----- Original Message -----From: alexldentSent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:30 PMSubject: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?]You're totally right about how empty (of any plane parts) that hole in
the north tower is. It is very suspicious. But in the Naudet video,
there was a fairly significant fireball after the first hit. Just
that we only have that one shot and one angle to see it from, and the
camerawork is not great.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@...> wrote:
> I believe "11" should be the centre of attention which people may
take to rather than the non- existent "175" because that 155' long
plane went straight into the centre core of the north tower and none
of it can be seen around the hole which the videos all zoom into. And
even a woman stands at the hole which she couldn't have done if 155'
of aluminium plane was burning in this area because of the toxic fumes
being given off and of course flames which can't be seen either. What
is the distance between the outer wall and the core? A tail end should
have been seen somewhere inside around that hole. And how dramatic the
explosion created by "175" into the atmosphere is not seen with "11".
If a similar explosion ocurred inside the north tower how come it was
contained within the building. Why wasn't there a dramatic scene after
"11" penetrated the wall?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: perpetualynquisitive
> To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:46 AM
> Subject: SV: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kofod <slashkofod@>
> > I agree with alex here.
> > To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the
towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan
hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould
be a totally different case.
> > Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz,
since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want
to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably
isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this
is a matter of taste?
> > Best,
> > Peter Kofod, Denmark
> > alexldent <alexldent@> skrev:
> > Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't
> > he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you
> > that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the
> > were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it
> > properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I
> > look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the
> > plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks.
> > The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the
> > no matter how crazy it might initially sound.
> > > Do you really want Professor Jones to
> > > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and
> > > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> > > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> > > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of
> > > stature started doing things like that?
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Governmentprocurement Government leasing
Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > 911InsideJobbersfirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > ---------------------------------
> We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been
working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively
covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts
of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to
date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with
my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was
done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results
> In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the
presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the
> For now, I will give you the title of the presentation:
> Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative
> Illusion is the actual attack and coverage.
> Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception.
> FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about
no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the
Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several
months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my
presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that
the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that
morning than any other analysis.
> SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing
Government grants for women
> Government lease Government contract Government money
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women Government lease Government contract Government money
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Don’t be so sure…
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
Origins: The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly
100 tonsand travelling at a minimum speed of 250 milesan hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing
According to a DRAWING? If I drew you a picture of "Bigfoot", would you believe he existed? That news report states “The hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon Tuesday tore through all five rings and five floors of the structure.”
As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for
35 minutes.You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Some news reports and the 9/11 Commission claim the plane came in faster than 350 mph:
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph." -CBS
"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour." -9/11 Commission Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), Where’s your proof that Flight 77 struck the ground first? If you look at all the crash scene photo’s that show the lawn in front of explosion site, the lawn shows absolutely no signs of skid marks from a plane hitting the ground first. Remember that on a Boeing 757, the engines hang lower than the rest of the plane. they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers. Now let me get this straight. You’re saying that the two planes that hit the WTC flew faster into a less fortified building than the Pentagon, however Flight 77 flew slower, hit the ground first before crashing into a heavily fortified building and managed to penetrate further into that building than the two planes that flew into the WTC? Wow! Now if that scenario doesn’t defy the laws of physics, I don’t know what does! Below is a recent
"American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles with 64 passengers and crew, flew low to the ground and then crashed into the Pentagon going 600 mph and loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel." -MSNBC
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on
hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did),
Where’s your proof that Flight 77 struck the ground first? If you look at all the crash scene photo’s that show the lawn in front of explosion site, the lawn shows absolutely no signs of skid marks from a plane hitting the ground first. Remember that on a Boeing 757, the engines hang lower than the rest of the plane.
they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Now let me get this straight. You’re saying that the two planes that hit the WTC flew faster into a less fortified building than the Pentagon, however Flight 77 flew slower, hit the ground first before crashing into a heavily fortified building and managed to penetrate further into that building than the two planes that flew into the WTC? Wow! Now if that scenario doesn’t defy the laws of physics, I don’t know what does!
