World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

As a pilot since 1969

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..

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..

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sky... sky... sky...

- 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).

www.historycommons.org...

Nist was unable to prove their pancake-theory conclusively, why should we believe anything they say at all? It's a cover-up, let's get it over with!
6% iron and 14% mineral-wool in the dust, remember? Vanished cores, eh?

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.

www.historycommons.org...

Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?

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

Tell me why she would lie..

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, it is no mystery as to why the Truth Movement is the focus of ridicule and scorn on the Internet.

In your Intranet maybe. 1 of 2 Americans don't believe the lies you and your employer spread, we don't really need to talk about the rest of the world. And if you wanna crown your position with the amount of scorn and ridicule you spread, be my guest. Rather revealing kinda statement.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

From you link.

New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004]

That is not evidence of molten steel. People often confuse molten aluminum with molten steel and I might add that explosives and thermite do not leave behind molten steel for hours or days, much less weeks and months.

Recorded temperatures at ground zero were above the melting point of aluminum, but never reached the melting point of steel.

From your link.

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]

Now, for the rest of the story.

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...

a reply to: wildb

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)

a reply to: wildb

Well your not much of a pilot, if you were you would know the flight path to the Pentagon was impossible,

Your post is proof that you haven't a clue of how silly your comment really is. I have perform similar maneuvers during simulated emergencies as a student pilot with less than 30 hours total flight time.

Another case in point, at Travis AFB, the C-5, KC-10, and C-17 transports regularly perform 360 degree-to-a-landing from altitudes as high as 10,000 feet over the base, which is much higher than the altitude began by American 77.

The high altitude to a landing maneuvers performed by the C-5, KC-10, and the C-17 are even more dramatic than the boring maneuver performed by American 77 at the Pentagon. In fact, the American 77 maneuver was so boring that I could have gone into the kitchen and make a sandwich and return to the living room to watch TV before American 77 completed its maneuver and to further add, American 77 didn't even complete a full circle.

BTW, flying a B-757 or any large aircraft is quite simple that even a 7-year old girl can do it.



Just goes to show how easy 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' was able to dupe the Truth Movement with disinformation and lies.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
In your Intranet maybe. 1 of 2 Americans don't believe the lies you and your employer spread,

How amusing!! How many people believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago? I deal in facts and evidence, not fantasy.

a reply to: wildb

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..

I see you haven't been here long.
All of your claims have been shown to be false.



You need to google sites other than conspiracy sites.
Tyr NTSB crash reports.

a reply to: wildb

Tell me why she would lie..

Just to let you know that she in lying and you posted another bogus video that is easy to debunk. Case in point in case you missed it, where did these B-757 flaps at the Pentagon come from?

Photo: B-757 Flaps at the Pentagon

This guy didn't have a problem finding pieces of wreckage from a B-757.

Photo: B-757 Wreckage at the Pentagon

And, this guy didn't have a problem either.

B-757 Wreckage at the Pentagon

Now, let's take a look here and do a comparison.

B-757 Comparison

Now, take a look here because this is definitely not a cruise missile.

American 77 Impacts the Pentagon

Photo 1: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

Photo 2: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon



As you can plainly see, it was no problem debunking your video of the woman claiming there was no wreckage at the Pentagon.

a reply to: wildb

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?

I don't know his name but apparently, he didn't do this to his cab with a claw hammer.

Damaged Cab Near the Pentagon

I am very sure he didn't drop these light poles either.

Damaged Light Poles Near the Pentagon

As for the molten metal being debunked are these people making this up for fun after what they just went through..

Any molten metal would have been aluminum and any metal whose melting point was at and below the recorded temperatures at ground zero. At no time did the temperature reading reach the level needed to melt steel.

EDIT to add, your one of these people who know all but will not look at the evidence,...

The evidence has been looked at be the experts and based on the evidence, they concluded that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse on the WTC buildings.

.. real nice, you are supporting the people who did this,...

I never supported Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. After all, warnings from countries around the world issued warnings to the United States that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in the process of carrying out their attack on American with hijacked airliners.

