Thursday, June 22, 2006

The Jewish Journal Of Greater Los Angeles

The Jewish Journal Of Greater Los Angeles

Novell board axes CEO | Channel Register

Novell board axes CEO | Channel Register

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1348

Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)



The missing wings at the pentagon

Posted by: "Richard Pierce"   phobicflyonthewall

Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:59 pm (PST)
The Missing Wings

A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004)

A. K. Dewdney
G. W. Longspaugh

Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.
Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building.
Over the last two years, beginning with the investigations of Thierry Meyssan (Meyssan 2002) and continuing to the present time, there have been numerous claims that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon building. (Citoyen 2003) (Desmoulins 2003) Although we have arrived at similar conclusions, we do so on the basis of a more focused analysis, one that relies not only on photographs, but on measurements, aerospace archives, and to engineering and physical analysis of the Boeing 757, as well as the structure of the Pentagon walls in the area of the impact.
The analysis is, for the most part, of the simplest type, such as any reasonably bright high school student might follow.
This approach has become necessary in the climate of suspicion that surrounds any attempt to question publicly the claims by major media outlets that Arab hijackers, with one Hani Hanjour in the pilot's seat, brought the aircraft in precisely on target. It is certainly true that Mr. Hanjour failed flying tests, dropped out of flight school twice, and on one occasion, a mere three weeks before the September attacks, was denied permission to rent a Cessna because he showed an almost complete lack of knowledge of aircraft instrumentation to rental personnel (Nat. J. 2003). It does little good to point these facts out publicly, however, because they are only what we call "suspicious circumstances."
In short, a devil's advocate might claim that in the three weeks before his failed rental attempt and the morning of September 11, he somehow acquired the necessary expertise to carry out a high-speed turn and dive worthy of a military pilot. We will show that it makes no difference whether Hanjour was an expert pilot or not. There are direct physical contradictions between the claims of the Bush White House, as echoed by the major media, and the facts on the ground. These contradictions are outside the control of the media, Mr Hanjour, or the authors, for that matter.
The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003) That particular document details the damage to support columns inside the building, as well as providing an accurate track for the incoming aircraft, as revealed by the penetration of a presumed engine core to the rear of the inner ring. It was not within the mandate of the inquiry to determine what aircraft struck the Pentagon, but rather to evaluate how well the building withstood the impact, fire, and subsequent collapse of a section of the building.
Our general approach to the analysis that follows is to assume, whenever a range of options presents itself, that the White House version of events on September 11 is the correct one. For example, in determining the alignment of the incoming Boeing 757 engines with the support columns of the Pentagon, we have arranged the aircraft so that the engines were most likely to miss the columns that remained standing after the impact, in spite of the fact that a) this particular alignment was rather unlikely and b) the engines would probably have taken out both columns, even with this alignment.
In the first section below, we list all the relevant dimensions for three types of aircraft, as well as the walls of the Pentagon building. In the second section, we bring these elements together in a relatively simple analysis that uses basic principles and methods of physics and engineering that leave little doubt about the conclusions reached here.
At the very end of this article, we construct a mini-scenario that is consistent with both eyewitness reports and the conclusions reached in the analysis.
Measurements and dimensions
Two types of numerical data appear below. Manufacturer's data may be considered as accurate to within the last digit that appears in a dimension. For example, if the Boeing company gives the wingspan of the Boeing 757 as 127 feet, we assume that the measurement is accurate to the nearest 6 inches, that being the midway point between one length given in feet and the one next higher or lower. Measurements acquired from photographs use simple scaling to provide estimates of dimensions (measurements, in effect) that carry an inherent error that is comparable to error term as it applies to manufacturer's data.
Although we shall work primarily in meters, the international units used by all scientists, we shall constantly provide equivalent dimensions in feet and, where relevant, inches.
The Boeing 757 used by American Airlines Flight 77 was the 757-223 model. The relevant dimensions follow. Dimensions with the word "derived" following them were obtained from engineering drawings and a straightforward scaling technique.
Relevant dimensions of Pentagon (Infoplease, 2003)
height of building: 23.6 m (77' 3")
inter-window distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)
inter-column distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)
Relevant dimensions of Boeing 757-200 (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003)
wingspan: 38.1 m (125')
inter-engine span:
center-to-centre: 16.3 m (49' 11") (derived)
outside span: 18.5 m (60' 8") (derived)
max. diameter of fuselage: 3.6 m (12' 4")
max. height of fuselage: 4.0 m (13' 2")
Relevant dimensions of McDonnell-Douglas F-16
wingspan: 32 ft. 10 in.
Length: 49 ft. 6 in.
Loaded Weight: 13,564 kg (29,896 lbs)
Relevant dimensions of Tomahawk Cruise Missile (Raytheon 2004)
length without booster: 18' 3"
length with booster: 20'6"
diameter 20.4"
Claims that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon are difficult to substantiate on the basis of available evidence, primarily a suite of photographs taken by various individuals present at the scene, not to mention images captured by security cameras in operation at the time of the crash. We have, however, made every effort to accommodate the Boeing 757 as the crash vehicle.
The most helpful document in this regard is the report entitled The Pentagon Building Performance Report, issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. (ASCE 2003). A diagram in that document clearly shows several tiers of support columns on the ground floor of the building (Wedge One) in the area of the impact. Although many columns within the general area remained standing, others were completely taken out by the initial impact or bent to one side, either by the impact or subsequent collapse of the floors above the affected area.
The outermost tier of columns is located just inside the Pentagon wall, a nearly three-foot thick structure of brick, concrete and limestone facing. Between every pair of adjacent windows there is a column behind the wall. Since the inter-window distance is 3.1 m (10' 2"), so is the intercolumn distance. This dimension was developed by direct measurement from clear photos of the building, using known distances such as the height of the pentagon and simple mathematical scaling. The error term is approximately 5 percent.

9/11 Damage to the Pentagon Diagram from the ACSE Report
In the engineering report, four of the columns are missing altogether, while a fifth column on the right side of the initial hole is bent (outward), but intact. We may therefore take the width of the gap as 5x3.1 = 15.5 m (50' 10")
The track of the incoming aircraft, as measured by aligning the entrance hole with the exit hole three rings into the building, is approximately 45 degrees, with an error of three degrees in the calculation. A similar angle is displayed in the engineering report. Although we cannot say what the attitude of the incoming aircraft was, the absence of any impact disturbance anywhere on the Pentagon lawn area makes it clear that no part of the aircraft touched the ground prior to impact. However, if the aircraft came in at a significant angle relative to the horizontal, there should have been a crater or an explosively excavated hole just inside the building. Although the floor area was heavily scarred and burned in places, no such damage was found by persons entering the building after the flames were extinguished by firefighters. We may therefore assume that the incoming aircraft entered the building at nearly level attitude, leaving nearly all of its kinetic energy
available for the destruction of interior walls and columns.

