Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
What is assinine is the assumption that an airplane is going to fell a structure over 1000 times more massive by flying into it. The buildings were also made of tougher stuff. Building: steel and concrete. Airplane: predominately aluminum.

Your view that the "tougher" buildings should not have been destroyed by something smaller and softer ( the plane ) is very well supported in this documentary about the Titanic conspiracy .

Have a look at the video showing the experiments conducted which prove that it is absurd to imagine that a great steel ship could fall victim to a smaller and softer hunk of ice :-

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...

As to the LtCol listed in the OP. Something about him stinks to high heaven. And researching the gentleman isnt adding to his creditability.

An example of "col" Razer's communications...

I know how busy you must be as you did not have the time or the courtesy to return my phone calls, which your Public Affairs representative vehemently promised you would do by close of business yesterday...you are quickly turning into an enemy of the Truth, which quickly makes you an enemy of my friends and of me...And if you think we are going away, you are not only mistaken, but severely so!!! That is a promise and a threat!

www.v911t.org...

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
What is assinine is the assumption that an airplane is going to fell a structure over 1000 times more massive by flying into it. The buildings were also made of tougher stuff. Building: steel and concrete. Airplane: predominately aluminum.

If the government would have proven its points there would be no debate today.


1368 ft tall by 208 ft square of steel frame being reduced to a pile less than 75 ft high (from Bazant and Zhou; Why Did the Towers Fall; a paper I got off a debunker sight. Bazant and Zhou also said the towers fell each at approximately 10 secs. Read the abstarct if you don't believe me. It's easy enough to find.). By looking at the pile one wouldn't even be able to tell what the heap was to begin with.


1368 ft tall structure standing plum one moment. Some seconds later it is a clould of dust and a pile of debris.

Okay. I said my piece. Now I am waiting for more condescension and sophistry (which proves nothing) from the debunkers. (Or 'the borg' as I like to refer to them)

The towers didn’t fall because an airplane hit them. They fell because the fire weakened the steel, which was no longer capable of sustaining the weight of the structure above.
You can verify independently the behaviour of steel at different temperatures. I suggest you contact the closest Firefighters station and ask them about fires in steel buildings.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Since you have been preaching how true the government events of 911 are concerning everything related to the four airplanes and their alleged crashes, I would like you to show a little evidence of hundreds perhaps, thousands of American pilots that support the OS and support you views?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Nice try, I knew you couldn’t answer my question, yet you went to a known disinformation website that many compare to 911 Myth.com these particular websites are against all conspiracies theories and only supports the OS 100% and the website is mostly opinionated, nothing more.

The fact is you have not proved anything against Guy Razer.

edit on 25-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

How funny to see people hold on to their side of the argument to the bitter end. what an embarrassment to still believe the OS. Not to mention having any faith in our rulers in Washington. Hook, line and sinker . Absolutly gullible.

Alex

The towers didn’t fall because an airplane hit them. They fell because the fire weakened the steel, which was no longer capable of sustaining the weight of the structure above.

This is so ridiculous. Fire dosn't effect steal that thick. Blow torches do. There was no fire that day that was even close to the same temperature as a blow torch. Sorry it's ridiculous but it really is.

I still find it so amazing as soon as someone with some real experience speaks out against 911 or anyone of importants that can be taken seriously; there is a rush of the same debunkers who tag team against none belivers opinions by using the well known dissinfo tactics.

It sure looks like Guy Razer is a threat to the OS and he might convince too many people that the government is lying, something the previous insiders of the Bush administration don’t like. I noticed the big rush from the same debunkers to quickly discrediting him usually by insulting opinions, and try to convince everyone that Guy Razer is nobody, move alone now. Yeah, like there is no such thing as keyboard Ops.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Okay, so Im being nice today...

www.ntsb.gov...

There you go.

You sure are nice.

But who would've guessed, there's more to this story than your NTSB timeline:

The NTSB timeline altogether avoids mentioning an earlier request for assistance to a pair of F-15s from Tyndall Air Force Base, who we learn were actually escorting the Learjet twenty minutes after JARTCC lost contact with it. Now if we say it took five minutes to alert the Eglin fighters once the Tyndall fighters had intercepted the Learjet, and add those five minutes to the twenty minutes it took the Tyndall fighters to initially make contact with the Learjet, then add the remaining fifteen minutes it took the Eglin fighters to actually intercept the Learjet, that gives us an arrival/escort time of 09:18 CDT for the Eglin fighters, not 09:52 CDT as chronicled in the NTSB timeline. That is a thirty-four minute gap!

