If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

a reply to: RomanMaroni

So you're not really sure. You are just assuming. And remember you accused others earlier of assuming and that makes them wrong.

I am very sure. For an example, in order to obtain a commercial pilots license, you must demonstrate maneuvers that are much more precised than required for a private pilot license. He had over 200 flight hours and was the more experienced pilot in his group and the only one working toward a B-737-type rating. In other words, it doesn't make any sense to allow a less experienced hijacker to fly that aircraft into the Pentagon, and once again, Hani was also the designated group leader.

a reply to: Informer1958

There is nothing that that proves a 9/11 False Flag operation.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: RomanMaroni

I am very sure. For an example, in order to obtain a commercial pilots license, you must demonstrate maneuvers that are much more precised than required for a private pilot license. He had over 200 flight hours and was the more experienced pilot in his group and the only one working toward a B-737-type rating. In other words, it doesn't make any sense to allow a less experienced hijacker to fly that aircraft into the Pentagon, and once again, Hani was also the designated group leader.

First of all, well done. That is a good response to my actual question. It's well reasoned and very plausible.

However, your reasoning seems to contradict an earlier post. Your reasoning to lead to your conclusion is Hanjour's experience, but earlier in this thread you said a child could have done it with only 20 minutes of training. So why does how much experience play a factor? Surely, Alhazmi had more than enough training to do this. Therefore, it is totally possible he did. You say you are "very sure" but there is no way you can be "very sure" unless you have already decided that is what you are going to believe no matter what evidence may be presented to you.

December 1999, 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Marwan Alshehhi, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Nawaf Alhazmi meet to discuss the 9/11 operation at a building known as the “House of Alghamdi” in Kandahar, Afghanistan, according to a statement made by bin al-Shibh in an interview prior to his capture in 2002. Bin al-Shibh will say, “We had a meeting attended by all four pilots including Nawaf Alhazmi, Atta’s right-hand man,” which the Guardian will interpret to mean Alhazmi, and not Hani Hanjour, flew Flight 77.

April 4 2000, Future 9/11 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi takes his first flying lesson in the US. The lesson is at the National Air College in San Diego, in a four-seater plane with instructor Arnaud Petit. During the hour-long flight, Alhazmi proves to be surprisingly adept, and can almost take off and land on his own. Alhazmi is courteous and acts like a businessman. He wants a license within a month and does not seem fazed when Petit says it will cost $4,000. However, his English is not good enough to start flight training. Petit tells him to improve it and come back in a month, but he never returns. Alhazmi will say that his flight training continues in the winter.

May 5 and 10 2000, 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar arrive at Sorbi’s Flying Club, a small school in San Diego, and announce that they want to learn to fly Boeing airliners.

In January 2001, the Arizona flight school JetTech alerts the FAA about hijacker Hani Hanjour. No one at the school suspects Hanjour of terrorist intent, but they tell the FAA he lacks both the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he has already obtained. For instance, he had taken classes at the University of Arizona but failed his English classes with a 0.26 grade point average. A JetTech flight school manager “couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A former employee says, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” They also note he is an exceptionally poor student who does not seem to care about passing his courses.

An FAA official named John Anthony actually sits next to Hanjour in class and observes his skills. He suggests the use of a translator to help Hanjour pass, but the flight school points out that goes “against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.” The FAA verifies that Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license is legitimate, but takes no other action. However, his license should have been rejected because it had already expired in late 1999 when he failed to take a manadatory medical test.

February 8-March 12 2000, 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Hanjour only completes 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training. An instructor comments: “Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.” The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour’s poor English and flying skills.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

If you check the CVR of UA 93 you will find 2 muslim arguing over who gets to kill every body in the name of Allah.


10:02:17

Turn it up.

10:02:18

Down, down.

10:02:23

Pull it down. Pull it down.

10:02:25

Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33

Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:35

Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:37

Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:40

unintelligible

10:03:02

Allah is greatest.

10:03:03

Allah is greatest.

10:03:04

Allah is greatest.

10:03:06

Allah is greatest.

10:03:06

Allah is greatest.

10:03:07

No.

10:03:09

Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest.

10:03:09

Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest.



