I was watching the TV news coverage of the corporate jet....

[whistle]

...which crashed into a building in NJ earlier this morning and the first thing I noticed was the debris from the jet all over the ground including the wings, the fuselage and the jet tail. The hole the jet made is clearly in the shape of a curved pyramid (like the old population pyramids of 50 years ago). The debris is burning with a gray smoke and the flames are bright orange.

Granted, a 13 passenger corporate jet can hardly be compared to a 727 airliner, but the contrasts between the videos of this crash into a building in NJ and the pictures that were shown of the crash scene at the pentagon on 9-11 starting startlingly quite different. Anyone else see those differences? I especially took note that the wings were clearly severed from the fuselage of the plane and were lying outside against the base ob the building.

[MercutioATC]

1. A couple of issues with that:

A 757 crashed into the Pentagon, not a 727.

The 757 hit the Pentagon (a hardened military target) at over 350 knots. The NJ crash wasn't really a "crash" at all. A bizjet slid off of the runway and hit a building.

[DulceDecorum]

30. Sweet Pea is an eyewitness, ask HIM about debris.

....I drove past the place about a half hour after. Pulled over on 395 directly over Washington Blvd for a few minutes to look. There was a bigger jam on 95 south of the beltway, but at that time around the Pentagon traffic was light and cars were still driving past on the surrounding roads. ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=31776&mesg_id=32121&page=

[DulceDecorum]

31. Hardened military target?

Concrete on its own will readily collapse
and that is why it needs to be reinforced.

When the Pentagon was built,
they skimped so much on steel (for reinforcing the concrete)
that they were able to build and entire new battleship.

Do the math.

On Edit:
You really ought to be careful about calling it
a military target.
It makes it harder for BushCo to defend the bombing of mosques
and kindergartens
and bombshelters
and hospitals
and Red Cross Warehouses
once you call the Pentagon a MILTARY TARGET.

[MercutioATC]

34. Yes, hardened.

"The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion."


http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html


As far as calling it a military target, who uses Pentagon space? Of COURSE it's a military target.

[BOHICA06]

2. Speed & Mass -

Force = 1/2MxVsq

With both V & M geometrically larger = different pattern of result

Maybe!!!!

[whistle]

5. I agree but still look at the hole which the smaller jet made....

...in the side of the building, then go to pics of the pentagon crash. Totally different! Also, the wings of a 757 are substantially larger and of greater mass and really should have let some form of impact impression, but again the hole at the pentagon was a sphere and the penetration went through multiple concrete and brick reinforced walls emerging from the interior wall in nearly a perfect circle. The fireball on the pentagon videos showed a bright white flash on impact and thick black smoke. Much different from the NJ crash.

[BOHICA06]

12. Question ....

different fuels? I don't know, but that might account for flame differences.

[AngryAmish]

17. All jet fuel is the same

I think.

[MercutioATC]

33. Actually, it's not all the same...

http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html

...but I doubt the characteristics in a fire would be significantly different.

[ladjf]

3. Any post that suggests that the account of the Pentagon crash

given by the Government was not accurate is immediately rebutted, strongly and smugly by several people who seem to feel that their mission in life is to verify the administration's account. They will often castigate the questioner and warn them that our cause will be
somehow damaged by not believing the given version. You know, the old
"tinfoil hat" routine.

[rinsd]

14. When people are making the case that there was no Flight #77...

...then yes, they deserve the aluminum deflector beanie.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. "the administration's account"? It's not just Bush's version.

If BushCo were the only ones spreading this, as in the current Social Security "crisis" propanganda, you might have a point.

But it's not just coming from this administration. The vast number of eyewitnesses to that event negate any partisanship here. Anyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Like the other guy said...

the pilot aborted takeoff, but possibly too late, or the brakes didn't work, or something, so he was going pretty slowly when he crossed the road and hit the warehouse.

I go past that Strawberry warehouse several times a day, and it always looked like a cheap shell with brickface-- a typical modern warehouse. Not much to punch through.

[Selteri]

6. I think the point being made

is that unlike the 757 there was debris that was scattered and the feul was burning, why wasn't there fuel bruning, where were the engines and everything else.


You are not wearing a tinfoil hat when you question something that doesn't fit into a stanardized logicalmodel construction.