Below is a recent
Now how does this picture prove the damage that was said to be caused by Flight 77? They could have demolished the entire pentagon, took a picture of it being built back up, and said the plane caused it all.
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of
41.6 yardsand a cockpit 3.8 yardshigh, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first,
Not only did I NOT see any Boeing 757 in those photographs, I especially didn’t see one "hit the ground first"! I think the Pentagon’s lawn in front of the explosion site with no skid marks on it proves that Flight 77 didn’t hit the ground first.
thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power,"
Mr. Rumsfeldsaid. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Wow! Another amazing feat! Flight 77 hit the ground first (although it didn’t leave any skid marks on the grass!), had its energy dissipated, and still managed to penetrate “three of the five concentric rings of the building” with “reinforced concrete walls” and a “reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall”! Man, that’s one tough plane!
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply
I didn't know Boeing 757's can bank sharply, but I bet missiles can!
and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated
350 milesper hour after first hitting the helipad.
OK, so how did the plane manage to hit the helipad first when the Pentagon claims it flew in to the right of the helipad?
The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About
30 minutesafter the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately
1 P.M.The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
Now wait a minute. That account says “about 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees”, but then it says “the fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M.” Now how were the rescue workers able to evacuate all injured employees when the firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M.?
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel
Flight 77 was said to have flown all the out to the Ohio/Kentucky border and then back to the Pentagon, an estimated 800 mile trip at least. I doubt the plane was still full of jet fuel.
and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
I thought you just said, “any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire”?
Interesting things about this piece of mystery debris:
1. It is the ONLY debris photo the "nay sayer’s" have found that look like it came from an American Airlines plane.
2. Notice that it doesn't have any burn or scrape marks on it.
3. The silver part on the debris does not match the silver color on American Airlines planes.
4. There is another photo of the debris taken from a different angle, which looks like the piece had been moved.
5. It was reportedly taken by an AP photographer which is interesting. If you notice the photo is taken BEFORE the roof collapses. I haven't been able to find any other photos taken by an AP photographer before the roof collapses which begs the question, how did the AP photographer get to the Pentagon so fast and why is that the only photo he took of debris or before the roof collapses?
6. That piece of "clean" debris could have easily been planted.
7. Why didn’t the photographer take a picture of that piece which looks like debris to the right of it?
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
The funny thing is that nobody has been able to answer why there is no skid marks on the lawn or plane debris either.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the
You mean they folded back like the wings on a F-14 jetfighter and then stayed with the fuselage on the way in? That’s the funniest explanation of what happened to the wings I’ve heard yet!!! What “carried” these wings into the building's interior? The magical “wing carrying fairies”?!! Remember, according to the Pentagon, the plane struck the building at an approximate 45* angle so the left side wing definitely would have sheered off. Wouldn’t a better explanation be that the wings snapped off and bounced back off the building’s wall? Well, that didn’t happen obviously because we see no evidence of wings there, so the only other explanation there could be is that Flight 77 didn’t crash there!
the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.
You are saying “probably” so we then can also say “probably not”. Where’s your proof that it did? Now, you just showed a “sizable” piece of debris in the photo above. Why wasn’t that piece destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire?
Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
Wow! Flight 77’s left wing must have been four times longer than it’s right wing! And could you have found a blurrier photo? I can only imagine if “Hunt the Boeing” or any other conspiracy site had this picture as some kind of proof and all the comments people would say about this photo being altered or something!
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
He also said, “So we don't know. I don't know” and in the rest of his statement, he also says, “there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Actually, there are a few photos that show all of the impact point.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
Yes, you can see the very top of the impact hole. A couple of things are interesting to point out, it doesn’t look like the tail section did any damage to the building, the engines didn’t make any skid marks on the lawn, and the 2 story high impact hole was supposedly made by a 3 story tall plane! Hmmmm? What happened to the tail section and the engines?
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
I'll I have to say about your debunking attempt is...
So much for Snopes!
Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in
Last updated: 23 September 2004
You could at least name this video presentation and give their homepage: Pentagon Strike