See other 9/11 Articles
Title: New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth - No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Source:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
URL Source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/ ... dy-raises-more-questions/2351/
Published: Feb 2, 2008
Author: staff
Post Date: 2008-02-01 20:55:16 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: None
Views: 1949
Comments: 89
A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission: The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them. According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data: a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 . According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon. Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four: (1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible. (2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757. (3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible. (4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained. Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn. Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence. James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org. The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. 
New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth
No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
When you look at some of the clowns who said they saw an AA flight, or some sort of airliner, hitting the pentagon, you have to laugh. Bunch of neocon journalists, camera-chasers, and Gary Bauer.
Bingo! What I find so remarkable is the research and analysis of the 9/11truthers is so more factual and compelling than the "truth"? Why is that? I'd say the "truth" is fiction and the findings of the 9/11truthers is the truth.
Well, if that's true, it should be no problem for the government to release the confiscated 81 videotapes to prove it, and chase all of us conspiracy theorists off. Why, they could do it tomorrow even. simple as that
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
If someone wants to believe something, no manner of evidence will ever change their mind.
Statisticly speaking thats not a lot of people. Figure half are Gov shills and the other half are "me too, I want to be on the news tonight " types. Just say'n
Cyni, why hasn't the pentagon released all the videos? why did they confiscate the video from the hotel and gasoline station nearby? they could quite easily put this all to rest just by doing that. the video they did release shows no 757. it's not a matter of what i want to believe. i have seen with my own eyes in photographs and video much more evidence that no 757 hit the pentagon than evidence that one did. i don't take the word of supposed eyewitnesses when i have no idea who they are. and before all that, how on earth do you explain the NORAD stand down and this jet flying around for 88 mins in the most protected airspace in the country?
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
I'm pretty sure they will never find the videos. After all, they couldn't find 2.3 trillion, and they couldn't find the WMD's. Ah, yes, Jim Robinson sort of made this post of mine disappear, but it can still be found. I can't imagine the military in a coverup, can you? THE BOTCHED RON BROWN INVESTIGATION - Kathleen Janoski Let's spend more money on the pentagon and military. Let's make it bigger. (wave the flag, yeah) Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. * Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. … With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. … As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history." http://www.physics911.net Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E- 2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727). * Interview Alex Jones Show 4/11/07: Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim -- go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon ... Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ... When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature. And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ... I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous. And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ... Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." Appears half way through the second hour segment at http://www.realradioarchives.com < p> * Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks." * Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." Major Douglas Rokke, PhD Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career. * Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." http://www.rense.com Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. * Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). * Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com * Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com * Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers." Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot. * Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago- Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could! Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems, "Something is rotten in the State." Col. Pierre-Henri Bunel, French Army (ret) – Army intelligence and artillery officer. Graduate of École Militaire of St. Cyr. Expert in the effects of artillery weapons and explosives. Served in the Gulf War as battlefield damage assessment officer and aide-de-camp to French General Michel Roquejoffre. Bunel was one of four French officers decorated by General Norman Schwarzkopf for service in the Gulf War. Also Served in French and NATO operations in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Yugoslavia. 24-year army career. * Essay included in Pentagate by Thierry Meyssan (2002): Regarding Department of Defense photos of the Pentagon on 9/11 - "This image of the impact on the Pentagon is very instructive as to the nature of the explosion. ... It corresponds to a detonation of an explosive with high energetic power. The explosion does not correspond to a deflagration of kerosene [as would result from the impact of an airliner]. ... One distinguishes at ground level, starting from the right-hand side of the photo and going to the base of the mass of white vapor, a white line of smoke. ... As opposed to the smoke that would come out of two kerosene-fueled engines, this smoke is white. The turbojets of a Boeing 757 would in fact leave a trail of much blacker smoke. The examination of this photo alone already suggests a single engine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner. ... The last photo was produced by the Department of Defense and published on a Navy Web site. In examining it, one can see an almost circular hole topped by a black smudge, This perforation is about seven feet in diameter and is situated in the wall of the third line of buildings working inward from the façade. It is supposed to have been made by the nose of the plane. That would mean that the nose of the aircraft, a radome of carbon fiber that is far from being armored, would have traversed without destroying them six load- bearing walls of building considered to be rather solid. ... The appearance of the perforation in the wall certainly resembles the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields. ... This photo, and the effects described in the official version, lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile." http://www.voltairenet Steve DeChiaro – Pentagon survivor. Founder of DSCI, a defense contractor. Mr. DeChiaro was walking into the Pentagon's south parking lot entrance when the Pentagon was hit on 9/11. He immediately went to the impact area and started evacuating the injured and the dying. For his heroic efforts that day, Mr. DeChiaro was awarded the Medal of Valor, the Defense Department's highest civilian award for courage and valor. * Article 8/1/02: "Instead of following the streams of people away from the Pentagon, Steve DeChiaro ran toward the smoke. As he reached the west side of the building he saw a light post bent in half. "But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing." http://web.archive.org Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. * Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Another thing, the politicians always do everything for the children. Well, somebody has to protect them.