Boeing 757 Superimposed on Pentagon Grounds
An incoming angle of 45 degrees (horizontally) yields an effective gap width of 15.5xcos(45) = 10.96 m from which we can subtract approximately half a meter to allow for the half-width of the two flanking columns. The effective gap width relative to an aircraft approaching the building at a 45 degree angle would therefore be 10.5 m (34' 5")
It can be adopted as a general, commonsense principle that if a large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of kilometers an hour strikes but does not pass through a physical barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck. Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event.
We will concentrate on the wings of the Boeing 757, the dimensions of which can be deduced from the data displayed above. The span-length of each wing is 17.3 m (56' 7").
However, the wings of a 757 are swept back at an angle of 29 degrees, as made by the leading edge with a line at right angles to the roll axis of the aircraft. Applying the cosine function to determine the length as measured along the leading edge yields a figure of 19.8 m (64' 11").
The figure below shows our reconstruction of the (alleged) approaching aircraft in proximity to the building, with the 5-metre wide fuselage creating a hole that was 15.5 m wide. The discrepancy would be partly due to the 45-degree approach angle and partly to the strength of the wing-roots, which might well be expected to take out a column or two as the aircraft entered the building.

Boeing 757 Engine and Wings in Relation to Impact
As can be seen in the drawing, the engines could only have penetrated the building by being allowed to slip between support columns. This drawing was made before the authors viewed the ASCE engineering report, but it happens to match it rather closely. There would be no way, of course, for the wings to enter the building without taking out any support columns in their path. Structural integrity of the wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building individually. In any case, a majority of windows on the ground floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after the crash.

Unbroken windows beside primary hole
In the image above, taken before a section of the Pentagon above the primary entrance hole collapsed, one can see the left side of the hole, partially obscured by drifting smoke. One can also see unbroken widows on both floors.
According to the principle that we have stated, two wings, each approximately 18-20 m long (however crumpled and damaged) must have appeared in virtually all the photographs taken of the Pentagon damage on the morning of September 11, 2001.
However, there are other reasons why the wings might be absent from the crash scene. Before systematically listing and evaluating such reasons, some information about the wings of a Boeing 757 is in order.
Aircraft wings have two main structural components beneath their aluminum skin. Spars are ultra-rigid metal beams that support a series of ribs that give shape to the wing. The main spar, a piece of solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high at the center of the aircraft. The main spar runs out almost to the end of both wings and therefore varies in height with the thickness of the wing. Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete the main structural support of the wings.

Schematic of wing structure of a Boeing 757 (above)
and structual details of aircraft (below)
The figure above shows a schematic view of a large passenger aircraft wing. Three spars give the wing rigidity and structural strength: a leading edge spar, a main spar, and a trailing edge spar. The main spar of the Boeing 757 can be seen in the lower image, where a cutaway behind the port (lower in diagram) engine clearly reveals the masive main spar.
Here are the possibilities:
1. Could the damaged wings have been carted off by cleanup crews?
The cleanup of the site did not begin until well after the morning hours of the day in question.
2. Could the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence?
This claim was clearly meant for reporters, whose technical competence, as a general rule, would be unequal to the task of evaluating such a statement. There would have been no significant lateral force acting along either wing axis and there is no possibility of a wing actually entering the fuselage of the aircraft. If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend.
3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building?
The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the initial entry hole and, consequently, any explosion would have been largely confined to the building's interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where they might possibly have encountered such a fate. The blast, as such, had little effect outside the building, as cable spools near the entry hole remained standing, for example.

4. This raises the question of whether the wings could have folded as the aircraft entered the building, bending backwards and following the aircraft in.
Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, spars and ribs, wings are otherwise hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally flexible. In other words, a wing may flex (up and down) along its length when an aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off. Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic failure and the loss of a wing.
Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.

Only one possibility remains.
5. A devil's advocate might bring up the fire that burned inside the building for approximately seven minutes before being extinguished. Although the colour temperature of the fire appears too bright for kerosene (i.e., jet fuel), we will invoke the White House interpretation of events, as mentioned earlier. Kerosene burns at approximately 860 degrees celsius in ambient air and less in a confined space where the fire tends to use up oxygen. (ASCE 2003)

Fireball From Initial Hole in Pentagon, or secondary explosion?
Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near invisibility? The simplest answer is that the left wing was exposed to fire only near the wing root, the more distal portions being completely beyond the reach of flames or heat sufficient to melt the aluminum, let alone to burn it. The window frames to the left of the initial hole are all intact, so any heat radiated from the fires in the building would have had to come through the windows to the outside, largely missing any sections of wing that might have been lying outside them.
2. At six meters from the fire, even under direct exposure, the heat would have been insufficient to raise the temperature of the aluminum skin much above 500 C, well below the melting temperature of aluminum, namely 660 C (NASA 2003).
In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any portion of the port wing beyond about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 16 m (52' 6") of that wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly visible) on the left of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning.

Absence of Major Wing Debris in Front of Pentagon Wall
Until we hear of a completely different means by which both wings could have disappeared, we must assume that neither a Boeing 757 nor any aircraft of similar size struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. We would be happy to hear from any readers with serious alternative suggestions for how the wings might have disappeared before, during, or after the impact event.
If a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon in the manner described in the ASCE report, the port wing struck a column just to the left of the presumed engine-hole. Since the column did not fail, the wing must have, Here is why: The aircraft came in at 45 degrees to the wall of Wedge One and the port wing of a Boeing 757 is swept back at an angle of 29 degrees. Thus the angle made by the wing with the support column would have been
45 + 29 = 74 degrees
at the moment of impact. Clearly, no other portion of the wing could have been in contact with the Pentagon wall at that moment and the entire weight of the wing still, traveling at 500-plus miles per hour, would have produced a bending force that was entirely concentrated on the point of contact of the wing with the support column. This would have snapped all three spars instantly. The outboard portion of the wing would then have pivoted into the wall of the building, slamming into it but unable to penetrate it, because now the momentum of the wing, instead of being concentrated at one point, would have been distributed along the length of it contact with the building's wall.
We can declare that this did not happen, since neither the port wing nor any significant portion of it was found outside the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
A clear and definite distinction must be drawn between two aspects of any forensic or criminal investigation: What did not happen and what did happen. The foregoing analysis shows as clearly as we can state the case, that no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon that day. In a sense, that's the easy part of the investigation. Finding out what did happen is a necessarily incomplete process, although some parts can be filled in with a high degree of reliability. Scenario construction is an attempt to fit the anomalous and non-anomalous pieces together in a manner not unlike a jigsaw puzzle. Here is a brief foray into the "what did happen" side of the equation.

