with it." Regardless, Hoo Fatt much higher loss of kinetic energy.

What you are saying is not plausible. The front of the fuselage would be crushed against the much stronger steel columns. Moreover, your comparison with the amount of kinetic energy needed for the more massive fuel-laden wing to shear the column, whatever that might be, is a non-sequiter. Wierzbicki states the obvious -- it is likely the fuselage would be crushed. There is no reason for it to perforate the columns prior to be crushed and pushed in by the center of mass following it.

2. Cutting of fuselage

The fuselage had to be intact to be cut in the way shown. The diagram shows it passing through the columns intact and being cut, and the fuselage maintain its basic integrity, though cut and partially disintegrating, until it hits the core columns. My point stands, so please lay off the rhetoric about misrepresentation. Obliteration against the core rather than the external columns is not plausible.

3. My "misconception"

We all agree that the plane must decelerate. You just say it happened inside the building, based on NIST's claim. The Journal of 9/11 Studies published a paper saying that deceleration should match kinetic energy loss. Responding to Stephan Grossman, who cited Wierzbicki, Eric Salter stating that 18% (later changed to 12%) matched the kinetic energy loss found by Wierzbicki. Reynolds said that there was no deceleration.
I found the Hoo Fatt article showing much higher kinetic energy loss, and said that is not consistent with 18% energy loss (despite Salter's recent criticism, that gives him the benefit of the doubt).

Later I found that Steven Jones gave a Power Point presentation saying that there was deceleration in the Scott Myers video (citing Salter's analysis of another video, the Fairbanks video.) Jones said that this deceleration was consistent with the kinetic energy loss claimed by Werizbicki. I pointed out in a crtique of Salter and Jones that they should have acknowledged the Hoo Fatt article showing higher kinetic energy loss, and also should have acknowledged that NIST was saying 0% deceleration in the Scott Myers video.

Deceleration or lack thereof remains a valid argument -- all you have done is use NIST to claim that all the deceleration all took place in the building. And your focus on the tail is somewhat of the straw man Arabesque loves to talk about, because I was talking about deceleration in general. Salter claimed to find deceleration in the Fairbanks video at the point the wings hit the building.

I think your claim that the plane would hardly decelerate, despite the wings and engines smashing into the steel columns (box beams, not a 1/4 inch plate), backed by steel and concrete floors, is ridiculous. That's your center of mass, and when that happened, the fuselage behind it would have responded by deceleration and deformation, torsion, fragmentation, etc. Just like Sandia. It did not respond at all. That's absurd. All your center of mass argument tells me is that the tail is not going to respond as quickly as I might have thought.

Whether or not I misconceived the problem is not the issue. The issue is whether the video depicts an unphysical event. You cite the NIST argument without question in saying that the event is physical. Quit hiding behind your claim that I misconceived the problem. The question is whether NIST has shown the video is physical or fixed the data to match the video. I submit the latter, and that your claim of "consistency"
is nothing more than that.

The below statement is wrong on so many levels:

Furthermore, you and Reynolds were misreporting what the NIST report was alleging --- the plane did not decelerate. Clearly, NIST reports a 91% decrease in KE (70% decrease in velocity) once the tail end clears the exterior wall. You were wrong, and so was Reynolds.

Of course I was not saying the plane did not decelerate at all. Did you hear me claim it popped out the other side? (You heard me question whether the engine popped at 120 mph, but never answered).

I accurately stated that NIST said that the plane did not decelerate at all before entering the building, relying on the Scott Myers video that it used to measure the speed of the plane (which was then plugged back into the kinetic energy analysis).

This is implausible, and on Steven Jones' own terms, it is not consistent with even Wierzbicki's data.

I already responded on the wing tips - I never claimed NIST said they pierced the building. The videos show them doing that.

If dispersion was inadequate for an explosion, that does not change my argument that the tanks would burst on impact and there would massive heat from friction to ignite the fuel. I'll grant you that point for now.

I don't agree that the tail would not have decelerated when the wings and engine smashed into the wall. Are you claiming that the tail did not decelerate in the Sandia video when it reached the wall? Are you claiming that the material in that huge cloud of dust and debris in the Sandia video has not decelerated?

the plane is the sum of it’s parts


Prove it. I grow tired of your bald assertions. How much of the plane do you expect to be crushed before breaching the exterior columns, and state why you believe it. Analogies do not constitute proof, and your subjective ‘common sense’ is not a valid form of evidence.

If it only takes 4% of the KE of the airplane to breach the exterior walls (and so there is not confusion later, this only includes the exterior columns), this constitutes a pretty good argument for showing that it is perfectly reasonable the plane can breach the exterior walls. All you have is some cartoon picture of the way you THINK a plane should have behaved.


False. The fuselage is cut in half, but what makes you think it is intact? It certainly does not look intact to me. It is partially disintegrating, as you state, so how can you miscontrue the FEA is stating that the fuselage is ‘intact’. I have shown that only about 10% of the fuselage should be crushed after clearing the exterior columns based upon Wierzbicki’s numbers. What, exactly, do you think is causing the ‘partial disintegrating’, thin air?

Your point certainly does not stand, because it has nothing supporting it. You still have not given one reason backed by any substantial reason as to why a plane can not peirce the WTC exterior columns.


I have never claimed ‘the plane’ would hardly decelerate. I have always stated the ‘tail-end’ hardly decelerated and that this is perfectly consistent with physical laws and I use Sandia as an example. Please post the link to where I state ‘the plane would hardly decelerate’, or I will consider this a straw-man. The center of mass decelerates significantly as the plane impacts the tower even though the tail-end does not. You can either use the MIT study or NIST as a guide to show you how much the plane (everytime I speak of the motion of ‘the plane’, I inherently mean the center of mass motion --- that is how important it is!) might decelerate based upon either energy arguments or the FEA done by NIST.

You still do not understand the significance of the center of mass motion. Your above rant is jibberish. Before impact, the center of mass is roughly as pictured in my letter publication. During impact, the center of mass will shift toward the rear of the plane from the first moment of impact to the instant the entire plane is obliterated. This is a continous process. The phrase ‘the fuselage behind [the center of mass] would have responded by deceleration and deformation, torsion, and fragmentation’ makes no sense at all. Let me ask you question. Where is the center of mass as soon as the wings strike the exterior wall?
All my center of mass arguments *should* tell you, if you can get the point, the motion of the plane. It is the *only* way to speak about the motion of the plane. Otherwise, you have to speak about which part of the plane you are specifically addressing.

So if it is physically possible for the plane to easily breach the exterior wall, and it is certainly physically allowable for the tail-end to show virtually no deceleration during impact, and it is plausible the plane debris is carried into the building based upon both NIST and the energy arguments from MIT, where exactly is the ‘implausible’ part where everyone needs to believe that all the videos have been faked? After all, the proof that the videos were faked are based upon the laws of physics being broken.

You have not offered a shred of evidence to show that any physics has been violated. So why should anyone believe you?


It is wholly inaccurate to claim that NIST reports that ‘the plane’ did not decelerate. If you mean ‘tail-end’, then please stop saying ‘the plane’ since ‘the plane’ means the center of mass motion. This is not my personal language that I expect you to conform to… it is what any engineer or scientist would inherently mean when speaking about this issue. Since NIST is full of scientists and engineers, it is what they inherently mean when they report the graph I show in my letter publication ---- the momentum of ‘the plane’, the center of mass motion.

So you most certainly did NOT accurately report the NIST conclusion. In fact, you clearly misrepresented their findings.


OK, you never claimed NIST said the wingtips pierced the wall. Fine.

The videos don’t clearly show the sections of wings impacting the un-breached columns going into the building. Your interpretation of the videos are not objective. To be objective, you need to analyze how much debris you would expect to see, and analyze if you can resolve it based upon the video quality. Have you done this?

You should expect a very small aount of debris from those sections of wings, and the videos could very well show the small part of the wing being obliterated albeit very poor resolution/contrast.


In the Sandia test, the tail end did not show any deceleration up until the tail is obscured by debris. By that time, ~75% of the plane had been obliterated against the concrete block.

In the Sandia test, do you understand that ‘the plane’, during the complete time of impact from start to finish, decelerated even though the tail did not? Do you understand that the velocity of ‘the plane’ is zero the moment the back of the tail hits the concrete block even though thousands of pieces are exploding away from the block at high velocities? My question to you is this --- if all the plane pieces had a lot of momentum after impact, how can ‘the plane’ have zero momentum after impact…. after all, isn’t the plane the sum of it’s parts?

Lastly, you state “I don't agree that the tail would not have decelerated when the wings and engine smashed into the wall”. What proof do you have? Why does this violate physics?

BTW, thanks for addressing the questions I raised. I would still like an answer to my orginal post, though, regarding the best evidence from the no-plane theories to date....


It's late, and I'll have to think about some of your points. In the meantime, please consider whether your demands to "substantiate" and "answer my questions" are meaningful. I am explaining my position the best I can, and think I have been responsive.

You're right

I'm first going to address what you and NIST said, because you are correct that I did not accurately report what NIST said.

NIST explicitly said that the tail did not decelerate, so you are correct that NIST did not say the plane did not decelerate, and I was wrong to say that you claimed the plane would hardly decelerate. I hesitate to say you are right, because I cannot check your calculations and don't fully understand the issue, but I agree that your letter addresses a discrete misconception on my part, because I was reading too much into NIST's statement that the tail did not decelerate. I agree that this is separate from whether the plane decelerated. I need to be more precise in stating what you said.

All this proves is that I was wrong on this point -- I am conceding this and thank you for pointing this out. I believe you stated earlier that this was the only purpose of your paper, and for that purpose, would agree that it is appropriate to take NIST's FEA analysis as given ("self-consistent.").

If you read my statement, it did show some understanding of what you were saying, when I said "the tail is not going to respond as quickly as I might have thought." Maybe not - regardless, I understand better now. Moreover, I was not talking about the tail, but about the fuselage directly behind the wing and engines.

(I say "wing" because my understanding is that the wing is all one piece - I view the engines and the portion of the wing between the engines, where most of the fuel is carried, as the most massive portion of the plane. I also do this to cure myself of a misconception I had early on - that there are two wings merely attached to the fuselage.)

You ask me "where is the center of mass as soon as the wings strike the exterior wall"?

My understanding is that the center of mass is still the same, but it sounds like the right answer is that it has shifted back a bit. Is that because the tail is getting closer to the wing area?

Anyway, I am considering the impact of the wing between the engines is the most significant event. As I stated, I am not claiming that the plane could not pierce the columns -- I expect some penetration when this mass hits the building.

What I am saying is that when the engine and wing impact the external columns, which are backed by the floors, there is an intense reaction to the impact that has to be transmitted back through the fuselage directly behind it. That is where I expect to see deceleration, deformation, torsion, or a reaction of some sort. There is no visible reaction. And of course, there is very little visible reaction when the engine and wing hit.