[patcox2]

8. Ignorance and assumptions, all this speculation.

The speculators and conspiracy theorists have no idea what the impact of a 757 into a building at 400 knots should look like, because its never happened before. Instead, they have their "logical" assumptions, based on no actual knowledge, as to what what they think it should look like. Thats not actually logic, thats what superstition is all about, making up "logical" explanations in the absence of real information. The difference between superstition and science is not "logic," its empiricism, but noone seems to get that.

By the same logic, the valujet crash in the everglades was obviously a missile as well, because the hole was round and there was no sign of the wings (there was no sign of anything resembling a plane.)

[whistle]

9. Precisely and couple that with the secrecy of the whole post...

...impact clean-up, the confiscation of videos that might have shown the 757's approach to the pentagon just before impact, the photos of the hidden debris be escorted away, just leaves a multitude of unanswered questions. As for impact analysis, what about computer models, simulations and testing facilities? There has been no effort to uncover the truth or even to use such tests to refute conspiracy theorists. Just evasion and cover-up. No we see this jet crash and perhaps someone with the technical and research expertise and time can dig out the truth so all of America can know. Damn, it is time to take our heads out from under the sand and see the truth!

[neoteric lefty]

11. here's one impact analysis done at Purdue

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

[whistle]

16. That is not quite what I had in mind...

...what I am looking for is a match up of the simulations to the actual events at the site, in the building and on the ground. This news release is nothing more than a PR stunt giving Purdue University exposure while supporting the office story line. Look at the first and second photos.

The simulation suggests the 757 plane coming in low at nearly 400mph with those huge jet engines which are held onto the wings by massive pylons and the front air scoop which is well over 10 feet in diameter and the plane fuselage adding another 12 feet in diameter while the tail adds at least another 15 to 20 feet in height striking the pentagon building at virtually ground level.

The simulation picture in the first image suggest that the engines never touch the ground, while upon impact in the second image we see flames spreading upward sideways and even back from the fuel explosion, but actual pictures immediately after the impact at the pentagon show no such singe or fire damage to the grass and ground area in front of the impact hole.

The third image suggests that the wings and engines and pylon structure were all carried into the building, obviously affecting multiple floors with the wings at nearly full extension. But again, the entry point of actual photos show a round hole of no more than two stories in diameter. That third image completely refutes the claim that the nose of the aircraft like a missile, remained intact and exited the interior outer wall again piercing the building like a hardened missile. Yet the simulation image in picture three is suggesting that the entire plane especially the nose of the aircraft is disintegrating.

I appreciate the link and will add it to my folder, but like so many other explanations, I left with more questions than answers.

[spooked911]

22. check out this site if you haven't seen it:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

[rinsd]

15. A standardized logical model construction?

"That phrase I do not think it means what you think it means"

So a much smaller plane traveling at a much lesser speed into a different type of building is comparable logically Flight #77?

Or is logical construct as simple as this plane crash different from that plane crash?

[spooked911]

23. So wings can break off when the plane is going less than 100 mph and not

when the plane is going 500 mph?

Is this what you're saying?

[MercutioATC]

27. I believe the crash physics are different.

Plane #1 crashes into a thin-walled warehouse at low speed.

Plane #2 crashes into a hardened military building at high speed.


Might there be a difference in the debris from the crashes?

[spooked911]

29. of course-- the question is whether wings will break off easier at low

versus high impact speeds.

My point being that if the wings broke off this plane going "low speed" after crashing into a simple brick building, shouldn't the wings have broken off the Pentagon plane? And if they did break off-- where did fligt 77 wings go? There wasn't nearly enough debris outside the Pentagon to account for the wings.

[MercutioATC]

32. I think the issue is what happened to the wings.

At low speeds, they'll break off and remain relatively intact.

At high speeds (against a hardened target) they'll disintegrate.

[spooked911]

35. I agree! But the point has always been that there was not nearly enough

metal debris outside the Pentagon to account for the wings disintegrating. That is a big reason why the Pentagon hit is so strange.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. Plenty of small light metal debris out side.

Only the wing tips did not enter the building. All the structrual metal went into the Pentagon. Momentum. You can see where the wings smashed the facade and took out some I beams, leaving others in the process.

Nothing strange about it.

[MercutioATC]

37. I agree that the argument exists.

I just don't think that a bizjet sliding off a runway is a realistic comparison.

