Let's hear some GREat thoughts about 9-11-01 Events !

[StoliRaz]

People like the 2 above this post are why the government COULD get away with murder. Don't ask questions, just swallow the story. The government wouldn't lie to us, right? I usually balk at conspiracy theories, but 9/11 is the exception. There are too many questions ignored and left unanswered by the government. Too many things that need to be answered I.E. insider trading of airline stocks in the week before the attack, why so many people who claimed to have information "committed suicide" in the years after 9/11, the workers in and near the Pentagon who swear on their lives there was no plane that hit there...who made money off the Iraq "war on terror" that resulted from this? I bet you believe there were WMDs in Iraq as well...if you can't even entertain the possibility that the government knew something or had a hand in this, no matter how little of a hand, then honestly I pity you.

IF the government knew, I think the most likey scenario is Bush and co. knew and let it play out for their own benefit (excuse to finish daddy's dirty work from 1991, with the way he ignored Bin Laden to invade Iraq.)

[Jay911]

Actually, it's the tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists who are to be pitied.

If you can't fathom why someone who bore witness to such a disaster would commit suicide, you have a lot to learn about this world. Even those who are successful at overcoming adversity in a time of extreme crisis sometimes fail to cope. Example - the paramedic who was seen worldwide lifting "baby Jessica" out of the well killed himself some years later due to the pressure put on him by that notoriety.

Some people can't handle tragedies and decide the only way out is to not have to handle anything any more at all. Others decide the best way to deal with it is to deny it happened and make up crackpot BS about it.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

It's been well documented that A LOT of people who were there and who gave reports to the media that day, especially about explosions near the ground level, have died mysteriously.

It's no mystery. Many people have died because they were exposed to mass quantities of particulate carcinogens, dirt, finely ground glass and metal, asbestos, pulverized concrete...

You'd die too if you had to breath that crap like those poor people did.

To insist that it was a government conspiracy that killed them is trivializing the horrors that they REALLY had to endure.

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

Another interesting fact about 9/11. The government has probably killed them off 1 by 1.

Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (MUST SEE) - YouTube

There is little to nothing factual about YouTube. I'm disappointed that anybody would consider that as a reasonable source of anything but entertainment.

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

People like the 2 above this post are why the government COULD get away with murder. Don't ask questions, just swallow the story.

I must be 1 of the 2 lol.
Answer this one question Stoli....why has not one person come forward to expose this grand conspiracy? The scope of such an operation would likely involve hundreds of people and dozens of government agencies.

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

The government wouldn't lie to us, right? I usually balk at conspiracy theories, but 9/11 is the exception. There are too many questions ignored and left unanswered by the government. Too many things that need to be answered I.E. insider trading of airline stocks in the week before the attack, why so many people who claimed to have information "committed suicide" in the years after 9/11, the workers in and near the Pentagon who swear on their lives there was no plane that hit there...who made money off the Iraq "war on terror" that resulted from this?

So this is your evidence....airline stock trades and suicides?

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

I bet you believe there were WMDs in Iraq as well...if you can't even entertain the possibility that the government knew something or had a hand in this, no matter how little of a hand, then honestly I pity you.

There were WMDs in Iraq at one time. As a matter of fact some of these weapons were used against their own people. I personally think its a disgrace to all the victims of 9/11 to suggest that the US government was somehow involved in these acts of terrorism!

Originally Posted by StoliRaz

IF the government knew, I think the most likely scenario is Bush and co. knew and let it play out for their own benefit (excuse to finish daddy's dirty work from 1991, with the way he ignored Bin Laden to invade Iraq.)

"If the government knew"....All assumptions!

[krokus]

There can be little to no argument that Iraq had little to do with the 9/11 attacks. That being the case, if someone was going to fabricate an excuse to invade Iraq, especially with amount of details needed for that day's events, it would have been much easier to come up with something that would be directly attributed to Huessein's regime.

You assume that because people are not willing to blindly accept what is purported by the fringe, that we blindly accept what is reported by the mass media. Neither "source" is reliable, and rarely reporting true facts.

I am skeptical, and skepticism does not know sides, other than what can be proven and what can not.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by krokus

There can be little to no argument that Iraq had little to do with the 9/11 attacks. That being the case, if someone was going to fabricate an excuse to invade Iraq, especially with amount of details needed for that day's events, it would have been much easier to come up with something that would be directly attributed to Huessein's regime.

No excuse was needed. There were standing U.N. resolutions authorizing force against Iraq still in place from the first Iraq war. This was due to Iraq's noncompliance with conditions of the ceasefire in 1991.

All Bush had to do was invoke existing U.N. resolutions, and go for it.

[com501]

Originally Posted by zz0468

No excuse was needed. There were standing U.N. resolutions authorizing force against Iraq still in place from the first Iraq war. This was due to Iraq's noncompliance with conditions of the ceasefire in 1991.

All Bush had to do was invoke existing U.N. resolutions, and go for it.

Which he DID, with overwhelming support.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by com501

Which he DID, with overwhelming support.

Indeed he did, on both counts. But he overcomplicated his reasoning and it cost him a great deal of support.

The point I was making is that there is NO earthly rational reason why a domestically produced 9/11 conspiracy would have been necessary to go to war with Iraq. The aluminum foil and black helicopter crowd need to look elsewhere.

[ff-medic]

Originally Posted by zz0468

Indeed he did, on both counts. But he overcomplicated his reasoning and it cost him a great deal of support.

The point I was making is that there is NO earthly rational reason why a domestically produced 9/11 conspiracy would have been necessary to go to war with Iraq. The aluminum foil and black helicopter crowd need to look elsewhere.

And a Michelob in a nice cold bottle goes to you.

The reasoning is simple. As documented, and by various media accounts, there was a crediable threat that was disregarded.

The terrorist did not do the impossible, they did the unthinkable ; and they succeeded. And in doing so they have suffered a great deal of damage to their cause, as well their leadership. Both which can be replaced.

Terrorist are not stupid. Some have a great deal of education, ALL the way to the collegiate level. Bachelors and master degrees. If they regroup, replan, and refinance....WE the United States is in trouble.

I posted many years ago on a military website, that I believed that by now that we would have been hit again. Well, it is 2012, and we have yet to see a terror strike yet. I am still waiting for the inevidable.