A possible alternate explanation of what happened on that morning can be pieced together from eyewitness accounts of the tragedy, as well as other sources of information. There were apparently three aircraft involved in the affair: (Killtown 2003)
1. A military C-130 transport aircraft carrying out strange diving and climbing maneuvers in the area of the Pentagon (restricted airspace) at the time of the crash.
2. A Boeing 757 or 767 painted in American Airlines colors (possibly Flight 77 itself) overflying the Pentagon within seconds of the crash.
3. A military jet, possibly an F-16, which came in low and very fast, straight toward the Pentagon.
If the Pentagon attack was essentially a staged affair, it would be necessary to create as much confusion as possible to distract potential eyewitnesses from seeing the actual attack aircraft or, if seeing it, assuming that it was not the impact vehicle. (pi911 2003)
Thus, the C-130 carrying out strange maneuvers near the Pentagon would have been deployed to keep as many eyes as possible riveted on that aircraft, much as a stage magician frequently uses the trick of focusing the audience's attention in one direction, while he employs sleight-of-hand in another. Under these conditions, it is highly doubtful that any of the motorists traveling the beltway adjacent to the Pentagon would have been looking in the direction of the Pentagon when an aircraft struck the building.
The actual Flight 77 (or a duplicate of it) flies over the Pentagon and on toward Reagan International Airport or, possibly, Hollings Air force Base. By this time, flights would still be coming to the nearest airport all over the United States and no one would remark on such a landing. Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well.
As Flight 77 (or its duplicate) flies over the Pentagon, a high-speed military jet or, possibly, a cruise missile, comes in low, just clearing the grounds fence and the lawn area, then slamming into the Pentagon at approximately 1000 km/hr. It strikes the Pentagon at roughly a 45-degree angle, taking out four support columns inside the wall and removing or damaging many other columns inside the building

As evidence for this possibility, an image of the vertical tail of a military jet was captured by a Pentagon security camera. (Desmoulins 2003a)

Image of Tail of Unknown Aircraft on Pentagon Security
It has been claimed that the stabilizer that appears in this picture belonged to flight 77. In fact, the stabilizer is too small and fails to bear any trace of American Airlines "AA" company logo.
Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The image below shows what appears to be part of the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. By comparison with the leg of the worker standing beside it, the part is evidently less than 0.61 metres (two feet) in diameter.

Images of Engine Parts Found in Pentagon
The engines used by the Boeing 757 include the Pratt and Whitney engine shown below (PW 2003), all having the same dimensions, being about 2.5 metres in diameter in the turbofan section and less than half this diameter at the high-pressure (rear) stage.

Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757
The next image enables us to compare the rotor element with those in the 757 engine shown here. Since the rotor element is dwarfed by the front-stage turbine rotors, we will assume that the rotor is from the rear (high-pressure) stage of the engine, as shown in exploded view in the maintenance diagram below.

Engineering Blowup of 757 Turbofan engine
The front rotor element (inside its housing ring) has a diameter of approximately 1.08 metres (42 inches) with the usual error of at most five percent. If we strip away the vanes, leaving only stubs, the diameter drops to 0.86 metres (2 feet 10 inches). Clearly this part is not from the high-pressure stage of a Boeing 757 engine.
It has been claimed (Catherder 2004) that the part is a rotor from the auxiliary power unit (APU) of a 757. The APU is a small jet turbine engine that supplies power to the 757's electrical system. The author in question gave no evidence to support the claim beyond providing a link that shows a bump in the rear of a Boeing 757 where the APU exhaust vent can be seen. If the APU lies within this bump, it is probably too small to be the source of this part. A further argument can be made on the basis of the power needed to supply electrical power. The rotor element found at the Pentagon is about the right size for the engine of a military jet like the F-16. It is not clear why such a large engine would be needed to supply power that is only the tiniest fraction of the electrical power that such an engine, suitably harnessed, could generate.
Finally, the 50-foot gap in the support columns of the Pentagon wall easily accommodates the 32-foot wingspan of an F-16 or an aircraft of similar size. Some have proposed that a cruise missile was employed for the job, but it is difficult to sustain this proposal, given the size of the turbine rotor element. A cruise missile has a 20-inch diameter, which makes it too small to contain a motor with a 24-inch rotor. Given its 9-foot wingspan, a cruise missile is unlikely to take out more than two columns as it enters such a building.
Counterfactual evidence
If the Pentagon attack was essentially a massive deception, it would be very much in the interest of the real perpetrators to sidestep the analysis presented here. Since it cannot be argued against successfully, the perpetrators would be forced to adopt a counterfactual strategy: explain why the crash must have occurred as described. Such an approach would be merely puzzling to anyone who understands this article. If it could not have happened, it did not happen. To someone in the media, however, with eyes glazed over from reading our simple argument, the counterfactual approach would carry telling weight.
In November of 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) completed a massive study of the DNA of Pentagon victims (Kelly 2001), finding matches between remains and DNA samples allegedly retrieved from victims' homes (gleaned from hairbrushes and other articles of personal use). Although it may well have been the case that matches were expertly made, the weak link in the chain of evidence lies in the collection of samples. DNA technicians would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from. That would be the job of army and FBI personnel that did most of the collecting.
Few people realize how simple it is to obtain tissue samples or body parts clandestinely from morgues, medical school cadaver rooms, any place that dead bodies may be found. Such venues are easily entered by persons who identify the,selves as officials of one kind or another.
A piece of liver or arm tissue complemented by a few hairs, all from the same corpse would be all that's necessary to "identify" a particular person. Would DNA from these different sources match? Of course they would, since they're from the same individual. Hypnotized by the word "match," media types would probably not even realize that "match" does not mean "identify," unless there were independent verification of the source of the samples.
Other problems with the DNA identification process involve contradictions with other claims made by the White House and/or Pentagon about the attack. One claim, that the aircraft was "completely vaporized" makes it doubtful that any of the DNA survived the holocaust. Another claim, that the aircraft was blown into little bits by the initial explosion, would imply that body parts would have been scattered all over the Pentagon grounds - which they weren't.
Given the poor track record of the US government and military in providing accurate information about its military and "antiterrorism" activities, any counterfactual claims must be taken with a large grain of salt.
The main burden of this article has been to demonstrate that the debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.
We have also presented a scenario that may be much closer to the truth of what happened on the morning in question, but our main conclusion is reached quite independently of the scenario and neither implies it, nor is implied by it.

