fastom

Let me get my white sheet back on here...

Perhaps Mr Destruct didn't check that whole link out?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBr...onSummary.html

Read the thing, it's not racist.

Domino effect, yeah right, it's what, like 100 floors, friggin' thing would have taken several times as long to fall if that were true.

The Pentagon. Get serious, one hole punched though all those walls, are you saying it was the stale bread rolls? Did the engines vaporize against the stucco wall? Simple fact is the "evidence" shows one engine, of a type not used in that plane. Where's the rest?

It isn't a magical thing when a plane crashes. The impact speed is given as a suspiciously high number, but even at that speed the plane wouldn't turn into powder.

cyrnel

This is the part that makes me uncomfortable with "simple physics."

Do we know they didn't make any marks? Where would they go in the collision? Do the mounts points fail early leaving the engines to continue unabated? That would be a problem vs. the story, but what if that isn't how they behave? Do they instead slow progressively somewhat with the fuselage and wings only to be pulled into the enlarging hole? How do the wings fail? Sheer or break forward from deceleration, or back from being drawn into the hole?

Those are the questions I was getting at in my last post. It may be correct to assume everything would pancake but I don't know enough about how those jets behave against what's essentially a stone face with windows.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

fastom

I hope you aren't the police collision analyst with those theories.

I'm afraid the wings don't fold backwards upon impact, the plane is also not made of rubber nor paper mache. I don't expect it to make a perfect hole in the exact shape like when Wile E Coyote runs into a wall. The heavy parts like engines would not vaporize.
What's the distance across the engines on one of those planes, i'm thinking it must be around 75 feet?

So what we have there looks like throwing three darts taped together at a dartboard and one sticks in while the other two vanish

Sun Tzu

Thanks for the link --- interesting, troubling, and no suprise

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/11497...ition_Part_One

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/11510...e_Sight_Part_1

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

cyrnel

I'll let the jackass snipes season themselves.

Theories? I'm asking. What happens? Do the wings shear off, fold forward as attachment fail, fold back as the jet create and enters the hole, what? How much of the jet has to stack up at that velocity to break through that type of structure? That'd affect deceleration and everything following. If you have credentials in engineering related to crash investigations I'd love to hear how these things occur. I doubt any of us believe the jet would remain in the original configuration throughout the collision, what with the impact speed and associated stresses, but I haven't seen it addressed.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Willravel

Cyrnel, I assume that you are suggesting that the physics surrounding the Pentagon crash are counter-intuitive, or a proposition that does not seem likely to be true using intuition or gut feelings, however is true none the less. One example of something being counter-intuitive is the Earth from our perspective. For thousands of years, man believed the Earth to be flat because of our perspective. Eventually science was able to explain that the Earth was not flat, but was spherical. It's just a really, really big spheroid.

Usually counter-intuitive conclusions are discovered by simply developing a scientific explaination on a subject. Fortunately for us, plane crashes are fairly simple. A Boeing 757-200 is essentially a big aluminum tube with aluminum frame wings covered in a thin aluminum alloy skin. Aluminum is a very light metal, that is very fragile. The Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines, however, are 141 inch tall, about 7100 pounds, and is the most dense part of the plane by far. 1) There is no evidence that wings of planes fold in upon impact with anything - there is no prescedent in the history of planes crashing -, 2) even if, by some mericle, the wings folded into the plane as it crashed into that tiny hole, there is no reason to believe that the connection between the wing and the engine would be strong enough to pull the engines into the plane with the wings, and 3) Occam's razor. In our system of hypothesis, it's more often the simplest answer that is the corrrect one. What is more likely: the wings of a plane going 300-400 mph (depending on who you ask) has it's wings fold in to the plane so fast they they pull in the engines and do not leave a mark on brick walls, or the building was hit by something other than a Boeing 757-200.

I've seen no evidence to show that my conclusions based on facts are counter intuitive.

boatin

Couple of things from me as I mull things around. Some support the standard story, some don't. First the 'pro':

Means/methods/motive: while means and methods can't be too up in air (if 20 terrorists could get this done, surely a group of 'secret terrorists' within our govornment COULD do it). But my problem lies within the motive area. How many people would it take to wire buildings for demolition, organize, grab video cameras and everything else a coverup would take? Surely more than 20. Is it 30? 50? Assuming 50, how do you get 50 people motivated to do that? How do you get 50 people to hold silence for 5 years? No guilt, no tell all from a single person?