Is there any official account that would substantiate this thirty-four minute gap; that the Eglin fighters were escorting the Learjet thirty-four minutes earlier than the NTSB timeline admits to? As it happens there is. CNN.com on October 26th reported:

"An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri."

The Air Force spokesman said the Eglin fighters intercepted the Learjet shortly after contact was lost with the aircraft. Well, one-hour and eighteen minutes doesn’t register with me as meaning shortly after!

So according to the Air Force timeline we have two interceptions of Payne Stewart’s Learjet before the NTSB chronicled 09:52 CDT interception. The first interception was by a pair of F-15s from Tyndall Air Force Base at approximately 08:58 CDT, with a second interception by Eglin fighters no later than 09:18 CDT, not 09:52 CDT as claimed by the NTSB.

In order to facilitate the Bush administration’s 2001 false flag attacks, the bureaucracy within the NTSB purposefully doctored their timeline of the Air Force’s response to Payne Stewart’s Learjet. Longer intercept times were needed in the Payne Stewart incident if the tardy NORAD response times on 9/11 were to be accepted by the public as nothing unusual.

Payne Stewart's Lear Crash Timeline: The 34 Minute Gap

There you go.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I mean, you assume I haven't "served my country" because of my "candor"? Do you even understand what you're writing, because it doesn't ake any objective sense.

Mine was not an assumption, more of an observation; call it an educated guess. In the end, you know that it's correct.
NOTE: In a few of my posts in this thread, I pointed out something called "Psychological Operations" aka "PSYOPS." --and how it was active and NOT fictional. Just yesterday on NBC Nightly News (and I'm sure other news programs and networks) there was a segment devoted to recent events concerning the misuse of PSYOPS by the military (industrial complex) against US senators visiting military units. Here's a link to one of the numerous stories: www.dailymail.co.uk...

It directly applies to this thread because it proves (to those who might have thought it outlandish, perhaps) the existence of a formal psychological operations program, fully funded and fully staffed. Psychological operations (aka *information* operations) are usually employed to sway opinions about this or that. BY LAW they are not to be employed against US citizens. HOWEVER... as was recently displayed, when the military industrial complex needs to, they will employ PSYOPS against *anyone.* I say "anyone" because... IF they will use PSYOPS against senators..., well, they wouldn't think twice about using it on the average citizen. Further, the black ops world is really only accountable to themselves, so they get to operate beyond the boundaries of our public laws. All of that being said, we will probably never have a smoking gun when it comes to exactly what records were destroyed in the Pentagon impact, or know which accountants were working on what programs and investigations.

The country has been under a massive PSYOPS program, IMHO, since 9-11 happened. People *wanted* the US to invade Afghanistan right after 9-11. It worked beautifully, and even had people stirred up for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even today, people are discouraged from trying to find the truth about 9-11. Those who do have to face ridicule from people bent on believing the OS as it stands.

What we are left with is a series of oddly-timed "coincidences."
1. National military exercise during 9-11 events involving the hijacking of planes. What are the odds?
2. The SECDEF Himself announces a startling amount of money (2.3 trillion dollars) unaccounted-for the day before *something* strikes and explodes into accounting offices in the Pentagon.
3. Twin towers each struck by aircraft and fall into their own footprint; WTC 7 (Bldg. 7) suddenly collapses into its own footprint later that day with no substantial structural damage; later, building owner admits having it ordered to be "pulled," and then collects millions in insurance money.

It's a good thing IMHO that this AF Colonel stepped forward. By doing so, *believers* in the OS can't use the old mantra of, "9-11 truthers are just a bunch of aluminum hat crack-pots and hippies." More and more *credible* people are stepping forward, from active duty military to veterans, from scientists to average upstanding citizens. People want the truth and are actively debunking the OS.