I'll address your other points in a separate comment, later today.


[Bad link]

Believe it or not, Ningen, I am not out to trap you or get you.

You are applying an extreme double standard. You want me to substantiate everything I say to the n-th degree, which is fair. I am doing my best to argue that the videos show something which appears to be reasonable, physically speaking. However, you susbstantiate almost nothing in buttressing your own belief that a plane can not behave the way it did in the videos.

[Bad link]

Wierzbicki created a model and published his results. If he thought it was garbage, then why would he publish it?

There are many examples of scientifically proven concepts which ‘defy common sense’ --- if you want, I can name a half dozen or so. If science was based on common sense, then the entire rigorous scientific method would not be necessary. However, common sense is extremely subjective, especially since some people do not seem to have any (this is not directed at you, and I am sure you can think of many examples). ‘Common Sense’ is a terrible way to approach a problem scientifically since you are inherently approaching a problem with preconceived notions.

I do believe, in my candid opinion, that your preconceived notions, guided by your ‘common sense’, are blinding you from objectively look at the facts and analyses. However, I seem to be failing at arguing the points lucidly.

Before tangentially pin-pointing some issues, let me address what you have previously written:


I have shown this repeatedly with the MIT energy arguments.


The NIST results are supported by the results of others. In particular, the agreement with the MIT study is fairly good --- not from a precise damage point of view, but in analyzing the energetics involved in the problem. One thing that struck me in the NIST report is their comparison to other studies in their discussion section, and that the NIST report actually states that much less damage to the core region was found from their FEA than in all the other studies. This result is not what one would expect from dishonesty --- however, it certainly does not, in an of itself, render the report analytically correct.

I read this part of the report, but I do not remember all the assumptions they outline. I do remember the report as being quite clear in methodology and assumptions. What is missing from their analysis is a double check on their work using simple numbers and analysis. The MIT report is actually a great double check especially since their assumptions and numbers are easily checked. The two reports fit well together in this regard. This is precisely the reason I keep bringing up the two reports to substantiate my claims ---- the MIT study offers an easy analytical method to understand the collision energies, and the NIST FEA offers a nice analysis as to how the different elements of the plane interact with different parts of the building with nice pics ----


The forward momentum carried the parts into the building. The pieces were dispersed within the building.Again, if you look at the MIT study, very little energy is lost in breaching the exterior walls, so very little loss of net forward momentum will result. Therefore, there is no palce for the pieces to go but into the building (they still had most of their forward momentum).

In Sandia, the plane parts all suffered complete cessation of forward momentum after impact.


No, this is not correct. The plane is closer to a projectile when dealing with the exterior columns. That has been the focus of our discussion, the exterior columns. Since Wierzbicki states that the plane did not activate the global inertia of the exterior columns and only shearing need be considered, he is implicitly stating the plane acts more like a projectile when considering the exterior columns.


OK. Now that the other stuff is out of the way, I believe this last point is very important.

You have correctly answered the question but for the wrong reason. It is true that the center of mass would have shifted more toward the rear section of the plane at this point in time. It is NOT because the tail is any closer to the wing area. It is because the ‘front of the plane’ is closer to the wing section ---- the impact would slow the front section of the plane down a bit due to the impact.

Let me explain center of mass. Consider a pencil. Where is the CofM of a pencil? It is located at the point where you can balance it on your finger (horizontally). The center of mass is actually the point inside the pencil where you could hypothetically attach a ‘string’ and the pencil would balance perfectly no matter what position it was in (vertical, horizontal, in between, etc.). You can’t really do this, but that is the concept.

For the intact plane, the CofM is located between the engines in the approximate middle of the cross section of the fuselage. If you hypothetically crushed the front 10% of the plane, the ‘balance point’ would shift toward the rear of the plane, yes? The Center of Mass would shift toward the tail end.

If the front of the plane was obliterated, or partially obliterated, or crushed some, but all the pieces, on average, slowed down a little from traveling forward, then the center of mass of the plane would shift toward the rear a little. Since the CofM shifts toward the rear, ‘the plane’ decelerates even though the tail end does not.


Except the Sandia video shows just the opposite… The Sandia video is a perfect counter example. Even though the plane is obliterated against a concrete wall and the momentum of the impacted section of the plane is *completely* haulted, the tail does not decelerate at all! Also, the fighter jet is a much more stiff plane than a passenger airliner, so you might expect to see some deceleration of the fighter jet tail (more effective ‘transmission’ of the inertial effects from the front of the plane to the tail end) even though you might see none from a Boeing 767 --- however, even for the stiffer fuselage of a fighter jet you see no deceleration of the tail section. The comparison can be made directly, and there is no problem in so doing in showing that no deceleration of the boeing 767 exterior to the building is expected when impacting a *less* rigid object (1/4” plate steel columns as opposed to a solid concrete block).

Are you real?

This isn't about me or you. I don't give a damn if you are "out to get me."

If it is fair for me to ask you to substantiate your claims, then why don't you do it?

You should know that I accurately cited to Wierzbicki about the crushing of the fuselage. You totally ignored that.

You, and Steven Jones, have completely dismissed this debate without any serious discussion.

I will be writing more about this, but it is really sad that I, a little people's lawyer, needs to be dealing with this rather than you government-grant-funded physicists. It really makes me angry, to be honest.

I gave you more of a concession than you deserve in my last post. Yes, I misstated NIST, but that still begs the question, a question one would expect to be asked by a free citizen that claims to doubt the government, of whether NIST's story is plausible.

How can you take NIST at face value given the utter bullshit they have claimed about the "collapse" pf the Twin Towers? And how can you keep citing Wierzbicki 2002 when there is a 2005 paper that Wierzbicki consulted on, that gives much different data? Why have you, and Journal of 9/11 Studies, completely ignored that?

I have been accused of being a shill many times, and I know how it feels to be accused of not being sincere. It hurts, and should not be said lightly. So I say it now, knowingly, that I doubt your sincerity. What you say is not real. Show me you're real.

I'll read what you just posted tomorrow, and also respond to your non-response to my questions.

For now, I repeat:

You know that the fuselage would be crushed. Wierzbicki said it is likely it would be crushed. His and my and your common sense say it would be crushed. Wierzbicki assumed it away and Hoo Fatt assumed it through because they had to. Any person not brainwashed would see that, and all you , the scientist, can do is say "prove it."

Be real, please.


Wow, you are still saying 1/4" plates. You know, or should have known, and I told you before, that these were box beams, 14 inch square, made of 1/4 inch plates. Is it your learned opinion that this box beam, backed by a steel and concrete floor, would react the same way as a thin steel plate?

what kind of proof do you require?

You can hurl insults all day. It does not sufficiently hide the fact that you have not backed up your claim with anything other than a beer can.

I would hardly call asking you to substantiate your claims as "dismissing this debate". Frankly, this is hardly a debate --- one side constantly asks for proof while concurrently considering itself exempt from presenting proof due to a lack of expertise. Let me know how that tactic works in a court-room setting.

I take nothing at face value --- I read the NIST report, I read the MIT report, I watched the dozens of videos, read the hundreds of eyewitness accounts, and read Salter's publication. I notably turned red with embarrassment when I analyzed Reynold's pathetic RFC and shredded the man's arguments which were almost exclusively built upon the false premise that NIST allegedly reports a zero percent deceleration of the plane. The NIST report as well as the MIT report are plausible and mutually supporting. I am not accepting anything at face value, unlike you and your beer can.

Wierzbicki 'consulted' on the Hoo Fat article, did he? Why is his name not published in the author list? In what capacity did he consult? What was his input, precisely? Why would Hoo Fatt require his assistance? You are aware that reviewing someone’s work is completely different than consulting, right? ---- do you see why your claim is utter nonsense? Your statement is completely meaningless until you can answer the simplest of questions. Until then, I judge Wierzbicki’s work from his published articles where his name appears as an author, not by your hearsay ‘consultation’ BS regarding the Hoo Fatt article.

Does Fatt or Wierzbicki believe that the plane impact with the WTC towers were faked based upon their own analyses? If not, why? Don't they trust their own results as interpreted by ---you---? If they do not trust their own results, why don’t they?

I am not sure what you want from me. I give you my honest assessment of two reports, and you pass judgment on my sincerity because I have not addressed a third report? I asked you to spend just a morsel of your time trying to understand basic physics, and you obviously have done nothing, yet you continue to pretend you know what you are talking about and continue to promulgate misconceptions, and demand I spend my time on yet another analysis of another report. Amazing.

If you will not consider energy arguments, and you will not accept proof of principle videos of plane crashes, what the hell do you want as proof that a plane can behave the way it did in the video of the impact with the WTC tower? You must answer this question or this conversation is over. I have 'proved' that a plane behaving as it did in the WTC videos does not violate physical laws, but you reject it for no reason which has been coherently explained. So, what kind of proof do you require?

Let me list the accumulated arguments so far:

My argument:

Dozens of videos from a variety of sources show a plane closely resembling a boeing 767 approaching the WTC building

Damage patterns to the exterior closely match the profile of a boeing 767

Hundreds of eyewitness testimonies state they heard and saw a plane impact the WTC tower

Multiple videos show the actual plane impact with the towers, and they all show the same phenomena

The WTC towers visibly swayed (as measured using the Moire interference patterns in the NIST report) due to the momentum transfer of the planes to the towers. Damaged exterior columns were bent inwards.

A crash test at Sandia National Labs shows similar behavior: little of the visible part of the plane which is not suffering impact shows virtually no decrease in velocity. The aircraft is stiffer than a boeing 767 and suffers a much more severe impact with a massive concrete block (compared to ¼” plate box columns).

Energy arguments from MIT, scribed completely independently and before the issuance of the NIST report, show that the plane can easily breach the exterior columns with only a 4% decrease in kinetic energy, and this energy would only account for roughly 10% crushing of the fuselage.

The NIST report shows a full FEA which claims that the core suffered less damage than all other independent reports which had analyzed the problem, and their FEA shows the entire plane easily breaching the exterior wall.

Weidlinger associates, Inc (Levy and Abboud 2002) using FLEX finite element analysis (similiar to LS-DYNA used in NIST analysis) modeled the entire boeing 767 impact and showed more exterior column failure than the NIST report. They also report more possible damage to the core than reported by NIST.

Your arguments as I see it:

You don’t trust the NIST report, even though you have very little understanding of even the most rudimentary physics.

You don’t trust the videos of the plane impact, because they violate physics, even though you only have a very limited grasp of physics and can not name the physical law which has been violated.

The eyewitness accounts are easily dismissed, for reasons that I have not heard you yet articulate.

The crash test at Sandia National Labs admittedly obeys the laws of physics but, somehow, it is completely different than the crash at the towers, and, therefore, the results are null and void.

A beer can could not penetrate a steel grate a.k.a. physics does not seem to obey your subjective ‘common sense’.