We are aware of another study of the Pentagon crash by scientists at Purdue University. (Sozen 2002) One of us (Dewdney) has designed scientific simulation programs and has taught the subject for many years. A simulation program invariably involves a model of the phenomenon being simulated and the simulation is never better than the model. The Purdue simulation modeled the wings of the 757 as essentially kerosene-filled aluminum bags, in essence, with little structural strength. The wings break into sections when the plane strikes the building, each section passing between columns and spewing fuel into the growing conflagration. The rudder and tailplane pass into the building unscathed, as well.
The main problems with this model is the complete failure to take into account the structural integrity of the wing as well as the fact that fuel is stored only in tanks in the wing root, adjacent to the fuselage. As for the tail section being completely undamaged, no comment is necessary.
A home experiment
One of the authors made a simple home experiment to determine for himself just what the burning properties of kerosene might be. Here are the steps of the experiment:
1. Prepare a wheelbarrow (or other wide container made of steel) by removing all debris and cleaning the interior surface of all residue.
2. Pour in enough kerosene to cover the bottom of the container to a depth of one centimeter or slightly less.
3. Add a crumpled ball of aluminum foil, an empty pop or beer can, and any pieces of old aluminum you can find, such as lawnmower parts, aluminum door hardware or panels, etc.
4. Set the kerosene ablaze and wait a minute for maximum temperature to be reached.
5. Record which items survived the fire, as well as the degree of damage to each.
What do you observe? (See end of article for answer.)
The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular, Derrick Grimmer, Jim Hoffman, Joseph D. Keith, and Martha Rush. We also thank independent investigators Richard Stanley, Jim Hoffman and MIchael Elliott for providing critiques of an earlier version of this article. We also wish to thank John Dorsett and Marianne Sanscrainte for assistance in locating appropriate imagery.
About the authors
A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <>
G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
(ASCE 2003) ASCE Releases Pentagon Preliminary Performance Report. 2003. <> Retrieved October 29 2003.
(Bosankoe 2003) D. Bosankoe 2003. Pentagon video evidence shows fraud of war on terror. <> Retrieval date unrecorded.
(Catherder 2004) Above Top Secret.
<> Retrieved December 21 2004.
(Citoyens 2003) no attribution. 2003. Hunt the Boeing < citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm> Retrieved September 20 2003.
(Desmoulins J.-P. 2003) Jean=Pierre Desmoulins. Pentagon 2001/9/11. 2003. <> Retrieved October 1 2003.
(Desmoulins J.-P. 2003a) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. 2003. Image of tailfin. <> Retrieved October 1 2003.
(Eastman 2003) Dick Eastman, 2003. For AFPN: What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the killer jet. <> Retrieved September 30, 2003.
(Elliott 2003) Michael Elliott. Pentagon Attack Debris. (From < shtml> Retrieved September 30 2003.
(Emiliani 1988) Emiliani C. 1988. The Scientific Companion. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
(Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003) < aviation/flugzeuge/alt/engines2.phtml> Retrieved September 2 2003.
(Infoplease 2003) The Pentagon. < /spot/pentagon1.html> Retrieved June 12 2003.
(Jane's 2003). Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 2003. Entry - Boeing 757. Retrieved from < .shtml> Retrieved June 12, 2003. [note: this subsite is no longer publicly available to non-subscribers.]
(Kelly 2001) Christopher C. Kelly. November 30, 2001. Forensic feat identifies nearly all Pentagon victims. Stars & Stripes. Retrieved from <> Retrieved October 8, 2003.
(Killtown 2003) Killtown. 2003. Questioning the 911 attacks. (From Killtown <>) <http://thewebfairy. com/killtown/flight77/witnesses.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.
(Nat. J. 2003) Carol A. Valentine. The National Journal. <http://globalfire. tv/nj/03en/jews/911remote.htm> Retrieved Sept 28 2003.
(NASA 2003) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. Commonly used elements and their properties. <http://www.ueet.nasa. gov/materials/elements.php> Retrieved October 2 2003.
(pi911 2003) PI911. 2003. < html> Retrieved October 6 2003.
(PW 2003) Pratt & Whitney Inc. Turbofan Engine PW 2000 <]> Retrieved June 8/03, removed from website by September 20/03.
(Sozen 2002) Mete A. Sozen et al. Sept 11, 2002. September 11 attack simulations using LS-Dyna. Purdue University. < homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/> Retrieved December 14 2003.
(USAF Museum 2003) USAF Museum; General Dynamics f-16A "Fighting Falcon." Retrieved from Retrieved August 20 2003.
(Raytheon 2004) Tomahawk Cruise Missile. products/tomahawk/ref_docs/tomahawk.pdf, Retrieved December 20 2004.
Results of Home Experiment
If you tried this experiment at home, you may well find the paint burned off the outside of your container. However, the aluminum machine part, the door hardware, the crumpled aluminum foil and, yes, even the pop can will be untouched - except lettering on the can may partially disappear.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

New pages at 911review

Posted by: "greenmannowar"   greenmannowar

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:03 pm (PST)

Open directory for
Alex Constantine

<a href="">Alex Constantine</a>

heres a couple of samples...

Right-Wing Christian Connections
to Heaven's Gatem Research


<a href="">PROJECT


more at 911review

Posted by: "greenmannowar"   greenmannowar

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:15 pm (PST)

<a href="">
SAIC's Trinity Church TV/"Dad" Obit./Barry Glasser/Freedom Forum

<a href="">The
JInfamous Israeli "Art Students" Had No Role in 9/11

army girls go WILD in Iraq
where you tax $ are going...

<a href="">Cocaine
& Gambling Proceeds, GOP Candidates</a>

<a href="">Jim Hoffman</a>


Re: Stand down and logic fallacy

Posted by: "Scott Peden"   scotpeden

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:17 pm (PST)

Congressional authority, back in Regan’s era, said, only the President of
the USA could order the shooting down of a civilian craft. There was a 12
minute response time required for interception.

