A sad day for the kooks

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Tokens
Hmmm, wonder why Doc Mullah didn't post this. I thought he was the guy scouring the internet 24/7. Must not have fit his left wing wack job agenda.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Popular Mechanics???

OMG .. does this show how desperate the Bushies are ... unbelievable that because an article is in POPULAR MECHANICS that clears up everything ...

To update ya: Gerald Ford still believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas in 1963 ....

Popular Mechanics! yeah, baby .. the source the Bushies turn to trying to clear the record!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
doc mercer said:
Popular Mechanics???

OMG .. does this show how desperate the Bushies are ... unbelievable that because an article is in POPULAR MECHANICS that clears up everything ...

To update ya: Gerald Ford still believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas in 1963 ....

Popular Mechanics! yeah, baby .. the source the Bushies turn to trying to clear the record!


Doc, have you looked at the type of critters that claim 9-11 was a vast government conspiracy?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Lot of stuff that makes no sense ...

Where in the hell were the fighter jets? Payne Stewarts jet went off track and F16's were scrambled immediately ...

The passport of one of the "alleged" hijackers was found in the rubble of one of the WTC?? ...

That was no flappin jet that went into the Pentagon ... sorry, Charlie, that hole was way too small

All I know is the stonewalling by Bush brought all on the 9-11 Theories ... the biggest communication failure in the history of this country and Bush stonewalls and then most of the 9-11 commission they put together is Bush backers???

This govt killed Kennedy .. anything is believable
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Very interesting mathematical question:

"How does a plane 125 feet wide and 155 feet long fit into a hole which is only 16 feet across?"

Hmmmm, yeah, a plane went into the Pentagon on 9-11??

 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Hundreds of people on the ground saw a plane fly into the Pentagon.

It's a concrete structure. The plane's wings are weaker in density than the building. Ipso facto they are not strong enough to penetrate the walls and came off on impact.

Now, if it were learned that the neocons (though not Bush himself) were pretty much aware that 9/11 was being cooked up and stood back and let it happen, I wouldn't be surprised. That they would actually orchestrate it is too much, but that they took a hands-off approach wouldn't shock me in the least.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
The Pentagon and the Strange case of the Missing Boeing 757



<HR style="MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto" width=600>





Now when we follow along to the Pentagon and the official story that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 struck it, we find little to no evidence that any large commercial airliner impacted the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. How does a plane which is 124 feet wide, and 44 feet high at it tail section, fit into such a small hole at the Pentagon (16 feet) and leave no signs of wreckage on the lawn? No wings, tail section, seats, even jet fuel. No sign of a Boeing 757 here at all...The most unbelievable aspect of this all, is that 2 of the named hijackers, still on the FBI list as perpetrators, named by the FBI and still on their list as those responsible, خالد المحضار or Khaled al Mihdhar and سالم الحازمي, or Salem al-Hazmi are both Alive and well!

Khaled al Mihdar, is enjoying life as a computer programmer, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. And Salem al Hamzi, is working happily at chemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia...


Take a good look at the picture at the top of the page, and those spools that are in front of the burning hole. And then click the video link below to see a simulation of what happens when a small truck gets behind the thrust power of a 747, and ask yourself how those spools remained stationary, and were neither struck by the 757, nor blown backwards. Those spools also show that a 757 never flew inches above the lawn and made that imprint on the Pentagon facade.

Jet Engine Thrust Power Simulation



pentani.gif



The main issue at the Pentagon is the lack of any identifiable wreckage which shows that a 757 actually hit the Pentagon. And lets not make this any harder than it is, as this website and information was compiled for the purpose of quickly convincing you that 911 was a major conspiracy, that our Republic is in grave danger, and to activate you to save your freedoms while you can.

I hope that you will take an attitude of seriousness while sifting through this material, and once convinced of the truth of it, commit yourself, as so many others already have, to catching those truly responisble, and restoring this nation back to a Consitutional Republic. The evidence is overwhelming. It constitutes proof. It's not a conspiracy theory if one can prove conspiracy. The material presented in this website overwhelmingly proves conspiracy.


Brief Overview

Lets take a brief look at the evidences and proofs thus far compiled.

1. A bright orange flash occurring at the World Trade Center, North Tower, before impact. The significance of this is obvious, especially with the damning proofs provided by all the major News Networks themselves, and multiple sources at the South Tower.

2. There is so much vdeo evidence and proof to demonstrate that the plane which hit the South Tower, couldn't have been Flight 175, it's indisputable.