A singular report by Hoo Fatt shows the plane should have lost more KE upon impact than all other reports ever published on the topic. You somehow accept their results at face value.

The MIT arguments were scribed in 2002, and, therefore, are illegitimate. No physical reason is given to toss the results into the garbage.

I would be hard pressed to imagine any dialog farther removed from the concept of a ‘debate’.

Another double check.

Consider the NIST and MIT report at the point where the wings/engines are just about to impact the exterior columns. Do the two reports agree?

Using the MIT chart here (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7941?page=1),
Energy to cut 1/2 of the fuselage = 85MJ
Energy to crush 10% of the fuselage = 38MJ
energy to breach the columns where the fuselage is located ~ 50MJ
Energy to damage 1/5th of the damaged floor space (an estimate) ~ 1925/5 MJ
Total inital KE = 3658 MJ

ChangeKE/InitialKE = 15.5%
From the NIST report, fig 9-28,
Change in velocity/initial velocity ~ 8% --> change in KE/initialKE ~ 15.3%

You see how the two reports hang together? Two completely different analyses giving almost the same result. This adds to the credibility of both reports, wouldn't you say?

Not necessarily

We don't know if they are completely different analyses until we see NIST's assumptions.

I wonder if these are not the numbers necessary to match the video. If so, the reports would hang together quite well, but that would not increase their credibility.

Yes, he consulted


The writers wish to thank Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki for bringing this idea to their attention and for all his helpful discussions on the article.

"Consultation" is a fair way to describe this. This is another example of you not addressing the issue.

Have you read the article? Our conversation might be more productive if you did. Read what she says about the fuselage.


I want to know if you think the behavior of the fuselage in NIST's animation is physical:


Screenshots here:


My description of this as "intact" is accurate. The shape of the fuselage remains, with no progressive crushing by the external columns backed by steel and concrete floors.

Remember, these are box beams, 14 inches square, formed of 1/4 inch steel plates, not a single 1/4 inch plate as you have stated.

This is not a matter of "trusting" Wierzbicki and Hoo Fatt. It's a matter of addressing whether their assumptions are realistic. As far as I know, NIST has not released their assumptions.

Journal of 9/11 Studies continues to ignore the Hoo Fatt paper. Salter's critique of my criticism of him and Jones for not citing Hoo Fatt does not mention Hoo Fatt at all, even though I contended my point stood even under his larger deceleration estimate (which we now know from you was flawed to begin with.)

Deceleration is not the only problem, and you have not proved that the observed deceleration is physical.

So yes, when you come along with sarcastic comments about me striking out, I expect you to substantiate that, and to do it without twisting what I am saying.

STJ911 forum


Perhaps you should take your concerns to the STJ911 forum. There would be many physicists (one should hope) that would be willing to debate you there: http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/

Perhaps you could start a thread to have your objections answered once and for all. But, I think you should specify what specific objections you have when answered--will convince you that you are wrong. Otherwise, you will never be convinced of the possibility that you are wrong (just as those who maintain that DEW were used).

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

Thanks, Arabesque

I'll work on that.

Do you have any plans to compile the witness statements for the WTC? You did a great job on the Pentagon.

Eyewitness at the WTC


I haven't seriously considered compiling an analysis of the WTC testimony. But it might be interesting to do this a little bit. For example, I could put together a collection of statements of the plane entering the WTC. Then it would be useful to compare these witness statements to the Pentagon attack witness statements.

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

Check out FalseDichotemy's

Check out FalseDichotemy's link below. It is basically the testimony reference page of planes and the WTC towers. It is very good.

Indeed I did see it

I posted a link to it on my blog:

It also has some of our papers on that site. Did you see that?

I did not notice that until

I did not notice that until you mentioned it --- I went to the home page.

Someone sure is tired of the misinfo/disinfo, and they set up a nice website with very pertinent information. It is quite good. They sure did slap a hyperlink up to the new Journal articles quickly -----

You want to talk about disingenuous? My god----

Ningen, how can you post a FEA that Purdue runs and not post their simulation of the impact with the WTC towers!?! You post a simulation of a boeing 757 running into a solid rigid wall, but you fail to post their extensive simulations of the impact with the WTC towers which virtually match the NIST report simulations? Are you crazy or something?


This simulations shows that the plane easily pierces the exterior wall and matches observation quite well.

For anyone following this thread, which I hope is few, please download that movie! It is really quite cool to watch the visualization.

So, we now have 3 independent finite element analyses which show the piercing of the exterior wall is easily accomplished by the plane, and virtually matches observation (WAI, Purdue, NIST) as well as a study which utilizes simple energy balance equations (MIT) which completely corroberate the claims from the FEA's.....

Wow. And you want proof....

I will address your other point in a little while. I just had a tough time wrapping my mind around your posting of a Purdue simulation and neglecting their most relevant findings ---- disingeneous in the extreme!

Very Cool

submitted a blog on this simulation

I have been amazed at your

I have been amazed at your show of patience in arguing over this subject. I have come to the conclusion that those who believe in these theories do so because they cannot explain or understand what they see as "odd" and so they just assume that everything must be fake.

Here is a nice collection you probably haven't seen before, perhaps it will save you time in the future. It is easy to just scroll through but take the time and watch every clip and read every quote, it will make you furious that we bother wasting our time on these theories.

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link., F.D.

I am not angry at Ningen since he is not seriously promulgating this information in a militant manner ---- Fetzer does not even seriously promote it (at least yet). How he can disregard the huge amount of contrary evidence is amazing to me, and the manner in which he struggles to grasp the physics is, in a way, heroically tragic. Ningen has devoted quite a lot of time to this issue, and I think it is in good faith --- I don't mind devoting a small amount of my time in confronting him on his terms.

My personal opinion is that that he would benefit greately by writing down supporting and contrary evidence for the no-planes vs planes arguments and prioritize both lists ---- but it is his prerogative.

I have asked him to submit the most solid evidence that the no-planers have come up with to date --- and to state which specific points 'stand on their own' in proving the 'no planes' theory. He has been chewing on this issue for quite some time, but I still have not got an answer yet. I am anxious to see what the prioritized list of evidence he chooses to write down...

What would be tragic . . .

is if this aspect of the crime was covered up because of fear of mockery, and faked images remained an effective weapon against the American people. I am willing to risk wasting time and making a fool of myself to stop that. My rudimentary grasp of physics has been sufficient to engage you in debate, and you have not answered my question about the fuselage, as I will show below (maybe later) in reply to your comment "Hoo Fatt and Karim."

You're right

I should have mentioned the Purdue study. I did come across it earlier, and have written somewhere that I need to account for that. I have tried to locate the supporting paper, because like with the NIST paper, the assumptions are key.

I wasn't posting the Purdue simulation, but the NIST video. I should have clarified that. The other Purdue video is of a plane hitting a concrete wall.

It looks like you have finally addressed the Hoo Fatt article. Thank you.

You talked about "trust" of these experts earlier. I speculated on why they might develop unrealistic models, here:



Fair enough.

I hope you don't think a blindly 'trust' anyone's work. I critically analyze publications and cross check them, compare numbers to back-of-the-envelope calculations to double check, think about counter arguments, etc.. I am a natural born skeptic. However, at some point, studies can *earn* your respect after a certain degree of scrutiny.

I'm at the engineering library

and can't find any articles on this simulation. Looking at their website, it looks like the YouTube video is the same one -- it's not really a fair comparison because they model an impact against a concrete wall like Sandia. The wings in their video react more like I would expect, but I can't show that the WTC walls are as tough as the concrete wall even though I think they should not be so deformable in relation to the aircraft and are closer to the concrete wall.

Can you post a link to a

Can you post a link to a copy of this article?

Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625


Got it...

Thank you for posting it!

Hoo Fatt and Karim

Hoo Fatt and Karim grossly overestimate the energy required to sever the exterior columns:
1) they assume the box column thickness is .37”
2) they assume that the weight of the fuel is evenly distributed along the entire wing, and therefore the entire wing either pierces all columns or none of the columns are pierced
3) they assume that the initial velocity is 500MPH, when the base case scenario is 540 MPH, an 8% increase in KE.
4) They assume normal incidence of the plane at a 0 degree angle (plane wing is perpendicular to columns)
5) MIT assumed the exterior columns were the less strong case of A36 steel, where Fatt and Karim assume a 1006 grade steel (stronger and more rigid, more in line with the steel actually used in the exterior columns)

This column thickness is awfully thick. It seems much too thick from the other numbers I have read. It should be cross reference to see if it is realistic instead of trusting my memory. Any excess column thickness is a major problem if one is interested in calculating the energy lost via breaching the exterior columns. Notice that in their analysis, they don’t really care how accurately they estimate the exterior column thickness since the point of their paper is to model a thickness of the exterior columns which will completely impede the wings from breaching the exterior columns (they find a 20mm thickness will do the job --- that can be *very* large added expense for builders). They only needed a ‘ballpark’ number to start with. It should be noted that MIT used the same thickness, but this can skew the results with the NIST report, so care must be taken.

The same can be said of their initial velocity. For WTC2, the initial speed of the aircraft was about 540MPH which is considerably larger than 500 MPH (an 18% larger KE). This is considerable since their analysis uses incremental sums of plastic strain on the columns. The faster the columns are hit, the less the ‘dynamic flow stress’, in equation 5.

A big error comes from assumption 2. They show the entire wing is able to breach the exterior columns since they assume a homogeneous wing. We know that the fuel was only located between the engines, and the remainder of the wing was much lighter. This means that the exterior wing tips may not be able to breach the exterior walls while the wing in between the engines are going to have a higher mass and may be able to breach the exterior columns. From videos of the actual impact, this is obviously the case, so fewer columns would be breached.

A large error comes from assumption 4. The planes which impacted the towers hit at angles (38 degrees for WTC 2 and 25 degrees for WTC 1)--- that is, the wings were not perpendicular to the columns. What this means is that less columns will need to be deformed, drastically lowering the ‘plastic work’ which the plane needs to do on the columns. Fatt and Karim assume 40 vertical columns were breached which is about twice as much as was actually breached.

In the MIT study, they only assumed about 20 columns sheared (I recall the number 23, but I could be a little off). That means that the energy is automatically cut in half. 49% loss in KE then becomes a 25% loss in KE. This energy includes the deformation of the plane AND the work done on the columns. MIT calculated the two separately. The energy required to sever the columns was calculated to be 4%. The work done on the plane which they figured in separately is necessarily in the ballpark of 4%, so this gives 8%. So if we compare apples to apples, we have 8% work done on the plane and columns from MIT, and 25% work done on the plane and columns from Karim and Fatt.

The difference in the grade of steel will definitely skew the results. I doubt it will scale the entire 12% spread, but it will certainly bring the numbers closer together.

So there you have it: something significantly greater than 8% from MIT due to their assumption of A36 steel compared to 25% for Karim and Fatt.

