A rebuttal to the video "9/11 - In Plane Site" (Part One) (repost)

[MercutioATC]

This is a repost of a previous thread that was locked for straying from the original topic. Lithos has graciously permitted me to repost it. To avoid another incident, I'd ask that all respondents please address the subject of the thread and present other issues in appropriate threads. Thanks.

I've been asked to detail what I see as misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the video "9/11 - In Plane Sight". After viewing the video again, I realized that the task was larger than I had anticipated. As a result, I will be posting my response in four parts, each dealing with approximately a quarter of the video.

The issues are time-indexed by the minutes:seconds into the video that VonKleist raises them and are in chronological order. I invite anybody with comments to respond.


A REBUTTAL TO THE VIDEO "9/11 - IN PLANE SIGHT" (PART ONE)

6:43 Vonkleist states that there was "no credible claim of responsibility" for the events of 9/11 and that, for this reason, it's reasonable to assume that the real culprits would do anything to "cover up any information that might lead to their discovery".

On 10/30/2001, Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binla...

In addition, two members of Al-Qaeda, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, admitted that they played major roles in planning the 9/11 attacks on behalf of OBL:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/05/alqaeda.... /


7:34 VonKleist shows a videotaped interview with eyewitness Mike Walter who says that what he saw "was like a cruise missile with wings".

What VonKleist conveniently omits is the rest of the interview. Here is a full transcript of Mike Walter's statement:

"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'

"And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.

"Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward.

"We had a lady in front of me, who was backing up and screaming, 'Everybody go back, go back, they've hit the Pentagon.'

"It was just sheer terror."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnes... /

In the opening statements of the video, VonKleist states "We offer no conclusions, but simply present the evidence and let you the viewing audience draw your own conclusions". If this was his true intent, why did he selectively edit Mike Walter's statement to change the apparent meaning of his account of what he saw? Rather than present the entire quote, VonKleist intentionally chose to misrepresent Mr. Walter's statement.


8:27 VonKleist says "We can see the big hole that was created by the 757" while displaying a picture of the Pentagon after the collapse of the A ring.

Plenty of pictures exist of the actual hole created by AAL77. VonKleist chooses to use a picture of the Pentagon after the collapse. Why, when an accurate picture exists, does he choose to use a picture of something different?


9:33 VonKleist makes the statement "There were no photos showing any recognizable wreckage from a 757".

Contrary to this statement, there are photos of debris which could very well be from a 757.

There is the high-pressure rotor similar to what would be found in a 757 engine:

There is a picture of a piece of fuselage:

There is a picture of a wheel very similar to those found on a 757:

There is a picture of a landing gear strut which seems to match the size of a 757 strut:

It is disingenuous to suggest there there are "no photos" of 757 debris.


9:36 VonKleist states that the hole in the Pentagon is 65 feet wide while the wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet, 10 inches. He then asks "How does a plane of those dimensions fit into a hole only 65 feet across?".

What VonKleist neglects to discuss is the damage to the limestone facade of the Pentagon which was approximately 120 feet in length.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.h...

It is the opinion of the civil engineers that examined the site that this damage would correspond to a 757's wings striking the Pentagon. Approached from another direction, what DID cause the 120 feet of damage if not a large commercial airplane?


10:38 VonKleist shows a post-collapse photo of the Pentagon and uses an unburned desk, monitor and book to illustrate that there was no intense fire in the Pentagon.

The picture provided is a post-collapse photo. In the collapse, areas of the building that were not involved in the fire were exposed. The fact that flammable objects in areas of the building not subjected to the fire survived is not an indication of the intensity of the fire.


11:29 VonKleist states that approximately 8600 gallons of jet fuel would have been involved in the crash had a 757 been involved. He then shows a picture of fire damage to the A ring of the Pentagon and asks if the smoke and heat damage is "consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited".

The picture is misleading because, while three rings of the Pentagon were damaged, VonKleist chooses to use a picture showing the damage to only one of the rings. In addition, he bases his statement on the assumption that all of the remaining fuel on the 757 would have entered the Pentagon. Since there was a considerable external fuel explosion at the Pentagon, we know this is untrue.


13:59 VonKleist discusses the security camera footage that was released (the blurry 5 frames) and states "Many people ask "is this the only security camera that was on at the Pentagon?"". He then states that the government confiscated a security video from a gas station who's camera was pointed in the "exact direction" where the 757 would have hit.


The Government has never claimed that this was the only video available. It is simply the only video that has been released. The gas station video camera was allegedly pointed toward the Pentagon. To state that it was in the "exact direction" of the crash and to imply that it would have shown anything useful from that distance is speculative, at best.





This concludes Part One. Again, any and all comments are welcome. I'll tackle the rest of the video in three more installations.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. I am reviewing In Plane Site right now. You made this comment

prematurely:
8:27 VonKleist says "We can see the big hole that was created by the 757" while displaying a picture of the Pentagon after the collapse of the A ring.

Plenty of pictures exist of the actual hole created by AAL77. VonKleist chooses to use a picture of the Pentagon after the collapse. Why, when an accurate picture exists, does he choose to use a picture of something different?

Go to approximately 17:50 there are photos before the collapse.

[MercutioATC]

9. This is only a review of the first 15 minutes. When VonKleist made

the statement, he showed a post-collapse picture.

I'll get to the next 15 minutes in a few days. Believe me, a quick perusal of the next 15 minutes shows plenty of misrepresentations.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. As to Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks. As you, yourself know

he didn't do that until October 30, 2004, well after 9/11 In Plane Site was released. I think you should have reviewed your analysis before reposting. I honestly do think it was an oversight on your part, and yet others, seeing your analysis for the first time would be misled.

[AZCat]

3. MercutioATC had realized that in the other thread

It should be 2004, not 2001 - per MercutioATC (post here).

It looks like when he reposted he forgot to change that.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. Even if he changed it to what it really was, it then wouldn't apply, as

I said, to the video. 9/11 In Plane Site was released before Bin Laden's statement.

[AZCat]

5. It was released prior to Bin Laden's statement

But since BL has claimed responsibility for the acts, it invalidates VonKleist's conclusion that "it's reasonable to assume that the real culprits would do anything to "cover up any information that might lead to their discovery," because he bases that on the premise that no-one has (credibly) claimed responsibility.

[DulceDecorum]

7. RE: cover up

January 29, 2002
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.

The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

[MercutioATC]

10. So VonKleist just continues to sell a video on his website with incorrect

information?

I understand that he's backed off of his claim that the secondary dust clouds at the WTC site proved that explosives were used because of new information. I haven't seen him admit that THIS claim is also in error.

[DulceDecorum]

11. No-one has credibly claimed responsibility.

And BushCo has long been known to use actors.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

[MercutioATC]

12. That's an opinion. It differs from mine.

I feel the OBL claim was genuine (as do many others).

[DulceDecorum]

19. In any case,

if vonKleist does not accept that video as proof positive
of a claim of responsibility,
then he has NOT LIED
and UNTIL it is PROVEN BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT
that the image on that video is that of a LIVING BREATHING Osama bin Laden,
vonKleist's assertion still stands.

You see, MercutioATC,
all that we have
when it comes to those videos
are FEELINGS.

No proof.
Just FEELINGS.

[MercutioATC]

28. I didn't say he "lied" about OBL's taking responsibility.

I said he misrepresented the facts.

The facts are that OBL and two Al-Qaeda members claimed responsibility for the events of 9/11. Some believe that these claims are true, some don't. To state that nobody has claimed responsibility is innacurate and misleading, though.

[DulceDecorum]

45. Can I interest you in the purchase of a bridge?

The Brooklyn Bridge?

Monday September 9, 2002
Two of the world's most sought after fugitives, the alleged al-Qaida leaders Khaled al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, have boasted about how they planned the attacks on New York and Washington a year ago this week.
The two men, believed to be the chief of al-Qaida's military committee and the coordinator of the September 11 attacks respectively, spent two days last month with a senior journalist from al-Jazeera, the Arabic television station, at a hideaway in the Pakistani city of Karachi.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,788430,00.html

Tuesday September 10, 2002
Video shots, which Al-Jazeera said had been filmed in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, a few months be fore the attacks in the United States, allegedly showed four of the hijackers in a sparsely furnished room with belongings strewn on the floor and clothes hanging from hooks on the walls. Items on a table included an air chart of the US, and a flight instruction manual.
<snip>
The voice attributed to Bin Laden praised the participants individually by name - especially the group leader, Mohammed Atta. The alleged hijacker also praised Osama bin Laden while thanking people who supported and trained him.
The excerpts shown last night also included a farewell message of a man it identified as hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,789253,00.html

No?
Oh well, I tried.
How about this one?