FF - Medic !!!

[Michael-SATX]

THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11 2001 is it was "Manufactured Terrorism" to further many agendas !

There's just one problem with the official story of Sept 11 - it isn't true !!!

To start with, lets assume that the official story is basically true - that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into buildings and one into a field. As I'll demonstrate later, this is not what happened ,but even if it were true, there is solid proof that the govt must have had prior knowledge and deliberately allowed it to happen. In order to understand this proof, one must first know the basics of the official story.

American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while on route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by 8.25 AM or earlier, and hit the Nth tower of the WTC at 8.46.

United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65 aboard , including the hijackers , was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while flying the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at about 8.55 AM and hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03.

The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.

American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with 64 aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs while on route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at 9.45.

United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with 45 aboard, including the hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF , was hijacked by 4 Arabs. It was known to be hijacked about 9.45, and crashed in PA at 10.10.

The incriminating anomaly in this timeline is that the US air force did not scramble a single fighter jet to intercept any of the hijacked planes.

A little research into aviation regulations and historical precedent demonstrates that every one of those planes should have been intercepted by jet fighters before it got anywhere near its crash destination. The failure to launch any intercepts is only explainable by a systematic nation-wide stand down of routine air defence procedures. FAA regulations state that if any plane deviates from its flight path, and fails to respond to ATC commands or communications, it is automatically declared an emergency. This is because is it has become a hazard to other planes - even if no malicious intent is suspected. If ATC is any doubt as to whether an emergency exists, it is to be considered as one.

Once ATC has detected an emergency, a request is put through to NORAD for an escort of fighter jets to intercept the plane, investigate the problem, and guide it back to its correct course, via a set of clearly stated procedures. Should the pilot prove unco-operative, the regulations provide the fighter pilots with a graduated range of more aggressive responses, such as firing warning tracers, flying one each side, to force it into the desired flight path - or even shooting down in extreme circumstances. The fighter jets are either scrambled from nearby air bases or else by diverting pilots on training flights to the intercept. It takes only a few minutes to scramble fighter jets, and the process is so routine that in the year leading up to Sept 11, there was an average of 1.6 such incidents weekly across the US. A study of the location of air bases in relation to the flight paths of the hijacked planes, indicates that every plane should have been intercepted before impact. And yet nothing was even scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.

The most spectacular example is that of the Pentagon strike. Two planes had already hit the WTC by 9.03 and yet this plane was allowed to fly for another 42 minutes, off course towards Washington, untroubled by the world's most powerful air force. Only 10 miles from the Pentagon is Andrews Airbase, a huge installation which is responsible for air defence around the DC area, and maintains two squadrons of fighter jets on permanent standby for this very purpose, since the security of the White House, State dept, Capitol and the City of DC are also at stake. This was not an unforseen contingency. The Pentagon had twice in the last two years conducted drills specifically simulating a plane strike, and for decades, US security services had been wrestling with the potential problem of a hijacked airliner taking a suicide plunge into the Whitehouse.

On Sept 11, they had nearly an hours warning of the Pentagon attack - and grounded the entire air force - in violation of standard operating procedures that are automatically implemented even in the case of a single plane accidentally deviating from its course with no obviously hostile intent.

NORAD, after initially admitting that it failed to scramble anything - supposedly because it simply hadn't imagined such a situation - suddenly changed the story a week later, claiming that it had scrambled fighters from Langley air-base - 130 miles away - but they didn't get there in time. If fighters were really scrambled from Langley, then how could NORAD - which issues the scramble order - have been unaware of it until a week later? And according to the times given by NORAD , the Langley fighters would have had to flown at less than 260 mph to have not got there in time - when the top speed of the fighters is about 1200mph. And why scramble from Langley, when Andrews had two squadrons just 10 miles away - specifically dedicated to the DC area?

Even more curious is that CBS news was the first to publish the claim about Langley, producing it without any source at all on Sept 14. On Sept 16,Vice President, Dick Cheney was still defending the lack on any scramble prior to the pentagon strike, and NORAD didn’t pick up the CBS spin and incorporate it until Sept 18.

Then they tried to say that no fighters were available at Andrews that day, but failed to explain how the non existent fighters then somehow appeared at Andrews to scramble a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit, but still didn’t bother to chase UA 93, which was supposedly still at large and heading towards DC.

While the air force was doing nothing, the two officials most directly responsible for defence of the nation - Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , General Richard Myers and President/Commander in Chief, George W. Bush were displaying what can only be described as cavalier indifference to the horror that was unfolding. Myers was about to start a routine meeting with Senator Max Cleland when he heard that a plane had hit the WTC. He went ahead with the meeting as if nothing had happened. 18 minutes later, when the second plane hit, and NORAD knew that at least one more plane was hijacked, Myers and Cleland continued with the meeting. Then a plane hit the Pentagon. And still they continued with the meeting.

Meanwhile, Bush was in Florida, about to make a televised photo opportunity trip to an elementary school, to listen to second graders read, after which he was to give a speech about the reading program. Before he even got to the school, he knew about the first WTC strike, but continued with his arrangement. And then, still, before he arrived at the school, NORAD -- according to its own timeline, knew about two more hijackings, which means that Bush knew, but he continued to the school anyway - in spite of that fact that the school was only 5 miles from an international airport , and his movements were public knowledge in advance, which means that the school might have been a target - and then he pretended to know nothing about the attacks when he got there. Before he went into the classroom, it would have been clear to NORAD that a major terrorist attack was underway.

By 9.05 Bush was listening to a little girl read a story about her pet goat, and his Chief of staff, Andrew card came into the classroom and whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC and that "America was under attack." Bush nodded casually and continued with the reading class - for about another 25 minutes, smiling ,joking and cheering about the reading skills of the children. A reporter who suggested that he should be addressing himself to the situation in NY was sternly rebuked by Bush, who said that now was not the time to be talking about it. And at this time, Bush knew that there was at least one more plane at large - something which no-one else in the class knew.

At 9.30, with AA 77 still flying unescorted towards DC, Bush finished the reading class (on schedule) and then wasted more time with a pointless speech to the nation, already promising to "hunt down and punish those responsible", while showing no interest in doing anything about the plane which was still at large, a danger of which his audience was unaware. He left the school about the same time that the Pentagon was hit.