Alhazmi was probably sitting in one seat Hanjour in the other, probably having the same argument.

a reply to: waypastvne

You're probably right, I'm just trying to show that there as still unanswered questions even though some people will proclaim everything has been answered and name call those of us still wondering. Also, I want to show skyeagle409 he can't just lump us all in the same group. Just because some people find oddities in the OS, doesn't mean we all think the WTC's were rigged. Plus, I can never resist a good debate when Alhazmi and Almihdhar are brought up. If anyone ever wants to be just absolutely flabbergasted, just read all about those two losers. After you figure out how to deal with that, then just look into the rest of them. At first it looks like incompetence, but after a while you start to realize all these "blunders" were what always kept them one step ahead. And every time they have them, something happens and they don't. I starts to seem deliberate at a certain point. And the when you read something like ...

Based on conversations with FBI agents, author Lawrence Wright speculates on why the CIA withheld information it should have given the FBI: “Some… members of the [FBI’s] I-49 squad would later come to believe that the [CIA] was shielding Almihdhar and Alhazmi because it hoped to recruit them.… [They] must have seemed like attractive opportunities; however, once they entered the United States they were the province of the FBI. The CIA has no legal authority to operate inside the country, although in fact, the bureau often caught the agency running backdoor operations in the United States.… It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction. Of course, it is also illegal for foreign intelligence services to operate in the United States, but they do so routinely.”

It has to make you wonder.

By the way, I thought that last part of the Flight 93 recording was unreleased.

originally posted by: RomanMaroni

By the way, I thought that last part of the Flight 93 recording was unreleased.

Not in audio, but it was released in transcript. ( translated from Arabic to English )

a reply to: skyeagle409

Explosions make a lot a noise and I can related that fact to the many days and nights that we came under attack and yet, I didn't hear a single peep from explosions as the WTC buildings fell.

There are multiple witnesses and video's of explosions that occurred in the building before the towers fell which is why there was a call to get the firefighters out of the building asap. So why do you say there was none?

Also an Aircraft Structural Technician is responsible for repair and modification of aircraft, you are not a structural engineer, so don't have any qualifications to provide expert advice as to the 9/11 collapse.

originally posted by: glend

There are multiple witnesses and video's of explosions that occurred in the building before the towers fell which is why there was a call to get the firefighters out of the building asap. So why do you say there was none?

The three firemen in this video were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel when WTC 2 collapsed on it. Not being able to see the building collapsing they had no idea WTF was going on and mistook the collapse of WTC2 as an explosion.

The Marriott Hotel can be seen in this photo:



The firemen talk about 4 "explosive" events.
! plane hits North Tower
2 plane hits south tower
3 WTC 2 collapse
4 Wtc 1 collapse




Tyrone Johnson is the fireman on the left. Check the number on his helmet he is with ladder 24.

My name is Tyrone Johnson, firefighter first grade, assigned to Ladder 24.......


Then maybe about five, ten minutes later, we were ordered to go into the Marriott Hotel. At that time the company and three other companies in front of us went inside the Marriott Hotel......

We went to the Marriott. We got inside the lobby. The chief told us take your gear off, relax, until you find out what you want us to do.
Maybe 10 or 15 minutes later he gave us the command put the gear on because we're getting ready to head upstairs. There were about three companies in front of us. We were the last company to go up the steps. Maybe about five minutes into the process of going up the steps, that's when the building collapsed on us.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

The firefighter on the right is James Duffy.

James Duffy. CHIEF CONGIUSTA: Firefighter third of
Ladder 24 of the New York City Fire Department....

We were told to report to the south tower, but the only way to get to the south tower -- you couldn't walk down Liberty Street to get into the main entrance because of the jumpers and the falling debris, so we had to go in through the corner entrance of the Marriott, which is on West and Liberty. We went in there......

over there right next to us. 22 Truck was in the lobby also. Then we were just waiting to go into the south tower. As we were waiting, we looked up and all I saw was -- I heard this huge noise, and I saw hundreds and hundreds of people running towards us. They were running out of the south tower to the Marriott, to the lobby.

We just turned. We started to like run also. We got about ten feet before getting blown across the lobby. We got blown across the lobby, just got covered with debris.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


Here is another quote from James Duffy the fireman on the right.

Q. When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?

A. Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after.

Q. Afterwards?

A. Yeah, that that's when it came down. I wasn't expecting that. I thought it was a bomb or something that went off.

Q. Glad you made it.

A. Yeah.

Q. Thanks for the interview.

graphics8.nytimes.com...