The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said Thursday it had received a claim of responsibility for the Madrid train bombings issued in the name of Al Qaeda (search), the terror organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Earlier Thursday Spanish officials accused the Basque separatist terror group ETA of the bombings and have yet to comment on the Al Qaeda claim.
<snip>
The five-page e-mail claim, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (search), was received at the paper's London offices. It said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
The paper's editor, Bari Atwan, told Fox News the alleged letter from Al Qaeda "looks authentic" and consistent with letters the paper has received from the terrorist organization in the past.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113970,00.html

Al qaeda is responsible for taking socks out of dryers
and removing the caps from ball-point pens.
I just know it.
A senior corespondent from al-Jazeera keeps telling me so.

Tuesday, September 11, 2001
The terrorist group claiming responsibility for the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City conducted "numerous small bombings and minor assaults and some more spectacular operations in Israel and the occupied territories" and believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses, according to a report by the U.S. Department Of State.
FOX News reported Tuesday morning that the Democratic Front For The Liberation Of Palestine (DFLP) has claimed responsibility for the World Trade Center disaster.
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSWorldTrade0109/11_responsibility-can.html

Inital reports following the attacks indicated that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Palestinian terrorist group, had claimed responsibility for the attacks, but this was denied by a senior leader of the group soon after.
<snip>
Though no group has explicitly claimed responsibility, the militant Islamic al-Qaida group has praised the attacks and the group's leaders have hinted at their involvement in the incidents. Indeed, shortly after the attacks, the United States government declared them and their leader, Osama bin Laden, as the prime suspects. In 2004, the U.S. government commission investigating the attacks officially concluded that the attacks were conceived and implemented by al-Qaida operatives.
<snip>
Although bin Laden's al-Qaida organization has never explicitly claimed responsibility, it has praised the attacks and hinted that it was behind them and planning more. The group's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al-Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001: "Americans should know, the storm of the planes will not stop. ... There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

[MercutioATC]

47. I still believe the claims of responsibility were credible.

Unlike some here, I don't believe that Al-Qaeda is some boogeyman created by the U.S. Government. I have no problem believing that a terrorist group was responsible for the events of 9/11 and I do consider the claims by Al-Qaeda to be credible.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. And many others do not. n/t

[MercutioATC]

29. See Post #28...

[AZCat]

20. We seem to be running with different definitions of "credible"

credible
adj.

1. Capable of being believed; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.
2. Worthy of confidence; reliable.
<snip>

It seems believable that Bin Laden is the person claiming responsibility for the attacks. It may not have yet been proven without a reasonable doubt, but that is not what VonKleist said - he said "credible" (see above).

[DulceDecorum]

24. The dictionary definitions

serve only to emphazise my point.
But I am going to be nice and let you guys get along with your interpretations.

The vonKleist video has struck a chord with many of its viewers.
The points that MercutioATC has so far brought up have been hashed over multiple times here.

The Official Story of the events of September 11, 2001
was used to motivate thousands of young men into going to war.
Many have now returned
in the dead of night,
in caskets,
unseen and unmourned.

I am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises.
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

When I left my home and my family
I was no more than a boy
In the company of strangers
In the quiet of the railway station running scared
Laying low, seeking out the poorer quarters
Where the ragged people go
Looking for the places only they would know

Lie la lie ...

Carry on with your analysis, MercutioATC.
Do carry on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. Perhaps because the person in the video was never Definitively identified

as Bin Laden?

[MercutioATC]

30. He wasn't? The government and press agree it's him.

I guess it depends on your definition of "definitively". The video didn't come with fingerprints or DNA as far as I know, but people who do this sort of thing for a living are convinced it's him.

[DulceDecorum]

39. RE: the people who do this sort of thing for a living

Richard Libertini


Osama bin Laden

[MercutioATC]

40. I was speaking of the people who analyzed the video.

They're of the opinion that the image and voice are those of OBL.

[Abe Linkman]

42. Which people are you referring to?

Lots of people have analyzed the video. I think even Saturday Night Live did.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

88. Osama is undergoing treatment

For Kidney disease...do some research, I ain't going to give you all the answers.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. And you are saying that dialysis has changed his appearance this

much?

Personally, I think he is dead, and had become the new Emmanuel Goldstein, along with Zarqawi.

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. Bloating.

You'd be surprised what bloating to do to one's appearance, even the nose. Unfortunately I think he is still alive, as is Zarqawi.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

91. Even the eyebrows are different. As to Zarqawi, at the very beginning

of the war he was supposedly killed in a bombing raid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=125&topic_id=31776&mesg_id=32106

Iraq militants claim al-Zarqawi is dead
Al Qaida-linked extremist suspected of planning attacks
Undated photo of suspected al-Qaida commander Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:31 a.m. ET March 4, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.

[vincent_vega_lives]

118. I would love to believe it.

But somehow I doubt it.

[DulceDecorum]

99. Diabetic Osama has a bloated nose?

I'll have to tell that one to Michael Jackson.
And his nose.

Who performed Zarawi's leg transplant?

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. Yes

A relative of mine went throug the same treatment.

I give up, who?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. Are these the same ones who were "convinced" that there WMDs?

As to the press? Don't you mean the corporate owned media whores? I don't want to be inflammatory but my trust for the media and any information put out by this sociopathic administration is suspect to me.

[DulceDecorum]

73. Photoshopped Propaganda

The BushCo Public Relations Machine LIES.
About everything.
Including September 11, 2001.

There are many who staunchly support the story that BushCo has been telling all these months.
BUT
the curious thing about those people
is that they never seem to question WHY BushCo has done EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to prevent the TRUTH about 911 from EVER coming out.

Here is one of their latest examples of
Photoshopped Propaganda.
First the TRUTH.



"Photo by Hayne Palmour/North County Times
Navy Corpsman Richard Barnett of Camarilo, Calif. checks the heart of a young Iraqi boy as other Navy medics treat the boy's older sister, right, after the two children and their family were caught in a crossfire between US Marines and Iraqi soldiers just outside of a Marine encampment in central Iraq on Saturday, March 29, 2003. The boy was not injured. His sister, who received gunshot wounds, was expected to survive. The father was wounded and the mother was killed in the gun battle. If anything good comes from this nonsense, I haven't seen it yet said Barnett after the two children and their father were taken away for a medivac helicopter."

And now, the LIE.



Read all about it at:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?p=12485

And now back to vonKeist and the TRUTH he has exposed to the viewers of
"In Plane Sight"
http://www.911inplanesite.com/911review_disinfotainment.html

[meppie-meppie not]

107. they have absolutely no shame! :( n/t

[DulceDecorum]

121. None indeed.

Every day they drop bombs on the heads of these people
and those bombs are often inscribed
with the names of those who are listed as having died
on September 11, 2001.

Yet they refuse to allow us to know
what really happened
on September 11, 2001.

This is none of the reasons why the researchers are ADAMANT
about getting to the bottom of this caper
and exposing the lilim
who have done this to us all.

[MercutioATC]

8. Damn! I forgot to change the date in the repost!

You're absolutely right. The 2001 date is my error.

[DulceDecorum]

6. Re: taking credit

Friday, October 29, 2004
WASHINGTON — A man wearing dark glasses and an Arab headdress wrapped around his face claims to be an American member of Al Qaeda (search) and promises attacks that will make the streets of America "run red with blood" in a video aired Thursday night by FOX News.
"The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11th. ... After decades of American tyranny and oppression, now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood, matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims," the man, calling himself "Azzam the American," says on the tape.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136937,00.html

For the last few hours this tape has been credited by the zionist/neocon media as being the work of the "dangerous" "Al Qaieda" (read -Al Mossad / Al CIAda) "media-relations agent" Pearlman. Then all of a sudden the CIA say it might not be authentic and no mention of Pearlman! ... What?! Did that little diversion fu*k up you muppets ...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/052254.php
Tell them Osama sent you.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=241042

NEW YORK, Oct. 30, 2004
Most experts are downplaying the potential impact on the presidential election of the new Osama bin Laden videotape. But they largely agree that if it does assist either candidate, it is more likely to be President Bush than Democrat John Kerry.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/30/politics/main652438.shtml

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?
CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...
KING: The warning.
CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/lkl.01.html

How many of you remember the al Qaqaa explosive dump?
Yeah, I though as much.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Thank you for posting this! I also recall photographs being compared,

and it was highly questionable as to whether this was Bin Landen.

Meanwhile, ironically, today from the BBC


Kerry blames defeat on Bin Laden

Mr Kerry said he was proud of his presidential campaign
US Democratic Senator John Kerry says a video message from Osama Bin Laden sealed his defeat in a presidential race dominated by the 9/11 attacks.
Mr Kerry told NBC TV his opinion poll lead over President George W Bush fell away after the tape was broadcast.