I think that someone's preference is to start at the other end of the investigation (willravel?). If we could disprove the physical evidence of consipiracy, then there would be no need to question motive - the whole thing would just blow away. While I respect that direction, there is no reason not to look at it from the other direction, too.

What's the motivation that works for 30 or 50 or 70 people? Clearly there are those that have benefitted from war/terror. But does that motivate the people who would need to get the work done?


On the other side, the fishiest thing about 9-11 is the death count. If you're big bad terrorists bent on striking a blow against America, why grab planes at 7am? Why not 10am? If the planes had hit the building between 10am and noon, wouldn't the death count have reached 20k+. Maybe 50k? (depending upon how many evacuated before they fell). Why did the plane hit the empty part of the Pentagon? Terrorists are smart enough to plan it, and fly it, but didn't know the latest info on the P-gon?

Perhaps they revere the lives of minor military functionaries?

From the conspiracy side, there's the obvious: we want to cause a crisis but don't want to kill anymore americans than we have to...

But there is also the less obvious: if someone set charges, the more people who leave the building that see unusual things hurts the story. Do they want 10k people leaving the buildings seeing/hearing things that aren't kosher?


I sure don't know the truth, but am inclined to believe that any time something huge happens there's different ways to spin the details such that it looks fishy. Having said that, I do think there are a number of truly bizarre questions that should be answered. I don't see the harm of checking/asking, and I really don't see why it bothers people...

Keep on asking, Will!

MSD

The bottom 40% of the fuselage is a big, reinforced section that amounts to a long lump of metal. This section is what punched the hole in the wall, while the rest was shredded, forming the rain of aluminum that bystanders reported as being "like confetti" before realizing that it was pieces of the plane. While the wings were wither sheared off or folded back, they retained enough forward momentum to follow the plane into the hole, where the engines were found. Pictures clearly show impact marks from the engines, which remained attached to the wings. The right wing's structure was likely compromised and the engine severely damaged after the engine collided with a generator on the lawn, pushing it toward the building.

Willravel

So the wings folded in and entered a hole no wider than the fuselage? Even though the plane was moving at somewhere between 300 and 500 mph? I would sooner expect for them to have simply struck the wall and ignited and exploded.
I've seen a lot of pictures before and after the collapse of the roof, and I've not yet noticed any kinds of impact marks outside of the main hole and some broken glass (and fire damage, obviosuly). If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.

fastom

boatin says : " But my problem lies within the motive area. How many people would it take to wire buildings for demolition, organize, grab video cameras and everything else a coverup would take? Surely more than 20. Is it 30? 50? Assuming 50, how do you get 50 people motivated to do that? How do you get 50 people to hold silence for 5 years? No guilt, no tell all from a single person?"

Put them on the planes?

shakran

Wow! Holy shit, you're right! But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that! No buddhist monks died, no eskimos died, there wasn't one single winner of the Jack Daniels world Championship Barbeque Contest who died. . . . Damn, this is really amazing! Imagine a whole conspiracy designed to protect all these different groups of people!

Oh, and no one from Shakran City, India died either so I probably helped plan it all out, right?

fastom

I don't think anybody has really bothered to investigate who the victims were since passenger manifest numbers and the number of dead don't match.

"Mom, this is Mark Bingham"

cyrnel

Counter-intuitive can be a POV issue, such as your solar system example, or one of... criminy, what's it called when effects differ with scale or rate? In this case we have big rate, wildly different materials, and unknowns. Can we look at everything honestly, investigate the unknowns, and make objective evaluations without leaps?

The fuselage carries much more mass than the engines. The engines might make the single biggest bang/moment but there's far more total energy behind the fuselage. I'll try to err in the engine's favor.

Engine height: 141" or 11'9" - I'm betting that includes skin so let's say 10'9".
Frontal engine area: 13070 inches
PW Engine weight: 7100lbs
Static weight/frontal in.sq.: .54lbs

757-200 fuselage height: 12'4" (from Boeing)
Body exterior height: (dunno - looks fairly round)
Frontal fuselage area: 17110 inches
Empty weight of a 747-200: 127,520lbs.
Empty weight minus engines: 113,320lbs.
Wings? Guessing at 30% or 34,000lbs.
Empty weight minus engines and wings: 79,320lbs
Static weight/frontal in.sq.: 4.64lbs

I'm completely ignoring cargo, passengers, and fuel but keep in mind Boeing's Medium Takeoff Weight of 240,000lbs.