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
other half are "me too, I want to be on the news tonight " types. Just say'n I had nearly 25 years with the FAA long PRIOR to 9/11, was never a shill, never knew of one and knew of very few me too'ers. The majority disliked the government. A secret is held by ONE person. When they tell the second person, it is no longer a secret. A conspiracy starts with TWO people, so it is NOT a secret to begin with and the odds of exposure increase dangerously as members are added. With that in mind, when you include hundreds of people in trying to exchange a missile or whatever for an aircraft the odds of exposure are beyond imagination and it does not work. Credentials? Were they there? Were they employed by some government agency at the time? Did they sit in on the inquiry? And most of all, would their credentials carry them IF they were tasked before any inquiry group to show the public something of substance to refute untold hundreds of actual participants and witnesses?
Zionists will be zionists, every day is another fairy tail they'll never admit.
Whatever happened on 9/11 gets obscured by such machinations. None of us were there. The government and the media lie to us daily and their machinations obscure our entire perspective of life. They, not us, were responsible for securing D.C. and New York City on 9-11. They failed for whatever reason, and 3000 of our fellow citizens died, wars are being waged, a police state is being constructed right before our eyes. I don't really give a fuck what happened that day, who says they saw it, or for that matter if they have pictures. The world as I was brought up to think it exists is a governmentally produced lie from beginning to end. There ain't no fucking Santa Claus, there ain't no freedom and there sure ain't no reason for me to buy anymore of Uncle Sambo's horseshit. That's why I don't. I don't participate in any of the lying governments horseshit otherwise they'd have me on some fucking program that might commit me to funding their godless international murder incorporated. What exactly happened at the Pentagram is of little consequence. The stooges that run the place fed us a line of shit about the entire episode and everything leading up to it. So why drool over the Pentagram ? I know right from wrong and find gravity sufficient to keep my feet on the ground and my head out of the clouds. I know when I'm being attacked and so does everyone else on this forum. What each of us does with that information may differ. Some maintain a relationship with the murdering sons of bitches for the promise of some meeger benefits, others continue to finance the bastards. I decided I couldn't do either and the benefit of refusing to partake in their "machinations" is that I can objectively analyze events to my own satisfaction or ignore them. Show me the files on Kennedy. I was 13 when that deal went down, commissions were formed, patsies blamed, facts covered up and now 45 years later files are still sealed to keep an immature public from irrational behavior, or for National Security (ha !) reasons. Don't ask me to explain the methods or behavior of the psychopaths intent upon destroying everything decent about life. Don't ask me to explain those others incapable of disassociating themselves from the murderous thugs, because I don't care. I answer to me because I know me, and refuse to lie to myself or even contemplate lies told to me by psychopaths. My life is simplified. Besides, who gives a rats ass whether a plane or a missile or some alien laser beams hit those buildings ? Whatever happened on 9/11 gets obscured by such machinations. No it doesn't. Whatever happened on 9-11 "was obscured" in the planning stages. This conversation should be about gathering a force to defend ourselves from the assholes that were responsible to prevent what happened on 9-11 in the first instance, not bicker endlessly (6 years later) among ourselves about irrelevant minor inconsistencies and details.
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
Where were they when it was dragged in ? (Just a thought).
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
Main landing gear would require many men to "drag" in and they were found within rooms that had standard doorways of 2/8 x 6/8.
Your propensity for addressing non issues is frightening. Not that it makes an ounce of difference ... hadn't that section of the building been under recent construction ? Maybe David Copperfield did it by himself, like when he disappears planes ...
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
The truth will set us free. Reagan's Iran-Contra Deposition OLIVER NORTH DIARY ENTRIES "Want A/C To Pick Up 1500 Kilos" Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Thanks for responding. I don't think anyone that participates on this forum would dispute the fact that we're not always privy to the truth. I might dare to go a little further and suggest that some among us even know that much of our existence is immersed in complete "FICTION". It's like swimming under water with an air tank ... thinking it's natural. We conduct our lives in a fictional system that we've been oriented to think is natural, while denying the natural surroundings right in front of our eyes that can not see.
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
When it was first reported that Reagan had alzheimers ... I regarded him as the greatest genius ever having held the office of President. Brilliant move on his part.