BTW, Karim and Fatt show that the fuselage easily breaches the exterior columns as well as the wings. They explicity state that “the wing section is assumed to be a rigid projectile since the FEA showed that much deformation did not occur in it as it cut through the bracing column.” That is, the wings and fuselage easily cut through the exterior columns without suffering massive damage (within their assumptions), and when they compared the FAE analysis (where the wings can deform) to a purely analytical method where the wings can not deform, not much difference in the energy required to pierce the exterior columns resulted (something like a 20% difference).

Of course, the higher Fatt and Karim value also results from allowing the beam to bend causing inertial losses which MIT did not consider. But it is not all that much higher.

So, all 4 FAE analyses (Purdue, WAI, NIST, Fatt) all agree that a boeing 767 can easily peirce the exterior columns with at most 25% loss in KE in little deformation of the plane, and the MIT analytical energy balance equation shows that a boeing 767 can easily pierce the exterior columns without much deformation --- no problem.

5 independent studies, and 5 conclusions which clearly state that a boeing 767 can breach the exterior columns easily.

I hope that beer can is not still troubling you....

Good questions

I will respond later, but you have raised some valid questions. For now, I will just say that speed is about half way between the alleged speeds for the South Tower and the North Tower, and some estimates said 500 mph for the South Tower. Also, the North Tower plane supposedly hit at the horizontal. The planes would be of comparable weight and fuel capacity, and I question the North Tower also because the end result of complete penetration is also claimed. They provide some basis for the size and material of columns, but maybe you have a valid point so I hold off on that. The number of columns hit and the uniform weight of the wing model seem to be the best questions, and I will think more about this.

This has nothing to do with the "beer can." The "beer can" is not the wings, but the front of the fuselage that Wierzbicki ignored and Hoo Fatt assumed penetrated intact.

Have I missed your answer about the fuselage? Every time I say "penetration video" it sounds slightly pornographic, so I have switched to "perforation video." But to make my point, I will say that the fuselage in the NIST penetration diagrams is one mighty hard phallus. Is that plausible? Even with Viagra?


I also think we can exclude the Purdue study for lack of corroborating data, based on the comment of Richard that their work is more about simulation techniques than an actual analysis of the impact.


K-Y, perhaps?

I know you are going to think I am brainlessly promoting the NIST report, but NIST actually did a very comprehensive job nailing down the approach angles and velocity of the planes ---- their methodology for correcting for camera angles and such things is really quite comprehensive and top-notch, words that most people in the 9/11 truth community will reject in a knee-jerk kind of way. I can only assess their study on a section by section basis, not judge the entire 10,000 page report all at once (a saying about a baby and bathwater comes to mind).

Anyway, NIST measured the angles as 38 (WTC2) and 25 degrees (WTC1) which matches well with the pictured damage pattern, so I do not agree with your claim that the North tower plane hit perpendicularly (0 degrees). You are correct about the different reports for initial speed of impact. NIST has quite a variance depending upon the video, but they average over all the data to drive down the error bars and end up with 540 +/- 24 MPH (if memory serves) for WTC 2. I know you are right regarding WTC 1 in that the plane was traveling substantially slower, but I do not remember that number off-hand.

Note that the two main corrections in the above blurb is that Fatt & Karim considered roughly twice the number of beams penetrated as MIT and NIST (as well as is shown from damage pictures/videos), and MIT assumed A36 steel for the exterior columns which is a weaker steel than considered by Fatt & Karim and NIST.


All 5, or 4 if you want to neglect the Purdue simulation, show that the fuselage easily breaches the exterior columns. No one is assuming that the fuselage necesarrily breaches the columns --- for the FAE's, it is usually assumed that an 2024 Al alloy cylindrical shell collides with exterior box columns. The upshot from all of these reports is that very little damage results from peircing the exterior walls, taking into account the impulse forces (actually, to the more discerning reader, the forces are assumed quasi-static), to a cylindrical shell. Fat & Karim and NIST I know do not assume that the fuselage is able to peirce the exterior columns, but their model shows that it happens ---- easily. The MIT study shows that, as a double check, very little energy is required for the fuselage to breach the exterior columns and it would not suffer much damage....

I have been quoting, based upon scaling the Wierzbicki numbers, that ~10% of the fuselage would be expected to be crushed. However, after reading the Fatt & Karim article analysis (fig 6) regarding the wings (only a 20% difference in energy between assuming a FEA where the wings are allowed to deform while impacting the columns compared to the purely analytical method assuming perfectly rigid wings impacting the exterior columns), it appears that the deformation of the fuselage may be much less than 10%. If a direct scaling could be used, it would be 1/5 x 10% ~ 2 % crushing of the fuselage. A direct scaling I am sure is not valid, but assuming that the fuselage would deform 100% of the allowable impact energy is probably just as invalid. So, I would venture to say that the fuselage would only crush something like 5% as a safe estimate.

I would say you can not tell from the pics released by NIST how much of the plane is crushed upon breaching the exterior columns. Some amount of plane debris is generated as the fuselage is sliced in half by the concrete floors. Is it reasonable that the fuselage, after being crushed by about 5% and easily breaching the exterior walls, could then be sliced in half by the concrete floors? I do not see a reason to reject the claim on physical grounds. It is certainly plausible. The amount of energy to do such a thing is certainly reasonable (as calculated by MIT).

NIST can't be assessed on this

K-Y, perhaps?

This reminds of the garage door opener scenario that a Journal of 9-11 Studies reviewer said Morgan Reynolds must address -- an explosion or some other mechanism that created a hole or weakened wall for the plane to pass into easily. I never found this plausible, but if it is, that's another reason to whether planes could do what was observed in the absence of such a "garage door," and a reason to allow these issues to be discussed at Journal of 9/11 Studies.

I know you are going to think I am brainlessly promoting the NIST report,

Not at all. I am simply asking whether you have the assumptions that they used. Wierzbicki and Hoo Fatt state their assumptions in relatively short papers.

but NIST actually did a very comprehensive job nailing down the approach angles and velocity of the planes ---- their methodology for correcting for camera angles and such things is really quite comprehensive and top-notch,

I am not disputing this, though I question whether the videos they used are authentic. I have to assume they were for purposes of assessing whether their scenario is plausible, and if not, then use that conclusion to question the authenticity of the videos.

words that most people in the 9/11 truth community will reject in a knee-jerk kind of way.

There is good reason to question NIST's credibility, based on their absurd and tautological statement that the building collapsed in virtual free time because the floors below offered almost no resistance, as shown by the fact that the buildings collapsed in virtual free fall time.

The explanation of progressive collapse offered by Bazant and Zhou shows that academics can also be influenced by political concerns to explain physical phenomena in politically correct ways. I have no reason to think that Bazant and Zhou are any more corrupted by this social phenomenon than other academics like Wierzbicki and Hoo Fatt.

I can only assess their study on a section by section basis, not judge the entire 10,000 page report all at once

The problem is that the portion of the report on aircraft impact does not provide theassumptions necessary to assess this portion of the study.

Anyway, NIST measured the angles as 38 (WTC2) and 25 degrees (WTC1) which matches well with the pictured damage pattern,

I was just wrong about this. I have not looked much at the North Tower, both because disputing the (allegedly) higher speed impact in the South Tower would dispute the lower spped impact into the North Tower, and because there is not a video of the North Tower impact that presents what is to me a clear picture of an unphysical event. I had a recollection of "horizontal," but it must have been "more horizontal."

You are correct about the different reports for initial speed of impact. NIST has quite a variance depending upon the video, but they average over all the data to drive down the error bars and end up with 540 +/- 24 MPH (if memory serves) for WTC 2. I know you are right regarding WTC 1 in that the plane was traveling substantially slower, but I do not remember that number off-hand.

Memory serves - they said 542 +/-24 mph for "Flight 175." They excluded Video 3 and Video 8, taken from helicopter north and west or north of the towers, without explanation or disclosure of the speed these videos showed. They took the mean (in the way you state) of the speeds calculated from Videos 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

For "Flight 11," they average two videos and came up with 443 +/- 30 mph.

Perhaps Hoo Fatt was giving an average speed of 500 mph for the North and South Towers.

According to Wierzbicki (1), this resulted in kinetic energy of 3658 MJ for WTC2, and 2540 MJ for WTC1. NIST may have had different figures, but I want to point out the relatively low kinetic energy for WTC1. The Pentagon was supposedly hit by a plane going only 340 mph, meaning even less kinetic energy. [Looks like I'm wrong about the claimed impact speed at the Pentagon - I recall reading 340 mph but Sozen of Purdue says the NTSB says 460 knots or 240 m/s, which I think is 500 mph.]

Yet in each case, the mighty aluminum front fuselage penetrated the building, whether the building was made of steel or reinforced concrete. As you say, velocity matters. Does it not?

Note that the two main corrections in the above blurb is that Fatt & Karim considered roughly twice the number of beams penetrated as MIT and NIST (as well as is shown from damage pictures/videos),

I want to think about this more. Weirzbicki, and it appears to me NIST, consider wing sections hitting columns or pairs of columns, and I want to think about whether this should matter.

MIT assumed A36 steel for the exterior columns which is a weaker steel than considered by Fatt & Karim and NIST.

So we can rule out MIT, or are they correct?

About the thickness of the columns, Hoo Fatt said that the box beam plates of the external columns ranged from 125 mm at the base to 7.5 mm at the top. Both MIT and Hoo Fatt chose 9.5 mm, or as 0.37 inches as you say. Presumably the thickness was different at the impact levels of the North and South Towers, though perhaps only marginally. It is unclear whether they are averaging the thicknesses at the two levels of impact. However, the 9.5 mm does seem to be a general estimate of the actual thickness of the towers at the points of impact.

I will address your arguments about the fuselage in a separate comment, which will reply to your comment "Hoo Fatt and Karim" but will include the rest of this comment by you.

MIT results are still fine.

MIT results are still fine. The difference in the stress before plasticity (yield) for A36 steel is about 25% lower than for 1006 (or 75ksi) steel. What this will do is increase their energy calculation by, roughly, 25%. Instead of 4% of the initial KE of the plane required to sheer the exterior walls, the energy will be like 5%. Not a big change, but worth noting.

Speed in Hoo Fatt article

I just realized that Hoo Fatt & Karim mistakenly converted 240 meters per second to 500 mph, when it is actually 536 mph. Or maybe they mistakenly converted 500 mph to 240 m/s. I tend to think the former, because they use m/s in the rest of the paper, and Weirzbicki used 240 m/s.

Here's a nice converter. I think it's accurate because it matches the NTSB's numbers on the Pentagon impact: 240 m/s, 780 f/s, and 460 knots.


you are right

Another easy thing to do is type "240 m/s in mph" right into the google search engine.... I am sure they are primarely using mks units, so I think you hit the nail right on the head ---


BTW, Karim and Fatt show that the fuselage easily breaches the exterior columns as well as the wings. They explicity state that “the wing section is assumed to be a rigid projectile since the FEA showed that much deformation did not occur in it as it cut through the bracing column.”

