Last night's Coast to Coast radio show freaked me out

[tridim]

I've pretty much stayed away from the "big picture" 9/11 conspiracy theories up until now, but last night's guest, Dave vonKleist, the 911: In Plane Site videographer has me Googling like mad this morning. His argument is 100% credible and rock solid, and he made a conscious effort to not frame it as a conspiracy theory, but instead a set of verified facts. It centers around the following article which was online for three years, and recently scrubbed. Read it yourself at the following links. Be sure to watch the video of the Fox News reporter/eyewitness who reported that the plane that crashed into the tower had no windows and incorrect markings.

Most of the 9/11 puzzle was solved for me last night, even though Mr vonKleist didn't present any conclusions of his own. I have moved from LIHOP to MIHOP in 10 hours.

http://www.911inplanesite.com/bomb_threat.html
http://www.coasttocoastam.com

[The empressof all]

1. I have a nagging memory

During the news reports during the 911 attack I remember a witness reporting that it looked like a military plane that hit the 1st tower. I subsequently dismissed this recollection as I heard nothing else about it. Obviously it still is present for me since I still remember hearing this. I don't know what channel I was watching at the time as I was clicking through all of them. Does anyone else recall hearing anything like this?

[zaj]

2. I fell asleep listening, but I kept wondering...

How does he address the fact that there is a plane full of dead people who's families can attest to their disappearance since 9/11, if it wasn't a hijacked plane crashed into the pentagon?

[nostamj]

3. AND the plane that didn't hit Tower 2

two planes full of people, hijacked for NO reason... and dumped where?

yeah, this is a logical theory!

[Connie_Corleone]

He said the 2nd plane didn't hit tower 2??

I must've fell asleep when he said that. Although, I do remember thinking that it didn't look real when it went into the tower. But, I was just referring to the 'unrealness' of what had happened, not that it didn't hit the tower.

[nostamj]

11. no, he claims that the plane that his the second tower

was not a commercial airliner... based apparently on the live comments of a single Fox reporter. (the hundreds of other eye witnesses, the hundreds of videos and still photos are all tools of the bushies and in on the PLOT don't ya know?)

[tridim]

5. There is no proof that the planes were hijacked

Only what we were told by government officials. I'd love to see some proof (as promised by Condi Rice early on), but I never have. A clean "terrorist" passport at ground zero is not credible proof.

The scrubbed article states that flights 93 and 175 made emergency landings (and were quarantined and moved to a "secure location") at the Ohio airport at the same time they supposedly crashed into the towers in NYC. Why haven't we heard the story from the passengers on these grounded flights? One could certainly argue that the Ohio story never happened, but if so, why was the story published for three years with confirmation quotes from Mayor Michael White and the CEO of United Airlines?

[nostamj]

12. and the earth is flat. n/t

[tridim]

13. We have proof the earth is round.

BTW, I completely understand why people remain skeptical, it's a natural human reaction. I simply want some proof, can you point me to any?

[nostamj]

14. proof that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings?

if you don't believe that, I not sure any 'proof' would be accepted.

i have lots of unanswered questions about 9/11 but this lunatic fringe of 'no pentagon plane' CD of WTC7, and now a switcheroo of the the plane that hit the second tower because one Fox reporter thinks he saw something that no one else did... sorry.

distraction and discreting legitimate questioning of bushco's handling of security pre- and post-attack.

[tridim]

15. No, I want proof that the "19 hijackers" hijacked

the 4 planes in question and flew them expertly and directly into three of four targets on 9/11.

You know, I'm not saying I know exactly what happened that day, I'm just reasonably convinced that the official explanation is most likely not the truth.

BTW, why are you ignoring the Ohio airport article?

[nostamj]

16. because it's nonsense

and would have reportedf WIDELY had there been an iota of truth in it by every legitimate 9/11 investigator.

you REALLY think it landed and they then slaughtered the passengers and crew and covered THAT up? man, you got tin for blood.

[tridim]

26. I just said I don't know what happened that day

I don't have proof of anything that happened after the planes allegedly landed in Ohio. I do have quotes from the Mayor and the CEO of the airline that say the planes did indeed land in Ohio that morning. Sure, they could have been lying, but why? If the article was BS from the start, why was is ever written? Why was it available for 3 years? Why was it scrubbed hours after it was exposed? Google cache doesn't lie, it was there. Were the quotes in the article made up? So many questions... and that's all this is about, unanswered questions that may lead to important answers.

Do you deny that there have been several other huge stories since 2000 that have been flushed down the memory hole?

[MercutioATC]

33. What kind of proof would you need?

I'm asking a serious question.

Four commercial planes deviated from their courses with no clearances and flew towards the four places we know something crashed. Those four planes have not been located anywhere else. Neither have their passengers or crew. DNA evidence of the passengers and crew were (allegedly) discovered at all four crash sites.