"Give us liberty and give them death" ... noone222 1-10-08
ok, some food for thought. how do you explain the conspiracy and coverup of the Kennedy assassination? surely, you know that it had to involve 100s if not 1000s of people in the planning and in the subsequent coverup. i personally have a friend whose father was a doctor who knew some of the physicians at the dallas hospital where Kennedy was taken. nothing happened as we were told by MSM and these doctors were warned/intimidated to shut their mouths and never speak of what they saw/knew. then, i remember hearing or reading that Jackie Kennedy wrote an account of what happened that day and her conversations with LBJ and gave instructions that it was not to be revealed until 50 years after the deaths of both her children. have you heard that? if that is true, then what would we deduce from that? anyway, the point is the Warren Commission report, just like the 911 Commission report is a sham and mostly fabrication and there are many many people who know it and are mute. who was it who said (Goebbles?), the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it?
The only solution to this mess is to dig a hole big enough to nudge them all in and cover quickly
Where are the passengers from the non-planes?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
What the hell are doin on THIS tread? ;-)
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Nothing frightening about finding main landing gear of a 757 inside a room that has a doorway too small to allow entry. Just being practical.
One has to be practical...I have no dog in the conspiracy thing as it was indeed a conspiracy at the TOP...that has nothing to do with an aircraft flying into the Pentagon, that is an assured event.
What am I doing here???? I have no credentials, not an expert on anything, was not there, however a person has to be rational and practical, no genius needed. AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon.
But, but, you're arguin wif troofers! ;-0
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Hundreds of people, firemen, police, EMTs, civilian, military saw and photographed the main landing gear within the Pentagon, surely no one could envision them as all being in on the conspiracy? NO missile would ever have gotten off the ground with all that weight tacked on it.
The government thrives on secrets. The old area 51 held a few, and hundreds of people worked there. The old Manhatten project wasn't completed by 2 people in a dark closet either.Trying to tell me the CIA hasn't any secrets? Big government loves big secrets, and the little boys in the white house now hid some secret prisons. Frankly, if I knew even the smallest part of what really happened on 911 I'd think twice about coming forward wouldn't you?
Secrets and or conspiracies are very difficult to contain. In the case of 9/11, as long as a few devoted adherents of power, wealth and or position are all of the same intention, secrecy is viable. However allowing untold members of the masses to be knowingly involved would never work. You mention Manhattan project. That was reported on daily to the Russians by people that worked at Alamos. A glaring example is the Glomar Explorer which was done in plain sight with perfect cover. However hardly before a wrench was turned some worker turned over the entire project on paper to the Russian consulate in Washington. The powers behind 9/11 love to see controversy as to whether a missile, aircraft or whatever hit the Pentagon. More energy expended without looking for them.
You are about as reliable as the people who say they saw an airliner. Religious nuts, Mcjournalists and zionist pan-handlers. I've seen a picture of the landing gear, it wasn't that big. Anything else you apparently made up or had someone make it up for you.
You have a picture of landing gear being dragged out?
The cold war was a farce, with the same group pulling the strings on both sides, and yet you point to evidence of this, in the form of free flow of citizen-funded "secrets" between sides, as evidence against any conspiracy against citizens. Relying on the fact that most people don't realize what a rip- off the cold war was to sell the proposition that rip-offs don't exist. I can only conclude you only post to confuse people.
I guess that means you know of no other photos of the landing gear besides the one everyone has seen already. Here's the wheel. Not too hard to hide just outside the walls beforehand, and aren't there supposed to be like four of them?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html 757-200 engines: Could be Rolls-Royce or Pratt and Whitney, Weighing between 43,500 lbs and 36,600 lbs. I worked at Pratt and Whitney back in 1969 on the assembly floor. A pic of an engine without the fan assembly. The 757 engine. This engine is smaller than those that I assembled. Supposedly, the wings "folded back" at entry. Have you taken any physics courses? Want to tell us all how 36000 lbs at over 400mph (586 feet per second) suddenly stopped foward movement and "folded back" to go through the hole? Now, do consider that the bolts that secure the engines to the wings are designed to break above a certain acceleration. For example, Flight AA 587, where both engines departed from the wings under extreme acceleration, ie, g-forces. AA 587 puts the lie to the "fold back" theory. There should have been either 2 holes for the engines, or 2 "marks" on the wall should have been evident, or 2 engines should have been lying on the lawn.
The new super-quick-rusting alloys are heavy.
I have heard that from what I consdered to be a reputable source on NPR - I believe it was her estate's laywer. I recall the release date was to be fifty years after her death or the death of her daughters whichever came later.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" "Rusting" can be induced through heat.
So can expansion, but I don't think that piece was ever hot enough to make it too big to fit through a door, as cynicom says.
Maybe it's smoke residue. Point is that's the only picture of a landing strut anyone has seen, unless cynicom is ready to open up his private collection or something, and no one has matched it to a corresponding piece of a 757, as far as I know. Where are the other seven wheels, the rest of the landing gear that piece fits, and the other entire landing gear assembly.