[meisje]

7. Here come the Woo Woo's

[neoteric lefty]

10. seems like two totally different things to me

I think it is a bit hard to compare the impact of a large jet liner crashing into a highly-reinforced building like the Pentagon at high speeds, and a corporate jet crashing into a warehouse after aborting takeoff and trying to slow down. Seems like two totally different situations with two totally different results.

[DrWeird]

13. You're kidding right?

The plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at several hundred miles per hour.

This recent accident was a relative fender bender. Of course the plane's still intact.

[whistle]

18. okay,

[Last Lemming]

20. I'm at work so can only glance at this quickly

You want to compare todays crash with the pentagon--a couple of news outlets state that the bystanders and some of the passengers heard an explosion as the plane was taking off. (Now what's up with that)

So apples and oranges I guess

[spooked911]

19. That was the point I was trying to make in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x32056

Obviously there are huge differences, but it is still an interesting comparison between this crash and what happened to the different planes on 9/11.

[Last Lemming]

21. just who was in that plane anyway?

I mean todays plane

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. lol! I thought the same exact thing, especially when I heard it was out

of Dallas.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. Video: An eyewitness reports on explosion and fireball.

From local CBS news

http://wcbs.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=18719&tf=video_player.tpl&Category_ID=48

[Wilms]

38. I was waiting for someone to ask.

:eyes: And does Teterboro figure in 9/11? :think:

[whistle]

25. Here is a 9-11 pentagon report I was trying to locate earlier...

...<snip>

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

by Jim Hoffman
first published: October 7, 2004
revised: November 15, 2004


The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.

The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists."
<more>

<link> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

and also this site:

<link> http://911review.com/index.html

[Hoping4Change]

39. Whistle these are excellent sites. I wish DU had a "Preferred

List" of sites about 9-11 which would include these sites as well as Paul Thompson's Timeline.

Just yesterday I watched 15 minutes of In Plane Sight and visited Killtown, each for the first time. I must say I had a very emotional reaction after viewing In Plane Sight so I really appreciated Hoffman's critique of it. Reading Hoffman is a required slap in the face. However sincere VonKliest may be there is no denying the fact that the film is manipulative and little more than propaganda though I didn't see that yesterday. I wish I didn't have to admit butI got suckered in by it and now I feel like a maroon for having repeated some of its points to a co-worker.

In regards to Killtown, I got turned off their sight when I perused their Oddities pages. The inclusion of every supposed conspiracy does a disservice to serious attempts to question the official version of 9-11.



p.s. I also appreciated your remarks in post#16 - well said. :thumbsup:

[MercutioATC]

40. Don't feel bad about being suckered by "9/11 - In Plane Sight"

VonKleist is a professional conspiracy theorist. He's very good at what he does. Fortunately, his work doesn't survive a more thorough examination.

www.thepowerhour.com

[demodewd]

41. correction

Fortunately, his work doesn't survive a more thorough examination.
Some of his work doesn't survive scrutiny.

[The Magistrate]

42. No Correction, Mr. Dewd.

Examination of the wretch's efforts shows the product to be based on distortions of evidence. The man is a self-seeking liar, and like many of that sort, does manage to turn a living at it, since the supply of credulous persons is large and is replenished, as an old master of the art observed long ago, at the rate of one per minute at the least.

[seatnineb]

44. I agree with Demodewd.....

...........that some of Von Kliest's work is faulty....

But there are other parts which are very strong....

Like the Burnback interview.........

Something for which I have yet to see a rebuttal for,Mr Magistrate(and Mr Mercutio).......

Still waiting...

Get yout ATC friend to give it his (and your's) best shot.......

It won't be good enough...

I guarantee it.

[The Magistrate]

50. As The Maxim Goes, Dear

"False once, false always." Where a man has been shown to distort evidence, all else is called into serious question. Even a "strong interview" will be a thing distorted by focus that ignores contradictory accounts, and would prove merely "pungent" in association with same.

"Persons who tell lies may never have known the truth, but persons who tell half-lies have forgotten where they hid it, and can seldom find it ever again."

[seatnineb]

53. Nice try Maggy.............

But i'll let Mark Burnback do the talking.......

Here is a transcript of the conversation between Burnback(who saw the second plane) and a Fox news newscaster as the events were unfolding.

Fox NewsCaster:
"Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us......Mark witnessed this......."

"Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane....?"