That is, the wings and fuselage easily cut through the exterior columns without suffering massive damage (within their assumptions), and when they compared the FAE analysis (where the wings can deform) to a purely analytical method where the wings can not deform, not much difference in the energy required to pierce the exterior columns resulted (something like a 20% difference).

Your statements about the fuselage do not follow from their statement, which is about the wing only.

All 5, or 4 if you want to neglect the Purdue simulation, show that the fuselage easily breaches the exterior columns. No one is assuming that the fuselage necesarrily breaches the columns --- for the FAE's, it is usually assumed that an 2024 Al alloy cylindrical shell collides with exterior box columns. The upshot from all of these reports is that very little damage results from peircing the exterior walls, taking into account the impulse forces (actually, to the more discerning reader, the forces are assumed quasi-static), to a cylindrical shell. Fat & Karim and NIST I know do not assume that the fuselage is able to peirce the exterior columns, but their model shows that it happens ---- easily. The MIT study shows that, as a double check, very little energy is required for the fuselage to breach the exterior columns and it would not suffer much damage....

Werizbicki and Teng (2003) did not consider the fuselage. Karim and Hoo Fatt assumed the fuselage penetrated. At 1067, they say: "Since the fuselage and engine are either more massive or more impact resistant than the wing, we will allow the fuselage and engines to penetrate into the building."

They must mean that the fuselage is more massive so it can be assumed to have penetrated. That does not follow. It is more fragile, and impact against both columns and floor. It would have been crushed, not penetrated. Weirzbicki (2002) at 41 says the fuselage would have been crushed and folded upon impact with the outer columns which form a fence. They then talk about cutting by the floors. I don't see anywhere in these papers an explanation of how the fuselage, much lighter than the fuel-laden wing and engines, and much more fragile than the steel columns, would penetrate as assumed by NIST in its diagrams and animation.

This has gotten really long, and I can understand why dz asked me to stop. Your point about the number of columns considered by Hoo Fatt is the question I most need to look at, I think. I will end here, so thanks for the discussion.

Fatt and Karim do not assume

Fatt and Karim do not assume that the fuselage is able to breach the exterior columns. They model it. Stating that they will 'allow' is not the same as stating that they just assume it to be true. Please reread the article --- it is obvious they model the fuselage as deformable and construct a finite element analysis of the fuselage. They absolutely do not assume the fuselage is able to pierce the exterior columns.

They don't even assume the engines can peirce the exterior walls. They just assume they are rigid and non-deformable.

One thing to note, as well. The fuselage peirces the hypothetical model of a 20mm thick box column even though the wings can not.

Wierzbicki (MIT) considered the energy arguments on how much energy it would take to breach the columns and how much energy it would take to crush the fuselage. It takes *much* less energy to breach the columns. To say they do not consider the fuselage is complete nonsense ---- they DO consider it in their energy balance equation.

BTW, I have been reading the NCSTAR1-2B again. The NIST report does clearly state their assumptions. I am still plowing through it, but chapter 2 shows all of their modeled and data-fits for the stress-strain curves they plug into their model for a variety of different steel. Also, they clearly show that the data for the aluminum alloy used in their model for the plane is taken from a couple of handbooks which they reference and reproduce stress-strain plots. I am still thinking about the data they present --- I am not a mechanical engineer, so I have to think about these things (not second nature). One thing that does match up very well is Fatt's 'modulus of elasticity' for 1006 steel and the 75ksi steel that dominates the exterior columns as described by NIST. The 2024 Al alloy stats match with NIST as well --- maybe from the same handbook, who knows.

I really do not know what you will take as proof that the fuselage can easily breech the exterior columns. How do you want me to show it? Is there any proof that is acceptable?

Found on cop car, or placed on top of car by cop?

I'm doubly suspicious of anything to do with cops.
They plant evidence all the time.

CNN trustworthy? Boeing trustworthy?

My gut feeling is that this is an actual part of one of the planes that hit the towers. After all, there has never been any doubt amongst sane honest people that the WTC towers were hit by Boeing jets. (Although the idea that these jets may have been remotely controlled USAF 767 air tankers is worth considering) Anyway, there was no need to plant evidence to reinforce the story that the towers were struck by Boeing jets.

However, CNN is hardly a trustworthy source as they (at the very least) have been complicit in the coverup. The MSM tells us that a hijacker passport survived the crash. Also, Boeing (the heart of the MIC) would have to be trusted to correctly report the history of this part. So if this serial numbered fragment is declared by Boeing to be from AA 11 or UAL175, what would that really prove?

Show "Remote-controlled planes - equally "kooky"" by Ningen

three words

google Field McConnell

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

You're missing the point

I've watched his video explaining his theory. I'm not saying that remote control planes do not exist or could not have been used to fly planes into the Twin Towers. I'm saying that a remote controlled plane would behave the same in a collision.

remotely hijacked planes are NOT kooky

First of all it is fairly straightforward technology. Second of all it does not mean anything with regard to the passenegrs. The planes were real. The flights may not have been, and the passengers may have faked their deaths (don't pretend you know them and know they wouldn't do such a thing--people cheat on stuff ALL the time...) or they may have been the real flights commandeered remotely--no need for unreliable human hijackers whose existence is doubtful because of the clear effort to plant evidence for their existence. The bottom line is that whatever kind of plane hit the towers does not explain the towers' demolition. The plane impacts were a totally separate occurence and largely irrelevant to the prosecution of the perpetrators of the towers' destruction and murder of their occupants.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Show "Not saying it is kooky" by Ningen

No, it is not just as kooky

No, it is not just as kooky - because no-plane theories suppose that the most visible buildings in the most densely populated area in North America could not be hit by planes and everyone would go along with the videos of them being hit by planes, and that no one would have captured it with no planes on tape, and that everyone who claims they did see planes are liars, and that all debris is planted, and that all videos are fake, and that all photos are fake - you choose to believe these things, they are not provable facts - this is your answer to phenomenon that you see no other logical explanation for.

your welcome to your opinion here Ningen, but not if you are going to start deriding into no-plane arguments. if someone wants to debate you then take it to a message board, otherwise there is little to be gained from the argument here or in any other thread, I've seen it happen countless times and there is no point other than to waste time.

Anymore statements like these will not be tolerated, not because I care to argue over opinions, but because these are intentionally inflammatory and serve little purpose than to provoke arguments:

* The videos are faked, says me and anyone not in denial of the obvious.
* All I know is that the videos are faked and plane parts were planted. You can't refute that

That was sarcasm

in response to a statement in the comment I was responding to. That pales in comparison to the abuse I have gotten here. I apologize for that statement, and will try not to be inflammatory. I had just gotten banned from Daily Kos and was in a self-righteous mood.

The first statement about denial is just an opinion. I said this because of the blog recently posted by George Washington about psychological denial. I honestly believe that people are in denial about this. Maybe I'm wrong, but why is it so wrong to say that if I believe it?

But I won't say it again.

The second statement is my conclusion. I've stated my reasons and have yet to see a refutation. There is very little debris, and what there is defies the laws of physics. And yes, videos can be proved fake using the same physics being used to show that the towers were demolished.

I never said that all the people who saw planes are liars. I think many people saw something, and when told that it was a plane, they assumed it was a plane. It happened quickly. I don't know how it was done - I just know it was done. A cruise missile is one possibility - I assume a cruise missile (with a DU cone?) could penetrate.

I am not trying to provoke arguments - I am trying to persuade. I think that remote control planes is wrong.

Are you going to ban me? I am preparing to post a blog in response to Greg Jenkins, whose article I posted on my blog as possibly refuting my arguments. Are you going to refuse to publish my reply?

It's your blog -- just like Kos, you can do what you want. But it seems to me to be content-based censorship, because the vast majority of my comments have been civil and based on reason (at least in my mind). I do not spam this site with long links -- I make individual comments. I'm sorry I got sarcastic, and will try to be more sensitive to people's feelings.

remote controlled planes makes a lot of sense to me

You wouldn't even need hi-jackers if you had remote controlled planes, which would explain why there didn't appear to be any actual hijackers, and maybe how whatever flew into the Pentagon did so.
More interesting though is all the "coincidences" surrounding Dov Zakheim and 911 and WTC.

Google "Dov Zakheim + 911 + SPC" and then with WTC and your head will spin.
Zakheim - read his personal Bio in the context of "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" (which was penned in part by Douglas Feith (the guy in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans that created the phony Iraq Intel that LIED our country into war) - and then ask yourself if it is a "coincidence" that the Pentagon "lost track" of 2-3 TRILLION dollars under Zakheim's watch as Pentagon Comptroller...
that the wing of the pentagon that was hit on 911 housed the auditing dept that should have investigated this massive fraud which included many giveaways of US military hardware to Israel.

What a coincidence that Zakheim's SPC company built technology that flies planes by remote control......
AND that Zakhiem's TRIDATA corp investigated the earlier WTC bombing - that gave them all the info on the structural and security systems of the WTC.

Quite the busy beaver....that Dov Zakheim....who has now slithered away back into private practice.
Why do I get banned from so called "progressive" websites when I post this info?

Please Google and Check it out for yourself....do you see an elephant in the room?

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797


kate of the kiosk

absolutely, absolutely. you are on target, or at least on the same one i've been on and hopefully millions of others.
it's so insidiously sick and psychopathic, but in a weird way obvious! I have posted info
on Dov on gazebogroups...yahoo.

thanks for bringing the cavalry

If I harp on Dov Zakheim or any other of the many neocons that quite obviously need to be the focus of intense scrutiny and awareness I get called all kinds of not nice things. So I'm glad others are pursuing this info. I would suggest that someone post a blog here on Dov, summarizing what people will find if they google this as you suggest.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



We do not mean to imply that the Rabbi acted alone, our article simply points out that Rabbi Zakheim had access to things like structural integrity, blueprints and any number of important facets of information about the WTC through his work with TRIDATA CORPORATION in the investgation of the bombing of the WTC in 1993. That he had access to REMOTE CONTROL Technology through his work at System Planning Corporation (SPC). That he had access to BOEING AIRCRAFT through a lease deal HE BROKERED while working at the Pentagon. And finally that he was part of a group of politically radical Straussian Neo-Conservatives, who, through their association with PNAC, called for restructuring of the Middle East, noting that a Pearl Harbor type of event MAY BE NEEDED to foster the frame of mind required for the American public to accept such a radical foreign policy agenda. In light of all this information we here at Conspiracy News Net stand by our statement that Mr. Zakheim not only called for the slamming of the WTC Towers on 9-11, but he activily took part in their demolition by providing the logistics necessary for such an attack to occur.


South Tower Plane Info

wow, great link. thanks

wow, great link. thanks man.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

You're welcome!

