It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As a pilot since 1969
- Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU NEWS, 10/2001 pdf file]
- Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [JOHNS HOPKINS PUBLIC HEALTH MAGAZINE, 2001]
- Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 9/2003, PP. 40 pdf file]
- Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 9/12/2002]
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001]
- New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004]
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [KNIGHT RIDDER, 5/29/2002]
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [DESERET MORNING NEWS, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 5/1/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 9/2005] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC NEWS 7 (NEW YORK), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.
My Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck, so it was no problem debunking truther claims that the Pentagon was struck by a missile
To sum it up, it is no mystery as to why the Truth Movement is the focus of ridicule and scorn on the Internet.
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001]
Iron Burns
"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."
www.debunking911.com...
Well your not much of a pilot, if you were you would know the flight path to the Pentagon was impossible, you would know a 757 cannot fly a few feet off the ground at 500 MPH, you would also know a jet cannot fly at 500MPH at sea level..[/.quote]
Don't tell that to this KC-135.
In fact, I let it be known to quite a few people that the first DC-8 produced exceeded the speed of sound, and we can add a B-747SP and even an Air Force C-141 as aircraft that have exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely.
Now, lets take a look at what else large aircraft are capable of.
BTW, I am president of a chapter whose members consist of military and commercial pilots, private pilots, Instructor pilots, sport and student pilots, FAA inspectors and FAA-certified mechanics, military and civilian defense department retirees and I was elected president because of my knowledge in the world of aviation.
Last year, I completed my term with another aviation-related chapter on Travis AFB, whose members consisted of Air Force officers and enlisted personnel, DoD civilians and retirees, so once again, I was elected to that position due to my knowledge and experience, which is how I determined that 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' was spewing disinformation and lies.
From what you post you don't seem to know much, if your so smart about 911 tell me just one thing the public does not know about 911, make it good , something a truther would not know..
It is all very simple. Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 and not only my knowledge in structures since 1967 and metals, but my experience in war zones to know what explosives sound and feel like and at no time were demo explosions seen or heard as those buildings collapse and to prove my point, please point out the time lines where demo explosives are heard and if you fail to list the time lines, my point will be made that no demo explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.
Let's start with WTC 7 and point out the times lines of demo explosions.
edit on 9-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)edit on 9-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)edit on 9-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
Well your not much of a pilot, if you were you would know the flight path to the Pentagon was impossible,
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
In your Intranet maybe. 1 of 2 Americans don't believe the lies you and your employer spread,
Well your not much of a pilot, if you were you would know the flight path to the Pentagon was impossible, you would know a 757 cannot fly a few feet off the ground at 500 MPH, you would also know a jet cannot fly at 500MPH at sea level..
Tell me why she would lie..
You are some piece of work, you do know the cab driver admitted he was used to stage the light poles at the pentagon, do you even know his name?
As for the molten metal being debunked are these people making this up for fun after what they just went through..
EDIT to add, your one of these people who know all but will not look at the evidence,...
.. real nice, you are supporting the people who did this,...
BTW, flying a B-757 or any large aircraft is quite simple that even a 7-year old girl can do it.
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
taff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
In February, Hanjour begins advanced simulator training, “a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 6/19/2002] The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. [CBS NEWS, 5/10/2002] Ironically, in July 2001, Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams will recommend in a memo that the FBI liaison with local flight schools and keep track of suspicious activity by Middle Eastern students (see July 10, 2001).
According to CBS News, “The steep turn” made by Flight 77 “was so smooth… sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on.” The “complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.” [CBS NEWS, 9/21/2001] Aviation experts will conclude that this maneuver was the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [WASHINGTON POST, 9/10/2002] Due to the aircraft’s high speed and the way it is being flown, Dulles Airport controllers mistake it for a military fighter jet (see (9:25 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001; ABC NEWS, 10/24/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002] Yet the hijacker allegedly at the controls, Hani Hanjour, was considered to be a very poor pilot at numerous flight schools he attended (see October 1996-December 1997, 1998, January-February 2001, February 8-March 12, 2001, (April-July 2001), and Mid-August 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/10/2002]
Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?
Holy cow Sky, you are on a hell of a run today! Quite remarkable. Show me how she performed that approach to the Pentagon, you just missed the point again. Nobody said it would be hard to fly passenger jets in general.
Dulles Airport controllers mistake it for a military fighter jet (see (9:25 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/12/2001; ABC NEWS, 10/24/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002] Yet the hijacker allegedly at the controls, Hani Hanjour, was considered to be a very poor pilot at numerous flight schools he attended (see October 1996-December 1997, 1998, January-February 2001, February 8-March 12, 2001, (April-July 2001), and Mid-August 2001). [WASHINGTON POST, 9/10/2002]
Before crashing into the Pentagon, Flight 77 performs a rapid downward spiral, flying almost a complete circle and descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. [CBS NEWS, 9/21/2001]
Aviation experts will conclude that this maneuver was the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.”
Due to the aircraft’s high speed and the way it is being flown, Dulles Airport controllers mistake it for a military fighter jet (see (9:25 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Danielle (O'Brien) Howell
Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability.
In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.
Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft. In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere. The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration. Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon. Where is this B757 now? There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.
Where are the crew and passengers from American 77? They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen.
Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew. Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude. A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.
The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.
If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available. There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control. In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.
Respectfully,
Danielle (O'Brien) Howell
911myths.com...