Later, in an attempt to cover up the fact that he'd still gone to the school in spite of being aware of the crisis, Bush lied about his movements on the morning, inventing a story that he was already at the school when the first WTC strike happened. This lie has worked its way into the popular mythology in the mainstream media. In the scramble to find a cover story for his movements that morning, Bush also carelessly claimed that he'd seen the first crash live on TV at the school and had thought it was an accident. This is also a lie because the first strike was never broadcast live.

Immediately after the attacks, US TV networks reported that investigators were looking into massive insider trading on airline stocks in the last few days before the attacks - indicating that the terrorists profited from foreknowledge of their actions. Then the story simply vanished from the mainstream media. Investigative and regulatory authorities could easily find out who placed those trades, but more than three years later, there has been no investigation, no charges laid and deafening silence about the trades from both govt and media.

Although the govt claimed to be completely taken by surprise, it somehow had no trouble in naming the alleged perpetrator - Osama Bin Laden - within hours, and immediately threatened to invade Afghanistan. What they neglected to mention was that the decision to invade Afghanistan had already been made by July 2001, and the specific war plans arrived on Bush's desk on sept 9.

It a common myth that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attacks but this simply isn't true. He's vigorously denied any involvement ,and according to some reports has condemned the attacks as un-Islamic. The myth of his confession is based entirely upon a video tape produced by the Pentagon which claims to show him laughing about how many innocent people he's killed. This tape is a fake. In at least some of the clips, the person is not Bin Laden.

The US military conveniently "found" the tape in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon's translation was immediately attacked by independent translators as misleading and incomplete. In response, the Pentagon effectively admitted as much, saying "it is not a verbatim translation of every word spoken at the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow." The Dept of defense defended the translation thus . " The translation is what it is .We never said it was a literal translation."

Incriminating as all of this is, it only scratches the surface. The FBI managed to name the 19 Arabs involved within a few days, and their names, faces and biographies were promptly splashed across the mainstream media. Supposedly, their passports and suicide notes were found at the crash scenes in spite of fiery crashes which completely incinerated the planes - including the normally indestructible flight recorder boxes - and all the occupants. In another miraculous stroke of good luck for the evidence hunters, the luggage of alleged ringleader, Mahommed Atta, was somehow left behind at Logan airport and just happened to contain instructions to his fellow conspirators. And it seems that they learned how to fly the giant Boeings at the last minute by reading flight manuals on the way to the airport - because they conveniently left the manuals - in Arabic of course - in the cars they had rented.

How embarrassing for the FBI when some of the alleged hijackers started turning up alive, protesting their innocence! And even more embarrassing when the passenger lists provided by the airlines to CNN did not contain a single Arabic name. And none of the names on the passenger lists are alleged to be aliases for any of the Arabs. How did they get on the flights without being on the passenger lists, and if they were using false names, how were these traced to their real ID's and why have none of the other names on the lists ever been identified as hijackers aliases ? 19 obviously Arabic men got on to planes with non Arabic false ID, with a 100% success rate? And why is there no airport security footage of them?

As the cover story quickly unravelled within a few weeks of "identifying" the hijackers, the FBI was then forced to admit that they actually had no idea who the hijackers were. In spite of this, the same 19 names and faces have been splashed across the mainstream media unchanged, as if this admission had never been made. The farcical "911 commission" treated the 19 Arabs as a fact, waffling about "missed intelligence warnings" in relation to their pre-Sept 11 activities.

And in subsequent statements, the FBI buried the admission of doubt about the hijackers identities with an avalanche of increasingly ridiculous spin about the sinister pre- Sept11 activities of the 19 Arabs, seemingly forgetting that they admitted these IDs to be fictitious. For example, the FBI rather stupidly claimed that 9 of the fictitious Arabs had actually been searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. If they were using false names when they were searched, then surely the FBI must know which of those 9 people on the passenger lists were actually the hijackers incognito? And if they were not using false IDs, can we know why they're not on the passenger lists? Clearly, the 19 Arabs are complete fiction.

Some critical thinking about how the hijacking is supposed to have taken place also reveals the story as a bad cartoon script. In the event of a hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit hijacking code - accessible from several different places - to alert ATC to a hijacking. So if 5 men were to try to take over a plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters, while it might be possible for them to be able to gain control of the plane, to do so without ATC first receiving a distress code is almost impossible. We are supposed to believe that they achieved the impossible 4 times out of 4.

In one of the phone calls allegedly made from AA 11, it was said that the crew locked themselves in the cockpit, and the hijackers attempted to lure them out by shooting and stabbing passengers. This is said to have gone on for 25 minutes. Why then no distress code from AA 11 ? Furthermore, the timeline of the alleged phone call indicates that the plane had already turned off course before the hijackers got into the cockpit!

But it wasn't only the hijackers which were fiction. So were the hijackings. We all think that we saw a big plane hit the WTC live on TV, so there must have been hijacked planes, right ? A closer look reveals it as an elaborate illusion.

note: I have readed my max so I will continue this .......

[Michael-SATX]

First , lets take AA77, the plane which is supposed to have hit the Pentagon. This is one of the most heavily monitored and defended buildings in the world, and yet somehow they can't come up with any footage of the crash. Because it never happened. Something hit the pentagon but it wasn't a Boeing 757 or anything anywhere near that size. There are numerous photos of the aftermath and nowhere is to be seen any evidence of wreckage of such a plane. A 757 has a wingspan of 125 ft, a tail height of 40 ft and a length of 155 ft. The hole in the Pentagon wall was about 16 ft wide, 12 ft high and collapsed only the first ring of the building - about 40 ft deep. There is no sign of any Boeing debris anywhere. No wings, no tail, no protruding fuselage. The tail couldn't fit through the hole even if the plane was sliding along the ground. And because the grass outside is smooth, green and undamaged, even that is impossible. And because the angle of entry of the mystery object was about 45 degrees , 125 ft wingspan would cause an impact about 180 ft wide. A giant aircraft has supposedly passed through a hole many times smaller than itself, without breaking off any parts, and then totally vanished.