Jimmy Grillo is the fireman in the middle

My Story, September 11, 2001

Once we reached the doorway I thanked God that we had made it and then entered the hotel lobby. There was a sea of firefighters all waiting their turn to start heading up. We knew we had to wait a while, so we loosened our coats and put down all our gear so we wouldn't overheat. While we waited, I noticed Jimmy Grillo, a member of our company, holding a five-gallon bottle of water, filling up cups with water so we would all be properly hydrated. Standing by, just waiting for our turn, I also noticed a bank of pay phones on the lobby wall. The lieutenant and I approached the phones trying to get a working line. We had a dial tone but all the circuits were busy. I even attempted to use my cell phone to get in touch with my family, but that failed. I was concerned about how much they must be worrying about me.

It was our turn to go up.

We started heading to the stairwell when this dark, overpowering shadow started heading toward us. It seemed as if it was in slow motion. People were yelling to run. My first instinct was to run away from the shadow thinking another plane must be coming in. I made a turn toward another lobby, trying to get away from the front of the building. Then I felt this force, like being in a massive wind tunnel. Firefighters were getting tossed around like rag dolls. I found myself being blown across the floor landing into what appeared to be a closet. The South Tower was collapsing.

www.newsweek.com...

www.thedailybeast.com...

The three firemen in the video were in the lobby of the Marriott hotel when WTC 2 collapsed on top of them

They never made it in to WTC1 or WTC2.

Sorry to disappoint you

a reply to: waypastvne

The three firemen in this video were in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel when WTC 2 collapsed on it. Not being able to see the building collapsing they had no idea WTF was going on and mistook the collapse of WTC2 as an explosion.

Really, these firemen never said they where in the Marriott Hotel!

You need to Liston to the video again! The firemen said they were in the staging area in the second WTC when the building was blowing up. You are being deceptive here hoping that no one will watch the video you just put up.

STOP making stuff up.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

However, your reasoning seems to contradict an earlier post. Your reasoning to lead to your conclusion is Hanjour's experience, but earlier in this thread you said a child could have done it with only 20 minutes of training.

In about the same time, a child can be trained to place an airliner on auto pilot and throttle and program an aircraft to descend at 2000 feet per minute and level out at a preset altitude and airspeed.

Hani had over 200 flying hours and the FAA would never have issued a commercial pilots license to him if he was as poor a pilot the CT websites make him out to be. Add to the fact that he would have had to pass a written test before moving on to an oral and a flight test and must have satisfactory accomplish them before being issued a private license, which is required before moving on toward commercial pilot training, which he successfully completed. Depending on the flight instructor and flight test examiner, demonstrating your flight skills can be very demanding and the FAA does not issue a pilot license lightly.

Based on the fact that he would have had to pass demanding written test, oral test, and flight test for private and commercial pilot licenses, who has been spreading claims that he was a poor pilot? The FAA would not have issued a private license, much less a commercial pilot license to a person who couldn't handle a Cessna 172. The real problem was his command of English.

So why does how much experience play a factor? Surely, Alhazmi had more than enough training to do this. Therefore, it is totally possible he did. You say you are "very sure" but there is no way you can be "very sure" unless you have already decided that is what you are going to believe no matter what evidence may be presented to you.

We can take a look at what Hani had to undergo as far as obtaining a commercial pilot license, unlike other hijackers in his group,

Requirements to obtain a commercial pilot license.

§61.129 – Aeronautical experience.

(a) For an airplane single-engine rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least:

(1) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes.

(2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at least—

(i) 50 hours in airplanes; and

(ii) 50 hours in cross-country flight of which at least 10 hours must be in airplanes.

(3) 20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(1) of this part that includes at least—

(i) Ten hours of instrument training using a view-limiting device including attitude instrument flying, partial panel skills, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, and intercepting and tracking navigational systems. Five hours of the 10 hours required on instrument training must be in a single engine airplane;

(ii) 10 hours of training in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine-powered, or for an applicant seeking a single-engine seaplane rating, 10 hours of training in a seaplane that has flaps and a controllable pitch propeller;

(iii) One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in daytime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure;

(iv) One 2-hour cross country flight in a single engine airplane in nighttime conditions that consists of a total straight-line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(v) Three hours in a single-engine airplane with an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.

(4) Ten hours of solo flight time in a single engine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a single engine airplane with an authorized instructor on board (either of which may be credited towards the flight time requirement under paragraph (a)(2) of this section), on the areas of operation listed under §61.127(b)(1) that include—

(i) One cross-country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at least 250 nautical miles from the original departure point. However, if this requirement is being met in Hawaii, the longest segment need only have a straight-line distance of at least 150 nautical miles; and

(ii) 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.