I hadn't heard the theory that 93 and 175 both landed at Cleveland, but that would be contrary to all existing evidence. Radar data shows UAL93 turning over the Cleveland area and dropping below radar coverage near Shanksville, PA. Radar data doesn't show AAL175 coming anywhere near Cleveland.

The plane that landed at Cleveland was DAL1989 (which was suspected of having an issue with a bomb on board). There HAVE been passenger reports of that emergency landing:

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

[Abe Linkman]

34. It's YOUR obligation to prove your CT. What proof do YOU have?

None.

[MercutioATC]

35. I wasn't speaking to you, Abe.

We've discussed the respective proofs we have. Might you let somebody else respond?

[Abe Linkman]

I'm speaking to Y OU, murky. What proof do YOU have for your CT?

None. Nada. Your only "proof" is what bushco told you.

[MercutioATC]

37. Use the search function, Abe. I've told you many times before.

...of course, you say it's all been fabricated and planted, but that doesn't eliminate its existance.

[Must_B_Free]

9. Does anyone know what the Northwoods plan was?

As I recall, the Operation Northwoods plan to instigate a war with Cuba involved hijacking airliners and secretly swapping them out with the "bomb" planes...

Has anyone read the Northwoods book and what does it say would become of the passengers under that plan?

[MrSammo1]

61. Are you sure?

Are you sure there are families (relatives) of those they told us died?

Listen....
http://www.blackopradio.com/black156a.ram

http://www.blackopradio.com/black156b.ram

[Bolo Boffin]

62. MrSammo1: so few posts, yet this one will be etched into history.

First, you say this:

Are you sure there are families (relatives) of those they told us died?

Then you provide two links to a radio program...

...in which a relative of someone who died is being interviewed!!!!!!!!

It takes real talent to produce a post so utterly contradictory. Thanks for playing.

[MercutioATC]

63. Ummm, yes. Todd Beamer's friends and family, for one...

His co-workers at Oracle, the universities he attended, his family and his best friend have all been involved in honoring him posthumously.

[indigobusiness]

4. This is hard to buy, yet impossible to ignore

How is a "mistake" like this even possible?:

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard


Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[tridim]

8. So the Fox News eyewitness was lying?

Yes, I realize the irony in that statement. Regardless, the video document is right here:

http://mfile.akamai.com/5022/wmv/coast.download.akamai.com/5022/video/nowindows.asx

I suppose the Fox guy could have been making it up, but why? He was reporting from the scene, as it happened and the plane he saw was not a typical commercial aircraft.

[gatorboy]

17. I don't think he was making it up.

I think at the time, with everything that was going on, it was hard for anyone to keep up with the ordeal.
I remember when we were watching it live, I saw the second plane hit. But when an anchor asked the reporter on the scene what had just happened, he replied that fuel must have gone off a second time from the first plane. I couldn't believe the guy didn't see that second plane hit!

[redowl]

7. too many things that don't add up...but lots of reasons

that would benefit bush to have 911 happen on his watch.


I still remember his trifecta remark. Does that sound like a distraught man?

As for the people on those planes-remember-bush seemed to enjoy all the executions he got to do as TX gov- he lied about the war...does anyone think that getting rid of those folks would present a major problem for him?

[UdoKier]

10. Coast to Coast is pro-repug.

Mostly they stick to ludicrous UFO and occult phenomena stories, but on the rare occasion when they go political, it's always the most ridiculous and easily-debunked of conspiracy theories - like the nonsense in "In Plane Sight".

In other words, it's part of the mainstream media's effost to make ALL conspiracy theories seem ridiculous so that when the more plausible conspiracy stories surface (Bush connections to Saudi Arabia, John O'Neill's blocked investigations, LIHOP scenarios) they will be ignored as well.

There was no missile into the pentagon. Those WERE passenger planes full of people into the WTC. There probably were no demolition charges in the buildings.

That doesn't mean there was no LIHOP (or even MIHOP) but there is no reason to believe that the attacks would be carried out in such a way when it is so much easier to use planes full of fuel.

Besides, what happened to all the passengers who are missing? Did they fake their cell calls to loved ones? I'm sure their grieving families would like to know "Where the government is hiding them."

Last, even though Bush & company are certainly evil enough to do a LIHOP or even MIHOP, you have to at least consider the possibility that the cover story is the truth, and it was merely Bush's corruption and incompetence that led to the attack and their total non-response on that morning. Without incontrovertible evidence of a BFEE LIHOP or MIHOP, you people are merely wasting everybody's time. If it were remotely believable, it would be getting airplay on venues other than the phony circus sideshow that is Coast-to-Coast (which invariably runs after a series off far-right-wing talk shows).

If this was remotely credible, wouldn't AAR be blowing it up, rather than some X-Files show on right-wing radio?

[demodewd]

48. yadayadayada

Maybe its time you backed up your statements with some facts other than there were no this no that.... yadayadayada.

