9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

United 93 was a movie

Thanks for reminding people of that Rainey!

[jaqeboy]

on the front page of 911Truth.org now - looks like it would be a good read:

Sunday, May 13 2007
Debunker Buster

by Tod Fletcher
May 12, 2007

_Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ is a monumental accomplishment by David Ray Griffin. He exhaustively and definitively destroys the pretensions of four major "9/11 debunking" publications published in 2006, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the events. Although the book is organized into chapters dealing with each one of the four publications in turn, Griffin has such a broad knowledge of all the evidence pertaining to the events, and such command of logic and argument, that the book is thoroughly cohesive and progressively builds an integrated critique of all dimensions of the official theory. _Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ will effectively serve as a veritable encyclopedia of not just the facts of 9/11, but of the best arguments to debunk the official (and semi-official) lies about the facts. Griffin, as usual, avoids speculation and focuses on showing that the official story of what happened that day cannot be true. . . .

_Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ is a tremendous book, which should be read by everyone. By utterly destroying each of the well-funded, best efforts of the government to defend its case in the court of public opinion, the book effectively finishes off the official conspiracy theory. With this book in its arsenal, the 9/11 truth movement is set to take the offensive. It is time to launch this Debunker Buster at the hardened fortresses of the mass murderers within. Do what the perpetrators fear most. Read this book!

[Russell Kanning]

I wasn't there. Was supposed to have been, being a tourist, but decided not to go. (My lizard friends in the NWO called and tipped me off.)

Aahh, your lizard friends huh?  It's good to know reptiles in low places!

and remember .... he is a domestic terrorist.

[Russell Kanning]

I still think that the UA 93 flight was shot down... even if everything else turns out to be 'as reported'.... I think that the USAirforce said no way to a 4th flight and took that plane out.

I think so too.

[error]

Home grown!

[jaqeboy]

Rosie Sounds Off On WTC Demolition & Destruction Of Crime Scene

vid clips of what she said on the View yesterday on Alex Jones' website:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/140507rosiesoundsoff.htm

[KBCraig]

Not my words, KB -- this is from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11&notFound=true
-------

"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle.

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.

This was published the day after the attacks, so hyperbole is to be expected.

I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?

The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

I do hope you quote this passage to people who insist the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

The supposed hijacker, Hani Hanour, could barely fly a Cessna; he was so bad, his flight trainers recommended that he give up his training.... So ... who piloted flight 77?

While he apparently could "barely fly a Cessna", he did earn a commercial pilot's rating. The chief instructor of the school said "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." He also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that (hijacked jet) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

Turning off the transponder is "less than obvious" to someone wandering into the cockpit, but it's easy for someone --a commercial-rated pilot, for instance-- who had trained to do exactly that.

Thanks for for the link.

Kevin

[Dreepa]

While he apparently could "barely fly a Cessna", he did earn a commercial pilot's rating. The chief instructor of the school said "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." He also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that (hijacked jet) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

Or it could have been one of the other guys on the plane.

[Russell Kanning]

I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?

I think there has also been air traffic controllers that were wondering what that thing was too, because of the speed and changes of direction.

[KBCraig]

I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?

I think there has also been air traffic controllers that were wondering what that thing was too, because of the speed and changes of direction.

It's way outside the norm for what they typically see from any aircraft, even fighters on normal flights within ATC space (as opposed to USAF training areas).

But commercial aircraft can do things you wouldn't think they could do.

Kevin

[Caleb]

kb, I've never said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. I think there are some suspicious things surrounding the Pentagon hit, but these could very well be attributed to government disinformation, so I think it is most unwise to claim that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Now ... to question certain things about the Pentagon attack is most prudent:

1)  By all accounts, flight 77 was heading towards the White House.  Why were the white House anti-aircraft missiles not fired at flight 77? Also, I think the government needs to come clean as to what defenses the Pentagon itself has.  It is not credible to claim that the Pentagon it not defended by some sort of anti-aircraft devices.

2)  There is also the issue of Andrews Air Force Base, and why fighters were not scrambled from there. Prior to 9/11, Andrews Air Force base maintained a website that claimed that it had fighters on standby. Soon after 9/11, this was changed, and the government now maintains that the reason fighters were not scrambled from Andrews is because Andrews does not have fighters on standby.  This is not credible. Andrews is charged with protecting Washington D.C.; also, even the fighters dispatched from Langley had sufficient time to intercept, but for some reason did not.  By my math, the military had time to intercept (about 34 minutes from the time the military found out about flight 77) from pretty much any of the military bases on the Eastern seaboard.  Remember that the F-16's can fly around 1800 miles per hour.  An F-16 on alert status can go from command to 25,000 feet in less than three minutes.  That means they had 31 minutes to get there, so any plane dispatched within roughly a 900 mile radius should have got there in time to protect the Pentagon.  Andrews could have had planes to help the Pentagon in less than 5 minutes.