I believe it was in Clintons first term that this response time was moved to
10 minutes. The original articles of impeachment on Clinton, though not
ratified, had the fact that a small jet plane had made it into NYC airspace
and Norad had taken 12 minutes to respond. That was removed form the
impeachment articles.

March 2001, Bush cancelled, or backed out of a total of 23 International
Agreements, most of them having to do with Nuclear weapons and what we
though was the dead cold war arms race. I believe he canceled our
participation in the Monroe Doctrine at this point in time too. I didn’t
find the article, that was 3 machines, might be on one that everything didn’
t transfer, should be Googleable information though, unless it is now also
listed as national Security…..

March 2001, Bush was stumping, actually beating Congress to let him have a
massive amount of new nukular arms, namely Bunker Busters and he had to have
them in 6 months, I was ridiculed over and over again for asking what are
were we about to enter, that was the first time someone shared the PNAC link
with me.

March 2001, Bush transferred his authority to control Norad and give any
shoot down orders over to Cheney, in an interoffice memo……… not alerting
anyone that might actually care about the security of our nation. I think
this was the same month he made Cheney and Rice in charge of terrorism.

The evening of September 11th 2001 I came home and turned on the news (which
I rarely watch) and was amazed, Bush was being lauded as a hero instead of
allowing our nation to be attacked, and he was already set up on who to
attack…. Only to find out that the interview with the Colonel and the
security tapes from the pentagon were now classified as National Security.

Was it in the 9/11 report where it was stated that Cheney said while in the
Norad Command Center, three times to the dispatcher, when he asked if he
could launch an inceptor, ‘to do nothing’?

And it is interesting that Rummy and a mess of other big wigs were in the
side of the building that the approaching aircraft that hit the pentagon (if
I got the story straight and am not confusing the two different stories) was
coming from, so it went past and made a really hard reverse maneuver so that
it could hit the newly finished construction part of the pentagon, which had
been retro fitted to stop attacks just like this one….. where there were few

I had neighbors that knew what was going on, who heard me yelling out my
door about the Colonel issuing the stand down order. No one in my
neighborhood thought anything other than this was allowed, as to the degree
of let it happen or a planned attack by our supposed leaders of the US I can
’t vouch for.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Dick Eastman
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Stand down and logic fallacy

My I be the one to register what Scott said about seeing the interview of
from Norad saying that his one plane was grounded on orders from his
I note too, that Scott Peden is a reliable source -- a man we know well.

For me this settles the stand down question -- although I was already
by the overall picture.

Now concerning this order -- I remember a report that in the period just
prior to
9-11 an order was given out at the Pentagon that planes were not to be
fired upon without the specific prior approval of the Secretary of Defense.
And we know that Donald Rumsfeld was in a conversation with a general
during the attacks on the WTC up to the moment the Pentagon was hit.
This is highly suspicious, but not conclusive -- and so I have left it

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Peden <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Stand down and logic fallacy

I am the one that said they saw the interview with the Colonel in charge of
the Norad base responsible for defending NYC and Wash DC area explaining why
he grounded his one plane in the air and didn’t refuel or arm with of his
That film was made National Security within a few hours, I never saw the
footage replayed.
-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Ole Gerstrøm
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Stand down and logic fallacy
Dear Robert,
I did not claim, that a stand down order was given. I claim, that there was
a de facto stand down.
Regarding Flight 93, yes, it probably was intercepted and shot down.
You write <<I.e, 911 was an inside job by a few well placed perpetrators
taking advantage of the
structure of governmental operations.>>
As far as I can see, we know nothing about, if that was a few perpetrators,
or there was a whole bunch. Certainly there must be a big number of people,
who saw something, or took part in something, who now are quiet. They are
also guilty of something.
Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Denmark
----- Original Message -----
From: rriverrapid <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: [911TruthAction] Stand down and logic fallacy

Planes were sent up, just very late, consistently. There is lots of
evidence to show that flight 93 was followed by military planes and
then shot down, ie, intercepted in a big way. That the three other
flights were not intercepted and that the fourth was intercepted very
late does not demonstrate that a stand down order occurred. To claim
a stand down was ordered is to live in speculation. One could
sensibly make the claim that a stand down like effect had occured,
but then one must investigate why that effect occured. A legitimate
and careful investigator will then discover, using evidence that well
placed moles and the ongoing war games of the morning of 911 had a
lot to do with the delayed arrival of interceptors.

Careful consideration of the 911 event, the structure of
government, military, secret services, and private enterprises
reveals that the 911 event was made possible by making it occur on
the same day that over 7 war game and emergency drill exercises were
being run by government agencies on the day of 911 affecting the
Washington/New York area. Agencies were slow to respond to the real
attack, then. Additionally, there were a few well placed
perpetrators, or moles, in various government positions, including
the FAA, FBI, CIA, NORAD, and the military, that helped facilitate
the event. What the war games reveal is that the people who ran 911
also are very involved in running regular government and private
duties that control the operation of the country. I.e, 911 was an
inside job by a few well placed perpetrators taking advantage of the
structure of governmental operations.

911 wasn't so simple that some fantasy person in the military
told everyone else in the military (pilots, commanders, etc), as well
as FAA flight controllers, emergency officials in all levels of
government, and the rest of the legion of peoples who would have to
be informed of and ordered to follow a standdown to stop doing their
jobs. With the wars games truly going on, am I to ignore the impact
of those war games and just instead assume some unknown person in the
military gave a standdown order that there is no explicit evidence

Were a stand down order given, there would be some sort of clear
evidence to indicate that an order was given. A quote of a person, a
written change in rules, a leak, a pilots testimony, something.
Instead, all we have evidence of is that people were following
regular orders, or at least trying to in a state of confusion.
Confusion was reigning during the initial hours of 911. The confusion
is entirely consistent with people being involved in various war game
and drill exercises having to unexpectedly adjust to a real world
situation that was being mimicked by their exercises. That's going to
create a lot of confusion and delay in action. It's a case of trying
to determine what's real and what isn't and then responding with a
greatly reduced air force, due to the majority of airplanes and
important officials being diverted to other areas of the country for
training, exercising, and drills.

Let us do the indepth research that is required and follow what
the evidence says and let it speak sensibly and considerately, and
let us not live in specious speculation derived from facts that could
mean many things. Uncovering the true nature of 911 will require more
than following beliefs. There is plenty of evidence that can be used
to show what really happened on September 11 to an accurate enough
degree without remaining in endless speculation. No stand down orders
were given, all government officials know this, particularly those
who were at their jobs on September 11, and these people, whose help
we need, will only scoff at ridiculous claims. Researchers must be
careful to get their facts straight, and make their claims legitimate
and sensible.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 6/19/2006


Nevada Gubernatorial candidate has life threatened for exposing + +

Posted by: ""   ranger116_2000

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:17 pm (PST)

Nevada Gubernatorial candidate has life threatened for exposing + + +

Nevada Gubernatorial candidate has life threatened for exposing her
knowledge of Bush homosexual activities she observed.