That was an article that I myself created. :-)
On the 11th day, of every month.

It's contradicting itself!

It argues the nose-wingroot ratios documented exclude 767-200s and goes on to point towards a 767-200 tanker as the likely culprit...

interns < internets

Mr. Zakheim now works for

Mr. Zakheim now works for Booz Allen Hamilton. maybe drop a line?:

Contact Us With General Queries About Booz Allen
For information or queries about the firm (services, business opportunities, offices, etc.) — contact Diane Merolla at communications@bah.com.

heres mine:

Subject: Dov Zakheim is connected to 9/11

How can you work for such a man and sleep at night? Have you done ANY research on this man and/or the 9/11 attacks? :

:information and links about Zakheim and 9/11:

Rest well though, there are literally thousands of researchers out there like myself that are closing the net on the true perps of 9/11. Mr. Zakheim is very cearly connected and eventually will have to explain himself.

Yes, it makes sense...

Boeing CSTG (number....)

BOEING CASTING NUMBER... as in serial number. Mass produced metal parts, all identical... Serial #/Casting # That number should actually serve the exact purpose that it is serving. If the plane crashes, each part should have an identifying mark, right? I'm no expert on this, but doesn't every individual metal component in a plane have to have a unique serial number?
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

This might help...


It's a supplier of Boeing parts but you have to register before you can skim through their catalog.
Jenny would do it, but there's some required info I'm not willing to part with. But someone will be up for it--say a pilot? Even if you're a hobbist?

BTW: dz is a big meanie for not publishing my humorous blog about JREF, space beams, and bumble bees. I ask you, what do you have against bumble bees, dz? EVERYONE likes bumble bees! ;-P

NOTE: I am not really mad. And I think I know why you didn't publish. But come on--BUMBLE BEES! ;-P'''

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I would do it...

However, I imagine siiair is not the only supplier of Boeing parts. It's like a "needle in a haystack."

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

found this--but what point is there to knowing what it is?

Boeing 1956 Military Aircraft Oil Tank. Oil tank from a military aircraft manufactured by Boeing. Under the filler cap is stamped CSTG-9-54758-1, BOEING. Large data plate on the end stamped TANK AIRCRAFT NON-SEALING REMOVABLE, NAT'L-321 OR 347 CRES PER MIL-S-6721, DATE OF MFR. 10 MO 56 YR, SPECIFICATION NO. MIL-T-6396, MFR PART NO. 8-7620-502, GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. AF-2037, BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY, USAF STOCK NO. 1AFE8 7620 502. $35.00



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


757s and 767s look alike,

757s and 767s look alike, except a 767 is a tanker without windows. which is what some theorize AA11 and UA 175 were (painted to look like the commercial 757s, of course). This may be a part number for a particular jet series, or it may even be an individual serial number which would ID a specific airplane. What we need out there is a present (or former) patriotic, anonymous employee for Boeing, the FAA, or maybe even a foundry, who can ID this part and drop us a blog. Thanks in advance, whoever you are.

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace

One Problem

Boeing did not build a 767 tanker until 2005, and then only for the Italian Air Force. The US Air Force still does not have any. So unless you are into time travel, that theory just won't cut it.

You are right, they could not have been 767s.

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace

huh? a 767 is necessarily a tanker without windows? are you

sure? I think the fact that this numbering system for Boeing parts has apparently been used since at least the 1950s suggests that this number is nothing more than the ID of a random part of a Boeing plane. Assuming it wasn't planted there for some nefarious purpose, like to convince us it was one kind of plane or another based on the parts used in its construction, why would this be a fruitful avenue of inquiry? The piece could have come from the bathroom, the engines, the luggage compartment... what's the point of trying to identify it? Why is it important? Why is it that when people ask reasonable questions they can't get a straight answer? Who cares what this piece is? Honestly!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


My mistake, they were not 767s.

That part is not important unless it could be positively tied to a plane that was not AA11 or UA175, in which case it would be one more clue in the puzzle of what happened to those passangers. But in the long run, it matters not what weapon was used to commit the crime, just so long as you as you have enough evidence to convict the murderers.

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace

757s and 767s do not look alike

only in the sense that, say, a microvan looks similar to a van. Also, the 767 is not a tanker without windows -- it's simply another model of commercial airliner manufactured by Boeing.

Needed to be cleared up.

interns < internets

Not quite

757s are similar to 767s, but there are differences and 767s are used for passengers. AA11 and UA175 were 767s.


Your point about evidence is also wrong. "How" can not only lead to "who," it is usually essential to proving guilt.

In cases where the murder

In cases where the murder weapon is never found, people have been and are (albeit rarely) convicted, based soley on circumstantial evidence.

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace

true, but in those cases

the type of weapon (gun, knife) used is generally known. If it is known that a sword was used, and it was known that the defendant had once owned such a sword, that would be circumstantial evidence even if the sword was not found.

This case is much more complex - how it was done would more likely point to who did it, or at least to who did not do it.

No, the Tanker comes in various configurations

and may be re-engineered from an EXISTING Boeing, whether a passenger, or cargo plane, and all the technology was in place prior to 9/11, and Dov Kaheim's involvement is VERY suspicious.

More info here

On the 11th day, of every month.

Show "What difference does it make?" by JamesB


Certainly not talking to me. Blanket statements show the level of dishonesty in your "message." And incidentally, if it was found that this piece belonged to a military aircraft, wouldn't you think that is incriminating? I'm someone that thinks commercial airliners struck the towers, but even I would think that's incriminating.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Show "Military Aircraft?" by JamesB

Now THAT'S...

A good question JamesB! Anyone more knowledgeable in the study of "what hit the WTC" than me care to answer that? Is his statement true about how no military aircraft in existence at that time would resemble the commercial aircraft that hit the Towers?

By the way, my "theory" is that commercial airliners struck the towers. I have never questioned that. The only reason I was researching this is because dz asked for help.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Show "You guys are a little behind" by JamesB

Are you dumb?

What did I say about blanket statements JamesB? As I indicated, I've never really wasted time researching this aspect of 9/11 because of things like bone fragments being found from certain passengers, and the "crazy soundingness" of the argument that something other than Commercial Airliners struck the towers that morning. However, I can almost GUARANTEE that other members of this movement have looked into it.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

He's not dumb. He's just a

He's not dumb. He's just a very, very bitter person.

I believe...

Show "No Bitterness" by JamesB

Wow. Way to jump to

Wow. Way to jump to RIDICULOUS conclusions on that post.

I'll let you all over at SLC keep making unfounded speculations as to the content of LCFC so when the movie comes out, you look like the desperate clowns that you all are.

James, when was the last

James, when was the last time you got laid? Honestly. You never have anything good to say.

Show "Getting a little personal are we" by JamesB


David Ray Griffin retracted 1 thing from his book.
1 thing, out of hundreds of facts that he presented.
Don't go patting yourself on the back here, you didn't exactly debunk his book.

Show "Only 1" by JamesB

you sound bitter

your post is typical of the OCT crowd.
no substance, just put-downs like "warped logic"

you prove nothing.

You aren't too bright, are you?

That was one of them there rhetorical (look it up) questions.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent


9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

What's worse, Jimmy,

than the fact that some of us are curious to know more about this part

is the fact that you are curious to know why we want to know.

Shouldn't you be taunting kids in the Paris Hilton forums about the fact that she could go to jail?

He doesn't seem to understand...

That we were lied to, and therefore, we have a tendency to question everything. However, I do agree that these kinds of arguments waste our time once they're taken to a conclusion (we don't know).

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I don't want a conclusion on

I don't want a conclusion on this unless it's 100% proven. I think it's a very valid endeavor considering the amount of debate circulating around Flight 11 and Flight 175, regardless of your position on the matter.

Speaking for myself, I believe Boeing airliners struck the buildings.

Of course...

However for myself... when I reach a point when I can't think of anything else to look at, I put it on the shelf under "I don't know what the hell that is", and move on. That's just me.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I hope so -- it's in your movie


I'm speaking of the CBC video at around 34:45.

I recently viewed your movie for the first time in over a year, and still think it's great, though I disagree on this point. I look forward to the final edition.

Military versions Boeing 767's and 757's

have been available since mid -1980's (767-200ER) and 1998 (C-32 or 757 - 200), respectively.

They have been used for troop transport, cargo, airborne surveillance and AWACS.

I have a client who has been selling used Boeing 757's and 767's for nearly 20 years, want to buy one? The CIA has bought a bunch.

That took me 5 minutes online and one local phone call to confirm the information.

JamesB, where do you get this stuff?

You're fighting a lost cause here, brother, give it a rest and spend more time with your wife.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


So typical of OCTs like JB, thanks for the info. LeftWright.



Help me shout 9/11 articles on:



Quite obviously it is not a AWACS, you would notice the huge freakin dome. The 767-200ER is not a military aircraft, it is a civilian plane.


Obviously any plane can be used for military purposes, just like the charter plane I flew out of Bosnia on. How many does the military have then and where are they? I have been on numerous airbases (the C-17 is sweet) and seen C-141s, C-130s, C-17s, and C-5s, I have never seen a military cargo 767. Please point them out for me.


Other than the 2 757s and 2 767s that we know about, how many planes are missing? These are 100 million dollar toys, I think someone would notice.

The C32 is an executive jet version of the 757-200. There are only 4 in existence, I would think someone would notice a full half of them missing.


someone would notice eh?

so why can't the pentagon account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions as reported by Donald Rumsfeld about 16 hours before the north tower was hit? gosh, i think someone woulda noticed... burrrp...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



Someone did notice, that was why Rumsfeld was complaining about the crappy IT systems at the DoD. This money wasn;t missing, they just had no good way of looking up what they had been spending money on for the last 30 years.


You're the type who only asks questions of questioners. If someone from the government said it, they get the benefit of the doubt?

"Uh...yea the thing about that is, these darned IT systems around here..uh..cant find where trillions of dollars went, for uh, the last umm...uh, THIRTY YEARS. Yea thats it."

You believe what Rumsfeld says?
Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

it's truly astounding

what some people are willing to dismiss as an honest mistake. isn't it interesting that the one congressperson who insisted on asking about the progress made into identifying where the money went was the victim of not one but two shady efforts to kcik her out of congress? so where is the progress? where did 2.3 trillion in military expenditures go? hello? JamesB? just coincidence that Rumsfeld admitted it on 9/10/01?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force



You said that there were NO military 757's and 767's, I was simply pointing out that this statement was flat out wrong. They've had them years before 9/11.

These planes could also have been bought in the used market and used by anyone (CIA, anyone?). My friend the used plane dealer has sold many planes to questionable "companies". The checks clear real fast, too.

We all know how easy it is to make unfounded assertions, yes?

I'm getting ready for a 12+ day road trip which starts tomorrow, have two teenage daughters (a life, in other words) and don't have time to visit every place in the world (US has 700+ military bases around the world) these planes could be. (I will not be available for whatever flame war you may want start, sorry)

Are you a Boeing employee with access to their records so you can definitively prove (with documents) where every single 757 and 767 ever made is?