3) Who was the pilot, given the fact that none of the pilots had the qualifications to fly flight 77 in the manner flown. It is not only observers who were awed by the maneuver, even President Bush (a trained military fighter pilot) said that that must have been one hell of a pilot.  He was aiming at the White House, then executed a sharp, descending 180 turn....All this so that he could hit the Pentagon in a non-strategic place that was largely empty?  One hell of a fortunate coincidence for the bigwigs sitting in the East Wing, huh?  Wouldn't it have been simpler for him to just descend and smash into the East Wing in the first place, and take out a bunch more people?  If you're a terrorist, that's the way to go.  If you're a government planner, that's the last thing you would want to do: take yourself out. Here's an LA Times article on this "coincidence"
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/latimes_leastvulnerable.html

[KBCraig]

kb, I've never said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

I didn't say that you did. I was just hoping you'd quote the same article to those who do. It's more a refutation to them than to me.

1)  By all accounts, flight 77 was heading towards the White House.

That doesn't mean the White House was the target. We don't know the trigger distance for the White House air defense systems, so wondering why they weren't launched is just speculation. After all, thousands of flights a day head "toward" the White House; that doesn't mean they're targeting it, nor that they should trigger a missile launch.

2)  There is also the issue of Andrews Air Force Base, and why fighters were not scrambled from there. Prior to 9/11, Andrews Air Force base maintained a website that claimed that it had fighters on standby. Soon after 9/11, this was changed, and the government now maintains that the reason fighters were not scrambled from Andrews is because Andrews does not have fighters on standby.

I don't know the mission of the fighter squadron there either before or after 9/11, but I do know this: they're part of the DC Air National Guard, and they weren't necessarily on standby at that time, because that mission rotates from base to base.

This is not credible. Andrews is charged with protecting Washington D.C.; also, even the fighters dispatched from Langley had sufficient time to intercept, but for some reason did not.  By my math, the military had time to intercept (about 34 minutes from the time the military found out about flight 77) from pretty much any of the military bases on the Eastern seaboard.  Remember that the F-16's can fly around 1800 miles per hour.  An F-16 on alert status can go from command to 25,000 feet in less than three minutes.  That means they had 31 minutes to get there, so any plane dispatched within roughly a 900 mile radius should have got there in time to protect the Pentagon.  Andrews could have had planes to help the Pentagon in less than 5 minutes.

You're off a bit in your calculations. First, top speed of an F-16 is just over Mach 2, about 1350 mph, but that's only in level flight at 40,000 feet. At sea level, it's just over 900 mph. Next, they consume fuel at a horrendous rate at those speeds, leaving nothing left for fighting; even if they could fly 1800 mph (instead of just 1350), they'd be out of gas long before they got there. An F-16 taking off with a medium armament load, performing a routine patrol and returning to base will burn about 9,000 pounds of fuel in a one hour mission. That's not even in combat. And maximum fuel capacity with both external tanks is 14,000 pounds, which is one of the criticisms of the aircraft: very short combat radius in high performance conditions.

Then there's the problem of finding the target. With transponders off, it was mostly lost in a sea of blips.

3) Who was the pilot, given the fact that none of the pilots had the qualifications to fly flight 77 in the manner flown. It is not only observers who were awed by the maneuver, even President Bush (a trained military fighter pilot) said that that must have been one hell of a pilot.  He was aiming at the White House, then executed a sharp, descending 180 turn....All this so that he could hit the Pentagon in a non-strategic place that was largely empty?  One hell of a fortunate coincidence for the bigwigs sitting in the East Wing, huh?  Wouldn't it have been simpler for him to just descend and smash into the East Wing in the first place, and take out a bunch more people?  If you're a terrorist, that's the way to go.  If you're a government planner, that's the last thing you would want to do: take yourself out. Here's an LA Times article on this "coincidence"
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/latimes_leastvulnerable.html

Again, that's speculation based on the assumption that the White House was a target. Why would they make it appear to be a target, then change?

As to qualifications, a long time back in this thread, I pointed out that what was being called remarkable pilot skill, could just as easily have been pilot ineptitude. Too low, too fast, turning too sharp, overshooting the target and having to double back... Hitting the World's Largest Building was not, in itself, evidence of any piloting skill that couldn't be acquired playing flight simulators.

Kevin

[Caleb]

Sorry for getting the speed wrong ... for some reason 1800 mph had stuck in my head.  But no matter.  Even 1300 mph is more than sufficient for the fighters sent from Langley to reach it.  I think it was Griffin who calculated that they were flying around 250 mph ... slower than the jets they were pursuing!  Why?

I'm not going to let you get off so easy by saying that "they didn't know what to look for, the transponders were off."  C'mon, KB!  You don't go looking for the plane, you defend certain areas. If you are charged with protecting the protected airspace over Washington DC, you don't have to go wandering around the country looking for the plane that might one day make it to DC ... you just go and fly around within the protected area.

I'm trying to imagine believing that the US Government has no contingency plan for planes flying into protected airspace, but I don't think I could ever be that naive. Particularly when it is known that there are hijacked planes flying around the country (at one time, the FAA was reporting far more than just the four actual hijacked planes.) You're telling me that it didn't occur to the federal government to protect its own headquarters? 

[error]

Sure, there are contingency plans for protecting the White House. But they aren't so high a priority when he's out of town.

[Russell Kanning]

They must not mind if Cheney is killed ..... oh wait didn't he call off the defenses?