LAST THOUGHT: This is a link to a VERY WELL PUT-TOGETHER short film focused on the Pentagon strike; many of you may have already seen this. Just in case, and for those of you curious, it's very short, has fantastic production and editing value, but mainly it points out A LOT concerning the event.

Originally posted by randyvs
This is so ridiculous. Fire dosn't effect steal that thick. Blow torches do. There was no fire that day that was even close to the same temperature as a blow torch. Sorry it's ridiculous but it really is.

edit on 25-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

And where did you get those informations? Steel is an excellent heat conductor. Are you aware of the temperatures reached in the WTC fires? Are you aware of the temperature a standard candle can reach?
I suggest you research this information. Again, contact your local firefighters station and ask them about fire and steel.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
As to the LtCol listed in the OP. Something about him stinks to high heaven. And researching the gentleman isnt adding to his creditability.

As your NTSB timeline demonstrates, not everyone can achieve your level of niceness and credibility.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Wow, i should have checked that bastion of accuracy.....P4T!!!!! And the inevitable, the Bush crime gang changed the records. Good grief.....the sad part is, you obviously believe it.


Did they also reprint the Newsweek magazine that carried the story as well???

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

Lord Kelvin,

I took a physics course and my professor thought that this was an important notion. I believe it is true.

Originally posted by Alexandre1980

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
What is assinine is the assumption that an airplane is going to fell a structure over 1000 times more massive by flying into it. The buildings were also made of tougher stuff. Building: steel and concrete. Airplane: predominately aluminum.

If the government would have proven its points there would be no debate today.


1368 ft tall by 208 ft square of steel frame being reduced to a pile less than 75 ft high (from Bazant and Zhou; Why Did the Towers Fall; a paper I got off a debunker sight. Bazant and Zhou also said the towers fell each at approximately 10 secs. Read the abstarct if you don't believe me. It's easy enough to find.). By looking at the pile one wouldn't even be able to tell what the heap was to begin with.


1368 ft tall structure standing plum one moment. Some seconds later it is a clould of dust and a pile of debris.

Okay. I said my piece. Now I am waiting for more condescension and sophistry (which proves nothing) from the debunkers. (Or 'the borg' as I like to refer to them)

The towers didn’t fall because an airplane hit them. They fell because the fire weakened the steel, which was no longer capable of sustaining the weight of the structure above.
You can verify independently the behaviour of steel at different temperatures. I suggest you contact the closest Firefighters station and ask them about fires in steel buildings.

I suggest you learn to think for yourself.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Pretty funny!!!

You believe the "P4T", without question.....but, did you bother to ACTUALLY READ the NTSB report? It is linked, right there in the "P4T" archived post. (Looks like that "pilot" at "P4T" was awfully confused by timezones!)

It's much, much clearer if you take time to convert ALL of the "time" references to UTC first, and then put the pieces back together...apples to apples!

From NTSB:

www.ntsb.gov...

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.

A careless glance, there, at JUST the "clock times" and you think only 19 minutes elapsed from the last acknowledged ATC radio call, and the intercept by the 40th Squadron pilot. (Remove the ~4.5 minutes of "no response" while the controller called the airplane, and you have that magic "15 minutes"....).

See how confusing it is???

Typical of "P4T" and their "analysis" when it comes to ANY and ALL things 9/11-related. They thrive on sowing confusion, obfuscation, and misdirection. True magicians, they are!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Interesting...I found this web site yesterday after re-looking at the latest information on the Pentagon attack. I was not aware of this site and stumbled upon it. Clearly you enjoy stirring the pot and I will reply to your omniscient and condescending comments.

I left active duty service in December of 2000. The Payne Stewart accident was in October of 1999. I began work on the case as a material fact witness in 2002. We worked on the Plaintiff side with the Speiser-Krause Law Firm. I was fortunate to collaborate with Mr. Greg Feith, who was the Lead NTSB Investigator on the ValuJet crash in 1996 and also an expert on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

Your lack of aircraft investigation experience is glaring in your comments. I will agree that the only "evidence" I have looked at is from the many web sites and videos on the Pentagon attack. I base my opinions only on that information which is available to the common folk like me.