I didn't think so.

Please stop insulting my intelligence, take a few months off and study some physics, ok?

(You still haven't answered my questions about Bush and Cheney on 9/11/01, not very sporting)

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Check out this research/presentation on it!

Not so.



And note that the Military Tanker version, is a re-configured variant of the existing Boeing 767, and that it comes in a variety of configurations.

Also note Dov Zakheim's involvement..
On the 11th day, of every month.

What difference does it make?

I think discussions about what hit the WTC (just as at the Pentagon) are a distraction if we can’t PROVE exactly what happened. Either way it proves a conspiracy. Good point JamesB! NORAD sucked on 9/11! Long live government "incompetence" without accountability! Promote the guy who let this happen! Nothing to see here! I guess you think it's ok that NORAD changed its timeline three times for no convincing or apparent reason.

Nitpicking one mistake out of Griffin's new book? Come on don’t be so lame… I guess that's all you can find wrong with it? You must probably think he got everything else right then? “Interesting” how you just focus on the details we get wrong. What about the details that the government is lying about or got wrong? Those don’t matter more?

9/11 Truth denial is the new holocaust denial.

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

There is much evidence that whatever blew-up the Pentagon

was NOT AA-77.

Furthermore, we have videos of jets striking the towers. Our Govt refuses to show us what hit or blew-up at the Pentagon.


You are welcome to that opinion. I’ve looked at the evidence and I disagree. For those who are curious here’s my research on the eyewitness testimony. I worked a long time on this:

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described:

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

I'll take physical evidence over eye-witnesses any day.

And why the hell won't they release the 80 videos of the Pentagon? You don't suppose they are hiding something, do you???

Pentagon Fakery

If you read the eyewitness testimony it gives you an explanation for the physical evidence. For example why there is little debris outside of the Pentagon. The eyewitness testimony corresponds with the physical evidence, and I will show this after I finish my analysis of the testimony. This will be very interesting stuff I will assure you.

They claim that the plane entered the Pentagon (see testimony). What happened at the WTC? Was there alot of debris from that crash? There was some debris outside the Pentagon (you can call it planted without evidence if you want). There were plane parts—probably 757 (you can call that fake if you want). There were damaged light poles knocked down in a fashion corresponding to the wingspan of a large jetliner (you can call that fake if you want without coming up with a remotely logical explanation or motive for how or why they were knocked down). There was FAA, NEADS, and even Mineta testimony claiming that a plane was coming towards the Pentagon (you can call that fake if you want too). You can call hundreds of eyewitness statements fake if you want even though they are overwhelmingly in agreement. You can claim that it’s impossible due to “ground effect” to hit the lower part of the Pentagon (like Fetzer does) even though it IS possible, you just have to point the plane lower (as is indicated in the testimony). You can claim that it’s impossible for planes to knock over light poles—even though they are specifically designed to be knocked over easily near airports (i.e. like the one near the Pentagon). You could claim that the Pentagon is indestructible even though the lower floors of the building were not connected together (this is one of the biggest and most annoying Pentagon Myths (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/three-rings-nine-feet-of-st...). You could claim that the Pentagon would literally risk all of this fakery in typical early morning traffic jams by major highways with hundreds of potential witnesses that they don’t control and who might have cameras. Right next to the Pentgon. You could claim that they would waste all of that effort on the War Games to remove air fighter defenses and then NOT take advantage of it to fly a plane into the Pentagon. You could even look at misleading photos taken out of context that misrepresent the hole size if you want to and claim that everything else is fake based on that. Lots of people do that even though the damage of the second floor is much wider than the damage on the first (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/entry-wounds.html). You could vote me down if you want to. It won’t make all of this evidence magically disappear. You can't claim that you have a smoking gun case at the Pentagon.

Or you can say, hey maybe they didn’t fake all of that, and they just flew a plane into a building to make Al Quaeda look guilty.

Yes, I think it really is that simple. Put the most obvious analysis of the facts together and you can either ignore them or create an overly complex and almost ludicriously impractical conspiracy theory.

I can think of two really good reasons why they wouldn't release the videos. First of all, the plane was alleged to have hit the ground floors. What do you think that would look like to people who aren't already skeptical about 9/11? Flying a plane into the bottom floor of a building? Seriously? Secondly, I believe it is possible that explosives were used in combination with the plane as the hit took place. There is a very good chance of this. The eyewitness testimony supports this. At least one witness was blown back one hundred feet as the plane hit outside by the Pentagon. These are very good reasons to not release the videos. Do you disagree that these are not good reasons?

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

There's no convincing some people, Arabesque

but keep posting your analyses, because they are useful and because people need to be reminded of the evidence.

I remain agnostic on the Pentagon, but only because I want to see a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Otherwise, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests a commercial airliner was involved.

I would like to see an analysis of the DNA testing. People often say it would be impossible for DNA evidence to survive the Pentagon crash, but what is the basis for this speculation?

Thanks simuvac:

I remain agnostic on the phone calls (I believe they POSSIBLY may have happened but the content of those calls was definitely faked in some cases IMO).

I remain agnostic on the question of DNA because “impossible” is a dangerous word and usually leads to straw-man arguments.

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

NTSB animation reconstruction...

What about the NTSB animation? According to the flight data recorder, the plane was over 400 ft in the air a couple seconds before impact and was flying north of the Citgo Gas station. The light poles were south of the gas station. The NTSB animation is confirmed with the 2 police officers (SGT Chadwick Brooks & SGT William Lagasse) who were at or near the Citgo gas station (one was at the gas station, the other across the street).

The NTSB report animation is interesting

But my personal opinion is that they fabricated this. Probably to hide the fact the plane was flown by remote control? I'll admit that's speculation. I think we should hammer them on this fake NTSB report though--this is obviously incriminating evidence that they HAVE to explain. It’s Bizzaro World stuff.. If they were going to fake this you would think they would do a better job of it... but fabricating evidence is not one of their specialties (i.e. fake passport).

Think about it… in order for there to even be an NSTB report, where did they get the data from? The Pentagon crash site? Somewhere else?

If you think, for example, they got it from “the plane that flew over and landed somewhere else”, do you think the government would be STUPID enough to take the NSTB report from THAT plane and then delete JUST the data up until the point where it flew over? You’d have to be mildly retarded to do something like that.

Think about that head scratcher.

Or you could be like me and presume that the government is too incompetent to fake light pole damage and is incompetent enough to not fake a NSTB report convincingly. Let's not give them MORE credit than they deserve.

I could go into all of the reasons why I think it's fake, but there are too many to mention except to say--the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon is considerable as I suggested in my previous post. Not one single person reported a plane flying over the Pentagon except for the C-130 that followed the first plane. That should be strong enough evidence on its own. You don't do that without someone noticing—some people spotted the plane from pretty far away. The question of the exact flight path is something I'm researching right now at the moment. As for the altitude of the plane, eyewitnesses overwhelmingly [see my research] claimed it was flying very close to the ground--at lamp post height.

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


I should have pointed out that I do not have a definitive opinion of what happened at the Pentagon. Regardless of whether or not the NTSB animation is fake or authentic, it is still damning evidence either way. It is either authentic, which brings into question the flight path, or it is fake, which brings into question the "why." It is a very fascinating piece of evidence. I believe the main debunker arguement is that the data was off because it got damaged in the crash. From what I undestand, this is not possible. The data is either going to be recoverable or it isn't. It will not change the data. I would like to call Honeywell and ask them a general question about this without mentioning Flight 77. Basically ask them if the FDR data could change if it was damaged in a plane crash.

Great resource of eyewitness testimony...

I will be going over them to try and figure out the path. With just a quick glance I noticed this one that looked interesting:

"I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station… about 4-5 car lengths in front of me… It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."

Take a look at a flight path pic I put together (make sure you enlarge it): http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/c/9/e/0/highres_1311680.jpeg

The testimony could coincide with the flight path in blue, which flies right over Columbia Pike and right near the Citgo station. Granted, Columbia Pike also bends around to the other side of the Navy Annex, so it could also fit the other path. The key is, where were the witnesses located exactly? If this witness was headed north on S. Joyce St., right before the intersection of Colimbia Pike, then that would be something juicy. That puts the plane on the BLUE line.

Flight Path From the Testimony

I have read through the entire testimony more than once and labeled everything with highlights as part of my research. I've made a list of statements of everyone who specifically describe the path of the plane. There are about 42 witnesses who do this. This does not include the people who say for example, that the plane hit the Pentagon. If you were to take that as the most important question, 100 witnesses seems like strong to overwhelming enough evidence and almost renders the question about flight path irrelevant. This is not including the people who said it "hit the lamp poles" or "hit the generator". These statements would of course further confirm the flight path.

However, from a cursory glance at my research, there are several who saw the plane near the White House which is across the river from the Pentagon. In fact, at this time NEADS "was in a frenzy" because it was approaching the White House. There are several witnesses who described the plane flying over the Navy Annex and very close to the I-395.

1. “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon.”
2. “We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon.”
3. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us”
4. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.
5. “The jet came in from the south”
6. “At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards… in front of me”
7. “I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area,” he said. “I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low—at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down… the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.”
8. “which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.”
9. “He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off.”
10. “coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station… then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.”
11. “seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike—an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.”
12. “The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap… the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer.”
13. “They saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument.”
14. “At the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex. Having just reached the elevator in the 5th wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) #2. He heard “an increasingly loud rumbling” One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view… The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)… Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.”
15. “A silver, twin-engine American airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex.”
16. “I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd… and from my left side…I saw a silver plane… It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading.”
17. “A commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery.”
18. “It actually came up I-395 and it went over the rise and came in front of a bridge in which I was sitting [in traffic].”
19. “[It] approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.”
20. “at that point it went down because I was approaching a hill. And at that point it went straight down over the hill.”
21. “Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew… saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex.”
22. “A plane flew over my house,” (one mile away from the Pentagon). “It was loud, but not unusual because the [Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport] is by my house, on the other side of the Pentagon.”
23. “flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in Springfield, VA.”
24. “I had just passed the Pentagon and was near the Macy’s store in Crystal City when I noticed a plane making a sharp turn from north of the Pentagon. I had to look back at the road and then back to the plane as it sort of leveled off.”
25. “He left Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., for a meeting at the Pentagon, only to be told it was cancelled. Walking back to his motorcycle he saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall the Marine Corps headquarters. It “flew above a nearby hotel.”
26. “About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”
27. “I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.”
28. “I did see, myself a plane, about half hour ago, circling over the Capitol.”
29. “Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew, said they heard the distinct whine of jet engines as the airliner approached... I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex.”
30. “Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon.”
31. “A white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line.”
32. “You could just see him descend and just keep descending lower and lower, until he was almost on top of Route 27 that runs alongside the Pentagon.”
33. “I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel.”
34. “The plane took “a flight path straight up 395.”
35. “There wasn’t anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank… Georgetown is a sector of the District of Columbia… A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the craft’s impact.”
36. “I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure.”
37. “I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me.”
38. “I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.”
39. “I was so scared I thought it was coming after me and just ducked for cover… It was going so fast and it was so low,” he said, standing on Army-Navy Drive.”
40. “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike”
41. “Headed eastbound over the Pike, possibly toward the Pentagon.”
42. “The plane flew very low over his car and hit the building and blew his windows out of the vehicle and he’s on interstate 395.”