Mark Burnback:
"Hi gentlemen....how ya doin.........
Yeah there was definitely a blue,circular logo on the front of the plane.....towards the front it definitely did not look like a commercial plane...I did not see any windows on the side...and uh... it was definitely very low....and...um...I am completely panicked...several of the people are freakin out down here....Can't believe what I just saw..."

Fox Newscaster:
"Well we are all shaken by this.....we are watching the video now back live(shows towers on fire)...but the upper floors of the wtc in flames now after apperently...after 2 large airplanes...we're talkin about jetliners slammed into the side of the wtc at around 9:00 this morning...."

"Mark..if what you say is true ...those could be cargo planes or something like that....you said you did not see any windows on the side....?"

Mark Burnback:
"I did not see any windows on the side..the plane was flying low...I was probably..a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low.....and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport ...it was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just ... looked like it did not belong in this area...."

[The Magistrate]

56. So What, Mr. Seat?

The man conceived a mistaken impression of a rapid and unexpected event, involving things he is not expert in the observation of. This sort of error occurs all the time in eyewitness reports; worse errors have been made by trained men in recognition of equipment on numerous occassions.

[seatnineb]

57. Yeah....so what!

I know Maggy...........those windows sure were visible....

on the real UA175:



and for the plane that struck the WTC2.........




Got any photos to show that the aircraft flying into the tower does have windows......?

I thought not.

[The Magistrate]

58. That Image, Dear, Is Far Too Blurred For Usefulness

That you see in it what you want to see is no surprise; that is how the Rorschach test works....

"They could prove anything they believed, and believed nothing they could not prove."

[seatnineb]

64. I don't see anything in it........

.....that's the problem......

[Sweet Pea]

60. Are you serious?

Are you seriously claiming that based on that photo the aircraft had no windows? THAT is the proof that this was a cargo aircraft and not a passenger aircraft?

[The Magistrate]

61. Unfortunately, Sir

The fellow is in dead earnest....

"It ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that ain't so."

[seatnineb]

62. Still waiting for a photo....

Sure........

It it is a poor photograph...........

But i'm afraid that is the best you are gonna get.......

Unless......

You can show me another photo that explicitly shows that the plane had windows.........
(There is one.........but I wanna see how competent you are at finding it)

I will be waiting............

[The Magistrate]

65. Waiting Will Be More Fun, Dear, If You Hold Your Breath

Your photograph does not capture sufficient detail to indicate more than the basic shape of the machine. It is wholly insufficient to bear the weight of mountainous speculation you attempt to rear on it.

"But Mrs. Fawlty --- that's a supportin' wall!"

[seatnineb]

67. Come on Maggy......

What you say may be true.......

But it also means.....

That you can't find another photograph that shows that the plane has/did not have windows........

Now there is a suprise.

[seatnineb]

63. Dead serious.

Find me a photograph that shows the second plane having windows on it's side..........and I will consider myself debunked.......

[The Magistrate]

66. You, Dear

Had better find a photograph that clearly shows a windowless fuselage. This one quite fails to do that.

And while you are at it, please amuse us with some account of the whereabouts of the passengers....

"And she could pass for forty-three in the dark with a light behind her."

[seatnineb]

68. Funny that you should ask.......

....but United Airlines didn't know either.........




...even AFTER the the south tower had been hit......and collapsed...

...and Maggy........

Still waiting for a photograph that shows that the plane had/did not have windows............

[seatnineb]

69. By the way.......nice little trick

But if ya wanna play........

......... find me a witness who says they did see windows on the side.......

"Can't nobody play this game"

[The Magistrate]

70. However, Dear

You have not provided a photograph that demonstrates the machine had no windows. Therefore, your assertion is unproved, and anyone is entitled to treat it as mere baseless speculation. Reports by untrained witnesses of unexpected and high velocity events are notoriously unreliable, as everyone but the willfully blind knows.

What you need to do, old darling, is produce some live passengers, or the corpses of some passengers at a distance from the impact of the machine. That would constitute proof the machine crashing into the tower was not a hijacked jetliner. You might try by contacting the families of persons on that jetliner, and ask if they have heard from their loved ones recently....

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

[seatnineb]

71. Oh I'm sorry.........

UA175 flying at high velocity?........

Burnback:" And as far as I knew when I saw that plane coming down.....well Laguardia is pretty far away and that plane is slow....and definetely very low...."

I know this such music to your ears.....

"It definetly did not look like a commercial airliner.....I did not see any windows on the side"

Try again......