Still this is algebra playing a calculus game. The initial impact will be the nose with all the jet's weight behind it, changing as things fail or deform. How it happens takes much more knowledge than I possess.

Funny search engine results:
"Looking for Boeing 757 200?
www.ebay.com Find exactly what you want today."

Will, I'm looking at your post on page 4 (#136 this thread). The damage vs jet seem quite reasonable given the angle involved. Not sure if scale is accurate and I'm so very done for today.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

MSD

I would guess that the structure of the wing was heavily damaged, but since it is reinforced enough to sustain 60,000 pounds of thrust at maximum throttle, bent back after damage to teh front half of each wing was severe enough.
Since the right engine hit first, and was damaged by the generator it hit before the wall, the damage on the right side is more clearly defined, but scorched marks on both sides are apparent. The left side had to bend less to fit into the hole, so the impact is not as severe.

Willravel

MSD, that picture was taken after the collapse. The collapse completly destroyed any trace of where the right engine would have struck the building. On he lft, there is no damage from where the engine would have impacted.

fastom

A plane with a bomb that exploded after impact makes the most sense. Fits with the witnesses "thermite" description and the ones that saw a plane.

With such a gigantic planned deception like that one it isn't unreasonable to suggest a small plane carrying damaged 757 parts to plant evidence.

Whatever the case the official version is the fantasy.

Here's another bit to argue...
http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/F-15.htm
... ever notice the flash of fire before the plane hits the WTC, or the black streak in the sky. If you'd taped the TV coverage watch it again for both of those.

MSD

I see damage Right at the ground floor on the right side at the edge of the collapsed section. I also see some damage to the left of the collapse around the ground floor. It's a low-res image, so it might be crappy compression, but it sure looks like impact marks to me.
There is not flash of fire. What you are seeing is the forward-looking radar from the planes' nosecones reflecting off the building and being picked up by the CCD in the camera. Point a TV remote at your camcorder or digital camera and you'll see the same effect. Point it at a wall from a short distance and you'll see the same effect.

I don't see an F-15 in that grainy, blurry video. It doesn't lend any credibility to your side that claims are made that the Pentagon video clearly shows that no plane hit, yet a shaky, grainy, blurry video from farther back is given as conclusive proof of the presence of something that wasn't there.

Cynthetiq

me either. in fact, just scale alone to me makes it not an F15 since it looks considerably larger than an F15 in context and relation to the towers.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

fastom

OK so if it isn't an F15 what is it? A 50 foot bird?

Even mainstream media is wise to Dubya, though in the USA they wouldn't dare upset the boy king.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

Notice the explosives laden plane is mentioned a couple times... "In 1998 the US intelligence community receives information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. In the fall of that same year, more information was uncovered that bin Laden’s next plot against U.S. involved explosive-laden aircraft and he was trying to establish a cell within the U.S."

So even if it was Arabs flying the planes it doesn't let Bush and cronies off the hook.

Cynthetiq

I don't know but it doesn't look like it was part of the ORIGINAL footage. It looks like there are extra artifacts that are present, not from footage.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

fastom

In viewing the CNN coverage i can't make it out, i could in a film from another angle. What is very plainly visible is something firing out of the right side of the plane just before impact. It is not glare from the sun, it is very visible in other videos taken from behind (not this CNN shot though) but it shows here in the second view of the plane taken from the side, watch just after it goes behind the tip of that other building and before it hits WTC. Click onto full screen and you can replay it by pausing and moving the slidebar back.

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/...s.cnn.med.html

cyrnel

The black streak is clearly in the foreground. It can be seen traveling from top left to bottom right in front of the smoke, the buildings, on down. Something close and out of focus, probably a bird or bug.

I haven't seen footage of the flash.

What do you guys mean by an F-15? The only thing I can come up with is the WTC debris shooting off to the right, but that can be seen ejecting from the flames. The trajectory suggests maybe part of the jet.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Jack Ruby

As doubtful as I am about the official story of 9/11 by now, I just can't believe something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. It seems like a pretty big risk to fly some military plane (or, god forbid, an actual missile) into a building next to a highway with hundreds of cars passing a minute, then try to claim it was a 757. Why?

A single person in one of those cars who happened to have a camera rolling for some reason could have accidentally captured the whole event (noone did, sadly enough) and blown the whole setup. I don't think even the most crazy evil conspirator would take a risk like that.