If the Pentagon would release the videos, they should show something that looks like the video below. They don't. How come? National security? LOL! The video below is also interesting to me in that look how easy it was for Leonard Spencer to create it.(10 minutes) This is what he said regarding his video creation: "I know it's too late now but I've done it for them. The image on the right is a rough version of what I would have come up with had the Pentagon sought my assistance. I've doctored the CCTV frames to introduce a to-scale Boeing 757 coming in at the correct angle. It took me about ten minutes in Macromedia Fireworks so I'm sure the Pentagon could have come up with something much better. If there's any truth in the official version of events then those frames should really look something like this. Of course, if there's any truth in the official version of events then the Pentagon would not have released a paltry five frames. It would have released the entire footage immediately so people the world over could be shocked and awed by it, just as we were by footage of the attack on the second tower in New York. More than that, the Pentagon would most probably have released for public consumption all the several pieces of video footage that it possesses of this incident. That it has not can mean only that there are details in the footage that we are most definitely not required to see. I found the following interesting, from the same source above: Although I said earlier we should resist the temptation to favour one witness statement over and above another, there is nonetheless one witness whose testimony I believe deserves particular mention. Actually this witness wasn't an eyewitness at all because she did not see the incident directly. Nevertheless her account is of particular significance because her exposure to the incident was not as a shocked and surprised observer. It took place within the context of her everyday professional work. Danielle O'Brien was on duty that day as an air traffic controller at Dulles Airport and tracked the approaching Flight 77 on radar as it entered Washington airspace. Of the incoming plane she reported to ABC News: What Really Hit The Pentagon on 9/11 Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
I guess anybody can have an accident. The Body Count: Add One More William Colby's Death Mystery By Christopher Ruddy "Cross Colby off the list. He's dead." "Colby is dead," I said with some shock. "Yes, I just heard on the radio he died in a car crash," my agent said. I did not know former CIA Director Bill Colby, nor did my agent. But we both knew James Dale Davidson, editor of the investment newsletter Strategic Investment. Davidson was not only an associate of Colby's, but Colby had worked for Davidson as a contributing editor for his newsletter. At the time of my agent's call, he was attempting to find a publisher for my book on the Vince Foster case. We still had no publisher, and my agent had floated the idea of William Colby writing the proposed book's foreword. This would serve several purposes. Colby, as a former CIA chief, would give the book some credibility with a publisher. Colby had been a key figure in the Watergate scandal after he refused to allow the CIA to block the FBI probe on the Watergate burglary. Colby could not be accused of being part of a right-wing conspiracy. After leaving the CIA, he argued for unilateral disarmament and became a fixture at the left-wing Institute for Policy Studies. My agent thought Colby might be open to the idea. After all, he worked for Davidson and Davidson openly claimed Foster was murdered, pointing the finger at the Clinton White House. But now the idea of a Colby foreword seemed lost. I called Davidson and asked him if he had heard the news about Colby. His voice became strained. He sounded stunned when I told him. But, of course, Colby had not died that March. He died a month later. My agent was wrong. To this day, he swears he heard something, and to this day, we laugh about the Jungian wrinkle in time. Davidson was peeved at me for the false report, as he well should have been. On April 29, 1996, the wires flashed with hot news: Former CIA Director William Colby had disappeared from his country home on the Wicomico River in Maryland. Authorities suspected he died in a canoeing accident, as his waterlogged canoe was found on the shore near his home. A week later, his body surfaced in the marsh near his home. After a perfunctory autopsy, local police authorities closed the case as an accident. Still, there were many reasons to suspect foul play. These suspicions began as soon as the initial press reports came out. As expected, the Associated Press ran the first wire story. Colby "was missing and presumed drowned" the AP reported. The wire story said he died as the result of "an apparent boating accident." Quoting a source close to Mrs. Colby, who was in Texas at the time her husband disappeared, the AP stated Colby had spoke via phone with his wife on the day he disappeared. He told her he was not feeling well, "but was going canoeing anyway." This would be an important clue pointing to an accidental death, had it been true. But someone fabricated this story out of whole cloth. A week later, Colby's wife rebutted the AP report, telling the Washington Times her husband was well, and made no mention of canoeing. This initial, false report that relieved obvious suspicion was, for me, a red flag of a cover-up. Interesting too, were the obituaries being written. All detailed Colby's fabled career in the World War II-era OSS, the James Bond-like spy who parachuted behind Nazi lines and became a stellar CIA agent. After heading up the Company's Phoenix program in Vietnam, Colby was tapped by President Nixon for the