Wayne Madsen Report - Home

Unsubscribe from AOL: -- Good Luck
Hear a recording of a person trying to unsubscribe !

(AOL and the CIA both being located in Langly Virginia is No Accident !)



PS: Want to try something interesting ?
Call up a major magazine distributor from your yellow pages and tell
them you want to open a newsstand and want a list of available
magazines, They will tell you "We tell you what will sell in your area"
Can you say Mafia ?

Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan on Yahoo! News Photos


Florida prison shoot out between the FBI and jail guards leaves two dead

( Florida the best criminal justice system in the country - Not ! -
Florida also was the Last State in the USA to start providing public
defenders )


Your Government Working Against You - Kill ! or be Killed - The choice
is up to you ? !
Fed Govt. tells local Sheriff to release illegals caught inside the U.S.
Illegal Immigrants Free To Go


They are Tracking You !
Business: No cash? No card? Just stick in finger


They do not need a chip to track you ! Last night I went to my local
Wallgreens Drug store (5,000+ Nationwide) and when I was handed the
recite after using a credit card I started to sign it, When the clerk
said, No you don't need to sign it the cash register Recognises you ! It
appears that it keeps track of your credit card use and if you are a
regular customer it doesn't need your signature ? !

Alex Jones Bullhorn Rhapsody
Windows Media Player


New book "ARMED MADHOUSE" -Greg Palast new book "ARMED MADHOUSE" - a
MUST read!!!

If anyone had a chance to listen to Mike Malloy on AIR AMERICA last
night, you would have heard the MOST STUNNING (documented) disclosures
about the real going ons with the Bush administration and other matters
which is provided in this book.

THIS MUST BE PASSED ON TO ALL YOU KNOW...and so on, and so on,...

GOOGLE's Link,RNWE:2006-13,RNWE:en&q=%22Armed+Madhouse%22


Greg Palst website for this book

Greg Palast's photos

Jack Topel


Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Wear your Blue Shirt to the polls on November 7 Make a Visible
statement which Party you are voting for So They Will Not Be Able To
Steal Your Vote Again ! News media and private video will prove the
percentages -- This Can and Will Work, But You Must Cut and Paste this
and Pass It On ! Over and over until November 11 !!
If you are worried that this will identify you
as a Democrat ? Don't worry that primer painted Hundai you are driving
will do that !



Re: Fw: Response to questions (about the 9-11 Pentagon attack)

Posted by: "Scott Peden"   scotpeden

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:18 pm (PST)

There isn’t any that the public can see, it is all classified National
Security and these are the first plane crashes in modern history to not
allow the FAA to investigate them. Would be bad if they raised questions,
now wouldn’t it? Besides, I don’t think they found any of the black boxes,
interesting, all black boxes have been found in all crashes where the crash
site could be investigated. Must be something there that we should see,
might hurt our common sensibilities, and who cares anyway, this is 1984…

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Pay_the_Piper
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Response to questions (about the 9-11
Pentagon attack)

When will we see the autopsy/debris evidence for the Pentagon crash?

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pierce <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Re: Fw: Response to questions (about the 9-11
Pentagon attack)

Nothing hit those light posts. They should have damage where they were hit.
They were aparently popped out on purpose to make it apear that something
knocked them over. A 757 could not have flown thru the maze of posts with
hitting a lot of them and having wing damage all over the place, not to
mention tearing up the lawn. No wing parts anywhere??? No damage to the
grass lawn either!?!? What about the missle/rocket plumes in the pics???
Jets/757s do not give off smoke plumes unless at really high altitudes.

rriverrapid <> wrote:
The claim that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon does the greatest damage
to the entire 911 truth movement. It alone will sink the
investigation by making everyone who believes in the no 757 theory
look very bad. And so they should look bad.

Every claim that is associated with no 757 hitting the Pentagon can
be refuted and shown to be based on poor investigation, pure
speculation, illogicial extrapolation, and jumping to conclusions.

The light poles that were knocked down by the 757 are
designed,like all street lights, to fall easily when hit by vehicles,
in order to limit damage. The "mysterious" tent that is shown in
some photos and claimed to be hiding something inside it, is clearly
one of the blue, portable, lightweight half-cylinder tents used by
the clean up personel. Hundreds of witness reports are available to
read, and they all consistently reveal 757 hit the Pentagon. Are we
to ignore all of them, and favour someone's claim that the 757
somehow flew silently over the Pentagon with no witnesses seeing that
happen? On, it is explained how a high speed
plane, when impacting a reinforced steel object will disintegrate
into small pieces, which to an inexperienced witness seems odd. Note
how the 767's that hit the Towers appeared to melt into the towers
and essentially disintegrated. The Pentagon 757 hit at 45 degrees,
at about 350 mph, perhaps a bit less. It will not crash simply like
on cartoons. It's nose will hit first, causing the whole body of the
plane to rotate slightly towards the Pentagon wall. The tail, with
upward extending vertical stabilizer, will tend to make the tail
section move upwards as the plane crashes. The effect is to make the
tail hit to the right and upwards from where the nose of the plane
hut. The crash was very destructive, and the plane parts mostly
busted up into smaller pieces, flying all over the place. It rained
plane debris for a minute or more at the Pentagon. Some of the debris
landed on the roof. As many witnesses report, a huge ball of fire
exploded only after the plane had smashed into the side of the
Pentagon. Ie, disintegrated plane pieces were already being violently
propelled all over the place before the fire ball enveloped the front
of the pentagon. Take a look at the photo on that
shows how the Tomahawk fighter plane disintegrates as it hits the
concrete wall. The Pentagon plane won't disintegrate into dust quite
like that plane, but the pictures give you an idea of what happens to
a high speed plane when it hits an immoveable object.

One of the biggest claims made by speculators is that the hole in the
pentagon wall where the plane impacted is only around 13 feet. They
use this idea to support their false claim that no 757 hit the
Pentagon. Using more photos, it can be easily shown that over 90 feet
of the first floor wall is missing and destroyed, not to mention
damage extending further along the outside wall, plus the great
number of interior colums that were damaged and destroyed, plus the
floor itself. The left wing, due to the 45 degree angle of the plane
as it hit, hit the building second, after the nose. The wing tip hit
first, and the progressive impact of the wing would have caused the
whole plane to begin to move squarely into the building. The left
wing would begin to rotate into the wall, thereby reducing the
effective wingspan of the plane as it hit.