It has been suggested that the "no-plane" stories are actually misinformation by the conspirators, the military-occult complex, etc. That may seem paranoid but it does look to me like a lot of misguided effort has been aimed at these kinds of theories that only serve to muddy the waters of the whole debate, and provide excellent chance for mainstream media to further marginalize the believers among us.

I mean, every time 9/11 conspiracies come up in the mainstream, it's almost always about the "a missile hit the pentagon" or "the planes that struck the WTC were holograms" stories; almost never about the real meaty questions like "why in the blue fuck did WTC 7 collapse as it did" and "why the hell weren't any of the planes intercepted by fighter jets".

Don't get hung up on that silliness, people. A lot of weird things happened that day but I'm pretty sure there weren't any missiles or holograms involved.

__________________
You don't know what you don't know.

Willravel

Maybe Jack Ruby did it!

Martian

I swore off this thread, mostly due to an old truism about arguing over the internet that's not fit for mixed company. However, I felt the need to jump back in the fray, because this :

is patently false. The engines, like most the rest of the plane, were designed to be as lightweight as possible. The only exception to that is the landing gear, because it has to withstand multiple impacts against the ground and hold up an object that weighs over a hundred tons (that's short tons, although it also weighs over a hundred metric tonnes if you want to nitpick). In fact, the largest part of the engine is simply a gigantic shroud; the main volume of the engine is all air. It would be oversimplifying to say that a turbofan is just a big kerosene lamp, but probably not by as much as you'd think.

The most dense part of the engine would be either the compressor core or the turbine core; both of them are essentially giant metal cones. These are buried within the engine, underneath the fan shroud and the jet housing - plenty of stuff around them to deform and absorb a nice chunk of the impact energy. I don't know all of the exact details, but I know modern engines are built primarily out of titanium, not for it's strength but rather it's lightness. Titanium is very strong in relatively light quantities, meaning that a titanium engine can be built lighter than a steel or aluminum one. Titanium is also highly resistant to corrosion, which makes it a good choice to extend service life of the engines - the fan blades don't decay like steel blades would, meaning the engine can go longer between rebuilds.

The engines are not the most dense part of the plane. The landing struts are. And we know exactly where the nosegear went, since it punched a nice big hole through three of the Pentagon's rings. I don't know what happened to the two main struts since I wasn't on scene and didn't see any of the debris first-hand, but it's worth noting that they are mounted in the main fuselage under the wing spars. By the time they reached the walls of the building, 100 tons of deforming and disintegrating aluminum and steel in front of them had absorbed the greater portion of the plane's kinetic energy. Just like it did for the engines.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

fastom

I tend to agree with Jacob Rubenstein that wild theories make doubters of people that otherwise wouldn't be.

Holograms is totally silly, there were jets roaring loudly into those buildings. I do think they maybe fired small missiles first to ensure maximum damage. Perhaps they were rigged with explosives too. They may have been remotely controlled, and maybe not the original planes that left the airports.

But aside from that the collapses of ALL the buildings, lack of response and destruction of evidence is pretty suspicious.

MSD

PDF:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/attachm...8&d=1145818794

This is one of my term papers on 9/11 consipracies. I explain how the collapses happened, why some of the "inconsistencies" are actually quite consistent, and how the official version fits perfectly fine.

fastom

That is still very theoretical. It assumes some things that aren't really known. It kind of uses the evidence that only fits the outcome. Did you set out to prove HOW the towers fell or to prove that they fell without help of explosives?

The part about Tower 7 is a wild theory. Video exists of it's fall and all is quiet and calm until the sudden collapse.

Another issue is the idea that one floor impacting another and so and, and so on will fall the way it did. Video plainly shows it just dropping like a rock, not bam-bam-bam 80 times like it should have. How do you explain the concrete becoming fine dust instead of much larger chunks?

Cynthetiq

the same way that when I tossed an empty glass fifth of gin from a 35 story window, when I got to the bottom, it was fine glass powder almost like caster sugar. it did nothing but fall straight down, nothing else "crushed" it but it's own impact and terminal velocity.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Concrete and steel > glass. Consider also that he glass is falling through the air with only the resistence of the air. The building collapsed into it's footprint, meaning that there should have been a great deal of massive, steel reinforced resistence the whole way down. Despite that, the building came down all at once, and in a time that's comparable to free fall speeds. It's a bit of a noddle scratcher.