The three most dense parts of an aircraft are the fuselage and the engines, period...of all the pictures I have looked at of the impact site there is but one hole...well sir, that cannot be. That side of the Pentagon had just been re-furbished with high density concrete. You should at a minimum see three distinct holes and additionally see "wing" and "tail" imprints on the building with shattered windows and lots of wing and tail metal on the ground... the wings would not have penetrated the building and the upper portion of the vertical tail above the fuselage would not have either. If you are aware of any photos out there that show three distinct holes I would like to see them. Or any pictures of wing and tail metal or imprint damage to the building.

My first aircraft accident was my squadron mate whose FA-18 flew into the top edge of a river bank at 550 kts. The front end of the aircraft penetrated the hard clay and the back half of the aircraft snapped off and spread wreckage through dense wood for over a mile (statute, not nautical). The aircraft pieces in the clay and in the woods were recovered. The engines (GE F-404) had penetrated over 100 feet into the dense clay and were not recovered due to cost. Hence my comment about the engine holes...

Your pilot credibility remarks demonstrate that you were not a fighter pilot as you display disdain and disrespect towards me. Your writing comes across like a civilian pilot with a chip on his shoulder.

Here are my numbers, although this goes against my nature. I flew the FA-18 Hornet from 1988-2000, 3,000 Hornet hours and 386 carrier landings. 38 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm. Flight Instructor in the FA-18. Opposing and Lead Solo with the U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Team, the Blue Angels. Squadron Maintenance and Operations Officer. FA-18 A-F Class Desk for the Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic Fleet (CNAL).

I flew the Boeing 727 for 5 years as a First Officer and Flight Engineer or coffee jug carrier. I am Type Rated in the MD-11 and fly as an F/O. I fly domestic and international trips on the MD-10 and MD-11 and have 2,500 hours in it. Now you know where I work.

My "tons" and "redline" comments were informally spoken because most people do not care how precisely I write in Aviation Speak. A 757 is a medium sized transport category aircraft. Max Takeoff Weight: 255k
Empty weight of 130,875k Max payload of 53-55k Max fuel of 11,276 gallons. Bottom line, there was a significant amount of Mass that hit the Pentagon that day. Where is it?

I stand corrected with my comments concerning pitch sensitivity of transport category aircraft. Pitch sensitivity is affected by air molecules over the wing and Knots Indicated Airspeed (KIAS). I stand by my statement that flying the 757 at high airspeed while descending in a low altitude environment and in the profile described by the 9/11 Commission and NTSB flight simulation would be extremely difficult to accomplish. Even for someone as gifted an Aviator as you.

What Flight Data Recorder evidence have you been privy to?

Oh yes, the lie you so boldly claim I made. In a normal NTSB aircraft investigation the crash site is treated as a crime scene. The area is taped off and secured, everything is photographed, labeled and put in catalog. The NTSB folks do their investigation and then the makers of the aircraft and engines come in and take the pieces and parts back to their respective companies for their own analysis. Once that is complete the material is normally sent to one of two places. Air Salvage of Dallas or Air Salvage of Atlanta. If litigation is brought forth then the plaintiff and defense staff travel to those facilities for further discovery.

From every picture I have looked at there are men in suits walking around the grassy area of the Pentagon who are not wearing anything saying NTSB and picking up pieces of metal off the ground. Not standard protocol.
Show me the evidence of anyone from the NTSB working on the case. Just left the NTSB.gov site and looked up Flight 77. There is only a factual and probable cause report on file that says that the NTSB helped the FBI with the investigation. National Security trumps everything. I can say this with complete confidence having worked alongside the NTSB. Their investigators have only one goal, come up with a theory based on incomplete evidence. I have personally found the NTSB to be negligent in their analysis on more than one case. Some is personal negligence of the Investigator and some is due to the short time frame and high case load that they deal with.

To my knowledge the only video ever released of the impact on the Pentagon was the two frames of film from the parking lot. There were other video cameras operating that day that could dispel many of the myths of this tragedy. Have you seen any of those videos?