The piece of airplane skin with the letter N on it is debris from the
plane, but it is not clear when the photo was taken. The photo was
taken some time after the clean up had already started. The skin
debris is consistent with a 757 airplane. It is very possible some
person had placed it there, during the clean up, but that does not
mean a secret agent planted it. Are we to conclude that secret agents
were planting fake airplane debris everywhere, including loads of
small plane pieces, heavy engine parts, 757 wheels, large 757 landing
gear structures (very heavy), larger skin pieces, and more. We have
endless people reporting a 757 hit the pentagon. If we are to believe
airplane debris was planted everywhere, why is there not even one
witness statement about it? Do we have to ignore all the hundreds of
statements that clearly indicate a 757 hit the Pentagon, just so the
wishful thinkers can have their "super" conspiracy and coverup.

Are the true conspirators so lame brained that, in order to fool
the people that a 757 really hit the Pentagon, they think they have
to shoot a missile or remote controlled fighter plane into the
Pentagon, set off explosions all over the place, make the real 757
just miss the Pentagon, unseen, land the 757 a mile or two away at
the Reagan airport, again unseen and unnoticed, and then somehow get
rid of a bunch of passengers and the 757 plane itself, while not
involving too many people so that is remains a secret and
unwitnessed. Okay, lets make a simple crash really complicated.
That's the way to get away with a criminal act. Make it so difficult
to pull off that it is practically impossible to pull off and has
great risks associated with it and thus is likely to fail. In truth,
it is enough to fly an actual 757 into the Pentagon to make it look
like a 757 hit the Pentagon. All one has to do is gain remote control
of the plane (using its auto-pilot system and its transponder
channel), disable the pilots somehow (perhaps using a remotely
exploded gas bottle in the cockpit, or "terrorist" dupes on the plane
who don't know how to fly the plane but take over the cock pit), and
then remotely direct the plane into the building. That would be
simple. It's very possible with modern technology. Remotely
controlled jet liners have been flown from the US to Australia,
including landing, taking off, and taxiing.

The damage to the the construction trailers, fences, vehicles, and
short concrete walls in front of the Pentagon is all consistent with
a 757 coming in low and hitting the Pentagon. The large generator
trailer was brushed by one wing and rotated towards the Pentagon. It
caught on fire and exploded into flames shortly later (I wonder why)
The chain link fence had an engine go through it. A pylon scraped
along the top of the generator trailer. The wings and engines just
cleared or missed the wire spools out in front of the building,
spools that were about 60 feet from the building. The plane almost
hit at ground level when it hit the building. The fuselage, being
above the wings, created the 17 (or so) foot hole that everyone is
talking about, into the second floor. The wings, being lower than the
fuselage, and being the heaviest and strongest part of the plane,
crashed into the first floor level and did the most damage. The
tail, as I explained, moved up and to the right as the plane impacted
and disintegrated. The vertical stabliziler is only a tonne or less,
and disintegrated mostly on impact, as did the fins, wing tips, and
fuselage of the plane.

On and on a person can go. Suffice it to say that the crash scene is
completely consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon reinforced
concrete wall at around 350 mph, at an angle of 45 degrees. When the
757 hit the Pentagon, the first stages of its impact would have
resembled the 767's impact into the towers, in terms of the plane
melting into the object it was hitting, and disintegrating. Of course
the Pentagon wall was a 1 foot thick steel reinforced structure,
lined with a foot of other solid material (like brick and slate),
designed to be bomb and impact proof. It had large steel beams in
its floors, in its colums, and in its walls. So we can expect the
plane to splatter a bit more than the planes that hit the towers,
which were more likely sliced up as they entered the towers, due to
narrow spacing of the exterior columns of the towers.

That videos of the 757 hitting the Pentagon not being released is
testimony of the perpetrators desires to keep the Pentagon crash full
of speculation, in order to facilitate the discrediting of all
legitimate investigation of the 911 event. We are not spared any
video of the tower crashes, but wouldn't you know it, we,
for "security" reasons are not allowed to see the Pentagon crash.
What a perfect way to get the people speculating about nonsense. What
a perfect way to discredit the whole 911 research community.

Those who claim no plane hit the Pentagon unknowingly and foolishly
accomplish for the perpetrators what the perpetrators dream of -
keeping the 911 discovery movement regarded as a bunch of conspiracy
nuts with whacko ideas. People need to take a lesson from history
and realize that the same method was used in the JFK assination.
Today the perpetrators have the internet to help them, and thus a
whole lot more access to gullible poeple with poor or no genuine
critical research abilities.

So long as the no-757-hit-the-Pentagon remains a focus of the 911
movement, so long will the wait for 911 truth and success in its
revelation be in coming. The worst enemy of the movement are the
people themselves due to their inabilities to distinquish beliefs
from truths and their propensities to live in poorly grounded
speculation endlessly. Fortunately bridge building is left to
qualified engineers and other careful and capable researchers and

It's interesting to note that the plane hit directly into a tree out
front of the Pentagon. Perhaps a signal device, or beacon, had been
planted in the tree earlier, emitting a signal to direct the plane in
its last minutes of flight.



How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.


Re: Psalm 18:37-44: "Kill your enemies" (King James Version)

Posted by: "Scott Peden"   scotpeden

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:37 pm (PST)

Dick, Don’t bother biting, Timothy-Allen Albertson, under any of his ID’s,
only joins groups like this to cause trouble, it is the only perverse joy he

I don’t bother wasting my time dealing with him, don’t waste your valuable
time on him unless you think you can make good educational material outta


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Timothy-Allen Albertson
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Re: Psalm 18:37-44: "Kill your enemies" (King
James Version)

of all the things you have lost Eastman
its your brain you miss the most

On 6/21/06, Dick Eastman < <>
> wrote:
The hard 9-11 evidence convinces even the brainwashed -- that is why there
is such an effort by the ruling criminals to prevent the brainwashed public
from seeing this evidence -- from having it presented to them

----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy-Allen Albertson
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Re: Psalm 18:37-44: "Kill your enemies" (King
James Version)


On 6/20/06, jewish_from_brooklyn <
<> > wrote:
--- In
<> , "Timothy-Allen Albertson"
> you think you are going to get me to
> change my opinion by calling me
> brainwashed