He said national security was the decisive issue in the November 2004 poll, won eventually by President Bush.

Osama Bin Laden's video, shown days before the vote, urged Americans to back neither Mr Bush nor Mr Kerry.

"Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," said the al-Qaeda figurehead, claiming that the best way for the US to avoid fresh attacks was to call off its "war on terror".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4222647.stm

[meppie-meppie not]

18. right after they aired the OBL tape (just prior to the election) I went

back and reviewed the DVD "Bush's Brain" because it just stunk to high heaven of a Rove attack and sure enough I'm convinced that's exactly what it was. Which also leads me to believe that OBL is an operative of America's spooks.

[DulceDecorum]

21. Yeah, the Azzam tape did not fly

once it came out that Azzam was some dude by the name of Adam Pearlman.
So they had to pull Osama himself out
before the scam fell completely apart.

In any case it just goes to show that
those Islamic terrorists are very open minded.
Who'd a thunk they'd let a nice American boy become their spokesman?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. I have no doubt that he is a CIA asset and always was. I have seen

it referenced here before (by Abe Linkman), and saw the video myself a while back from a 60 Minutes report that Bin Laden was in a Pakistani Military Hospital on the eve of 9/11. This are was highly frequented by US Intelligence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/track/search/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama Jan. 28, 2002 Barry Petersen reports Osama bin Laden may have received dialysis treatment in Pakistan. (Photo: AP)...
...I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden." Hospital employee (CBS) Everyone remembers what happened on Sept....
...the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS Evening News has been told that the night before the Sept. 11 terrorists attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He...

[Abe Linkman]

25. Ironic that OBL is considered credible by Bush 9/11 CTheorists

You could be forgiven for thinking THEY would be the very first people to pitch a conniption if anyone said they believed one word out of the mouth of the cave, man.

Alas, and of course, what the Sisters will say to THAT is: "Oh, this is "only" about misrepresentations by Dave von Kleist; it has nothing to do with claims made by OBL in pre-election commercials made for the bush 2004 presidential campaign."

Commander Bunnypants stood beneath a large banner which proclaimed:
"Mission Accomplished". Credible claim? No, but of course, he's the Presnit, so you know HE'S honest. Mostly. Sometimes. WMD. WMD program. WMD dreams. "Osama WHO? Never heard of him. HE'S NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE. We've moved beyond HIM. Fixin' to bom EYEranastan now. (I mean, our friends over in that a-reeuh gonna do that four us, and everything, you know.)"

[meppie-meppie not]

26. I heard reference made to the "sister's" before, who are they? What I

find astounding that this so called mass murderer terrorist OBL is not important anymore? They aren't concentrating on him anymore? And people buy that crap, swallow it hook line and sinker without even thinking twice. We get accused of smoking the bong but what the hell are they doing? Drinking the koolaide, me thinks! :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

32. Actually, Abe, that's EXACTLY what this thread is about.

VonKleist's claims, not OBL's pre-election video.


We're trying to stay on-topic. If you want to discuss the pre-election video, there's a whole forum out there...

[Abe Linkman]

33. Please clarify "exactly" what this thread is about.

Please clarify. Is it about Dave Von Kleist's claims about what happened? Or, is it an assemblage of YOUR claims of what you feel are misrepresentations in the video?

Thank you.

[MercutioATC]

34. Did you read the subject thread?

That explains it pretty well.

[Abe Linkman]

35. It says it's your "rebuttal" in one place & other things n other places.

Which is it?

[MercutioATC]

36. It's a rebuttal of the video "9/11 - In Plane Sight".

I thought that was clear. I apologize if it wasn't.

[Abe Linkman]

37. You're saying that it's a REBUTTAL? Where's the Beef?

rebuttal

n 1: the speech act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or argument


When will you be doing that? So far, what you've done is give us two examples of what you call misrepresentations:

1.) Not including the full statement of Mike Walter --- and I can't help wonder if you still consider THAT to be important if he had included the statements of others who also said that a missile hit the building. as you know, that's what Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said happened. I've seen no refutation of his major claims about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

2.) Something about no one making a CREDIBLE claim of responsibility for
9/11, despite the fact that OBL made that famous campaign commmercial video for bush that was released just before the election.

[MercutioATC]

38. You don't have to agree with my contentions. It's still a rebuttal.

Personally, I think that VonKleist intentionally editing an eyewitness statement to change the meaning is a major issue.

As I said, I'll be posting the next three installments at about one per week. Possibly you'll find something "beefier" in one of them.

[Abe Linkman]

41. Obviously, I didn't disagree w/your contentions. I LISTED THEM. BUT...

they don't amount to a rebuttal of the video's major claims about what happened. And, if you feel that his not including the entire statement of Mike Walter is a big deal, then in order for that contention to have any merit, you can't just IGNORE the other folks who said essentially the same thing as Mike Walter. Your contentions aren't worthy if you ignore the anomalies that call into question your conclusion. Otherwise, it makes you look petty & like you're nit-picking.

It's just an empty, worthless point to make. In fact, it makes it look like you CAN'T refute the fact that there are credible claims that the Pentagon was struck by a missile.

[MercutioATC]

43. Abe, I'm rebutting the video, not arguing every 9/11 theory.

VonKleist doesn't quote any other eyewitnesses that claim to have seen "a missile". Since this thread is dealing only with the video, I'm not dealing with anything other than what I see as misrepresentations bu VonKleist IN THE VIDEO.

[DulceDecorum]

46. Perhaps you should move on to some other point.

it looks like most people here agree with vonKleist
when it comes to the part about Osama never having credibly admitted guilt.

Lets talk about the debris.
And lime-green paint.
I like lime-green paint.
Boeing lime-green paint.
You know,
the lime-green paint that was used for exteriors and was formally qualified as low VOC primer by Boeing in July 2000.
That paint.
That lime-green paint.

Now tell me how that lime-green paint got onto the debris.
Please, pretty please.

[MercutioATC]

48. I'm not "moving on" in this thread.

If you want to discuss paint, kick your paint thread again. It's not part of the discussion here.

[DulceDecorum]

50. No photos showing wreckage from N644AA

MercutioATC says:
9:33 VonKleist makes the statement "There were no photos showing any recognizable wreckage from a 757".
Contrary to this statement, there are photos of debris which could very well be from a 757.
There is the high-pressure rotor similar to what would be found in a 757 engine:
There is a picture of a piece of fuselage:
There is a picture of a wheel very similar to those found on a 757:
There is a picture of a landing gear strut which seems to match the size of a 757 strut:
It is disingenuous to suggest there there are "no photos" of 757 debris.

Hmmmmmmm
Some of the "wreckage" you mention, has traces of lime-green paint.
Some of the "wreckage" you mention, has light blue paint where there should be polished aluminum.

All your base are belong to us.

[MercutioATC]

57. I don't see paint on any of the pieces I discussed.

Paint's not the discussion here. We're staying on-topic this time.

[Abe Linkman]

61. Your presentation lacks credibility & smacks of propaganda

Do you realize that what you are doing is in plain sight? You are using selective evidence and ignoring other evidence, for the purpose of trying to undermine "In Plane Sight".

That's the kind of thing they do in totalitarian governments.

You keep claiming that you aren't trying to convince anyone, but that is exactly what you are trying to do; otherwise you wouldn't go thru the exercise.

Your presentation is neither helpful nor persuasive, but, please -keep at it. The more people see how the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
operate, the more likely they'll be to see thru the smoke and mirrors.

Please continue.

[MercutioATC]

74. Thanks for the critique.

Actually, it's doing exactly what I intended it to....rebut the video. If you have an issue with that, perhaps viting a thread entitled "A rebuttal to the video "9/11 - In Plane Sight"" isn't wise.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

98. No paint on the debris?

Aww shucks.

[AZCat]

49. I didn't know we decided things on consensus

Haven't you ever watched "Twelve Angry Men"?

I love that flick...

[DulceDecorum]

51. Point Number One has been refuted.

MercutioATC says:
6:43 Vonkleist states that there was "no credible claim of responsibility" for the events of 9/11 and that, for this reason, it's reasonable to assume that the real culprits would do anything to "cover up any information that might lead to their discovery".

On 10/30/2001, Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

The posts above demonstrated that the closest MercutioATC can come to "proving" that,
is by reciting a mantra from a tape of highly questionable provenance.

MercutioATC accepts said tape as authentic but many others here do not. Since none of us is personally acquainted with Osama, we are at an impasse. But feel free to continue the discussion on this point. Perhaps an epiphany will result.

[AZCat]

52. I may have misread your post

I thought that you were claiming that because "it looks like most people here agree with vonKleist when it comes to the part about Osama never having credibly admitted guilt" that it must be true.