position of DCI--Director of Central Intelligence. These obituaries detailed a formidable list of Colby's associations after he left the CIA. Yet, nowhere did any media report Colby's most significant occupation at the time of his death--contributing editor for Davidson's Strategic Investment. Odd that Colby's major affiliation at the same time of his death deserved no notice. Strategic Investment is a prestigious financial newsletter with more than 100,000 readers each month. It is co-edited by James Davidson, a national figure, as well as William Lord Rees-Mogg, former editor of the Times of London. This curious omission takes on great importance when one understands one of Strategic Investment's key aspects. It has been one of the leading, real opposition publications to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the United States. Davidson and Rees-Mogg have never pulled any punches about the Clintons. Each month, the newsletter detailed the Clintons' sordid drug, mob, and murder connections. Davidson had been a friend of Bill Clinton and had frequented Little Rock. He even had donated the maximum amount allowable to Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. In 1993, Davidson had an awakening about Clinton. My reporting on Foster, investigative reports by British reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and columns by Strategic Investment's Washington insider Jack Wheeler, had convinced Davidson that Clinton was linked to organized crime, had subverted the U.S. law enforcement agencies, and was a danger to America's institutions and financial well-being. As an editor for Davidson's newsletter, Colby never wrote about the Clintons or touched upon these matters. He did, however, lend his name to Davidson's enterprise. The newsletter's reach was multiplied by the effect of the millions of direct-mail pieces Davidson's organization sent to homes across the country seeking new subscribers. I was shocked by one such direct-mail booklet. The cover headlined the Clintons' connection with murder and drugs. I opened the first page, and the first picture I saw was William Colby's. Another headline blazed that Strategic Investment was "An Investor's CIA." Colby was prominently displayed, as was his endorsement. This was brilliant marketing on behalf of Strategic, but when I saw it, I thought Colby was swimming in dangerous waters. This turned out to be literally true when he was found floating on the Wicomico. Like the Foster death, the circumstances of Colby's passing made little sense. When police entered his country home, they found both his radio and computer left on. "Investigators found dinner dishes on a table and clam shells in the kitchen sink." Friends say this was unusual for Colby, a meticulous man. The canoe was found conveniently waterlogged near the waterfront part of his home. Considering the swift current of the Wicomico, that made sense only if he died very close to the shoreline near his property. Yet authorities using scuba divers and sophisticated radar couldn't find his body there. And a canoe is an extremely seaworthy boat. How did it become lodged and waterlogged on the riverbank? Had Colby been stricken by a heart attack and fallen off, as has been speculated, the canoe should have completely capsized or safely righted itself, not become waterlogged and moved by the current to the Colby waterfront. Then there were other telling problems. Colby was found with no lifejacket. He always wore one when on the water. The scrupulous search for him should have turned up the floating life jacket or the buoyant paddle. Neither was found. An autopsy by a Maryland coroner found that Colby had died of drowning. The autopsy also claimed that drowning was precipitated--get this--by a heart attack or stroke. Take your pick. But the coroner found no evidence of either! Police homicide investigators always treat drowning deaths with great suspicion. Trained killers know that someone killed by drowning is "buried" in deep water, a target of predatory sea life. After days there, the body is mutilated by sea life to such a degree that any signs of a struggle are difficult to identify. In the days after Colby's demise, I was disturbed by the many parallels to the Foster death: the circumstances that just didn't add up, the outrageously phony initial press reports, the quick official rush to judgment by investigative agencies, the questionable autopsy. My feathers were ruffled more when I received a call from Peter Birkett, an investigative reporter from Britain's Daily Express. Peter had been rushed over to the United States, he said, because the paper's intelligence sources in M15 had claimed Colby was assassinated by U.S. government operatives. Peter's job was to ferret out the facts. The Express is a credible paper, and Peter seemed genuinely interested in the truth. He had heard about my Vince Foster reporting and was told by contacts in Britain that I could offer him some insight. I told him my concerns, notably the unreported Colby connection to Davidson's newsletter. Peter began his own investigation and gave me progress reports as things unfolded. He spoke to the local police, some of whom, he claimed, didn't buy the boating story accident. For one thing, one of the investigators told Peter that Colby's body was found fully clothed. His socks were on, but his shoes were missing. Colby always wore shoes when canoeing, particularly on a blustery April day. Peter told me that the cop asked incredulously: "How did his shoes come off? In the middle of a heart attack or stroke, he began untying his shoes after his canoe capsized?" Peter left for England with few answers and more doubts. In the weeks after the death, I bumped into a former, very high intelligence official who