A. The Laser Light on the side of the World Trade Center.
B. The Plane Spraying out some kind of liquid, most likely jet fuel from two ports on its fuselage.
C. The huge extra piece of equipment on the aircrafts fuselage.
D. What appears to be a bomb tucked between its port side engine and pylon.
E. The Rocket, Missle, or Incendiary device which was shot from this aircrafts fuselage just moments prior to impact.

3. The Obvious bombs and explosions, picked up by all the News Networks, at World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7, show the buildings were taken down by pre-planned, controlled demolition, without any doubt whatsoever. Thus again proving 911 had nothing to do with Arabs, or Muslims, nor Foreign Terrorism.

4. The admission of Larry Silverstein on National TV (PBS) that World Trade Center 7 was 'pulled' or intentionally demolished, along with damning video proof to show what he claimed was true.

5. No plane wreckage at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And to my knowledge, not a single picture showing a single piece of wreckage, not even the famed engine which was alleged to have been found miles from the site. Add to this that the Mayor of Shanksville, who went to the crash site also claimed there was no wreckage.



The Pentagon Chain of Evidence

And now we move onto the Pentagon. And what do we find? To say it in a single word, consistency. No plane wreckage indicating any type of aircraft part which can be identified as belonging to a large commercial class Boeing 757, either outside the Pentagon, nor inside the Pentagon. No burning jet fuel on the lawn, nor apparent damage to the lawn itself. The spools which remained stationary, even when the thrust of a 757 went right in front of them, or is alleged to have. Add to this that there were no bodies found or recovered. Click the link below to see what happens when a car gets behind the thrust of a 747 engine, and then ask yourself how it is that alleged Flight 77, could fly inches or feet above cars before impacting the pentagon without damaging them or blowing them to kingdom come.





And the damage to the Pentagon is absolutely inconsistent with what the Bush Administration claimed, that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, struck the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 is 124 feet wide, and 44 feet high at its tail section, simply cannot fit into a 16 foot hole and then afterwards completely vanish. Add to this that the 5 frames that the Pentagon released, showed something streaking across the lawn, inches above ground, when in fact the trajectory of the plane would have had to have been at a dive bomb angle, in order to avoid the light posts and overhead street signs. In the frames which the Pentagon released, there is no Boeing 757 either. We will touch on this aspect more later, but keep in mind that the Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings in the wolrd, and has cameras on the top of its building facade, about every 30 feet or so. Yet they only release 5 frames, with frames in the middle of those removed, to the public as proof that a 757 really hit the Pentagon. And these have the wrong date stamp on them! Now by now most of you have watched the video of the truck being literally blown away when getting to close the the exhuast of the 747. Now ask yourself, if it had really been a 757 that is seen streaking across the frames toward the Pentagon, wouldn't the great force of the engine exhaust have not only blown those spools away, but a few dozen cars it allegedly flew right over? And wouldn't it also have torn the grass right off the dirt in a pattern approaching the Pentagon?



pentani.gif



Thus with video and photographic proofs alone, we have demonstrated and quickly shown and proven 911 to be an inside job, which could never have been carried out by Usama Bin Laden or 19 Muslims with box-cutters. As stated earlier, it's not a conspiracy theory if conspiracy is proven. And lets not forget the initial death toll from that day, nor minimize it in any way. 3000 people were brutally and insidiously murdered, in cold blood, with cruel ruthlessness and disregard. It was a conspiracy to commit mass muder, and use this as a pretext for what we all know will be never ending war on Terrorism. It was also a conspiracy to hijack our nation, and our nations Military, as well as to destroy our Constitutional foundation of Law.

 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
doc mercer said:
Lot of stuff that makes no sense ...

Where in the hell were the fighter jets? Payne Stewarts jet went off track and F16's were scrambled immediately ...

From the article that you obviously didn't read Doc:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
doc mercer said:
Very interesting mathematical question:

"How does a plane 125 feet wide and 155 feet long fit into a hole which is only 16 feet across?"

Hmmmm, yeah, a plane went into the Pentagon on 9-11??



FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
One last one for you Doc.

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Shotgun:

a lot of Americans also believed the Warren Commission ... sorry, 9-11 has coverup written all over it

Again, why the stonewalling ?? why would a President so driven for the safety of this country stonewall attempts to get to the bottom of what happened on 9-11? why would him & Cheney need to hold hands and show up together? and why are the majority on that commission avid Bush supporters?

Again, a lot of Americans bought the Kennedy coverup ..
 