A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for DNA or Aircraft Material evidence (like TWA 400) of Flight 77 would also dispel the conspiracy theories. Your comments on this topic also display your ignorance. There is an investigation book concerning the ValuJet crash in the Everglades in 1996. It is filled with hundreds of photographs of the crash site and the horrific aftermath. There are many books and material of this kind This information would never be publicly disclosed to the media. The same could be said for the Pentagon attack, however, no such evidence exists to my knowledge. When an aircraft crashes, even with fuel, heat and fire you will still find identifiable pieces and parts, seat frames, luggage and their contents and unfortunately human tissue as well.

There is not one picture that I have seen that shows anything of a seat frame, luggage or contents...all of the photos that I have observed show a hole without much material in it. Yes, I have seen the impact and dispersal studies from Purdue University and the fanning out effect from the impact inside the building. But once again, where are the Jet Engine penetration holes on the outside of the building? Where is the wing metal and tail metal and how can a 757 fold up and fit in one hole? With a wingspan of 124 feet, a length of 155 feet and and a tail section that is 49 feet wide. Two Rolls Royce jet engines that are 8 feet wide. Physics never lies...

I have nothing to prove and I am not looking for a hobby writing in this forum. I woke up this morning on a layover and saw your post. I have spent way too much time on this post but it is necessary to respond to your disrespectful and condescending tone. My suggestion to you is that you take a chill pill, go to law school and become a trial attorney. But first tighten up your debating skills and speak of things of which you have substantial knowledge. If you are a Captain on the 757 I am very pleased to NOT have to fly with you. If you are a First Officer I would highly suggest you work on your CRM (Crew Resource Management) skills before checking out in the left seat so you will NOT transfer your misery on others and make flying with your airline tougher than it has to be...

To the other Forum members, I hope some of this information was helpful. Blue skies...

reply to post by randyvs


You are wrong. It does not matter how thick the steel is. The heat excites the atoms in the steel. It does not need to melt. It does not matter how thick the steel is. You go on talking about something that you do not even know about. This is a stupid conversation to have. Learn about how heat affects the atomic structure of steel.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

Man, I hate to break it to you but you essentially said nothing. You have proved nothing. You do not know what you are talking about. The NIST theory is nothing but sophistry. And that is all you have.

Ok, I told you that it wouldn't matter. I am glad that I didn't take the time to explain it to you. Heat does directly affect the atomic structure of steel. Look it up. Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Keep spreading your misinformation. You look like you know what you are talking about.

By the way, did you take a college level course for metallurgy?

EDIT: I am about to leave for welding lab. Yes, I do deal with steel everyday. This is my last semester of a two year program. Your post makes me laugh, thank you, I needed a laugh before I leave.

edit on 25-2-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT

Heat will weaken steal. The question is how much fuel and oxygen are required for how much steel.

Listen to yourself. You are saying that because you are taking a welding cirriculum you are an expert on metallurgy? I wish you success on that.

I am not a christian but I do believe that some of us need to remove the log from our eye before trying to remove a sliver from someone elses.

You have proven nothing. Your condescending attitude counts for squat.

You are obviously a TROLL. Here is what I said about my college metullurgy experience. and I quote:

Now I am in now way saying that I know everything on metallurgy. I am saying that I have had a college course on this subject. I have my tests and notes near me. I am what you could say a little educated on this topic.

Did I say I was an expert? I obviously know way more on how steel reacts to extreme heat and cold than you do.You have no sense of reasoning, and therefore I am done debating this with you. I will eventually make a nice thread on my take on the towers steel capabilities and u2u the facts.
I just asked my teacher about how the towers fell. He is a professor and he is not a mainstream type of guy. As a matter of fact he is one of the people I credit for my serious awakening. He spelled it out for me in an extreme technical manner. A manner I wish not to share with you right now because you obviosly are oblivious to any sort of conscious reasoning.

Have a good day TROLL.

reply to post by Utah62
Well done, and highly informative!!! I'm glad you decided to read/post in this thread. It's refreshing to read/see comments about the Pentagon "incident" from your perspective. I can't apologize for people like weedwhacker because I'd be doing it all day long; it's like being in a dysfunctional family; after a while, it starts to seem a little normal, or at least, expected.

The OS states that a large passenger jet hit the Pentagon. Just looking at the photos, alone, proves that is not the case. Yet there are hardcore *believers* who still cling, rudely and obsessively, to the OS. We need more people debunking the OS. From the evidence available to average citizens on the internet, I believe that the Pentagon aspect of 9-11 has been successfully debunked. This is why the other surveillance footage WILL NEVER BE RELEASED because that footage shows WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON.