Furthermore, official aviation records from the US bureau of transportation say that the alleged AA 77 flight did not exist. The BT keeps a record of details about every flight ever scheduled from a US airport - even cancelled flights. No such record exists of AA 77 on Sept 11. Early reports said that the incident at the pentagon was caused by a truck bomb. Witness reports are confused and contradictory, but some mention a missile or small fighter jet.

Now consider AA 11, the plane alleged to have hit the Nth tower at 8.46. This is not the plane shown in the dramatic, often replayed crash video, but the less frequently shown first crash - not broadcast until later, when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public's mind. Whatever the object is, it is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet. When one views the video at full speed, one can only see a brief flash and then the explosion. Since we are always being told that its AA 11, the natural tendency is to think that its just too fast to see on the video. However a frame by frame analysis shows a very strange looking object, more like a flying pig than a plane. Certainly nothing like a Boeing 767 and way too small. It dive-bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to impossible for a large airliner.

Neither is there any witness evidence to support a large jet. All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile, or people who were looking right at the explosion and simply didn't see any plane, and it only became a large plane after American Airlines issued a statement saying that it had lost AA11 in the crash.

The BT database also says that there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11. A close examination of the passenger lists published by the media for the alleged AA11 proves them to be fabricated, because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets.

Now the Sth tower crash, the one shown live on TV. Surely this was a real Boeing 767 because we saw it live, and at superficial viewing it certainly appears to be a large jet. However, a frame by frame examination of the video reveals that it is not a real plane. It shows impossible physical characteristics and behaviour. It passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts. The hole only appears well after the plane has entirely disappeared without disturbing the building. It exceeds the maximum speed of a Boeing 767 at low altitude while banked sharply and flying in the opposite direction to that in which its banking. It hip hops across the screen regularly alternating ,frame by frame, between supersonic speed and hovering motionless. It has a strange anomaly in the shape of the belly.

It is a fake. The plane is simply a movie. There are several shots of the cartoon plane that were aired by news agencies at the time One is undoubtedly a crudely faked video. In relation to the others, argument continues over whether they are also conventional faked videos or whether they are real footage of some kind of kind of holographic projection. Whichever is the case, it is not a real plane, because real planes don’t pass through walls without making holes and without breaking off any parts.

Witness evidence for a large plane hitting the Sth tower is as elusive as for the Nth Tower and the Pentagon. There is a police transcript of a report of someone firing missiles.

Aviation records from the FAA show that although UA 175 existed as a flight, unlike AA 77 or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned - N612UA - is still registered and valid. In other words, it never crashed. So we don't know where it went, but we do know that it didn't hit the WTC.

And finally UA 93 - alleged to have crashed in PA. Like UA 175, this was a bona fide flight, but the plane - N591UA - is also still registered as valid.

FAA records do show the planes to which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned - N334AA and N644AA as destroyed - but not until Jan 14 2002, when the FAA regulations state that the deregistration must be reported on the day that a plane is totally destroyed. So most likely these planes were ready for retirement and were taken away somewhere to be scrapped.

Now to the question of the collapse of the WTC towers. The official story that they collapsed from fire and/or impact damage is a physical impossibility. Video of the event shows that the towers did not collapse - they exploded in mid air, and one can see clear evidence of explosive charges running down the buildings, and neatly chopped storey length pieces of steel girder being ejected as far as 70 metres from the building. There are numerous scientific studies which demonstrate that its impossible for them to have collapsed in the pancaking manner cited in the official story.

Firstly, all of the concrete in the towers was totally pulverized into fine dust. The amount of energy needed to achieve this task is quantifiable, and so is the amount of potential energy available in a gravitational collapse. Its insufficient to achieve this pulverization, which means that only an added input of energy (such as explosives) can balance the energy equation. In other words "What was the heat source to cause molten metal to flow ? "

Secondly, a simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrate that the towers collapsed in a time which was impossible had the top floors been smashing through the lower floors. Excluding air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers supposedly collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is impossible under the law of gravity.

This proves that the entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously converted into a free falling collection of disconnected rubble, something only achievable through the co-ordinated use of demolition explosives. There are also witness reports from fire-fighters who say that they heard bombs going off in the buildings.

The media likes to gloss over the similarly neat, vertical, and lightening quick collapse of WTC building 7, a 47 storey building which was not hit by anything but also disappeared in a manner identical to that of a classic controlled demolition. Apart from Sept 11, no steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire - and there were allegedly 3 in one day. The steel debris from the towers was rushed away for recycling with indecent haste, before any investigation could be conducted into the remains.

On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it anymore.

The early spin from the media was that the ferocious heat of the burning jet fuel melted the structural steel of the skyscraper. Unfortunately, jet fuel, which is basically kerosene, typically burns at about 450 degrees C, and steel melts at about 1550C.

Calculations of the maximum amount of heat which could have been even theoretically generated by the maximum amount of fuel that the mythical planes could have carrying show that it could not have contributed more than 280C to the temperature - even if all the fuel was confined to one floor. Each floor of the WTC was about 4,000 sq metres. The maximum amount of fuel which the plane could have carried was about 8000 gallons. So even claiming that all of this fuel burnt within one floor, that's about 2 gallons per sq metre - supposedly melting steel construction beams.

Neither does the myth of a ferocious fire in the WTC stand up to the scrutiny of witness or video evidence. Fire-fighter tapes describe some "isolated pockets of fire" which they could "knock out" with two hoses. And the black smoke drifting from the building indicates an oxygen starved fire.

Even if the mythical inferno were true, far more ferocious fires have been experienced in other skyscrapers - sometimes burning out of control for as long as 20 hours, and never has one of these buildings collapsed.

Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. Its the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under tenanted and beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb. And of course, they couldn't be demolished because of all the asbestos dust that would go into the air of NY. The NYPA had been trying to sell the buildings for years, and understandably, nobody was interested. In early 2001, the NYPA went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance company to pay for asbestos renovations. The case was thrown out. This should have made the buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this, Manhattan property developer Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of Westfield America, stepped in with a consortium worth $US3.2 billion for a 99 year lease on the site. Westfield Australia directly contributed $A840 million for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein insured himself for $US3.5 billion per terrorist attack, and Westfield insured itself against terrorism and loss of rental income.