It is extremely difficult to reverse the condition known as "brainwashing"
once it has taken root. No amount of evidence will ever convince the
brainwashed ... If people are led to believe that the moon is made of yellow
styrofoam because that's what they were told on FOX News, the chances
are slim that anyone will ever convince them otherwise.


the best way in the
> world is to piss me off is patronize me
> the enemies of Israel are the enemies
> of the US about the only arab state
> which can be trusted is Kuwait and
> they'd kill a pallie faster than Israel
> btw, were your kin capos during the
> holocaust?
> On 6/20/06, jewish_from_brooklyn <jewish_from_brooklyn@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
<> , "Timothy-Allen Albertson"
> > <camotim@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > and that is what USCENTCOM is doing
> > > in its AOR to the enemies of the US
> >
> > The enemies of Israel are not necessarily the enemies of the US.
> >
> > The Arabs are getting mass-murdered because they are the enemies of
> > Israel.
> >
> > People believe that Arabs are the enemies of the US because that's what
> > they've been brainwashed into believing.
> >
> > J_from_B.
> >
> > > On 6/20/06, jewish_from_brooklyn <jewish_from_brooklyn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn
> > > > again till they were consumed.
> > > >
> > > > I have wounded them that they were not able to rise: they are fallen
> > under
> > > > my feet.
> > > >
> > > > For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle: thou hast
> > subdued
> > > > under me those that rose up against me.
> > > >
> > > > Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might
> > destroy
> > > > them that hate me.
> > > >
> > > > They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but
> > > > he answered them not.
> > > >
> > > > Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast
> > them
> > > > out as the dirt in the streets.
> > > >
> > > > Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people; and thou
> > > > hast
> > > > made me the head of the heathen: a people whom I have not known
> > > > shall
> > > > serve me.
> > > >
> > > > As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me: the strangers shall
> > submit
> > > > themselves unto me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Yahoo! Groups Links

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 6/19/2006

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 6/19/2006

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: "Jewish-generated hatred of Muslims"

Posted by: "Scott Peden"   scotpeden

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:39 am (PST)

There just aren’t very many omnipresent people who, like you, can hear that
the Nation is under attack by public jet liners and know that it is
happening because of jihadists.

Besides, other people here have to use facts to come to conclusions, not
everyone can ‘just know’ who and what the problem is without having to check
out the details.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Timothy-Allen Albertson
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] "Jewish-generated hatred of Muslims"

what the fuck are you talking about?

i knew it was jihadists the moment i heard about it

On 6/21/06, jewish_from_brooklyn <
<> > wrote:

< "Jewish-generated hatred of Muslims expressed through
< thousands of TV anchors into the minds of the populace got
< most of us to believe that Islamic terrorists ran planes into
< the Twin Towers. Five years later, there exists not a shred
< of evidence to prove this was so, except for what has been
< fabricated by the Israeli-controlled Pentagon."

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Bush not knowing

Posted by: "Scott Peden"   scotpeden

Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:08 am (PST)

You do realize that Bush was informed, by a reporter no less, of the first
plane hitting the WTC, just before he left to go to the elementary school,
he was reading my pet goat when the second one hit.

Why should he worry, the attacks weren’t aimed at him, Cheney had been put
in charge of Norad and Cheney and Rice were in charge of terrorism, Bush
only needed to look good and distract a nation.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Ole Gerstrøm
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [911TruthAction] Bush not knowing

Dear Robert,

Looking at what Bush did on the day of 911, seeing his face those minutes in
the class room, reading his own statements, makes it a subjective fact for
me, that he is guilty. I'l not make an objective claim, that he is guilty.
That is for the court of law.

Yours, Ole Gerstrom, Denmark

----- Original Message -----
From: rriverrapid <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: [911TruthAction] Bush not knowing

You write: "However, the only one knowing what Bush knew is Bush
himself. It's not easy to prove what he knew. Therefore such claims
should not be made in this investigation."

The claim that is being made by people is that Bush knew. They make
this claim because of some of his odd behaviour. They make the claim
because they misinterpret his behaviour and do not correctly consider
his behaviour in the school room with his behaviour later in the day,
and in the months and years afterward, nor reflect on the manner in
which he operates within the administration. Bush is clearly a puppet
who delegates all political duties to capable others and then depends
on his delegates for direction.

Are you saying that I should not make my claim that Bush didn't
know? Or are you saying that no one should make any claims
whatsoever regarding what Bush did or didn't know?

Some people claim that Santa Claus exists. Do I need to claim he
doesn't exist, or is it up to the believers to prove he exists, since
they made the claim? That Bush knew is a serious claim, and requires
more than just speculation to back it up. I stand on very, very solid
ground by "claiming" that Bush didn't know. We're innocent until
proven guilty, and Bush's behaviour clearly describes a mostly
innocent person, at least til the events had largely transpired.

Thoughtfully, Robert



Posted by: "Bugs"   brawny1946

Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:32 am (PST)

From: "tarscampbell" <>
CUT and RUN? Your Damn Right!

> The Republicans have accused the Democrats of a plan of "Cut and
> Run".
> We need to "Cut and Run" from failed Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld and the
> Republican Congress of attacking and muddering innocents in Iraq.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the trillions of dollars in Republican
> increased National Debt.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the ruinious Bush privatization plan of
> critical government departments.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the Bush Medicare disaster.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the Republican Plan to destroy Social
> Security. (We could fix SS by making the rich pay their share.)
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell ideal
> of American life.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from the Republican Corporate elitist tax
> cuts and eletist laws to protect the corporations from lawsuit for
> rapeing the American economy and the American people.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from foreign control of American
> manufacturing, foreign owned big business and foreign owned business
> that is critical to national defense.
> We need to "Cut and Run" from foreign interest taking tax free
> profits from the American Economy.
> And we need to "Cut and Run" from killing our sons and daughter for
> no-bid contracts for Cheney and Haliburton, Bush and Oil, and for
> goulish defense industry maggots making huge unaccounted for profits.
> We Need to Shove "Cut and Run" Up every Selfish Republican
> Polititions Butt.
> Don't blames the Democrats for Cutting and Running. Blame your
> Republican selves for destrorying American Jobs, the American
> Economy, American Values, and KILLING OUR YOUTH and Innocent lives
> around the world.
> Cut and Run? YourDamn Right...
> F. Merle Campbell Jr.
> Colonel,USA,Retired
We Made Changes

Your Yahoo! Groups email is all new.

Learn More

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web