[The Magistrate]

72. You Need To Get Out More, Sir

Perhaps take up skeet or duck hunting....

With the exception of judging distance to a light at night, there is nothing more difficult, even for trained observers, as judging height and speed of an airplane. A close look at the record of anti-aircraft gun batteries in combat would provide ample illustration.

"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make one think."

[seatnineb]

73. Relax Maggy.......

Let's see you apply the same rules to this eye-witness.......

Katie to [e-mail]: we saw the second plane. It was a United Airlines jet and we were very close, I could read the lettering on the plane. It was flying low, and I swear to you; as it banked, it accelerated into the building.
http://www.philpost.com/0901pages/tabio0901.html

[The Magistrate]

74. Do You Think You Have A Point, Dear?

You are the one arguing at least one of these machines was not a jetliner at all. The conclusion the first as well as the second machine was such a thing rests not on eyewitness description of the impacts but on the absence of the machines and the passengers on them subsequent to the impacts, along with the whole trail of events reconstructed by investigation afterwards.

To support the assertion at least one of these machines was not a jetliner, you must produce evidence of the jetliner in question continuing to exist after the impact, and account for the absence of the persons on that jetliner. You must also account for the impact itself; you must provide an alternate aircraft and prove its existence and crew, or prove its remote control from some established location, or prove some other means of detonation was used, and by whom. You can do none of these things, and everyone here knows it. A low-resolution photograph and a few startled eye-witnesses unable to process the full detail of what they saw does not even begin to begin to suffice.

"Children make the best opponents at Scrabble, as they are both easy to beat and fun to cheat."

[seatnineb]

75. Oh no you don't!

What is this remote control/detonation talk?

All I know is that an eye-witness who was there claims that" it did not look like a commercial airliner"

Try and disprove him.......

You only have the FBI,NYPD,The New York Times and countless other institutions on your side........


Sorry....
But saying that he is startled will not suffice......

Try again.....

Or do you mean to tell me that with all those people watching ,all those video cameras filming and all those photographers clicking

....that nobody managed to get a photograph to match this...



N612UA aka flight 175(photograph taken at some point before 9/11)

[The Magistrate]

76. Unfortunately, Mr. Seat

If you are incapable of following your own logic to its conclusion, that is your look-out, and no one else's. If you wish to maintain that something other than a jet-liner, in at least one instance, impacted the Trade Center, you must indeed do the things outlined above if you mean to prove the claim.

"No matter how your day's gone, Jack, you're always a pleasure to conversate with."

[seatnineb]

77. We can go round in circles o' venerable one......

But.....

Maybe we should give Burnback a rest for a while..........

And ask some of the other eye-witnesses who actually venture to describe the aircraft that they saw ..........

The second plane hit the other tower a few minutes later. From where we were watching, that plane looked black, like a military aircraft.

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2002/09/05/coverStoryWhereWereYou9ele.html.

Then, low in the sky, I saw a plane coming, it had two engines on either side of the tail, and even from our vantage the plane looked large. I couldn't believe what I was seeing - I thought for a moment it was a news or rescue plane, silly as that sounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm.

Now what was that about Burnback saying........

"It definetly did not look like a commercial plane"


By the way...........still waiting for a photo showing that the plane had windows........or did not have "a blue circular logo towards the front"

[The Magistrate]

78. So What, Dear?

You must still demonstrate your alternative. You must account for the missing jet-liner and passengers, you must identify what you claim to be the actual machine, including its point of origin and crew, and all the rest specified above. That is what a real investigation would be expected to supply, and you have so far provided nothing that bears any closer resemblance to such a thing than a small boy running with arms pumping and making "Choo-Choo!" sounds provides to a locomotive.

"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer long."

[seatnineb]

79. Ahhhhhhhhh

Sorry Maggy......

But those witnesses sure are giving you a hard time.......

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center

I'll take them over you.......anytime......

[The Magistrate]

80. Again, Mr. Seat

You must provide proof of your alternative. The handful of witnesses you have cherry-picked here prove nothing. This new one, of course, merely introduces a new contradiction, and further illustration of the shakiness of startled witnesses, since it is quite certain no small piston-engined machine crashed into the Trade Center that day....

"Many people think they are thinking when really they are only re-arranging their prejudices."

[seatnineb]

81. I don't have to prove anything....

....to you other than what the eye witnesses say......