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
39,612
Tokens
Government conspiracy, no. Have we the people, been given all the facts, no. Alot doesn't add up.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Judge:

One hellva lot does not add up ... hell, as much as it has become apparent that the Bushies are paying every journalist in sight to tout Bush's agenda, it would not shock me if Kilheimer was on their payroll

Sorry, I aint buying this crap ... again, where were the fighter planes? why were many from Langley given the order to "stand down" on that morning? How does the biggest communication failure in the history of this country not take a priority for a President that is fighting terrorism? 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia and we are in Iraq? The Bin Laden flown out of Logan on Sept 12th via permission from the White House? A "suppossed" passport from one of the alleged hijackers is found in the rubble of the WTC? Really, how does that survive the fires of the planes explosions?

I am amazed the number of "educated" minds that are almost afraid to realize something went down on Sept 11th .. the same crowd that were afraid to realize something went down on Nov 22, 1963 ...
 

Smells like victory!
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
1,429
Tokens
So If I go along with the conspiracy theory on this one; what happened to the bodies of the people on the planes? Where are these people if there were wasn't a plane? What hit the pentagon instead of a plane?

By nature I am a conspiracy theorist, but also a realist and skeptic.

I think I agree with Judge, that is logical and more likely.
 

Smell like "lemon juice and Pledge furniture clean
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
6,922
Tokens
There does seem to be more to the story but the one thing that I've heard about and we still haven't gotten a clear answer on is whether or not the plane over Pa. was shot down by fighter jets. From what I've seen and the mere avoidance of the mentioning that particular flight (in the media and by the Bushies) I would think yes. I guess actually disclosing that would leave a bitter taste in American mouths and would be bad PR so they conjured up or overstated the fight to overtake the hijackers bit.
 

Smells like victory!
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
1,429
Tokens
but didn't they say that they were prepared to shoot it down anyway
 

Smell like "lemon juice and Pledge furniture clean
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
6,922
Tokens
From what it appear to me, it seems they did but figured they would run with the heroic story instead.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
929
Tokens
oswald killed jfk alone and a plane hit the pentagon case closed.people cant keep a secret about who will win survivor.but a plan to blow up the pentagon everyone keeps quiet.wow
 