Not long after, when the WTC conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack - along with building 7 of the complex - it solved the asbestos problem, leaving Silverstein with a clean building site on the best real estate in the world, and Westfield with a rental income which probably would have been unsustainable in a real trading environment, and no law suits over all the asbestos dust released into the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's insurer has agreed to the $3.5 billion pay out, but Silverstein is claiming that it was two terrorist attacks and wants $ 7 billion, which is currently the subject of a court case.

Very early media reports had the two fictitious AA flights as the planes to hit the WTC. AA 77 was only switched to being the Pentagon plane hours later. UA 175 was the last plane to be "confirmed" as involved. At 9.17, the FAA started diverting all flights. Early reports show wild discrepancies in terms of which allegedly hijacked plane went where. The fictitious AA77 is particularly volatile from one report to another, at one stage saying that it hit the WTC, then that it didn't even take off for a half hour after the Sth Tower strike ,then that after taking off at 9.33, it somehow flew 700 miles out to Ohio and back, in just 5 minutes, to hit the Pentagon. One report had UA 93 landing at Cleveland due to a bomb scare.

What is clear is that they were making it up as they went along, and the final cover story about which planes crashed where didn't settle down for hours.

In summary, this is most likely how the morning of Sept 11 really played out. There was no need to issue an order for the air force to stand down routine intercept procedures, because it appears that there actually weren't any hijackings.

Two unconventional objects were fired into the WTC. The impacts were blamed on the two fictitious AA flights. At this time UA 93 and 175 were flying normally. Then the FAA begins diverting flights - including the two UA flights. The BT database tells us of any flights which are diverted, but doesn't tell us where they are diverted to. So we don't have an official record of where the two UA flights landed , although there is some evidence that UA 93 actually landed at Cleveland. Later, AA 77 became the pentagon plane, and UA 175 became the Sth tower plane as the official cover story started to settle down.

Thus of the four allegedly hijacked planes , two didn't exist, and the other two were diverted to safe landings.

Most likely the PA crash was a drone craft of some kind, and there is evidence that the substitute craft was shot down
by a USAF F-16 from the NORAD Happy Houligan's squadran that returned to base minus 2 sidewinders missles.
You can't publically admit that or everybody and their mother would want to file lawsuits. They made the right call to
shoot it down rather that allow it to hit the capitol or other building, which is in their mandate to prevent air attacks.

Lastly to N1RGR, the combustor does NOT have the correct triangular markings on it to be a Rolls Royce RB-211
Fact: Either you took the photos PERSONALLY ? or your just playing the game of "my website is better than yours" !

It's GREat that here on RR we have a wealth of knowledgeable folks and that it why I included aircraft tail numbers
so you all can do some of your own research and then see for yourselves why the official story isn't true !!!

[rdale]

Please, just drop it. Your life will flow so much more smoothly if you come back to the real world. Movies are fake, reality is real. Return...

[com501]

Some people fail to account for government incompetence in their time lines....

I have to get my 'E-Meter' recalibrated, either that or my last session was completely irrelevant.......

[JoeyC]

Feels good to be back in the outside world doesnt it?

[elk2370bruce]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

It was a missile... lol.
Where's the evidence?

As Jack Webb always said on Dragnet, "Just the facts ma'm" All the rest is useless conjecture by conspiracy theorists (tin foil golf caps an all) who love their false assumptions.

[N1RGR]

Originally Posted by elk2370bruce

As Jack Webb always said on Dragnet, "Just the facts ma'm" All the rest is useless conjecture by conspiracy theorists (tin foil golf caps an all) who love their false assumptions.

These are the same folks who still think the moon landing was staged! Their theories are absolutely ridiculous,baseless and lack any evidence at all. Personally I think this so called conspiracy theory is a disgrace to the victims of 9/11. The fact of the matter is that these people died at the hands of Islamic terroists. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to have a check up from the neck up!

[elk2370bruce]

Originally Posted by N1RGR

These are the same folks who still think the moon landing was staged! Their theories are absolutely ridiculous,baseless and lack any evidence at all. Personally I think this so called conspiracy theory is a disgrace to the victims of 9/11. The fact of the matter is that these people died at the hands of Islamic terroists. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to have a check up from the neck up!

Thanks for a well-spoken, right-on, and heart-felt statement. I wish more people would think of these victims as we do. I can't understand where facts, evidence, and the use logical reasoning that these false theories still abound. The 9-11 Commission, made up of a variety of specialists and representatives of the two principle political parties (who didn't fight for a change), is an interesting document to read and digest.

[Arizona_Scanner]

If those weren't commercial jets full of people, where did all of the people (like Barbara Olson for instance) disappear to?

Have you ever noticed that not ONE SINGLE licensed structural or mechanical engineer buys into the conspiracy theories? Not one single licensed engineer disputes what happened. Does this not make you re-think your conspiracy theories about controlled demolition?

There is no way to keep quiet what would be the largest conspiracy in American history. Too many people motivated by money, personal vendettas, and yes, patriotism for that to happen.

The simple truth is that a bunch of islamic thugs caught us napping, and killed 3,000 people that day by using box-cutters.

[Michael-SATX]

Here is some new meat to chew on for the nay sayers ~ ya might want to pass the steak sauce ~ just sayin !
To N1RGR, you like sources, grab a cold brew and read on brother. rdale, grey poupon or steak sauce ?

9/11: EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY AND COVER-UP AT THE PENTAGON
Probable cause that Vice President Cheney, Solicitor General Olson, Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld, and others were involved: plese take a fresh lQQk !!!