I apologize for being a little hasty with the above posters. I should know better than let someone get me a little upset here on ATS, where ignorance is rampant. I know what I know and that is it.

Sorry op, for slightly derailing your thread.

Just to let you know I did S&F you when you posted your thread.

reply to post by Utah62


OK.....despite my reservations, you seem legit about your "experience".

NO....of course I don't have personal on-site accident investigation background experience. But, sir: I flew for a major U.S. airline for 23+ years, before that various commuters, and before that a CFI...all in all, total of nearly 40 years of my life. I'm typed in the DC-9, B-737 and B-757/767. Plenty of right seat time, also, in the B-727, A-300, DC-10 too (Never bid on the B-777, nor the B-747 when we had them. Too junior, at the time, for hte "whale"....and, the triple-seven doesn't go to places I particularly care to get stuck flying to repeatedly....Tel Aviv and Tokyo are nice once in a while to visit, maybe......

So, I come to this not completely ignorant of a few things.....

The three most dense parts of an aircraft are the fuselage and the engines, period...

The engines. Of course. But, as to your claim of "three" holes, in that design and construction style of building? Nonsense. Look at the WTC Towers, too! Same principle I talk about......

The center keel beam is what you are likely referring to, in terms of the fuselage? In the B-757 and 767 design, the wings incorporate a dual-spar concept --- one forward, one aft. The forward spar the main load bearer to support the static weight of the engine, and transmit/convey its thrust forces to the rest of the airframe...so, it MUST be very sturdy. IN ADDITION, the MLG attachments have to be very strong....as you should realize. This all connects to the center part of the fuselage, and collectively usually called the "wingbox". PLUS, the gear are retracted, up in the wells. Pretty beefy items, those are......

Therefore, the entire central portion, engine-to-engine span-wise, is the most robust.

Cutaway diagram:




The connection area between engines, and beefy fuselage, is sufficiently strong to account for the building's damage patterns.

Oblique view, image of the swath of destruction, with airplane drawn to scale:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83d1b092d3f8.jpg[/atsimg]


Overhead view:




Found in the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" (Have you read that, yet? Links can be found online)....Ahhhhh, heck!! I'm such a nice guy, HERE: The Pentagon Building Performance Report

....of all the pictures I have looked at of the impact site there is but one hole...well sir, that cannot be.

Oh?? Why? (Well, you will realize after you have read the Report....).

BTW....do you realize the horizontal extent of the initial opening?? (Before the upper floors collapsed down, roughly 30 minutes after impact).

and additionally see "wing" and "tail" imprints on the building with shattered windows and lots of wing and tail metal on the ground...

Ahh....you see, THIS is why I doubted you initially. Your "experience" with other airplane accidents didn't seem to put you in good stead to realize why this one is so different.

Oh, and a "wing" imprint?:

The majority of photos available online (especially if you limit your searching to just the "9/11 conspiracy" sites) are long shots....too far away for detail:



Only the right wing, I had it handy to post. Others can be found, I forget where I found that one....YOU can search on your own, of course. Oh, and you DID realize that the vertical stabilizer is made of composites, right?? Look at this website (FAA Repair Station) and on the right, the listing of all the composite components:

www.aeromaintenancegroup.com...

...the wings would not have penetrated the building and the upper portion of the vertical tail above the fuselage would not have either.

Most of the structure of the wings outboard of the engines was shattered, fragmented, reduced to metal confetti. In additional close-up photos, you can see windows dislodged from their mounts, providing access for the over 800 feet per second fragments and pieces to gain entry.

My first aircraft accident was my squadron mate whose FA-18 flew into the top edge of a river bank at 550 kts. The front end of the aircraft penetrated the hard clay and the back half of the aircraft snapped off and spread wreckage through dense wood for over a mile (statute, not nautical).

Sorry, that IS tough. (I was acquainted with David Charlesbois, the AAl 77 F/O. Friend of friends....although I didn't work for AAL, went to his service here in D.C., in MY uniform, out of respect).