Eric Bart had already made a map from the testimony, and physical evidence.

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

What do you mean?

First of all, the plane was alleged to have hit the ground floors. What do you think that would look like to people who aren't already skeptical about 9/11? Flying a plane into the bottom floor of a building? Seriously?

Could you please explain this point? Thanks.

I agree that explosions not consistent with plane impact would be a good reason for not releasing videos, though that didn't stop them in the case of the South Tower.

did you make it clear that a

did you make it clear that a majority of the "witnesses" at the Pentagon worked for either the military or USA Today in your piece?

That's false

If you look at the number of statements I have, I think it's clear that the majority of them do not work for the Pentagon. Seeing as how the Pentagon was struck, is this surprising that some worked there? Furthermore studies have been done to show that the testimony is not noticeably different from person to person based on their profession. Third of all, there were many witnesses who were present—not all of them left reports, and none of the testimony is significantly contradictory in any way.

I'll take one example, the “small plane” myth. 3 or 4 people out of 143 observations of the plane claimed it was small. Not only that, of those people, they were all farther away from the Pentagon. I'm going to publish my complete analysis eventually, but you can look at the hard data I have so far on my blog. And before someone mentions the PentaCon, I'm doing a review of that film based on my research right now.

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

But it's probable that it was NOT "flight 175"

at the very least..

On the 11th day, of every month.

I would think it is obvious, from the stand point of any

complete and honest investigation or inquiry, that the part should be identified. For no other reason than it will add to the understanding of the case. Reguardless of what we 911activists or anyone else thinks.

Or at least that's how profesional adults act in the real world. But adult responsibility is something you don't quite get, do you Jimbo? Say like the responsibility of flagging a hate blog--reguardless of who you think did it. Ethical ADULTS don't let their actions be determined by whether they like/dislike a targeted indivisuals politics. Like I told you before you lot banned me, I despise you, but I'd pull you out of a fire, because my sense of social responsibility is not based on whether I like your politics. But you're only concerned about pubilc saftely when it's YOUR safety-as proven when tonic blue was passing your name out. Thing is, it's all on the internet AND he/she clairifed they meant you no physical harm. The same could not be said about "killtwoofers".

This is just an example of a serious defect in Jame's thinking, heavily influenced as it is by authoritarian models. He has no awareness of social responsibility or common good--in his mind it is really a "with me or against me" thought process. He must demonize and vilify the enemy. While we activists are frustrated and are impatient to call some debunks shills, we can make the distiction between someone who is rabidly pushing the official story, logic be damed, and someone who is scared, confused or just not ready to make the leap but in every other way is a fine individual.

I have NEVER encountered a debunk willing to admit any "twoofer" was a reasonable person in every other way except their disagreement over 9/11. Or even willing to RESPECT the disagreement about 9/11--" I see where you're coming from and how that can make sense, but I don't agree." And if I'm wrong Jimbo--say on your site--I will be happy to see proof via a quote WITH A LINK to the original. And then an explaination why you don't demand this standard at your blog.

Now Jimbo's going to say "the only reason we can't speak civily is because of YOU twoofers!" Don't belivee it. Back before I was banned, once I posted that there was no reason we could not disagree civily. At least two posters were all but foaming at the mouth about how that wasn't possible, basically because they don't want to.

So, Jimbo, you wanted a war--you got one. Once I was thinking of a "Christmas Truce blog"--where debunks and twoofers would leave 9/11 out and post about anything else--get to see we're human even if we don't agree. But after that "killtwoofers" shite you pushed, "Frankly my dear,-- you can go fuck yourself."

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Looks very

This is a long thread

This is a long thread discussing the part. Dates back to September 3rd, 3004.


"Boenoid" posted this info in the thread:

The part number appears to be 250T1115-2

This would be a valid Boeing part number for a 767 (or 757, as noted below)

The part number is structured using something called WBS, where each part of the number has a meaning. The "2" at the beginning means it is a Systems part. (it would be a "1" for structure, and a "4" for a payloads interiors part).

The "5" specifies a particular subsystem. I think "5" is Electrical subsystems. And the remaining number before the "T is chosen by the major design group to mean whatever they want. The digits after the letter are chosen by subgroups to mean whatever they want.

The "T" by the way stands for 767. "N" is for 757, "W" is for 777, and "A" is for 737 "new generation" airplanes circa 1997. In all cases, "SCD" parts (parts order to spec, as opposed to built to print) have one fewer digit after the letter, and an optional preceding "S": for example, S253T123-2.

Old 737's (pre-1996) and 747's still use the older numbering system: 65B12345 or 69B12345-0.

And just to confuse things more, the 757 and 767 were designed at the same time, and LOTS of the 757 parts have 767 "T" part numbers. This is most noticable in the engines, hydraulics, air conditioning and other "systems" parts. The 757 interior, however, is common to the 737, so you can have some "A" part numbers on 757's and "N" part numbers on 737's.

OT: Mark Cuban and Dylan Avery part ways?

There is a rumor posted on Avery's MySpace blog, plus Vesa has heard from "Griffin" that Cuban is no longer involved with Loose Change: Final Cut.

Avery leaves the cryptic reply, "the Jews have shifted their shapes." What the hell does that mean?

Anybody know what's going on? Did I miss something?
"Cogito ergo sum"

Chris...I was responding to

Chris...I was responding to the Borat quote. Not the Mark Cuban comment.


Nice, Nice!

That was so wrong...

and SO damn funny!! I was sitting next to two young hasidic jews when I saw that movie. They laughed at most of the jew jokes in the beginning of the film, but they grew progressively more quiet as the film went on. I laughed shamelessly. They kept commenting on the fact that Borat was actually speaking Hebrew through most of the film.

So I'm allowed to laugh at jew jokes if it is a jew making them, but not if it is a gentile?? So confusing this race/religion stuff!!
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


I actually saw that last night. It was pretty funny. I was wondering what he was speaking, as I doubt Sacha Baron Cohen fluently speaks Kazakh. I recognized a few Turkic words though, that sounded like the smattering of Uzbek I have picked up. The subtitles though were in Russian, they weren't even pretending to be Kazakh.

my guess is

there are plenty of inside jokes for those who understand any of the languages involved.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Got it.

So what's the deal with Cuban?
"Cogito ergo sum"


It would be interesting to hear more about this and if it is true that Cuban and Avery split, what the consequences for the new movie would be.

And JamesB, when the criminals get tried and put into prison where they belong, I think alot of truthers will remember your efforts to be complicit to the crimes of 9-11.
One post does not make you guilty, but the sum of all your posts is clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, that you are in on the conspiracy against the American people.

Show "LOL" by JamesB

Keep laughing "buddy"

Your nervousness shows by your immature remarks when the cloak of deception starts to lift eh "buddy" ?

Its clear when 98% of the people posting here do so and can argue tthe differences without diliberate attempt to steer visitors to lies and distortions. The ones that constantly do this show their agenda clearly JAMESB.

You are now dealing with a different level of intellect and one that you can not compete with, it clearly shows in your posts. The more you try, the more you "out" yourself.

Your persistant sarcascm, JamesB,

Your persistant sarcasm, JamesB, is very characteristic of those who know they are guilty but refuse to back down under any and all circumstances. You don't even care that WE know what you're doing here. Your demeanor actually reminds me of someone working for the Mafia. You have a very sneering Robert D'Neiro vibe about you. You know you're a dirtbag and yet you still won't go away or shut up. Can't wait to see you drool and hiss behind bars with your pathetic colleagues you snake.

@ JamesB

The only Null Pointer is between your legs - OH! ZING!!


Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show "And If Al Qaeda and KSM Were Responsible..." by Brainster

Here ya go Brainster

I will make it easy for you.

This is what I said.

"Its clear when 98% of the people posting here do so and can argue tthe differences without diliberate attempt to steer visitors to lies and distortions. The ones that constantly do this show their agenda clearly JAMESB."

Now I have no clue what you mean by your comment. Can you explain?

Are you saying because Im one the 22% of the people believing (Rasmussen Report)., that I am somehow diliberately trying to cover up a crime? I dont post links and quote people to try and steer people away from the facts like some do. I merely expose them when I can. The seach for the truth can be argued sensibly, but when BS starts to stink up the forum, I think its proper to expose who stinks and why.


If Al Qaeda and KSM were responsible

it would have been proven by now. No, fake bin Ladin tapes and KSM-A-Z don't do it.

So let me guess...

You're here to rescue your mate JamesB, aren't you?

Sorry, he's beyond help. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I most sincerely doubt that Dylan Avery makes comments like:

"the Jews have shifted their shapes." It's best not to start rumors like that.

I didn't make the comment.

I didn't make the comment. Borat did. I just quoted him. :D

Yeah, but Chris Rose attributed that to Avery in his post above.

Am I missing something?


If you would like to access to Dylan Avery's MySpace blog, you can confirm it for yourself. http://www.myspace.com/loosechange911

I would not falsely attribute quotes to Mr. Avery. Not my style dude. Also, the quote is no big deal. Apparently its a reference to the Borat movie which I have not seen.

Lastly, it would appear that "enigs" is Dylan Avery.

Hope that helps.
"Cogito ergo sum"

I just...

Made myself laugh. I quickly glanced at the title of this thread, and read it as, "A New Push To Identify An Old Fart."

I'm like, "Here I am!"


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Show "This plane part is a hoax," by brianv

Here's my beer can


I'm not really making an argument here - for now, it's just for fun.


anyone who purports to discuss the physics of a REAL 767 penetrating a wtc must start at the very beginning of the first moment of contact between the two.

IN WHAT MANNER does the smooth rounded lightweight plastic nosecone of the thin walled lightweight aluminum fuselage of a real 767 penetrate thru the massive steel box columns and 5' wide steel spandrel plates not to mention the horizontal steel reinforced concrete floor slabs of a wtc?
does it:
A) cut thru like a blade?
B) bludgeon thru like a hammer?

newton's 3rd law:
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

this means that if a 767 is hitting a wtc with a force equivalent to x then the wtc is also hitting the 767 with the same force equivalent to x.

it boils down to the phrase:

the front fuselage of a REAL 767 is aflying beercan and in reality would squash against the massive steel/concrete of a wtc.
it is indeed as simple as that.


Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month