"It looked like a mid-sized executive jet and the way it turned suggested it was being aimed deliberately at a target," Wood said.

http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community/b10008/4049615/p14

.....and there ain't a darn thing you can do about it.....

[The Magistrate]

82. Of Course You Do, Sir

At least if you wish to be taken seriously as an investigator,,,.

Indeed, you have now added to your burden considerably, as you have introduced multiple contradictions in the eyewitness testimonies on which you wish to rely. You have claimed eyewitness testimony proves a windowless cargo jet, a piston-engined machine, and a small business jet, are what crashed into the Trade Center. Such conflicts do nothing but impeach the reliability of the whole lot of witnesses you have produced, particularly since you are ignoring other eyewitness who describe a jetliner, and considerable physical and other evidences confirming that later observation.

You may have heard the celebrated tale of the lawyer who added just a little too much to his presentation? His client was on trial for biting off a man's ear, and the witness questioned acknowledged he had not seen the defendant do that, whereupon the lawyer asked how he had the temerity to accuse his client of doing it, and the fellow replied, "I saw him spit it out...."

[seatnineb]

83. Actually.....

They confirm........

That.......

It was not a commercial airliner"

As for the other eye witnesses........who have seen a commercial jet liner....

Show them to me.......

I can assure you that I will be able to count them on the fingers of one hand.....

[seatnineb]

87. Hey Maggy............

........I am still waiting for the.......

"other eyewitness who describe a jetliner, and considerable physical and other evidences confirming that later observation"

It's been 3 days....

Should be easy to find the....

"other eyewitness who describe a jetliner, and considerable physical and other evidences confirming that later observation"

[ashmanonar]

86. so that means we should never EVER trust a president again?

bc bush is a liar? or is it only a rule with conspiracy theorists?

[MercutioATC]

55. In case you hadn't noticed...

Installment #1 only covered the first 15 minutes. I haven't gotten to the Burnback interview yet.

Regardless, I think that VonKleist's credibility HAS been called into question because of the intentional editing of a witness statement. Face it, if Bush had done this, most of the people here would be all over it.

I'll continue with the rebuttal, but I think the point has already been made.

[seatnineb]

59. What are you waiting for.............

.........Come on Merc.....

Rebutting Burnback should be easy.........

I know of one photo that could really do it for ya!

I'll give you a clue:

Rooftop.

[MercutioATC]

84. Well, work...

...and my son's birthday...and the need to update the website of the band I take pictures for...


I've done over half of the necessary research for installation #2. It'll be there soon.

[AZCat]

85. Take your time

Please don't let posters here pressure you - the rest of us realize that there might be demands outside of DU that are more important than posting here.

I appreciate what you've done already and look forward to more, but if it gets to be too much don't sweat taking a little time off.

[seatnineb]

89. Come on!

......the popular mechanics article debunked(or tried to) the Burnback report in one paragraph.....

Why should it take any longer for Merc?

[seatnineb]

88. I respect your obligations....

......to your private life and other exta-curricular activities....

...but regarding Burnback ,you know the only card you have to play is the Brooklyn factor...

And...

You know that ain't gonna be good enough......

That is the real reason why it is taking you so long.

[MercutioATC]

90. Who said I was even going to address Burnback?

This is a rebuttal. I'm detailing the things VonKleist presents with which I disagree (or the things which I feel he's sensationalized and/or misrepresented). It's not a review of the video.

[Hoping4Change]

43. Yeah I got suckered by VonKliest but I am a skeptic about the

the official theory. Unless I am mistaken it seems that you, Lared and Magistrate have no problems with it. Be that as it may what is your view of

1) Rumsfield's June 1, 2001 changes to a set of procedures for responding to hijackings and

2) Rumfield's installation on May 31, 2001 of a former Enron executive as the Secretary of the Army who would then later be blamed for this procedural change?


From 9-11 Review.com:

"There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In
particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while
Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document
called:
"CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION,
J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"
(http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)

"APPROVAL"

The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here to the
existing hijacking response procedures. While the text of the
document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders
"DODD 3025.15," the approval is now required BEFORE providing any
assistance at all. Previously, approval would be required to
respond to a situation with lethal force.