served in the Reagan administration. He was quite agitated about Colby's death. He believed that the Clinton White House must have gone ballistic when they saw Colby's endorsement of Davidson's newsletter. This former official had little doubt the hit was ordered at the highest levels. He drew for me a diagram of the main players at Strategic Investment organization and explained that Colby was at risk because he "gave the whole thing credibility." I have no idea whether Colby was murdered. His unusual death, added to the many others with some Whitewater connection, was not something that could be ignored. The Body Count As the impeachment deliberations continue here in Washington, and the press continues to downplay their significance, undercurrents of the real danger posed by the Clintons are well known. Inside the Beltway, even the most ardent impeachment supporters--such as Bob Barr or Dan Burton--won't utter the "M" word. M for murder. Bob Barr, appearing on a recent edition of Geraldo, suggested that Linda Tripp had every reason to tape herself because she had legitimate "fears." But even the intrepid Bob Barr wouldn't explain clearly to the American public what those fears were. Of course, NewsMax.com laid it out in black and white. Linda was afraid of being murdered. She was afraid of Monica being murdered. Tripp said so, under oath, before the Starr grand jury. So here the key government witness to ignite the whole Lewinsky matter testifies that she knows top government officials perjured themselves about the circumstances of Vince Foster's 1993 death. And the press ignores the story. Linda is not without credibility, as she was right there as a secretary in the Counsel's Office when Foster died. Tripp also testified about murder in the first degree of Jerry Luther Parks, the former security chief at the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign headquarters. Tripp said she knew of a flurry of unusual activities at the White House after Foster's death. Trying desperately to explain to a bewildered, pro-Clinton grand jury why she began tape recording her young friend, Monica Lewinsky, Linda told of a Clinton "body count"--a list of many people associated with Bill Clinton who had died under mysterious circumstances, such as suicide plane crashes, mysterious illnesses, "suicides," and even outright murder. Linda said the list she saw had 40 names on it, including Foster's and Parks'. This dramatic testimony by Tripp got no mention in the major press. The establishment press has made any talk of murder in relation to the Clintons absolutely taboo. Bob Barr won't mention it. Dan Burton, who dared to raise questions about Foster's death by gunshot in 1995, was quickly skewered by the press, and is on the permanent target list of the White House. The only discussion of the murder issue was raised by Hillary Clinton herself, when, in the aftermath of the Lewinsky matter, she told NBC's Matt Lauer that the people behind the vast right-wing conspiracy had even accused her and her husband of murder. According to press reports, Hillary's strategy was dreamed up by none other than Sid Blumenthal, a key advisor to both Bill and Hillary. Sid has been obsessed by this idea of murder. In the 1970s he edited a book entitled "Government by Gunplay." Ironically, Blumenthal's book argued that the U.S. government had regularly and systematically used murder to advance its agenda, killing the likes of JFK, Dr. King, the Black Panthers, and others. It would be interesting to know if Blumenthal believes the left, once in power, has a right to knock off right- wing opponents. The idea that right-wingers murder their left-wing opponents has had currency with the left for some time. During Watergate, Katherine Graham's Washington Post invested its resources in investigating the 1972 assassination attempt on presidential candidate George Wallace. As detailed in Woodward and Bernstein's "All the President's Men," the Post editors were suspicious because Nixon had too much to gain by eliminating Wallace from the presidential race. Today, the press, heavily dominated by the left and Clinton allies, scoffs at any notion of murder linked to governmental authorities. Yet discussion of the high number of deaths associated with Bill Clinton has received wide interest from the public. Via the internet, various e-mails circulate constantly about the Clinton "body count." Within the highest levels of our government, the fear of murder is talked about openly, but in closed circles. For instance, a California Republican congressman who took a keen interest in the Foster case in 1996 and had pressed for a review of the Park Police handling of the case, abruptly dropped the matter. He told an associate of mine that he consulted with four other members of his committee. All agreed Foster was murdered and that they were scared to death to proceed. Others use the lame excuse that "the country just can't handle the truth." For instance, Free Congress Foundation Chairman Paul Weyrich wrote in his newsletter that Republican Sen. Don Nickles explained to him why the Senate would not probe Foster's death. "If Foster didn't die the way Fiske said he did, then it is likely the president is somehow involved, and if he is, the democratic process simply can't survive such a disclosure," Weyrich quoted Nickles as saying. Similarly, Accuracy in Media chief Reed Irvine was skeptical at first about the notion that Vince Foster might have been murdered. When Irvine asked a top aide to Sen. Jesse Helms why this matter was not being looked into, the aide told him bluntly that since the Clinton White House was capable of resorting to murder, people were afraid to mount a challenge. Another case in point: Earlier this year, I gave a speech about