Long live Freedom of Speech
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,455
Tokens
<DL><DT>In every major conspiracy to cover up government criminal activity, agents of change or naïve "experts" have been hired by the establishment media to debunk conspiracy theories and facts. Walter Cronkite was trotted out of retirement to host a PBS documentary debunking the conspiracy facts surrounding the assassination of JFK (which was hardly convincing). In like manner, other programs have been produced at great expense to discredit the charges of government cover-ups in the Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders, the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, and the OKC bombing of the Murrah building. <DT> <DT>The professional debunkers use four primary tactics to accomplish their propaganda feats: <DT> <DT>1) They refuse to mention, much less attempt to disprove, the most irrefutable and damaging evidence. <DT> <DT>2) They take great delight in debunking only those conspiracy theories that are the weakest or that are planted by other government sympathizers to help discredit the more credible conspiracy facts. This is what is referred to as a "straw man" argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down. <DT> <DT>3) They only select "experts" who agree with the official conclusion. <DT> <DT>4) They snicker at or mock anyone who believes that government engages in criminal behavior or covers up crimes in collusion with judges, investigators, prosecutors, media heads, and hand-picked commissions. Worse, they label dissenters as unpatriotic or mentally imbalanced. <DT> <DT>So it is with the latest government attempt to debunk the evidence of government collusion in the 9/11 attacks. For over a decade now, the PTB have used an odd vehicle to do their debunking on a variety of issues-Popular Mechanics Magazine (a Hearst publication). I suppose they are targeting the back-yard mechanic and auto-enthusiast crowd, who are often prone to accepting conspiracy facts and theories. <DT> <DT>In the March 2005 issue, PM magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments-either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. PM took a lot of pot shots at conspiracy buffs, saying that those "who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth - and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day." <DT> <DT>That would be true only if there was no basis in fact for these controversies. I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story-especially when you don't address the really tough questions in your rebuttal. Here is a quick run down of the claims (some lumped together) and why PM's debunking was superficial and distorted: <DT> <DT>1) The bulging projection (pod) visible on the bottom of Flight 175 as it struck the south tower <DT> <DT>If the bulge is real, critics claim it means the aircraft was modified for the attack, which could not have been done by hijackers. PM says the anomaly was simply the bulging faring under each wing root which hides the landing gear. This is a possibility since the bulge viewed on all pictures of Flight 175 is in the same location as the landing gear faring. However, the bulge is significantly bigger than the actual faring, and casts a shadow on the bottom of the aircraft. The real landing gear faring is flush with the bottom of the plane and could not cast a shadow on that area. <DT> <DT>Besides, I talked to Boeing about the bulge and a woman spokesperson admitted that Boeing had studied the bulge and concluded, "It wasn't modified by Boeing." She didn't deny the bulge wasn't there, nor did she try to persuade me it was the landing gear faring. However, I don't have an answer for what the purpose of the modification might have been. <DT> <DT>Later PM turns a related claim by a witness (that there were no windows on this aircraft) into a major issue to debunked. This was a straw man issue that was easily debunked with a photo of the plane's debris, with windows. This was never a credible issue with most conspiracy theorists. <DT> <DT>2) The "stand down" order to stop intervention against the hijackers <DT> <DT>PM cites the existence of a few scrambled jets as proof there was no "stand down" order given. This is a straw argument because key facts are omitted. There is other evidence to show that these fighters were called out purposely from bases too distant to make the intercepts-and never engaged afterburners for extra speed, indicating no sincere attempt to intercept. I received an email from one of the tower operators at McGuire AFB telling me he had received a call from the base commander ordering him to shut down military flight ops and not let fighter-interceptors take off. This was before the general shut down of the air traffic system by the FAA. This indicates that aircraft closer to the hijacked planes were told to stand down. <DT> <DT>There are two witnesses (a general and a Congressman) who said VP Dick Cheney was operating under stand-down orders, except as pertaining to Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. PM tried to make the case that NORAD had never vigorously followed standing orders to intercept hijacked aircraft, and that their high definition radars were all pointed outside the US boundaries (like a doughnut). Neither is true. There were dozens of intercepts in the two years prior to 9/11 (PM said there was only one) and NORAD has complete radar coverage within the US. <DT> <DT>PM also presented disinformation when it claimed that if an airliner turns off its transponder, the controller can no longer distinguish the aircraft from thousand of other smaller blips on his screen. Not so. First, there aren't thousands of unlabeled blips on the screen in any given sector, and second, the actual radar return is still on the screen at the same approximate position of the transponder data symbol, making it easier to acquire. <DT> <DT>PM neglected to mention the more powerful evidences of cover-up and collusion here, including the FAA's destruction of the tape recording of air traffic controllers' description of the events, the FAA refusing to turn over tape recordings of the ATC controllers talking to the pilots when the hijackings were declared, and the discrepancies between the claims of when the FAA supposedly notified NORAD. <DT> <DT>3) Explosives brought down the twin towers (puff of dust, etc.) <DT> <DT>This is only a partial straw man argument. There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse, but PM only discussed the fire and explosive claims that were easily explained away. An early claim making the rounds was that the towers couldn't have collapsed since fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. PM correctly pointed out, as I have also in my briefs, that steel trusses supporting the floor system only need be heated to the point of sagging-not melting-in order to give way. <DT> <DT>Early conspiracists claimed that the puffs of smoke coming out of the windows as each floor pancaked down on another were evidence of demolition charges. Once again, PM correctly pointed out that the crushing of sheet rock interiors can cause this. I was never convinced of controlled demolition myself, since it would have required months of prep work inside the building, unbeknownst to all the tenants. <DT> <DT>But