I'll try to address eveyone's points and such as soon as I can, but this thread is surprisingly draining on me.

The_Jazz

Speaking strictly in terms of the "powderized" concrete, that same massive steel reinfocement that you mentioned would also add to the energy being released as the structure collapsed. The upper floors would have been relatively entact (as seen by the upper levels of the debris pile that had to be lifted out by crane), but the lower floors were basically crushed by the falling concrete (as seen by the fact that the bottom of the debris pile was moved with shovels). If you drop one 5 story concrete building onto an identical 5 story concrete building from a 10 story height (total of 20 stories), there would be no debate that portions of the lower building would be crushed to powder. That's the kind of energy release that went on in the collapse.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Cynthetiq

This just happened this morning, supposedly from natural gas. 4 Stories tall, no steel to bend or melt.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

BigLebowski

Take a good look at the center column....along the front and back, and all along the sides at the top. You can see how charges were placed at an angle (just as in controlled demolition) around it's perimeter to effectively shear the column. Makes you wonder if the two firemen in the pic aren't really posing CIA agents just controlling the scene. They do look immaculately clean given the environment they are "working" in... even their gloves.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," says Bollyn.



taken from here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...icanalysis.htm

also...Where's all the gold???

There appear to be no reports of precious metals discovered between November of 2001 and the completion of excavation several months later aside from 200 or so million o9f the rumored billions. It would seem that at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. Rumors go as high as 160 billion. It is not plausible that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are dense, inert metals that are extremely unlikely to participate in chemical reactions with other materials.

Gold is an element you can not destroy it very easily. Were the the WTC fires so hot to split and vaporize gold atoms?!?!?!

Why is is that out of the two black boxes on flight 11 neither of them were ever found but Satam al-Suqami's passport (alleged terrorist on that plane) which is mere paper, was recovered in tact.

Oh my....really now...come on already...

fastom

That angle cut column is the most damning evidence i've seen of the WTC. It would explain why the whole tower fell. Skeptics will claim it's from the rescue effort but they would not cut the column at such a sharp angle just to get it out of the way.

It would sure seem it benefitted many of the cronies. Somebody gets the gold, others get lucrative military contracts. As for CIA agents i'm not too sure they'd even want to involve them, but they may be some sort of plants. For sure the investigation wasn't too objective.

host

Here is a link to a new, (dated June 27, '06) 6+ minutes flash video that "validates" the physical evidence and the official story of the approach and impact of a flight 77 animated airliner, flying into the pentagon.

It seems to be a technical demonstation of flash capabilities of the firm that created it, as much as it is about the subject that it "covers". I am always curious about the interest and the effor that goes into elaborate "debunking" of the official line. As it the official "story" needs an assist, now and again, from just any J6P among us. I just don't know what compells anyone to put much time or energy into defending the status quo....but I see the effort expended here, with an enthusiasm and energy that is at least equal to say....willravel's interest and effort in questioning what our government told us happened on 9/11.

Ohhh....here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdj...6fedb5a4cb7f4a

I'll throw out a challenge to any "debunker" who reads this.
Please direct us to any first hand, official reference or news report of hijackers armed with "box cutters" that does not originate from CNN reporting of what U.S. Solicitor General (the title he held on 9/11), Theodore Olson, alledgedly told his acquaintance who worked at CNN. In the midst of his grief, just 13 hours after suddenly losing his wife, CNN commentator and author of the just published "hate book" targeting Hillary, in the "crash" of Flt. 77, Olson was able to alert us to the following:
....and here is Mr. Olson, less than 6 months later, acting as the adminstration's chief lawyer in civil matters before the court:
Here is Olson's background....if you were involved in orchestrating or enabling the 9/11 attacks, and one item on your agenda was to relieve the U.S. government or the airports or the airlines from exposure to potential litigation based on allegations that lax airport security enabled hijackers to smuggle weapons onto airliners hijacked on 9/11, wouldn't it be a coup to have the highest U.S. official. the man in charge of defending the U.S. government in all civil matters.....be the "witness" to the revelation that the hijackers gained control of at least one airliner by brandishing only "weapons" permitted to be carried, under FAA rules....in this case, "box cutters"?