I was arguing that deciding something was true because most people agree with it was wrong.

If you are making the point that, both sides having demonstrated their evidence, there is no further discussion possible (without introduction of new evidence) then I agree. We are at an impasse.

[DulceDecorum]

55. The third one.

The impasse.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Are you familiar with the expression...

"Eschew obfuscation" - if you are, would you please try to make an effort to avoid it. That way, we can move the discussion along, and maybe even get to some of YOUR special interests. Hopefully, they won't be ones that jump to conclusions illogically or muddy the waters.

[LARED]

65. I nominate this post for the coveted "Irony of the Day Award" (n/t)

[AZCat]

44. What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?

From what I have read here (I realize that might not be all the evidence you have) it seems you use two pieces of evidence:
1) The testimony of certain eyewitnesses from the Pentagon
2) The five-frame video of the Pentagon impact

Am I missing anything?


Note - If you feel that there is ample discussion to be had about this, perhaps we should start a new thread. I don't want to get this one locked again for departure from the OP topic.


On Edit: clarified

[meppie-meppie not]

27. the more I read the more I'm convinced too, thnx OSOmm :-) n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

110. Where do you get the...

"This are was highly frequented by US Intelligence." part?

It is well known that the ISI, (Pakistani Inteligence Service) was aiding the more radical fundimentalist Mujahadeen in Afganistan, against the wishes of the CIA btw. The are feeling the heat now though.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

111. Where do you get ISI out of this? This is a Pakistani Military Hospital

and according to CBS, Bin Laden was there with support of the Pakistani Military in Rawalpindi. I have read several articles that have mentioned that there are US military and Intelligence advisors to the Pakistan military in Rawalpindi.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

114. This is conjecture on your part about the ISI. There is no mention of

that, and in fact, if you read the article, it was ISI that tipped CBS off.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into a military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. conjecture?

"There were reports that Pakistan intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines and the rumor was that these were for wanted for Osama bin Laden," said Rashid.

At that time Osama was still working with the ISI, along with the Taliban leadership.

I doubt there were any US advisers in Pakistan pre 9-11-01, and if there were, I doubt they "frequented" that hospital, or even left the embassy for that matter.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

127. Ok, the ISI, the CIA, Bin Laden and all that jazz........

Fascinating article from Janes about the close association between the ISI, CIA, the Taliban...now if the conclusion is that the ISI was assisting Bin Laden, ain't it interesting that General Ahmed of the ISI was hobnobbing in DC for about a week with members of the administration, and was even having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with Senator Bob Graham and our new CIA Director, Porter Goss. Also according to Indian Intelligence, they received info from the FBI that Ahmed was reported to have sent $100,000 to Atta.....

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/janes011001_1_n.shtml

[DulceDecorum]

128. You misunderestimate them.

And their love of money.

[vincent_vega_lives]

117. Now

but in September 2001?

Who do you think "handled" Osama? The ISI.

[Abe Linkman]

31. YO, Sama! could have a future in acting.

His work in commercials is considered very credible...at least by some folks. WHICH Osama? El GORDO ("Z PHAT GUY") OR Skull & Bones (strike that. make it "Skin & Bones"). Pay your money and take your pick.

[meppie-meppie not]

67. he was in commercials? I've never heard this before n/t

[Abe Linkman]

68. There's probably a lot you've not heard before. Me, too. n/t

n/t

[AZCat]

13. Correct links (it appears they were truncated when you reposted)

The links in your post aren't working. I presume this is because they were shortened when you brought them over from the other thread.

I will retrieve the original ones and post in a minute.

Original links (they are in the order they appear):

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/05/alqaeda.911.claim

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[MercutioATC]

16. Thanks, I hadn't noticed that.

I was concerned that something like this might happen (the locking) and had the original saved in Notebook. It appears that the links stayed abbreviated.

Thanks again.

:)

[AZCat]

17. No problem

Thanks for reposting this - the previous posting just blew up and I was having trouble browsing it (still on dial-up) so I don't really mind this.

[WoodrowFan]

58. Dial Up?

Dial up? Ask your CIA handler for DSL dude. :P

[DulceDecorum]

54. Mike said, Dave said.

7:34 VonKleist shows a videotaped interview with eyewitness Mike Walter who says that what he saw "was like a cruise missile with wings".
What VonKleist conveniently omits is the rest of the interview. Here is a full transcript of Mike Walter's statement:
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
"And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.
"Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward.
"We had a lady in front of me, who was backing up and screaming, 'Everybody go back, go back, they've hit the Pentagon.'
"It was just sheer terror."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/

So far, so good.
Let us look a little bit more closely at Mike Walters.
Now, MercutioATC, I should warn you that I am going to edit some of this info. Bandwith. Copyright. And all that.

Mike Walter joined WUSA 9 News as morning anchor in August 2003. As Senior News Correspondent for USA TODAY LIVE for three and a half years, Mike provided live coverage of major news events for WUSA and 21 other Gannett Television stations across the country.
Mike covered the 2000 presidential conventions; the Timothy McVeigh execution; and the presidential vote recount in Florida. He gave an eyewitness account of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon, where he joined Gordon Peterson at the scene . Mike's reportage on the tragedy was carried on all of the major networks. He was interviewed by the BBC for the documentary “Clear the Skies.” He was a contributing writer to two books on the terrorist attacks: "Covering Catastrophe" and "Broadcasting through Crisis."
http://www.wusatv9.com/newsteam/mw.aspx

He gave an eyewitness account of the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon, where he joined Gordon Peterson at the scene.
So who else from WUSA was there?
Dave Statter, 9 News Reporter.

9:52 AM: Heather’s phone finally gets through. I describe the scene as firefighters from Ft. Meyer and National Airport put the first water and foam on the burning Pentagon. Some people are looking at the sky, making sure another plane isn’t approaching. I suggest to Heather that it is probably a good idea for us to do the same. Amazingly, traffic on northbound Washington Boulevard has not been blocked, and drivers are just whizzing by the burning Pentagon as they head to work.
http://www.wusatv9.com/sports/sports_article.aspx?storyid=9308

But Mike Walter just said:
I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill.

Oh well.
Do go on, Dave Statter.
Tell us more.

10:52 AM: A Lt. Colonel with Air Force Public Affairs passes our location. We snag him. He urges people to keep far away from the Pentagon. If you have loved ones you can’t account for, he asks that you not come to the Pentagon. He has no idea of the number of dead or injured. Not much in the way of information, but it is the first official word.
WUSA anchorman Gordon Peterson, who was originally sent to nearby National Airport for a flight to New York, arrives at our location.

10:54 AM: Mike and Andrea confirm there was no car bomb at the State Department. A little bit of good news.

11:06 AM: Gordon interviews Mike Walter, a television reporter for USA Today Live. Mike, on his way to work in Rosslyn, witnessed the Pentagon crash and offers the most vivid description so far.

11:10 AM: We are again ordered to move our live truck farther away from the Pentagon.

1:50 PM: Andrea announces that the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Team from Fairfax County, known as Virginia Task Force 1, has been activated and will be at the Pentagon shortly.
American Airlines now says they aren’t sure where Flight 77 ended up.

11:03 PM: Fire has broken through in at least four places along the Pentagon roof. Chief Plaugher says aggressive interior firefighting operations will cease until daylight, but overnight crews will continue to pour in water (WATER!! ON JET FUEL!!) from the outside to keep the fire from spreading further.
http://www.wusatv9.com/sports/sports_article.aspx?storyid=9308

Not bad.
Everyone is playing on the same team.
Still wondering about that chaos and terror gridlock
and the cars whizzing by on their way to work.
Still, Mike does have an Emmy for newswriting.
Come to think of it Dave, you've got a bunch of those things too.
http://www.wusatv9.com/newsteam/ds.aspx
And you have been a firefighter.
So why didn't you question that water on jet-fuel?

[hack89]

60. You can use water on jet fuel fires

Couple of points:

1. After the crash the fire becomes a combination class A (paper, wood, and other ash producing fires) and class B (oil based) fire. Water is would be used on such a fire for two reasons: to put out the class A fires and to cool any hot metal that could ignite any unburned fuel.

2. "Fire has broken through in at least four places along the Pentagon roof" - these sound like class A fires as the materials in the building caught on fire. Water would certainly be the appropriate choice.