conspicuously absent from the PM arguments was the blockbuster evidence that the 42 main pillars in the central core of the building had been taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite charges-which can melt steel like butter. The head of the company removing the debris from the WTC said in an interview that there were large pools of hot molten steel in the lowest basement where the main support pillars had stood. No expert has claimed that either fuel or burning debris falling into an oxygen starved basement would have been capable of creating the huge quantity of concentrated heat needed to melt 42 huge pillars with two-foot-thick steel walls. Numerous witnesses and fire fighters heard large explosions in the lower section of the building just prior to the collapse. One video shot of the south WTC (whose central core was not even damaged by Flight 175) gives clear evidence of the central core being collapsed prior to the general collapse: the center mounted TV towers started descending downward well prior to the outer section of the building. PM was silent on these major anomalies, and so was the 9/11 Commission, which indicates they were avoiding the tough issues. <DT> <DT>PM did attempt some sleight of hand, with some remarks by a paid "expert" trying to explain away the symmetrical and absolutely vertical collapse of WTC building #7 that was only slightly damaged on one side. A video of the collapse does show the telltale signs of explosive demolition on each floor-which would have been impossible if the building was heeling over toward the damaged side. <DT> <DT>4) The Pentagon crash <DT> <DT>PM discussed the common arguments against the official version: the penetration hole was too small; there was not enough debris outside; windows close to the impact were still intact. The window argument was a straw man with an easy explanation-they were reinforced security glass. The issues of the penetration hole and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives. Some witnesses saw a smaller aircraft, others saw the Boeing. One or two saw and heard a missile launch. Could all three have been present? I think so. <DT> <DT>There are credible witnesses who saw many small pieces of aluminum scattered about, plus a few larger pieces. If the larger Boeing was blasted apart at impact with high explosives it would explain the shower of aluminum shards that littered the road. The Pentagon parking lot video tape (which strangely fails to show a large Boeing aircraft) does show a huge white explosion-the unique sign of high explosives. An aircraft laden only with fuel gives off the red and black signature only-nothing white or bright. If the Boeing was laced with explosives, it would also explain why the wings didn't totally penetrate the structure. I have checked the photographs of major engine and landing gear pieces among the wreckage and they do match the Boeing aircraft, so I do think a Boeing hit the Pentagon. But I am not buying PM's statement (given without any evidence or photos) that a landing gear was responsible for the 12-foot round hole that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon. The landing gear is a long, gangly affair, and it didn't even make it through the first ring, according to photos I have seen. Only a missile could have penetrated that far. Was a missile on the smaller jet seen by witnesses used to prep the hardened Pentagon façade? <DT> <DT>PM's glib explanations did not do justice to the multiple possibilities. Besides, if the government version is true, why is the FBI refusing to turn over the two video surveillance tapes (one from a gas station and one from a hotel) that would show what really happened? <DT> <DT>5) Flight 93 was shot down by an F-16 <DT> <DT>PM discussed all the key issues: a small white private jet that was shadowing the flight; engine parts apart from the main wreckage; debris two miles away in Indian Lake; and the purported identity of the F-16 pilot. But in each case, it falsified the evidence by quoting erroneous, distorted or planted theories by government experts. <DT> <DT>For example, while it finally acknowledged the presence of a white unmarked jet, it claimed it was a private jet flying at 30,000 feet, asked to descend from high altitude and check out the crash. This was impossible as witnesses saw the plane before the crash. PM even claimed to have talked to the company (which conveniently didn't want to be named) that owned the jet. But this is at variance with prior admission by a leasing company that said the jet was theirs and was leased to the government (the CIA often uses white unmarked jets). <DT> <DT>This story by PM was a total fabrication. I have listened to the private transcripts of the radio talk between Cleveland Center and all the other airliners controlled by ATC in that sector (including Flight 93). Even the 9/11 commission refused to address this private tape, which was recorded by one private jet that was in the area, and is still available on the internet. Nowhere in that transcript is any private aircraft asked by Cleveland Center to follow or descend with Flight 93. In fact, the one airliner that was closest to Flight 93 was asked by Cleveland Center to verify visually the condition of Flight 93 after the Center and all other aircraft on that frequency heard the pilot of the aircraft announce that "there was a bomb on board." The aircraft acknowledged seeing Flight 93 in the distance and then suddenly announced that he observed an explosion. This was while Flight 93 was at altitude, confirming reports from ATC controllers who had vectored an F-16 to Flight 93, and witnesses who saw the shoot down from the ground. <DT> <DT>It also explains why one of the engines was found miles away. PM tried to divert its readers from the issue by telling about another part of the engine found about 300 meters from the crash site-which is explainable, if you don't address the issue of the other engine. Many witnesses saw streams of papers, luggage and even body parts falling some distance from the crash site. PM blamed this on an updraft-but luggage and body parts don't blow two miles away in a gentle breeze. <DT> <DT>Lastly, the issue on the identity of the pilot of the F-16 (a Major Gibbons) is problematic. The source is a retired Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who makes many claims about hobnobbing with big wigs in Washington that I find uncredible and suspicious. He claims he was at an awards ceremony in North Dakota when Major Gibbons was supposedly awarded a medal for shooting down Flight 93. I always found this a little fantastic. Why would the government give out a public award for something they were trying to keep secret? The government still doesn't admit to shooting down Flight 93, let alone disclose who did it. Of course, if they did allow a private awards ceremony, it would explain why they would have Major Gibbons deny it. While PM's debunking of the Gibbons story may be true (they claim he was using his F-16 to pick up a big-wig in Montana), their explanation was also a bit fantastic: people have to be trained in ejection seat procedures prior to flying in a high performance jet. </DT></DL>
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,856
Messages
13,574,048
Members
100,876
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com