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military
assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval from Donald Rumsfeld
(the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted -- which, by his
own admission, it was not.'


snip


"Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a mastermind if he hadn't
thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if needed. This brings
us to Tom White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be
Secretary of the Army, and more importantly the "executive agent
for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001 --
ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED!


http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

[MercutioATC]

45. Well, not exactly...

Speaking only for myself, I don't agree 100% with the official explanation. I believe that the events of 9/11 happened because of incompetence, negligence, and cumbersome procedures.

However, I believe that this administration has tried to cover up the mistakes they made...sometimes by letting other people "take the fall".

My issue isn't with defining the responsible parties. I think we're in agreement on that. I simply don't believe that 1) the attacks themselves were planned by our government or 2) the majority of the conspiracy theories presented here are possible...much less probable.

I'm all for people asking questions. I've asked quite a few myself. I just haven't reached the same conclusions as our more prolific CTists here.

[Hoping4Change]

46. Changing hijacking protocol is hardly of instance of incompetence.

Rummy and his cohorts were certainly competent enough to know what the document contained. There is nothing incompetent about pinpointing and altering a specific protocol in something so ponderous as a defense manual. And where do you see incompetence in the appointment of White the day prior to this fateful alteration who will eventually provide cover for Rummy, the person responsible drafting this change?

Furthermore why did Rummy who has been obsessive about streamlining the military put in place this cumbersome procedure?

Your comments remind of someone who overhearing someone clearly insult another person steps in not to upbraid the person making the insult but to smooth things over by asserting it was just a joke.

[gbwarming]

48. Has nobody compared the old and new versions?

The new policy specifies conditions where the SecDef doesn't have to give apporval before action.


OLD
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf (31 July 97)
..."In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."...

NEW
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf (1 June 01)
..."In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."...

Here is the 'immediate reponse' section of reference d from the newer, more permissive policy

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf
4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.

[MercutioATC]

49. I didn't say it was.

Rumsfeld very well may used White after the fact. However, that seems to me to be proof that the administration was trying to cover its ass, not proof of a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario.

I'm not "stepping in", I'm just stating my opinion. Feel free to argue with whomever you like.

[DulceDecorum]

47. Paint. Lime-green primer paint. Explain the paint.

I triple catdog dare you.

[Sweet Pea]

51. Take your pick:

1) Any differences in primer colors or tint was because new or refurbished parts with a newer coating of primer had been installed - i.e. door, bulkhead, access hatch, etc. and those are the parts you claim have different primer paint on them.

2) You have no idea what you are talking about because you are looking at paint that could have been altered by heat or fuel or fire or some other chemical action.

3) You have bad eyes or a bad monitor or it was a crappy camera that took the picture or the flash was just a nanosecond off or any one of a bajillion things that could affect the....how many? 3? 4?...images that you so vehemently claim are THE (by God) THEEEEEE reason(!!!) that this is NOT the aircraft that the rest of the world believes it is.

WHY isn't it the aircraft the rest of the world thinks it is? Because DULCE has seen 3? or 4? images ON THE INTERNET where lime green may ACTUALLY look PEA green. And not HUGE BIG pieces with lime (or pea) green. But itsy bitsy pieces of lime (or pea) green. No matter, though, because WE know that EVERYTHING we find on the Internet is.....perfect - be it a government database on transportation statistics or the tint of a primer paint for an airliner that crashed at 45,500 feet per minute into a concrete/steel and kevlar-reinforced building.

Perfect.

Practically perfect in every way!

[The Magistrate]

52. Perhaps, My Friend

A complimentary copy of the Metheun Handbook is on order: counting the "lime greens" and "pea greens" would be a pleasant way to spend an afternoon....

[seatnineb]

54. Come on man!

Are you telling me that this guy missed aa77's descent from 2000ft?

To: OldFriend
Thank you. Actually, I was probably a quarter of a mile from impact when I saw the fireball. Did not see the plane because we were overlooking DC thinking something would happen there. I remember knowing the instant I felt the concusion that it had been a plane. Since I was looking over the top of the Pentagon, my first thought was that it had hit the center courtyard. I was with three other people and we peeled off before going over the Potomac and spent the next 15 minutes trying to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. As we got back around on route 110 (I believe it was 110), we could see that the initial fire was along the whole side of the building (Probably from fuel).
Since that day, I ask just about everyone I meet, "Where were you when it hit?" I should be writing the stories down somewhere. I have talked to a number who actually saw the impact. Many did not sleep a wink for a week or more.


14 posted on 10/13/2001 6:05:40 AM PDT by leadpenny

...........but he still saw the fireball............