Soon after the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 9/11 attack and warned of more attacks, and al-Qaeda soon released the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.

It has been 14 years and yet, not one shred of evidence of a U.S. 9/11 false flag operation. In fact, the government was not even capable of keeping the Watergate scandal a secret and Watergate was nothing compared to the 9/11 attack.

a reply to: samkent

It amazes me that truthers continue to post out of shear and total ignorance of the facts.

a reply to: wildb

Seems that you are unaware that you videos have been debunked. Just thought that you would like to have known that.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Changing goals from molten steel to oxidation now? How convenient, you debunked nothing yet. Carry on!

BTW, flying a B-757 or any large aircraft is quite simple that even a 7-year old girl can do it.

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.

Yep, a rather untalented 'ace' like Hanjour wouldn't be able to fly that stunt, just ask his trainers. Even pilots with years of experience failed in doing so during simulator runs. Know more!

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."

www.nytimes.com...

How and when have his utterly bad skills, and thus an impossible flight path, been debunked?

a reply to: wildb

At 500 mph, what make you think that B-757 would suddenly stop after striking a light pole?

Whose airplane was responsible for knocking down those light poles. Let's ask American Airlines.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

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."

How amusing!!!

Hani not only obtained a private pilots license, he also obtained a commercial pilot license and went on to train for a B-737-type rating, which requires piloting abilities far above that needed for a private license. Obtaining a commerical pilot license requires a lot of skill.

During our program where we fly children, we let them handle the controls and many do quite well for the first time after just 15 minutes and yet, Hani had over 250 flight hours. Here is a 15-year old student performing in a flight simulator.



Goes to show how easy it was to dupe the Truth Movement over the years.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Oh dear, you don't wanna read what those guys had to say then...

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).

www.historycommons.org...

Hmmm...

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]

www.historycommons.org...

Hmmmmmm......

Amusing you say? Quite amusing indeed!
But enough derailing for now, let's get back to my other question at hand without any answer yet:

Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?

You are a professional, are you not? Easy as pie then, go ahead!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

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.

How amusing!! I performed similar maneuvers as I performed emergency maneuvers during student flight training and did so with less than 30 hours flight time. Hani's maneuver was so boring that, as I have said before, I could have gone into the kitchen and make a sandwich and return to the living room to watch TV before he completed his maneuver and he didn't even complete a full circle.

Our large aircraft at Travis AFB have been performing similar maneuvers at Travis AFB for years from even higher altitudes than American 77 and it is a piece of cake and yet, truthers were led to believe his maneuver was impossible, which was a joke. Hani also had access to flight simulators with the general layout of Washington D.C. where he could practice his maneuver time and time again.

Convincing truthers that Hani's maneuver was impossible makes me think of this bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell them.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

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]

He couldn't have been that poor of a pilot when he was required to demonstrate flying skills for a commercial pilot license, which requires flying skills far above that needed to obtain a private pilot license. He was awarded a commercial pilot license with over 250 flying hours of flight time before moving on to a B-737-type rating.

Anyone who has tried for a commercial pilots license will know that they have to demonstrate exceptional flying skills. In addition, he applied for a B-737-type rating.

Hani Hanjour's B-737-Type Rating Application

To strike a target with an airplane, you simply keep the target at the center of the windscreen and the airplane will do the rest and it doesn't require exceptional skill to do so.

Also from you link.

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]

That translates into a rate-of-descent well within the limitations of a B-757, yet truthers were duped into thinking the maneuver was impossible. Never mind we have had larger aircraft exceeding that rate-of-descent three times over.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

From your link.

Aviation experts will conclude that this maneuver was the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.”

With 250 flying hours and 75 hours instrument time, it is not difficult at all. You can also set the rate-of-descent manually from the cockpit and let the aircraft do the rest. All you have to do after than is to hold the bank.

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).

Now, lets' take a look at the rest of the story and hear what the controller has really said.

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.

That fact alone should have told truthers that American 77 was not a cruise missile.

Continue:

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...

Now you know the rest of the story of how truthers were duped on American 77 and a cruise missile strike that never was.