I also understand it's common in the military to be on hand for your friends' accidents, when they occur. However....not to seem indelicate but...can you determine the trajectory of the F-18 at impact? I mean, the aft section "snapping off" in THAT one case might have been a result of a last-minute pitch change, etc....meaning, the longitudinal axis might not have been directly parallel to path of motion. At impact.

The engines (GE F-404) had penetrated over 100 feet into the dense clay and were not recovered due to cost.

THAT is actually useful information for the United 93 "arguments"......another place.

Your pilot credibility remarks demonstrate that you were not a fighter pilot as you display disdain and disrespect towards me.

Not intentional....apology for seeming that way. However, this Board (and this Forum, in particular) is often littered with poseurs....and often, they are banned former members, who return and then take on a persona....that they've learned from their prior experiences here....

Your writing comes across like a civilian pilot with a chip on his shoulder.

A civilian, yes...guilty. BUT, no "chip". Met a lot of very good military pilots in my career.....
Didn't have uncorrected 20/20...so, NO WAY a military career was possible for me. Airlines aren't quite as strict...corrective lenses are OK.

Now you know where I work.

Yes....and, now....you as well, most likely. MY hints are above.
ALPA LEC 170, in case it isn't clear....we have SLF payloads (Joke...."Self Loading Freight"....LOL!! Usually, on two legs....unless confined to a wheelchair, or other stuff....) ---(Retired, BTW).

A 757 is a medium sized transport category aircraft. Max Takeoff Weight: 255k

Yes....for certain versions of the -200. (Not ours, nor AAL's). Our -300s ARE 255.5, though. (Makes them "heavies"! Silly, but....)

I stand by my statement that flying the 757 at high airspeed while descending in a low altitude environment and in the profile described by the 9/11 Commission and NTSB flight simulation would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Have you seen the NTSB animation, from the SSFDR? The NTSB didn't bother with the final moments, they were somewhat disrupted, but you can clearly see the trend. The final bits were properly decoded by an Australian gent, Mr. Warren Stutt. Has a website, by that name:

What Flight Data Recorder evidence have you been privy to?

There are several out there...seen this one?:

www.ntsb.gov...

It's something that YOU will get more out of than most I try to get to read it. There are a few more...."Flight Path Study", etc....


I'm not sure you say "crime scene" regarding a normal NTSB investigation in the same way THIS incident qualified....chalk it up to semantics.

Again, that "claim" is but one of many, many red herring sorts that abound, coming usually from the hard-core "truthers". NTSB worked with the FBI, but the Bureau was lead, naturally. Similar to TWA 800, for instance....UNTIL a bomb was ruled out, then FBI backed out. Etc...

From every picture I have looked at there are men in suits walking around the grassy area of the Pentagon who are not wearing anything saying NTSB and picking up pieces of metal off the ground. Not standard protocol.

Well, really....was there ANY question as to the "cause"?? That is the point, here. AND, be careful assigning too much to those very, very few photos, and any "motives" attributed to them...UNLESS you know the exact timeline of the picture. "9/11 conspiracy" sites lie, often.....

There is only a factual and probable cause report on file....

I know, encountered that too....dig deeper. That's why I linked, above. "key words" help.

To my knowledge the only video ever released of the impact on the Pentagon was the two frames of film from the parking lot. There were other video cameras operating that day that could dispel many of the myths of this tragedy. Have you seen any of those videos?

I have to find it, there is (somewhere online) a FULL list of 85 tapes....with a description of what was (and was NOT) on them....

A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for DNA or Aircraft Material evidence (like TWA 400) of Flight 77 would also dispel the conspiracy theories.

Then, do it.

Your comments on this topic also display your ignorance. There is an investigation book concerning the ValuJet crash in the Everglades in 1996. It is filled with hundreds of photographs of the crash site and the horrific aftermath.

Yes, know that one well. I HAVE TRIED TO FIND IT, online....for examples. Can't. You say it's easy to find?? I say it isn't. Maybe I don't know where/how to look?

When an aircraft crashes, even with fuel, heat and fire you will still find identifiable pieces and parts, seat frames, luggage and their contents and unfortunately human tissue as well.

Yes. That was found. I just don't think such gory (and insensitive) material is in the "public domain".