my reporting on the Clinton scandals. I won't disclose where. But I will reveal that the wife of one of the federal judges that sits on the three-judge panel that oversees Starr's independent counsel probe showed up. The judge's wife asked me a pointed question about the credibility of one of the witnesses in the Foster case, and seemed disturbed by the whole matter. After my talk, a prominent businessman said he was close to the judge's family and said the judge had told his family that some "82 people have been murdered since Clinton became president." Perhaps the most important disclosure of this year was made by Donald Smaltz, the independent counsel investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and possible payoffs made to Espy by Clinton backer Don Tyson. Appearing on PBS' Frontline with Peter Boyer, Smaltz detailed how the Janet Reno Justice Department blocked his inquiry at every turn. When Smaltz discovered significant evidence that Tyson had made cash bribes to Bill Clinton when Clinton served as governor of Arkansas, he wanted to investigate. Smaltz admitted on PBS that his wife "has always been concerned my life was in physical danger." Smaltz shrugged off such suggestions of danger, he recounted, until he had a "High Noon" confrontation with Reno and the six highest officials in the Justice Department. Reno and gang told Smaltz that he wouldn't be allowed to investigate the evidence of wrongdoing. After this meeting Smaltz told his wife, "You know, Lo, for the first time since I've been back here, I'm afraid." Smaltz quickly added that he was also afraid for the country. Smaltz is right. Rather than preserving "democracy," as Nickles suggested to Weyrich, the whole country has been put at risk by the failure of the nation's legal institutions and the major press to confront the Clintons' takeover of the nation's law enforcement agencies. Their politicization of the administration of justice is demonstrated by the failure of the government to conduct adequate death investigations. Instead, when one questions the deaths of Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and Jerry Parks, asking why the most basic death investigations have yet to be conducted, the establishment media brands the skeptic a "conspiracy theorist" or "Clinton hater." Other establishmentarians exclaim, "How dare you accuse the Clintons of murder." Obviously, many elites inside of Washington's Beltway believe that Foster's death was anything but a suicide. And the Clinton body count is taken quite seriously in many circles. The high number of unusual deaths is a prism by which to understand what has happened to America during the past six years. Contrary to Sen. Nickles' claims, America won't collapse if we were to learn the truth about Foster, Brown, and the others. The truth would be ugly, but America would be stronger. The danger is that the cancer is not exposed and eliminated. This is the real danger for America. If a group of people became legally unaccountable, as we have seen with the Clinton administration, then the nation risks a dictatorship. This could take many forms, the least likely a bunch of brownshirts marching down the street. The Mexican model is more likely, where leaders are "tapped" by the ruling elite and the baton passes from one to another under the guise of "democracy." I recall Huey Long was once asked if he thought America would ever become fascist. He responded, "Of course it will, but we'll call it anti-fascism."
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job" Foremos t 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmunds Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job' Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Comments (66 - 89) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#26. To: noone222 (#19)
If a man is found dead from a gunshot wound ... where the gun is has no bearing on the fact that the guy is dead.
#27. To: Uncle Bill (#2)
#28. To: christine (#27)
simple as that
#29. To: Cynicom (#21)
"There are sixty some people'
#30. To: Cynicom (#28)
#31. To: christine (#30)
"Armed Forces Institute of Pathology - "About 6 months after the crash I had a conversation with Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigative agent. She told me the first set of head x-rays on Ron Brown were deliberately destroyed because they showed a lead snowstorm. I said, "What are you talking about?" She explained to me what a lead snowstorm is: metal fragments breaking up from a bullet. And she proceeded to tell me that the first set of x-rays was deliberately destroyed and a second set was taken. The exposure was changed in an attempt to eradicate or diminish the metal fragments." 
#32. To: christine (#30)
#33. To: christine (#32)
"The panel even considered taking the matter to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe, commission member Tim Roemer said. "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."
#34. To: castletrash, Christine (#29)
Statisticly speaking thats not a lot of people. Figure half are Gov shills and the
#35. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
#36. To: Cynicom (#23)
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out.
#37. To: Cynicom (#23)
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out.
#38. To: noone222 (#37)
Where were they when it was dragged in ? (Just a thought).
#39. To: Cynicom (#38)
Main landing gear would require many men to "drag" in and they were found within rooms that had standard doorways of 2/8 x 6/8.
#40. To: christine (#39)
I think so but I can't swear anymore.
I don't remember the times in which those changes and things were made
I can't tell you or remember
I can't remember.
You know, this is awful for me to say but with this lapse of time I don't recall.