3.Water may not be the BEST choice for a fuel fire but it is still effective:

From the MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET for Jet Fuel A / A-1:

2. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES (rev. Jan-94)
FLAMMABLE PROPERTIES:
FLASH POINT: > 100 oF (38 oC) TCC
AUTOIGNITION POINT: 410 oF (210 oC)
OSHA/NFPA FLAMMABILITY CLASS: 2 (COMBUSTIBLE) (see Section 14 for transportation classification)
LOWER EXPLOSIVE LIMIT (%): 0.7
UPPER EXPLOSIVE LIMIT (%): 5.0
FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS
Vapors may be ignited rapidly when exposed to heat, spark, open flame or other source of ignition. When
mixed with air and exposed to an ignition source, flammable vapors can burn in the open or explode in
confined spaces. Being heavier than air, vapors may travel long distances to an ignition source and flash
back. Runoff to sewer may cause fire or explosion hazard.
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA
SMALL FIRES: Any extinguisher suitable for Class B fires, dry chemical, CO2, water spray, fire fighting
foam, or Halon.
LARGE FIRES: Water spray, fog or fire fighting foam. Water may be ineffective for fighting the fire, but
may be used to cool fire-exposed containers.

[DulceDecorum]

69. How utterly amusing

EXTINGUISHING MEDIA
LARGE FIRES: Water spray, fog or fire fighting foam. Water may be ineffective for fighting the fire, but
may be used to cool fire-exposed containers.

WHAT fire-exposed containers?
Those firefighters were standing outside making rainbows with the water spray.

The plane had severed water mains and the Pentagon was losing its lifeblood. Without water there would be no way to fight the fire. Without water there would be no air conditioning in the rest of the building and the computers and electronic equipment in the military command centers would quickly overheat and crash.
<snip>
Not wearing a breathing apparatus, Carter headed down into the basement where the smoke was getting heavier.
"It was really caustic, and it was almost choking," says Carter. "You could not draw it into your mouth."
Fighting through smoke, fighting to keep the Pentagon alive, Carter reached the large valves.
"At the same time you're sitting there trying to breathe through the armpit of your coat and operate the valves," he says.
You think about the huge building, the largest office building in the world and all of that, and saving it comes down to the one valve in the basement.
"Without closing these valves, water continues to pour," Carter says. "The fire fighting water can't build up pressure … and all of the (building's) electronics would be gone."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/eveningnews/main521278.shtml

WOW.
Carter lived to tell the tale.
Which is really weird considering
A) he had no breathing gear, and
B) burning planes out-gas cyanide.
It is a miracle!!
Steve Carter MUST be a Muslim,
because, as you know,
Muslims Suspend the Laws of physics.

And what of the electric wiring that was exposed,
dangling
and sparking away?
What effect would WATER have on this?

With ankle-deep water, jet fuel and electricity flowing through virtually every piece of equipment inside, "it was a fully-live, loaded electrical vault," says Carter.
<snip>
One of Carter's electricians, a man who has never talked about what he did, waded into the water and jet fuel and shut off the 13,000 volts of electricity, giving people a better chance to escape and making it safer for firefighters to enter the building.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/10/eveningnews/main521479.shtml

Another Muslim
who Suspended the Laws of Physics!!

But what happened to all those computers and electronic equipment
and the lights
and the air-conditioning
when he shut off the electricity?

Kevin Hawkins raced to the fifth floor to shut the vents that were sucking foul air into the building, one of a team of mechanics and electricians who stayed on the job despite warnings over their walkie-talkies that still more planes were headed toward the Pentagon.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/10/eveningnews/main521479.shtml

Well and good, but what use were the electricians
once the power supply was shut off?
Unless ...
THEY WERE ALL MUSLIMS
BUSY SUSPENDING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!

[hack89]

70. So what?

You asked "So why didn't you question that water on jet-fuel?" I answered your question. It is perfectly reasonable to have used water in that situation.

More to the point - what are you trying to prove? Can you summarize your answer in a single, calm sentence?

[DulceDecorum]

71. Water on jet fuel makes the fire WORSE.

Furthermore,
fires involving aircraft are very very different from regular house fires.

The post that you had so much difficulty in comprehending
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES
that the story we are being told is implausible at best
and a damned lie at worst.

In order to maintain an airport
or landing strip, within the US
certain FAA regulations must be upheld.

Since we are discussing the landing strip at the Pentagon,
it is reasonable to assume that
no corners were cut in regard to the safety and maintenance of that heliport.
After all,
even if the DoD does not care about the FAA regulations,
the Secret Service, which was then part of of the Treasury,
most certainly DID care about the safety and well-being of the pResident
who was supposed to land on the Pentagon heliport-pad at noon on September 11, 2001.

Here is one FAA missive for you to look at.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/part139.php
Pay some attention to:
Sec. 139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment and agents.

[hack89]

72. Those fires were burning at 11:30 PM

Don't you think that perhaps after 15 hours the jet fuel had burned off and what they were fighting was a regular class A house fire?

Secondly, just show me how water would make a jet fuel fire worse?

[DulceDecorum]

76. No

And No.
Call up your local fire department on the non-emergency line and tell them that you think that it is a good idea to pour water on a fossil fuel fire.

If you listen closely, you might just be able to HEAR THEM roll their eyes.

[hack89]

77. There was no jet fuel to burn after 15 hours

Don't you think that all that flammable material in the Pentagon would also be burning? In my original post I said it was a combination class A and class B fire - please explain why that is not possible.

[DulceDecorum]

80. The jet fuel checked out early?

hack89 did you do your homework?
Do you understand what a Class A fire is?
Do you understand what a Class B fire is?
Do you have ANY idea of what one needs to do to put out a Class AB fire?

Take a look at this link and try to figure it out for yourself.
http://www.gwu.edu/~riskmgnt/firetypes.cfm

Here is a BIG HINT.
A Class AB fire involves
Ordinary combustibles, flammable liquids
(Combinations of Classes A & B)

Recommended Type Extinguisher is
AFFF & FFFP FOAM
ABC Dry Chemical

And now hack89,
I have a question for you.
What Class A fire were you talking about in the first place?

[hack89]

85. Lets try again...

My point is that 15 hours after the impact, the firefighters would be fighting class A fires as the combustibles(wood partitions, paper, carpets, furniture) in the building caught fire and the fire spread beyond the immediate impact area. What is so difficult about this concept that you can't get your mind around it? If you dump a gallon of gas on a campfire to get it started you have a Class A and B fire - hours later after the gas has burned off you have a pure class A fire. 15 HOURS after the impact, the jet fuel at the Pentagon would have burned off.

Water is appropriate for a Class A fire.

Just as background - I had extensive firefighting training, including aviation fire fighting, during my time in the Navy.

[DulceDecorum]

86. Truth Suppression Technique Number 8.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/truth.html

Well,
the Navy firefighter extra-ordinaire
has just informed us that a jet fuel fire
such as the one at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
ran out of jet fuel within 15 hours.

Perhaps the Navy firefighter extra-ordinaire
will now tell us WHY
the firefighters there were using WATER to put a Class AB fire
LONG BEFORE the magical jet-fuel 15 hour time-limit was reached.

Incidentally,
what to happened to the jet-fuel that failed to burn off before deadline?
Did it turn back into a pumpkin?

[gbwarming]

92. Cut it out. Most Jet fuel MSDS list water or water fog for firefighting

Premcor JetA MSDS
http://www.premcor.com/msds/pdf/jet%20A.pdf
Fire Fighting Media and Instructions
Flammable liquid, insoluble in water.
SMALL FIRE: Use DRY chemicals, CO2, foam or water spray.
LARGE FIRE: Use water spray or fog. Cool containing vessels with water jet in order to prevent pressure build-up, autoignition or explosion.

Amerada Hess JetA MSDS
http://www.hess.com/ehs/msds/JetA_0325_clr.pdf
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA
SMALL FIRES: Any extinguisher suitable for Class B fires, dry chemical, CO2, water spray, fire fighting
foam, or Halon.

LARGE FIRES: Water spray, fog or fire fighting foam. Water may be ineffective for fighting the fire, but
may be used to cool fire-exposed containers.

Chevron Jet fuels
http://www.chevrontexacoaviation.com/chevrontexacoaviation/tgam_prod/documents/avi_turb_fuel.doc
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Use water fog, foam, dry chemical or carbon dioxide (CO2) to extinguish flames.

http://www.brownoil.com/msdskerosene3.htm
Synonyms/Common Names: This Material Safety Data Sheet applies to the following product descriptions for Hazard Communication purposes only. Technical specifications vary greatly depending on the product, and are not reflected in this document. Consult specification sheets for technical information.

Kerosene
K1-Kerosene
Jet-A Turbine Fuel
Jet-Q Turbine Fuel
Low Aromatic Feedstock Dyed K-1 Kerosene
JP-5
JP-8
Turbine Fuel Dyed Highway #1 Diesel
#1 Diesel Fuel, On-Road
On-Highway #1 Diesel
Off-Road #1 Diesel
...
Extinguishing Media: Use dry chemical, carbon dioxide, foam or water spray. Water may be ineffective in fighting fires of liquids with low flash points, but water should be used to keep fire exposed containers cool. If a leak or spill has not ignited, use water spray to disperse the vapors and to protect persons attempting to stop a leak.