Evidence that the official account of September 11, 2001 (9/11) is false
The 9/11 Commission Report states (p.10): “At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77
crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.”
The Pentagon Building Performance Report states (p.14): “A Pentagon security camera
located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached
the building. Five photographs (fig. 3.3 – 3.7), taken approximately one second apart,
show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial
impact.The first photograph (fig. 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was
approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the
Pentagon.Two photographs (fig. 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the
top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the
ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.”
The evidence shows that these statements — from The 9/11 Commission Report and
The Pentagon Building Performance Report — are false. Specifically:
1 - Eyewitness accounts of CNN’s Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre,
Arlington County Police Department’s “first incident commander” Lt. Robert
Medairos, Lt. Col. Kwiatowski, and Pentagon employee April Gallop refute the official
account of 9/11;
2 - The FBI’s exhibit P200054 in the trial of the alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias
Moussaoui contradicts the account of the U.S. Solicitor General regarding phone
calls from his wife allegedly on board Flight 77;
3 - The U.S. Department of Defense transcript of the September 12, 2001 News
Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of
Arlington County), and others, does not mention "American Airlines", "Flight 77",
"Boeing 757";
4 - The U.S. Department of Defense transcript of the September 15, 2001 News
Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R.
Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others,
expresses doubts about what struck the Pentagon on September 11;
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 1 of 10
6 - Reports of an explosion at the Pentagon, and the presence of Fort Myer Fire
Department Unit 161 at the Pentagon minutes before the alleged strike by “Flight 77”
indicate that the fire and damage at the Pentagon may have had another cause;
7 - The Pentagon Building Performance Report, and the Arlington County After-
Action Report show damage that is not consistent with a strike by a Boeing 757, but
is consistent with one or more explosions;
8 - The Flight Data Recorder data provided by the National Transportation Safety
Board pursuant to a Freedom of Information request does not support the official
account;
9 - The alleged pilot of Flight 77 Hani Hanjour couldn’t possibly have flown a Boeing
757 on the alleged flight path to the Pentagon;
10 - Flight 77 could not have withstood the 34 G-force that it would have
experienced along the alleged flight path — it would have crashed on the ground in
front of the Pentagon, but the debris found there does not support this scenario.
Evidence supporting the preceding statements is presented in my book 9/11 Unveiled,
and in my presentation at the 911 Vancouver Hearings on June 15, 2012. Both of these
contain links to further evidence including photos, videos, transcripts, reports.
Probable cause that the individuals named below were part of a common plan, or
aided and abetted, or participated in, or covered-up a common plan and
conspiracy in the events of September 11, 2001

Name: Richard B. Cheney
Title (At the time of 9/11): Vice President, U.S.
Incriminating evidence: Mr. Cheney contravened a presidential order that “authorized
the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by
terrorists”. He may have done this to protect a fake attack on the Pentagon during the
course of the many war games and exercises being conducted on September 11, 2001.
In a public hearing on May 23, 2003, before the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), there’s the following question from
9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, and the response of Norman Y. Mineta,
Former Secretary of Transportation:
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the
Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I
think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think
it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 2 of 10
were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was
given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane
coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the
vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got
down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do
the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and
said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
The only reasonable interpretation of Mr. Cheney’s order is “do not shoot”. This
contravened President Bush’s order — the shooting down of commercial aircraft that
were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, and left the Pentagon open to attack.
Since September 11, 2001 to the present, then/former Vice President Cheney has
supported and promoted the false account of 9/11. He played a major role in launching
the U.S. war on Afghanistan knowing that the evidence did not support the rationale for
war that was presented by President George W. Bush to Americans and others.
Reference: (1) Transcript of May 23, 2003 hearing at
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm (2) C-SPAN broadcast —
which has been removed from the official record of the hearing (3) http://
http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...tagonOn911.pdf
(4) The Last Secret of 9/11 Truth:
The 46 Drills, War Games, and Operations that Made It All Happen « TARPLEY.net

Name: Theodore Olson
Title (At the time of 9/11): Solicitor General of the U.S.
Incriminating evidence: FBI Exhibit P200054 from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui
contradicts the Solicitor General's account of phone calls from Flight 77. The FBI exhibit
shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call. That call did not connect, and it
lasted for 0 seconds.
However, in a front page article on September 12, 2001 — On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is
Being Hijacked' — Marc Fisher and Don Phillips of the Washington Post reported that
Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice in the final minutes before the crash of Flight
77. The FBI contradicts this account.
According to the Washington Post, Olson's last words to her husband were, "What do I
tell the pilot to do? "She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said
Theodore Olson — 42nd Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but
it is." "The two conversations each lasted about a minute, said Tim O'Brien, a CNN
reporter and friend of the Olsons."
Mr. Olson repeated his account of phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson during an
interview with Barbara Walters on ABC, and with Larry King on CNN. Mr. Olson’s claim
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 3 of 10
of phone calls from his wife on board a hijacked plane may be the earliest “confirmation”
of an aircraft hijacked on September 11, 2001, and helped sell the false account of
Flight 77 and 9/11.
On November 17, 2009 I asked Mr. Olson (tolson@gibsondunn.com) to comment on the
fact that his account of phone calls from Barbara Olson is contradicted by FBI Exhibit
P200054 in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Mr. Olson did not respond.
Reference: (1) Ted Olson with Barbara Walters on ABC, September 2001 http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xDarPT2KdA (2) Ted Olson with Larry King on CNN http://
Pentagon Explosion, No Flight 77:
TED OLSON: "Love for My Wife, Barbara" IN THE PRESENT TENSE - YouTube

Name: Donald Rumsfeld
Title (At the time of 9/11): U.S. Secretary of Defense
Incriminating evidence: Two days after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld stated on ABC’s Good
Morning America, “The plane came in ... between about the first and second floor ... And
it went in through three rings. I’m told the nose is — is still in there, very close to the
inner courtyard, about one ring away.” However, there’s no hard evidence of Flight 77, a
Boeing 757, having struck the Pentagon.
Mr. Runsfeld’s account is also contradicted by: CNN’s Jamie McIntyre who reported
from the Pentagon on 9/11; Arlington County Police Department’s incident commander
Robert Medairos; eyewitnesses Lt. Col. Kwiatowski and Pentagon employee April
Gallop; U.S. Department of Defense transcript of the September 12, 2001 News
Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of
Arlington County) that does not mention "American Airlines", "Flight 77", "Boeing 757";
U.S. Department of Defense transcript of the September 15, 2001 News Briefing by Mr.
Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy
assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs that expresses doubts about what
struck the Pentagon on September 11; reports of an explosion at the Pentagon, and the
presence of Fort Myer Fire Department Unit 161 at the Pentagon minutes before the
alleged strike by “Flight 77” indicate that the fire and damage at the Pentagon may have
had another cause.
Reference: (1) ABC’s Good Morning America Internet Archive: Error
sept_11_tv_archive (2) Enver Masud’s presentation at the 911 Commission Hearings
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html (3) 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud

Name: Leonard Downie Jr.
Title (At the time of 9/11): Executive Editor, The Washington Post
Incriminating evidence: On the front page of the Washington Post, September 12,
2001, there was an article regarding Solicitor General Olson receiving phone calls from
his wife Barbara K. Olson on board American Airlines Flight 77. For Mr. Olson’s account
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 4 of 10
to appear on the front page of the Washington Post on September 12, 2001 indicates
that the Post was part of the 9/11 cover-up and propaganda from the beginning.
On March 3, 2005, in a letter to Mr. Downie Jr, Milton Coleman, Deputy Managing
Editor, Bob Woodward, Assistant Managing, Editor, and Michael Getler, Ombudsman, I
wrote, “After analyzing publicly available evidence over the past three years, I have
come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that a Boeing 757 crashed into the
Pentagon on September 11.”
I presented my qualifications as an engineering management consultant, and pointed
out that at the September 12, 2001 News Briefing Flight 77 was not mentioned, at the
September 15 News Briefing doubts were expressed about what struck the Pentagon. I
also stated in the March 3, 2005 letter “As for the 19 alleged hijackers, their names do
not appear on Associated Press’ “partial list of victims” on the four hijacked flights; on
September 20, 2001 FBI Director Robert S. Mueller acknowledged, “the identity of
several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt”; on September 23, 2001 the BBC revealed
that four of the hijack “suspects” were alive and well. The Post did not respond.
On December 5, 2009, in an email to Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman, Washington Post
stating that both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls — the Solicitor General's and
the prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui — cannot be correct. Mr.
Alexander responded, “I will forward your e-mail to The Post's National desk, so they
are aware of the issue you've raised.” The Post did not follow up with me, and I have not
seen any correction issued by the Post.
Reference: (1) Enver Masud’s letter to the Washington Post http://www.twf.org/News/
Y2005/0303-WashPost.pdf (2) Enver Masud’s letter to Ombudsman, Washington Post
9/11 Phone Calls From Barbara Olson:
Either The Washington Post or The FBI Is Wrong

Name: Philip D. Zelikow
Title (At the time of 9/11): President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Incriminating evidence: The 9/11 Commission Report was not an investigation. It was
a cover-up operation. Mr. Zelikow controlled the 9/11 Commission’s access to
witnesses. Witness accounts and data that did not fit the official theory were excluded,
eg. reported explosion in Pentagon, and absence of hard evidence of Flight 77 parts.
By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, two men (Philip Zelikow,
Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission, and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian) had
prepared a detailed outline, complete with “chapter headings, subheadings, and subsubheadings”
of the final report according to New York Times reporter Philip Shenon.
The 9/11 Commission’s Chair Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton in their
book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, write that they were
“setup to fail”. Sen. Max Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission saying, “It’s a
scam”. Sen. Bob Kerrey “threatened to resign”.
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 5 of 10
Mr. Zelikow served on the National Security Council under George H. W. Bush, on the
George W. Bush transition team, and he coauthored a book with President Bush’s
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. The Bush administration did not want an
investigation.
Reference: (1) http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm (2) Philip Shenon, “The
Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” 2008, p389

Name: Victoria Clarke
Title (At the time of 9/11): Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Incriminating evidence: On September 12, 2001, Ms. Clarke, with the world’s news
media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon
by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American
Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not considered important enough to mention at
the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack.
The transcript of the DoD News Briefing reveals that reporters were being “threatened
or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away” from the “Flight 77” crash site.
Ms. Clarke covered up the fact that there was no hard evidence of a Boeing 757 having
struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Indeed, she continues to promote the
false account of 9/11.
Reference: (1) Transcript of the DoD News Briefing Defense.gov: Transcripts
transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1617 (2) Special program on the 10th anniversary of
9/11 Victoria Clarke: 9/11: Ten Years Later - YouTube (3) Enver Masud’s
presentation at the 911 Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/
Y2012/0615-911/index.html (4) 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud

Name: Mr. Lee Evey
Title (At the time of 9/11): Pentagon Renovation Manager
Incriminating evidence: Mr. Evey participated in the cover-up of what happened at the
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. On September 15, 2001, at a DoD News
Briefing, Mr. Evey stated, “The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring —
excuse me — E ring, D ring, C ring.”
Mr. Evey’s statement is false. The nose of Flight 77, a Boeing 757, could not possibly
have penetrated “three rings” of the Pentagon, and here’s no hard evidence of a Boeing
757 having struck the Pentagon.
Reference: (1) Transcript of the DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation http://
www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-DoD915briefing.pdf (2) Enver Masud’s presentation at
the 911 Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html (3)
9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 6 of 10

(darn why are posts only allowed 24,000 characters ... grrrr )

[Michael-SATX]

(continued from my post above ~ ah it's almost desert time ~ who's buying ? )

Name: Robert S. Mueller, III
Title (At the time of 9/11): Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Incriminating evidence: Mr. Mueller, as reported by BBC News on September 23,
2001, acknowledged that “the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.” On
April 19, 2002, at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Mr. Mueller
stated, “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the
U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.” Yet he
has not objected to the attack on Afghanistan — based upon the U.S. claim that Osama
Bin Laden, based in Afghanistan, was responsible for 9/11.
The FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists web page continued to state that Bin Laden was not
wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. It stated: “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998,
bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi,
Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in
other terrorist attacks throughout the world.” It did not mention the biggest attack on the
U.S. mainland — 9/11.
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the
FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is
not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no
hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
The evidence shows that Bin Laden and 19 Muslim hijackers could not have planned
and executed the events of 9/11 — i.e. the destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7,
and crashing Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
Mr. Mueller and the FBI continue to support the false account of 9/11, which was the
basis for launching the war on Afghanistan, while admitting that “the FBI has no hard
evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Reference: (1) Bin Laden Not Wanted 'Dead or Alive' -- For 9/11 (2) http://
January 1970 | Commonwealth Club

Name: Unknown
Title (At the time of 9/11): Unknown, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Incriminating evidence: On September 12, 2001, the Washington Post reported: “At
one point, a column of 50 FBI officers walked shoulder-to-shoulder across the south
grounds of the Pentagon, picking up debris and stuffing it into brown bags. The lawn
was scattered with chunks of the airplane, some up to four feet across.”
Why were the “50 FBI officers” disturbing the crime scene on September 11, 2001? Who
gave them the order to do pick up the debris? It would appear that these 50 officers,
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 7 of 10
and the person who gave them the order to pick up the debris, may have violated laws
concerning preserving the crime scene.
Reference: (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2001/09/12/
AR2005033108366.html (2) Photo in Enver Masud’s presentation at the 911
Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html