I don't recall
I started talking on how little we could remember about what took place
we remembered that we just couldn't pin down the happenings in those eight years
Well, I can't say
but I have no specific memory
I can't be sure
I don't actually recall
I don't know
I can't recall
I'm trying to remember now who was Assad
this is something I don't remember
I don't recall that at all
but I don't have the memory of it
I don't have a memory of that
but I don't have any memory of it
I'd have to have it recalled to me
I don't have a memory of this
I don't have a memory of him
Again, I just don't have a memory of it
I don't have any details about meetings or anything
I don't know
I had forgotten about that
I just don't have any memory of the specifics
I have to tell you that my memory with regard to names is just terrible
I didn't remember names
I don't have specific memories of that
That's about as far as I can remember on any of this or the happenings
I have no memory of that either
And I don't have any memory of that
And again I don't have any memory of that
I don't have any more memory of that
I don't have much of a memory either of that period or when that took place
I don't have any memory of what that could be
I don't know what that would have been about
Again, I don't have a memory of what the hell that would have been
I can't remember what this was all about or what we were doing
I don't remember that at all
but I have no memory of them
I still can't remember the happening that I've written about
I just can't place them
And that I can't remember
I can't particularly say them, who they were or where
but I can't remember specifically
I don't particularly recall that, no
I couldn't even remember writing the things that I was writing about
I couldn't give you names or anything
I don't have a memory of that
No, I don't remember
I have to tell you, no memory comes to mind about these things
I don't have any memory of that or what it would be about
I don't have any memory of that
And I don't have any memory of that either
No, I don't remember that
I can't remember that
I'm amazed that I can't remember that but I don't
I honestly – no, I don't have any memory of that at all
Yes. I'll bet you're all wondering who the hell was really acting as president in those days
Now I don't remember what the hell that is
I just don't have a clear cut memory of the specific meetings or anything on it
No, I don't remember that
I don't remember that
I don't know
No, I don't remember anything like that
I don't have any particular memory of that
I don't remember any particular thing about that
I can't say that I specifically remember
I don't have any memory of that
I don't remember any of this about the complex plan
I have no more memory than is described there in that
I have no fresh memory about all of this
I don't have a clear memory of it. I couldn't even tell you what room we were in
I don't have a memory of it all taking place
I can't remember why
No, I don't remember that that was why he went there. I can't even think of any reason for him going
I know it's in my diary but I don't remember that
Yes, I think it was but I couldn't swear to it
Well, I don't have any memory of that
I don't have a memory of that
I don't remember that either
but I don't have any memory of that
I can't remember
Well, I don't remember it
I don't really remember all of that
I don't remember it
I can't remember any of that
but I can't recall what it was about
I have not a memory of any of this
I don't recall that
I have no memory of it
I don't recall that
I don't recall that
I just can't give you a finding on that
I can't help you. I've got no memory about this at all
Well, I don't have any memory of it
Well, I don't know
I don't recall any of this
I can't picture it and I have no memory of it
Oh. Well, I don't remember any of this
I have no memory of that
I don't remember it
I don't have any memory of making this speech
You know, I can't give you an answer
I can't give you the answer on that
I don't remember the actual thing of doing the speech
You're telling me something I'm not aware of
No, I don't remember
I'll accept this, that I said this, but I have to tell you that I have no memory now of saying it
I don't recall it
Well, I don't remember
I have no memory of what the hell we were talking about in any of them
I have no memory of that either
No. I can't recall it, I can't picture it in my mind
I have no idea about that at all. I can't – I don't recall this, that exchange, or anything at all
I don't recall any of this but I guess I have to admit to it
I don't remember saying it
I just can't recall
I don't remember the exact details or anything about it
I don't recall anything about who it was that did it
Well, I can't recall the details of it at all
But I don't remember the details at all
I'm not aware of. I can't remember anything about that
No, I don't remember that
there again that's a thing that I have no memory of
I can't remember doing this or don't have any memory about that
I don't have any memory of that
I can't give details
Good Lord, I don't have any memory of that
I can't even remember that I was testifying
No, I can't think of anything except that I just don't have a clear memory going back there.
#41. To: BrentFromCanada (#26)
(Edited)
#42. To: Uncle Bill (#40)
#43. To: Cynicom (#34)
#44. To: Uncle Bill (#31)
The whole cut and paste.
#45. To: Cynicom (#34)
#46. To: noone222 (#39)
#47. To: christine (#43)
#48. To: iconoclast (#45)
What the hell are doin on THIS tread? ;-)
#49. To: Cynicom (#48)
What am I doing here????
#50. To: iconoclast (#49)
#51. To: Cynicom (#34)
'A secret is held by ONE person. When they tell the second person, it is no longer a secret. A conspiracy starts with TWO people, so it is NOT a secret to begin with and the odds of exposure increase dangerously as members are added."
#52. To: castletrash (#51)
#53. To: Cynicom (#46)
finding main landing gear of a 757 inside a room that has a doorway too small to allow entry
#54. To: Cynicom (#23)
Media was there when the landing gear was dragged out.
#55. To: Cynicom (#52)
#56. To: Cynicom (#50)
Hundreds of people, firemen, police, EMTs, civilian, military saw and photographed the main landing gear within the Pentagon, surely no one could envision them as all being in on the conspiracy?
#57. To: Cynicom (#52)
Zig for great Justice
#58. To: Cynicom (#50)
NO missile would ever have gotten off the ground with all that weight tacked on it.
#59. To: christine (#43)
then, i remember hearing or reading that Jackie Kennedy wrote an account of what happened that day and her conversations with LBJ and gave instructions that it was not to be revealed until 50 years after the deaths of both her children. have you heard that? if that is true, then what would we deduce from that?
#60. To: nobody (#58)
Zig for great Justice
#61. To: rack42 (#60)
"Rusting" can be induced through heat.
#62. To: rack42 (#60)
#63. To: christine (#62)
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane....And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second".
#64. To: christine (#63)
WASHINGTON---It was March of 1996. My cell phone rang. My literary agent was on the line.
#65. To: All (#64)
.
.
.