[Sweet Pea]

94. This is gonna hurt, just a bit, Dulce...

But I guess the US Navy are a bunch of dolts, too...



040708-N-8977L-009 Naval Base San Diego, Calif. (July 8. 2004) - A nozzelman leads a hose team while extinguishing Class Bravo fire at Fleet Training Center (FTC) San Diego, Calif. A Class Bravo fire involves oil, grease or fuel. The four-day advance firefighting training syllabus provides the students a realistic approach on how to effectively fight different kinds of shipboard fires. U.S. Navy Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Johansen Laurel (RELEASED)



050127-N-7130B-051 Pacific Ocean (Jan. 27, 2005) - Flight deck personnel check the sprinkler system on the flight deck of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) during a flight deck countermeasure washdown. The sprinkler system provides protection from chemical and biological attack and is an effective firefighting tool during conflagrations on the flight deck and in aircraft hangar bays. The Nimitz-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier is currently underway in the Pacific Ocean conducting routine carrier operations. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Aaron Burden (RELEASED)



Geez.....wadda you think those navy guys are fightin' with water??? Fuel oil, mebbe?

040923-N-3770P-002 Whidbey Island, Wash. (Sept. 23, 2004) - A flight deck fire party assigned to the Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Polar Sea (WAGB 11) based out of Seattle, Wash., battles a controlled fire during a training evolution at the Commander Naval Education and Training Whidbey Island Firefighting School. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Jesse Praino (RELEASED)

http://www.syntroleum.com/MSDS/S-8%20Jet%20Fuel%20MSDS%2004-11-18.pdf

Product Name: S-8 Synthetic Jet Fuel Synonyms: S-8 Jet Fuel, GTL Jet Fuel, Synthetic Jet A Fuel, Synthetic Jet A-1Fuel

Extinguishing Media: Dry chemical, carbon dioxide, or alcohol or polymer foam is recommended. Water may be ineffective for extinguishment, unless used under favorable conditions by experienced fire fighters. Carbon dioxide can displace oxygen. Use caution when applying carbon dioxide in confined spaces.

Water spray may be useful in minimizing or dispersing vapors and to protect personnel. Cool equipment exposed to fire with water, if it can be done with minimal risk.

I would suggest you stop trying to talk about things you know nothing about. Merely a suggestion.

[DulceDecorum]

96. TRAINING PHOTOS??

You bring TRAINING PHOTOS
and then expect us to take you more seriously
than we take Cody the soon-to-be-beheaded action figure?

The first photo was taken on July 8. 2004,
at Fleet Training Center (FTC) San Diego, California.
TRAINING CENTER.

The second photos was taken on Jan. 27, 2005
aboard a Nimitz-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
It shows
Flight deck personnel checking the sprinkler system on the flight deck.
Just a bunch of men,
walking through a bunch of sprinklers,
like they did when they were little kids,
on the lawn in the summer.
WOW. We are impressed.

Those sprinklers would help in washing off any spills that could interfere with the landing of aircraft. The sprinkler water might even wash burning jet fuel off the deck and into the sea.
(Fat lot of good they would do on dry land. On a ship you can sail away once you dump the burning material. On dry land, the same technique only results in the creation of a bigger blaze.)
In any case,
it is not possible to douse a jet-fuel fire
aboard a NUCLEAR POWER AIRCRAFT CARRIER
with WATER
because
Jet fuel FLOATS on water.
Sweet Pea says:
But I guess the US Navy are a bunch of dolts, too...

The third photo was taken on Sept. 23, 2004
at the Commander Naval Education and Training Whidbey Island Firefighting School. A flight deck fire party is battling a controlled fire during a training evolution.
FIREFIGHTING SCHOOL.

Sweet Pea,
it is a well known FACT
that training fires are MUCH SAFER than real ones.
Training fires must comply with EPA and OSHA regulations
whereas real fires do not give a damn.
Also,
the REAL foam used to battle REAL jet-fuel fires is very expensive.
Therefore, in training seminars, they use cheaper substitutes -- like water.

The environmentally-friendly Mobile Aircraft Firefighter Training Device (MAFTD) replaces traditional open-pit firefighter training with cleaner, safer and more realistic training in a fully controlled environment by utilizing clean-burning liquid propane gas.
http://www.mayportnelp.com/tech/complete/maftd.htm
PROPANE, dammit.
And the instructors turn that thing on and off at will.

Prior to 1998, Port Authority ARFF personnel trained at a pit located at JFK. Centered in the pit was a round cylinder, simulating an aircraft fuselage. Instructor personnel would apply 300 to 400 gallons of Jet A topped with 5 gallons of gasoline to the pit, and touch it off with a couple of flares. Before the training evolution was completed, nearby residents would often call, curious about the huge plumes of black smoke coming from the airport.

In June, 1998, the Port Authority accepted a propane-fueled, computer-controlled fuel-spill-fire trainer provided by Symtron Systems of Fair Lawn, New Jersey. This trainer consists of a 125-foot diameter burn area with a 737-size fuselage mockup with a broken wing centered in the burn area. Since propane burns relatively cleanly, fuel-spill turret and hand-line training can now be conducted without the black smoke and subsequent telephone calls.

In addition to solving the environmental problems of smoke and pollutant runoff, the system provides numerous training advantages for instructor personnel. The computer-controlled system permits standardized evolutions to be presented to all trainees, and the performance of all trainees can be evaluated objectively and logged. In the event of critical errors by the trainee, the evolution can be stopped, remedial instruction given, and the evolution resumed or restarted. The system also incorporates numerous automatic safety features.
http://www.kiddeft.com/Article_PANYNJ_ARRF.shtml

You bring TRAINING PHOTOS here and expect us to take them SERIOUSLY!!
You must REALLY have a VERY low opinion of us.
I would STRONGLY suggest you stop trying to talk about things you know nothing about.
Merely a suggestion.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

101. Today, I watched on tv foam being pumped into that commuter jet in NJ.

They brought special trucks over from the airport across the street to do it. The foam was literally pouring out of the jet's windows as they were pumping it in. I don't recall any water being used at the site at all..

[Sweet Pea]

109. Fight like you train....

I have yet to see a online aviation firefighting course, but perhaps you can find one via Google.

Those of us who have taken one know there's a reason why training is so important.

You obviously don't know (perhaps you can Google it) the fire characteristics of jet fuel and how quickly it burns off and transfers the chemical reaction to other materials, rapidly shifting from a Class B to a Class A fire.

In any event, water, while not the ideal extinguishing agent is nonetheless very effective in the sort of fire that the Pentagon evolved into. If you think the jet fuel was still burning hours after the impact, you need to upgrade your Google program to the latest version.

Back on task/topic......

[DulceDecorum]

120. Oh, the water put the Penta-fire out all right

and then the fire kept coming back on when needed.

None of the firefighters were properly geared up for an aircraft fire
and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THERE suffered any ill effects
from inhaling the toxins out-gassed by burning aircraft.

It is almost as if --
THERE WAS NO PLANE.

[seatnineb]

123. Back to the topic........

My partner and I assisted with setting up fire fighting operations. We pulled lines into the center building of the 5 rings. We set up what is called a monitor. It's a water cannon that you run 2- 3" water lines to. That was used to push 1000 GALLONS A MINUTE into the burning building.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=www.esotericsociety++&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.esotericsociety.homestead.com/Septeleventh.html&d=7FF06F676B&icp=1&.intl=us

[DulceDecorum]

105. Inside the Pentagon at 1PM on September 11, 2001.

By 11 a.m. the unit's Initial Response Team — an advance party of rescue engineers — was staged at Fort McNair, then airlifted to the Pentagon attack site. By 1 p.m. that team had initiated rescue efforts and conducted a reconnaissance mission for the remainder of the unit that would arrive a few hours later. This initial search was to try to find survivors locatable on the surface, according to Steffenhagen.

Many of the engineers recount that scenes inside the Pentagon, even away from the impact site, were pictures of urgent mass exodus. They talk of cups of coffee and breakfast sandwiches left on desks; an abundance of personal belongings such as purses, briefcases and eyeglasses deserted; even a virtual path of papers leading towards primary escape exits.

"They just left everything sitting," Steffenhagen said.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Extractors_put_training_to_test.html

What Class fire leaves all those things unburned?

If those rescue engineers were staged at Fort McNair at 11AM,
then WHY,
in the name of Hani Hanjour,
did they only start a reconnaissance mission at 1PM?
Fort McNair is part of the US Army Military District of Washington.