Name: Jamie McIntyre
Title (At the time of 9/11): Senior Pentagon Correspondent, CNN
Incriminating evidence: Just minutes after the attack, standing in front of the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, reported: “From my close up inspection there's
no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only
pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There
are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around
which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon. . . . It
wasn't till about 45 minutes later . . . that all of the floors collapsed.”
Mr. McIntyre, knowing that there was no evidence of Flight 77 having crashed into the
Pentagon, remained silent while the U.S. launched the October 7, 2001 attack on
Afghanistan. Indeed, he later retracted his statement of September 11, 2001 saying that
he had been taken out of context.
Reference: (1) What Really Happened on September 11 at the Pentagon (2) Enver Masud’s
presentation at the 911 Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/
Y2012/0615-911/index.html (3) 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud

Name: Jay Fisette
Title (At the time of 9/11): Chairman, Arlington County Board
Incriminating evidence: The Arlington County After-Action Report prepared under Mr.
Fisette’s supervision appears to intentionally leave out facts that would lead one to a
different conclusion than that drawn by the The 9/11 Commission and is part of the
cover-up of what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
“In 2001 Mr. Fisette oversaw the County response to the terrorist attack on the
Pentagon.... Arlington County After-Action Report (AAR) describes the activities of
Arlington County and the supporting jurisdictions, government agencies, and other
organizations in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon.”
The AAR does not include the statement by Ed Plaugher, Fire Chief, Arlington County,
that, "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that
sort of thing." (DoD News Briefing, September 12, 2001)
Mr. Plaugher’s statement was confirmed by Lt. Medairos, Arlington County Police
Department, Watch Commander for the day, who stated, "They said it was a plane, and
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 8 of 10
I didn't see any pieces of any plane, and I couldn't believe a plane hit the building." Mr.
Medairos’ statement is not included in the AAR. (ABC 7, Washington, D.C. September
13, 2001, 3:25 PM)
The Arlington County After-Action Report, Appendix 1, 24-Hour Timeline, also omits
mention of Arlington County Fire Department Engine 102 and Engine 107 which were
photographed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. What their crews saw, and what
the crew of Fort Myer Fire Department Unit 161 saw, may confirm the reported
explosion at the Pentagon prior to the alleged crash of Flight 77.
Reference: (1) Arlington County After-Action Report on the Response to the September
11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon (2) http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0101-
FMFD161.html (3) Enver Masud’s presentation at the 911 Commission Hearings http://
www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html (4) 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud

Name: Edward P. (Ed) Plaugher
Title (At the time of 9/11): Fire Chief, Arlington County, Virginia
Incriminating evidence: On September 12, 2001, Mr. Plaugher, with the world's news
media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon
by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — "American
Airlines", "Flight 77", "Boeing 757" were not considered important enough to mention at
the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack.”
At the Department of Defense news briefing with Victoria Clarke, Plaugher stated, "there
are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."
When asked, "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the
highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact
due to the fuel", Plaugher reponded, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that."
The transcript reveals that reporters were being "threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and
dragged away" from the “Flight 77” crash site, and I (Enver Masud) showed in my
presentation at the 911 Vancouver Hearings, there’s no hard evidence of a Boeing 757
having struck the Pentagon.
Mr. Plaugher, knowing that there were “no fuselage sections and that sort of thing” at
the Pentagon, remained silent while the U.S. launched the October 7, 2001 attack on
Afghanistan. He has not challenged the false account of 9/11 contained in the Arlington
County After-Action Report.
Reference: 1) Transcript of the DoD News Briefing Defense.gov: Transcripts
transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1617 (2) File Not Found : Web Information : Arlington, Virginia
Documents/after_report.pdf (3) Enver Masud’s presentation at the 911 Commission
Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html (4) 9/11 Unveiled by
Enver Masud
Enver Masud, August 15, 2012! Page 9 of 10

Name: Robert Medairos
Title (At the time of 9/11): Lt. Medairos, Arlington County Police Department
Incriminating evidence: Lt. Medairos, first incident commander at the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001, stated on ABC 7, Washington, D.C. (September 13, 2001, 3:25
PM), “They said it was a plane, and I didn't see any pieces of any plane, and I couldn't
believe a plane hit the building.”
Lt. Medairos was introduced to the news media by Edward Flynn, Police Chief Arlington
County, Virginia, with Fire Chief Plaugher, Arlington County, Virginia, standing beside
him. Lt. Medairos’ statement, omitted from the Arlington County After-Action Report,
supports the cover-up.
Reference: (1) What Really Happened at the Pentagon: U.S. Government's Exhibits Belie The 9/11 Commission Report (2) Enver Masud’s
presentation at the 911 Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/
Y2012/0615-911/index.html (3) 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud

Name: Dennis Gilroy
Title (At the time of 9/11): Captain, Foam 161, Fort Myer Fire Department
Incriminating evidence: At 9:38 a.m. on September 11, only one fire crew, Foam 161
of the Fort Myer Fire Department, knew the exact location of the crash site. Captain
Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77
slammed into it, . . . Captain Gilroy called the Fort Myer Fire Department, reporting for
the first time the actual location of the crash.
Mr. Gilroy, called to an event at the Pentagon prior to the alleged strike by Flight 77,
has not challenged the omission of Foam 161 from the 24-Hour Timeline of events at
the Pentagon contained in the Arlington County After-Action Report. Debris seen in a
photo of Unit 161, and the "slab deflected upward" in the Pentagon Building
Performance Report (p. 53), are consistent with an explosion inside the Pentagon prior
to the alleged strike by Flight 77.
Reference: (1) http://www.arlingtonva.us/Department...ter_report.pdf
(2) http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/01-PBPR.pdf (3) Enver Masud’s presentation at the
911 Commission Hearings http://www.twf.org/News/Y2012/0615-911/index.html (4) 9/11

btw ~ If you read this far ~ penny for your thoughts ? Civil thoughts ~ but of course right