It takes a curious person, even to mount a defense of the official "line". I just can't understand how that curiousity can be channeled away from the coincidences and contradictions of the "official line", and still display enthusiasm driven research and posting effort. I mean...look at this guy....his background screams of his being the logical choice to spread the box cutter bullshit....c'mon...prove me wrong.
Defend the official story by posting another "box cutter as 9/11 weapons" source, besides Mr. Olson!
Olson seems likely to have perjured himself in his senate "confirmation as solicitor general", testimony.
I devoted half of a TFP Politics thread to a study of Ted Olson, a year ago:
<a href="http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:eFL-Fy1tmkMJ:flounder.tfproject.org/tfp/printthread.php%3Ft%3D92438+zarqawi+olson+tfp&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2"> Are Ted Olson and Al Zarqawi both "Supermen"?</a>
My point in last year's thread, is that, similarly to the way Zarqawi was reported to be involved in every violent insurgent incident...for 3 years, in Iraq, Ted Olson actually was involved in nearly every major republican controversy, and in litigation of key legal issues that republicans seem passionate about, over the last twenty years....affirmative action, Reagan's involvement in Iran-Contra the Arkansas Project "witch hunt" against the Clintons, the SCOTUS decision that awarded the POTUS to GW Bush, and....
the 9/11 "box cutter" story. It's a weak link, IMO, that still has the potential to come "undone".

I urge all "debunkers" who post here to defend the official 9/11 story, to shore up the Ted Olson story. It is perhaps the weakest link! I especially loved this classic reporting from "Ted's tale":
No report on that day provides a quote of Olson making any direct reference to his late wife, Barbara Olson....

From the 9/11 Commission report:

Ustwo

Threads like this make me question the belief that elected governments have long term viability.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

samcol

I still don't understand how you can so easily dismiss the CIA run drills on 9/11 (at the exact time of the attacks) that depicted flying hijacked jet airplanes into buildings. Then have the 9/11 commission turn around and conclude that above all 9/11 was a failure of imagination. How do you not see a problem with that scenario?

Ustwo

Lets turn this around shall we?

If you were going to plan something is elaborate as this, would you run a drill on the same day?

But that being said, I am far more disappointed with the apparent manic nature of those who claim they were different aircraft which hit the buildings, ignoring all credible scientific analysis. Hell you would think that when a jet hit a building, it should make a cartoon like hole, and even then I don't think some people posting here would believe it.

I think its a combination of a lack of basic scientific education, gullibility, and paranoid distrust of authority that leads people to embrace such insanity. If I were a psychology doctoral candidate, I know what I'd be writing about for my P.h.D. thesis.

I will grant you that the possibility of 'who knew' should be investigated, it should be SOP when anything like this happens just to be sure, but when we start getting accounts of missiles, that its the wrong type of plane, that the WTC was really destroyed by bombs, we leave reality and enter someones paranoid dream where the weight of the evidence does not matter.

Is it possible that say Bush and Co had fore knowledge of the attack? Sure, they could have, that is possible and worthy of looking into. There are still people who think F.D.R. let Pearl Harbor happen (after all why weren't the carriers in port) so such thoughts are common in American history. It is possible because the number of people who knew about it would be very small, maybe only a couple. A small number of people can keep a secret. Most of these scenarios on the other hand would require 100's of people in on the plan, from the Airlines involved, the families of those involved, the men who would have planted these bombs that no one saw, the guys setting up the remote control aircraft, the experts which would have to be bribed, the eye witnesses who saw the event....well you get the idea. This administration can't keep top secret information out of the NYTimes but you think they could pull this off?

You don't need occam's razor to see the flaws in most of these scenarios, you need his safety scissors.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

MSD

This is the evidence behind your quoted statement. First of all, the article claims that "There is substantial evidence... Evidence can be seen in this photo..." The evidence presented is that photograph. Then, out of left field, the claim is made at the end that "Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch."

We have one piece of evidence that was examined by enigmatic, uncited, likely non-existant "experts" who say tht it was not cut wtih a torch. It looks to me like it was cut with a torch. Everything else in the picture lookes like snapped welds. How far into the cleanup process were they when this picture was taken?

fastom

I disagree. Sounds like you maybe haven't used a cutting torch,
it always blows the slag inwards by the very nature of the pressurized gasses being forced out of the torch. The only way you'd get much slag on the outside is if it wasn't cutting deep enough, and that doesn't look to be the case there. So unless some skinny fellow was inside the pillar...

But regardless of when it was taken what other rational excuse would there be for that pillar to be cut at that angle and height?



On the drills thing, what if the actual attacks were part of the planned drills?
The people that got flown into the buildings are sworn to secrecy now.