The U.S. Army Military District of Washington is a unique Army command which has an important three-fold mission:
1) Respond to crisis, disaster or security requirements in the National Capital Region through implementation of various contingency plans.
2) Provide base operations support through our installations for Army and Department of Defense organizations throughout the National Capital Region. Additionally, a variety of specialized support is provided including personal-property shipping for the region, CONUS-wide rotary-wing airlift and operation of the Arlington National Cemetery.
3) Conduct official ceremonies, locally and worldwide, in behalf on the nation's civilian and military leaders.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=74&z=6

Well,
I would say they definitely flunked on their first objective.
but they certainly looked very nice
when they buried their comrades at Arlington.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Foam was used in the beginning to fight the Pentagon fire.

Look at the pictures before the roof collapsed. The spray that hides most of the entry hole in those pictures is foam, not water.

[DulceDecorum]

104. Eyewitness and firefighter Rusty Dodge.

Fort Belvoir, Va., Oct. 4, 2001 — A TRAINING EXERCISE IN AIRPORT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS at Fort Myer brought an assistant fire chief from Fort Belvoir to the Pentagon shortly after an aircraft crashed into its west wall.
<snip>
As training officer for the Fort Belvoir Fire Department, Dodge has acquired an expertise on airport emergency operations because of the Belvoir department's responsibilities at Davison Army Airfield. The morning of Sept. 11 the 28-year veteran was conducting training for the Fort Myer crew on precisely that topic.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Belvoir_firefighter_among_first_responders.html

RUSTY DODGE WAS TRAINING AIRCRAFT FIRE FIGHTERS
ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2201.

The firefighter in the lead position of the line, was then called to go somewhere else.
"At that point, I took the line and concentrated on getting out the fires on the outside of the building," Dodge said. "There were two vehicles burning, along with a construction trailer — we didn't know at the time, but THAT TRAILER WAS THE MAIN PRODUCER OF SMOKE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING — AND THE FOAM TRUCK ."
<snip>
He said THE FOAM UNITS got there and CONCENTRATED ON on the area of THE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, which was producing some severe fires and subsequent mini explosions due to highly flammable chemicals in it, THEN ON THE ACTUAL POINT OF IMPACT FROM THE HIJACKED AIRCRAFT. http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Belvoir_firefighter_among_first_responders.html

CONSTRUCTION TRAILER FIRST, HIJACKED PLANE SECOND.

TRAINING EXERCISE.
No wonder those thar firefighters managed to overcome that blaze with water.
Don't try that at home,
unless you are looking for a serious reality check.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. I don't understand what's so suspcious about this.

They used foam on the fire to get the chemical and jet fuel fire under control, and when the foam ran out, they used water because of the other combustibles on fire - paper, etc. You really should stop pretending that jet fuel was the single component of the fire that day.

By bringing the construction trailer under control first, the firefighters were then able to get close to the impact zone without fear of the trailer blowing up and killing firefighters. That's just good firefighting technique - like when the firefighters at WTC 7 pulled their efforts from that doomed building to prevent further life loss.

So far your "training exercise" meme has taken in practice bombing runs, the hijacked plane exercise, the FEMA "pre-launch" in New York, and now this firefighting exercise. Were these absolutely the only training exercises going on in the entire US government, military or non, that day? Listed all together, it seems to suggest a conclusion, but if those exercises are a small fraction of the sum total, then you got nothing. Chance alone would guarantee that some of the training exercises would directly impact response time of various agencies.

Unless, of course, you can prove that all of these exercises had a common element in their scheduling, say, under edict of the Vice President's office. Can you prove such a thing?

[DulceDecorum]

119. *sigh*

There are none so blind as will nazi.
-- Betty Bowers, America's best Christian

[Sweet Pea]

93. LOL...

"single, calm sentence"

[MercutioATC]

75. Are you arguing that Walters' statement was bogus?

?

[DulceDecorum]

79. Are you implying that the Statter statement is a lie?

Reconcile the Statter and the Walter statements.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. The Statter and Walter statements reconciled.

At 9:37, Mike Walter reports a bad traffic jam.

At 9:52, Statter reports that traffic is moving.

Reconciliation: traffic had stopped, then started moving again.

[DulceDecorum]

83. Heh heh heh

Good one MercutioATC.
:thumbsup:

Now tell us when the plane hit the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

84. That was Bolo, not me, but he's correct.

Why do you have a problem reconciling the statements?

[DulceDecorum]

87. Yes, it was and no, he's not.

Boloboffin says:
At 9:37, Mike Walter reports a bad traffic jam.
At 9:52, Statter reports that traffic is moving.

52 - 37 = 15

So that traffic jam cleared up
in the fifteen minutes AFTER the Pentagon was hit
and all the emergency crews were rushing toward the Pentagon.

Don't those people know
that they are supposed to pull over and let emergency crews go by?
Even if they are stuck in a traffic jam?

The one video the public was able to see shows little beyond the impact itself. It is a convincing case for a government cover up except for one small thing, 9 News' morning anchor Mike Walters, then working for USA Today Television was stuck in traffic on his way to work the morning of September 11th, was one of many who saw the entire incident.
But the website begs the question: If a 757 did hit the Pentagon where is the wreckage?
Nine News veteran reporter Dave Statter got there minutes after crash at the Pentagon, and his answer to that question is, he says you had to know where to look.
http://wusatv.com/usa_tonight/usa_article.aspx?storyid=33882
And,
apparently how to drive through a traffic jam.

Major traffic jams followed in the hours after the Pentagon was attacked. Since then, they've formulated evacuation plans and posted signs pointing people to the Beltway.
http://www.9wusa.com/printfullstory.aspx?storyid=14676

[Sweet Pea]

95. Yep...

So that traffic jam cleared up
in the fifteen minutes AFTER the Pentagon was hit
and all the emergency crews were rushing toward the Pentagon.

Sure did. I drove past the place about a half hour after. Pulled over on 395 directly over Washington Blvd for a few minutes to look. There was a bigger jam on 95 south of the beltway, but at that time around the Pentagon traffic was light and cars were still driving past on the surrounding roads.

Were you there? Did you experience any of the traffic in the area? From what or where do you get all this knowledge? From personal experience? Or Google, perhaps?

[DulceDecorum]

97. WOW: an eyewitness to history.

Folks we caught a live one!!
Ah gen-you-whine drive-byer.

[Sweet Pea]

103. You betcha!

While you can't really do much of anything without Goggle there are those of us who experienced much of it first hand.

And if you would rather trust a Google Ranger Third Class rather than "Ah gen-you-whine drive-byer" for an eyewitness account of something, you go right ahead.

Tell us again, Grammy!.....about how fire trucks can't get into the Pentagon's Courtyard! And show us that picture of fire trucks in the Pentagon's Courtyard! And tell us how you got that information...on Google!

[DulceDecorum]

106. First of all

I do think that anyone here readily accepts either of your testis.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/T0127300.html

You have NOT explained HOW a firetruck made it into the centre courtyard of the Pentagon
despite the fact that the firefighters who FOUGHT THE BLAZE
complained that they could only find ONE 40+ year-old truck very far away that was short enough to enter through the tunnels.

So it is the FIREFIGHTERS who you are calling liars,
not lil ole DulceDecorum,
who is circumspectly quoting the FIREFIGHTERS, THEMSELVES.

Now,
you have claimed to be an eyewitness to the Pentafire,
and we double dog dare you to PROVE it.
And you have chosen to disparage my best cyberfriend, Google.
Fie on you, fie.
And FEH.

Grown-ups are talking,
Sweet Pea,
so eat your applesauce,
play with your toys,




and do try not to let any more of them fall into enemy hands.
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Starstore_Catalogue_DRAGON_MILITARY_FIGURES_1094.html

[Sweet Pea]

108. In the Interest of the Topic...

and how far afoot this thread has meandered, suffice it to say if it warms your little Googling heart by believing I did not witness the Pentafire (after having lived and worked in the area these past 5 years), then warm away. I don't have pictures of me doing the "Hi Mom!" deal next to the burning wedge. Would have been somewhat tacky that morning, I do believe.

Back on topic, I think Merc is doing one heck of a job but rebutting this dog but it doesn't really take much - this thing is so slanted and one sided.

[seatnineb]

122. Get outta here!

I wonder Sweet thing.....

If you had seen what this freeper saw........

This SECOND PLANE that we saw had 4 engines and was VERY low. I thought it was military, and my first reaction was that it had DROPPED a bomb on the pentagon. We had not heard a plane hit the pentagon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/521014/posts.


.......would you have told us.........