Now, let's take a look at just a few of the maneuvers that Hani would have been required to perform satisfactory for a commercial pilot license.

* Steep Turns

* Steep Spiral

* Chandelles

* Lazy Eights

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, Hani was well-trained and with a desk top computer and flight sim hardware, he could have practiced his attack on the Pentagon time and time again.

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

One file in particular, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder, was recently analyzed by an alleged computer expert. He has claimed to decode 4 more seconds worth of data, above and beyond the NTSB decode, although the "additional" data has not been verified by anyone. The claim was made that the reason the NTSB did not decode this "additional" data is because the software used by the NTSB, along with the software used by the manufacturer of the FDR (L3 Communications), has an alleged "bug". If correct, this has grave consequences for Flight Safety as Flight Data is used in the promotion of safe flight through changes in regulation and procedure. The NTSB and L3 have been contacted, along with an Aviation Safety Report being filed with NASA. There hasn't been any reply confirming such a "bug".

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors. For more information regarding this paper and the numerous errors it contains, please see the discussion at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum(4).

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I rest my case.

I feel it is only fair that I can use Pilots For 911 Truth to back my case concerning "Hanjour's" when the evidence of the OS is truly misleading.

Since the OS supporters are allowed to use 911 Myths, supported by mostly conspiracy theorists supporting the OS.

At lease Pilots for 911 Truth is supported by real professionals, these men risk their reputations and careers to try and get to the truth and not a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

Here you go Roman



See a collapse doesn't blow heavy ass steel beams 300 ft out
and away from the G- damn building. When the story goes they
were supposed to weakend before they buckled. Heat weakened
iron wouldn't even just snap. the OS really really does suck. LOL

To sum it up

originally posted by: Informer1958


The firemen said they were in the staging area

The staging area was the lobby of the Marriott Hotel. No where in the video do they say they were inside WTC2.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True


by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact that its impossible to prove a false claim to be true. Failure to prove a false premise true does not automatically make it false but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . After five long years, our government has provided the public with no physical evidence to support its claim that the attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists, or even that the identity of the aircraft that struck their targets on September 11 was the same as those specified in the 9/11 Commission's report. As explained below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the identity of each of the four aircraft, and until such physical proof of identity is forthcoming, no conclusions can be scientifically drawn to support the official story as being accurate. This is a precaution against rushing to judgment. At this point, it could just as easily be assumed that the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with full cooperation of elements within our own government.

In July, 1965 I had just been commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously, and it was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California . In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be replaced, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. The plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists with a work order when the parts must be replaced. When the parts are installed, the completed work order will have serial numbers of the parts married to the aircraft registration number and it will be returned to the records section for updating in the aircraft records. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001 , certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts, and I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a shallow, smoking hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the alleged crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proven beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any physical evidence that would prove beyond doubt, the specific identity of the aircraft that allegedly crashed at that site. On the contrary, it was reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, was still in operation for several weeks after September 11, 2001 .

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including foreign nationals who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce even one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.

Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the two WTC towers, it appears that heavy aircraft were involved in each case, but no evidence has been produced that would support the government's version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the central problem with the government's 911 story.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to have been involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

Footnote: It has now been more than five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 , and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI has refused to publicly release any copies of their mandatory investigations. The FBI response to a request for copies of their reports under the Freedom of Information Act was a refusal. The agency claimed that their investigation reports were "in a file", and that the FBI was exempt from FOIA release, "due to the sensibilities of surviving families of the crash victims".

pilotsfor911truth.org...

a reply to: waypastvne

The staging area was the lobby of the Marriott Hotel. No where in the video do they say they were inside WTC2.

Prove it?

Put your money where your mouth is.

originally posted by: Informer1958


Prove it?

Well the most obvious proof would be the fact that these three firemen are not dead. There was only one surviver from inside the collapse of WTC 2 . He was a policeman.

a reply to: waypastvne

Well the most obvious proof would be the fact that these three firemen are not dead. There was only one surviver from inside the collapse of WTC 2 . He was a policeman.

So?

You need to watch your video again before you make things up.

originally posted by: Informer1958

United Airlines Flight 175
registration number N612UA,

Once more, the government has yet to produce even one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.