[Sweet Pea]

124. I saw no airplanes.

For what it is worth...

My wife called at probably 9am or so that morning telling me a plane had hit the WTC. She worked with Customs in the Reagan Building next to the Mall. While others had heard of a plane hitting the WTC, nobody knew the severity of it (i.e. it being an airliner). I was aware of the aircraft crash in 1946 (I believe it was) of the Empire State Build, so simply assumed at that time it was something similar - an accident.

A number of us went to an office that had a TV. I was working in Crystal City on the top floor (10th) of Crystal Park 3 right across the tracks and GW Highway from National. By the time we got it on TV the second plane impact was being shown on reruns. After a number of minutes of this, everyone else went back to their offices while I stayed by the TV. The TV was on NBC and at that moment Jim Miklashevski broke in and said "We just felt a shudder here at the Pentagon". I took about 3 steps to the window and saw the black mushroom cloud appearing from about a mile away. I did not see any aircraft in the air at that time. I went back to my office and enroute told everyone else that it looked like something blew up at the Pentagon - you could not see the building from my perspective, however.

I tried to reach my wife then, but she called me first and said they were evacuating all gov't buildings. At the same time, due to our location next to National, we were told to go home as well. I told my wife to start walking and I would just drive on my normal route to pick her up in case traffic was bad and we would meet when we met.

I left Crystal drive and got on the 14th street bridge and saw my wife next to the Treasury Building. Traffic on 14th Street was still very light, so I pulled a (illegal) U-turn and headed back south. It was at this time that we were passing the Pentagon on 395 where I was able to pull over for a few minutes and observe the scene. To this day I regret leaving my digital camera on my desk back home that day, but such is life (I carry a pocket camera with me and have a a bigger Canon digital all the time now - this being DC and all). The only air activities were a few helicopters flying around and one on the ground near the intersection of the Pentagon boundary road and Wash Blvd.

For anyone who attempts to build a time-line out of this, all times and distances are estimates and no attempt was made on my part for precise exactitude of time and distance.

[DulceDecorum]

129. Sweet Pea vs Bobby Eberle

Bobby Eberle
April 1, 2002
As strange as this seems, there are groups of people out there who claim that Flight 77 did NOT crash into the Pentagon as the media and eyewitnesses have reported. An e-mail was forwarded to me by a GOPUSA associate in which the writer stated the following "Having personally observed some major aircraft crash sites, these photos raise serious questions in my mind. The apparent lack of penetration bothers me."
<snip>
Now, I could bring my eight years of aerospace engineering education to bear on the claims of this web site, but that wouldn't be any fun to anyone. (Except maybe my fellow geeks out there.) Instead, there is this little thing known as "first hand experience" which casts a shadow on their theories.
It seems that God works in mysterious ways. For much of 2000 and 2001, I decided to cut back dramatically on my political traveling. I wanted to focus on two things and two things only: my family and GOPUSA. Around August of 2001, I felt that it was time to start traveling a little bit more to educate folks about GOPUSA in person. So, my first out-of-state trip was planned for Washington, DC to visit congressional offices and attend the American Conservative Union's "Policy Boot Camp" from September 9-11, 2001.
<snip>
Seriously, I truly wonder what the point of these web sites is. Do they really think that our government would sacrifice the lives of thousands of civilians in order to raise public support for military action? That is a scary proposition, and one I'm confident the vast majority of normal Americans would not consider. Yet, it seems that with every major event in our history, there are a host of conspiracy theories attached to it.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2002/bobby_0401.shtml

Bobby Eberle
September 11, 2002
It seems surreal to think about it now, and it definitely felt so at the time. Seeing a plane crash is not something most people witness. Seeing a plane crash under the circumstances surrounding September 11 is unbelievable. Yet, that's what I saw, and I hope that I never, ever see something like that again.
The images are as clear now as the day they happened. The roar of the jet engines is still as loud. The "pop" of the explosion is still as haunting. The colors of the flame are still as vivid as they flashed from bright red and orange to thick, black smoke. Traffic on the highway came to an immediate halt. People left their cars to see what was happening. They tried desperately to contact friends, colleagues, and loved-ones, but to no avail. Mobile phone lines were jammed and no one, including myself, could get through. The look on the woman's face behind our car is forever burned in my brain. Tears were running down her face as she stared forward and cried. She didn't move; she was frozen with fear or disbelief or a combination of the two.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2002/bobby_0911p.shtml

Bobby Eberle
September 12, 2001
Riding in a convertable with the top down, I then heard a tremendously loud noise from behind me and to my left. I looked back and saw a jet airliner flying very low and very fast. It's amazing what can run through your mind in just a matter of seconds. As a pilot, I can't help but look at an airplane and think about airplane topics. What I saw sent a shiver down my spine as I realized something was not right.
The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport. However, if you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward. In addition, landing gear would also be visible on a aircraft so low and so near landing. This aircraft had its landing gear retracted. Finally, an aircraft on final approach is traveling rather slowly. This aircraft sped by very loudly and very quickly.
All of this flashed in my mind as the aircraft passed from behind my left shoulder to in front of me. It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!"
With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.
I shouted to my friend whose view was partially blocked by a truck in front of us, "Oh my gosh! The jet just hit the Pentagon!"
Much of the traffic stopped immediately, and the stunned looks on people's faces are unforgettable. Many picked up their cell phones, presumably to contact friends and loved ones. I did the same, but I could not get through...
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bobby/2001/bobby_0912p.shtml

It looks like Bobby Eberle thinks that all traffic stopped.
Now, Bobby Eberle is the owner of GOPUSA and Talon News
and he is as trustworthy as as any Republican you will ever meet.
RIGHT?

[Bolo Boffin]

130. How predictable.

I imagine that all traffic stopped right after the plane crashed. It doesn't mean that fifteen minutes later, traffic was still stopped.

[Sweet Pea]

131. Duh

Of course traffic stopped and was backed up at the time of impact. I think I made it clear that when I passed by the scene it was a fair bit of time later. Traffic had been cleared out, helicopters were flying around (at least one) and landing, the emergency responders had begun to show up en mass, the scene was turning into a controlled area.

What's your point here?

[Sweet Pea]

125. I saw no airplanes (addendum)

To directly answer the question, I would have had no problems whatsoever answering if I had seen any other aircraft. I have no reason to doubt that there was a C-130 in the general area, vectored to try and ID the unknown contact flying around the Potomac/DC/NoVa area. There may have even been other aircraft in the general area being vectored to land at various airports around. I just didn't see any.

I just don't believe that it was some sort of "master" aircraft controlling AA 77. I believe it was a routine departure out of Andrews of a routine a/c heading on a routine flight.

[seatnineb]

126. Fair enough...

I believe what you say...no problem..........

But what I have always found interesting is that of all those witnesses on route 27 at the time aa77 hits.........only a few of them mentioned the C-130 which arrived straight away afterwards....


Then there is the helicopter that was there before the crash.......

Only 2 mentioned it's existence........and one of them was in the Pentagon itself.......

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Oh, gawd, bless your heart, Merc

I downloaded the video last night, and just watched it. The soundtrack alone is putting me off - at least that Pentagon 9/11 short had some great music to help the lies go down. Thinking of you having to endure that over and over again while getting transcripts and timing...

You're a saint.

[Abe Linkman]

63. Others have already tried to do what he's doing. It's a potent video.

Do YOU know of a poster whose username is "Truth"? You get around the Net quite a bit, so maybe YOU'VE seen her/his messages. Have you? If so, do you recall seeing any 9/11-related messages from her/him?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. The soundtrack is straight from the "Indigestion Sonata"

It only provokes feelings of nausea. My sympathies remain with Mercutio.

A poster around the net named "Truth"? That's offtopic, Abe. We really should stick to the topic - but I have seen a "TheTruth" over at Music Row Democrats, I believe. As I recall, he's one of those Protest Warriors who're ganging up on liberal message boards. I could be wrong, but I can check it out. No 9/11 messages from him yet, although the Protest Warriors blame the Left for 9/11. They've had a heaping helping of the koolaid.

[Abe Linkman]

66. Music Row Democrats? That's off topic, bolo.

You wanna talk about the JFK assassination? Arlen would love it if someone of your stature would say a kind word or two about his "Magic Bullet Theory".

[Bolo Boffin]

78. You're right. I'll forget you mentioned it.

Well, not MSD, but the poster named "Truth", which occasioned my remark. From henceforth, let's talk about the video and Merc's rebuttal, k?

[E_Smith]

115. does anyone have a rebuttal for the flashes of light

shown from the planes just prior to crashing into the WTC? i have seen this footage before, but in other videos i don't see it. were these flashes of light doctored in? or is it possible that they were doctored out in the videos where I don't see it.