[RH]

51. Fact:

Your pod hypothesis is impossible in view of the landing gear problem. The failure to realise this at an earlier stage also severely betrays the sheer sloppiness and the extreme prejudice of the speculation.

No witness noticed a pod. True or false?

There is not a shred of evidence to show that such a pod had ever previously existed, nor any to show than anything of the sort prsently exists except in the minds of those obsessed by it. True or false?

Deal with it. (the reality, that is)

[MercutioATC]

52. That's what I find disturbing about a lot of these CTs...the sloppiness.

An iota of research would have shown how many of these proposals are just not possible, yet they continue to make the rounds, touted as "fact".

Sheesh...

[Abe Linkman]

53. Outrageous LIES is the most disturbing thing about the Official CTheory.

The Official Conspiracy Theory would be laughable if it's consequences weren't so tragic. That's why they have to have so many disinformation agents and PR flacks to try and keep the lid on the public ever finding out the truth.

murky: Have you read or heard that the Gov't uses Disinformation Agents and PR flacks? If so, do you think any of them are being used to try and undermine people who don't buy the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory?

[RH]

54. That's what I find disturbing about a lot of these CTs...

the pathetic, desperate resort to the tedioulsy routine ad hominem implication when they've no hope to deal with an actual argument, a real issue.

:eyes:

Have you read or heard Abe, that it is possible to realise that you are quite simply wrong without being a government Disinformation Agent or a PR flacks?

[Abe Linkman]

55. Tell it to somebody who cares. There's 3 or 4 who share YOUR CT ideas.

It really is pathetic that somebody would walk right into a trap simply because they were too arrogant and lazy to study the facts. I'd be very surprised if a PRO Disinfo/PR flack would ever be that dumb.

[RH]

56. Tell it to somebody

who also speaks gibberish, Abe.

Maybe they'll care to bothered to wonder what the hell you think you you're on about.

[MercutioATC]

57. Abe, most of your "PR flacks" are just thinking people who use reason.

Believe me, some of the theories I've seen here (and the authors of the "reports" cited) don't need some vast government conspiracy working against them. Their lack of attention to detail and fanatacism make them their own worst enemies.

[RH]

50. It is a lot worse than that.

Without incontrovertible evidence of a BFEE LIHOP or MIHOP, they're not just wasting everybody's time, they're besmirching by their own risible association any more sensible attempt to progress.

Do they think that Bushco are scared or hurt by their fantastic conjectures? No. It gives them a better sense of what they can get away with.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. Does that broadcast replay?

My bf called me last night around 1:00a.m. (woke me up) to yammer about what this guy was saying. After I hung up, I went back to sleep. Is there a repeat of this?

[TrustingDog]

19. a vivid bona fide memory of an apres 911 clip...

I'm NOT kidding about this.
During the heavy tv coverage after the attacks I recall clearly seeing a very short clip of one of the towers (don't know if it was 1 or 2) on a CNN news spot (camera angle was looking 'up' on one of the corner sides).

About 10 or so floors Below the major gap/destruction burning part - I Clearly saw two 'poofs' of smoke coming symetrically and simultaneously out of the two sides... something like this:

%^%$#&^#
&**%&$^#+
oo|oooooo
oo|oooooo
oo|oooooo
oo|oooooo
@|@oooo <---burst of something
oo|oooooo

I have been looking for something on the net about this but have come up with nothing. Absolutely no doubt I saw it.

[nostamj]

20. hmmm.... tons of fuel exploding down elevator shafts?

or bombs planted in the towers 'just in case' a fully loaded airliner wouldn't quite do the trick?

[TrustingDog]

21. was not 'fiery' but smokey.

there have been reports from firefighters and other earwitnesses during the rescue process that they heard 'bombs' or bomb like sounds going off after the plane hit.

I would not discount the 'demolition' story at all. These PNACers are the scummiest of the scum, do remember.

[nostamj]

23. there were plenty of materials in the building

that exploded in the fires that followed the impact.

and as for smoke...



wiring the place with explosives and THEN slamming planes into it is simply not logical.

[TrustingDog]

25. it wouldn't have been logical to...

explode the buildings without another cause to explain it. Those towers had to come down for the effect that Bush needed, and obviously got. The planes themselves would not have brought the towers down, so many say and I tend to believe.

[nostamj]

28. WHAT???

they didn't bother with planes the FIRST time they tried to bring the buildings down with bombs, did they?

you're getting really desperate... TRUST, but VERIFY.

[UdoKier]

22. That's the thing - "Do the Trick"

All of the post-9-11 paranoia/fearmongering/police-state stuff did not require the buildings to come down. That was just a bonus for whoever did it. Even if they had stood, hundreds would have been killed and they would still have the justification to do what they have done.

Let's imagine that OKC had happened under Bush's watch. If they felt like it, they could've "disappeared" McVeigh and Nichols before they ever hit the media and blamed some shadowy arab group - same scenario, all the Patriot Act nightmare. Fortunately, Clinton was president, and in his tribute to the OKC victims, he urged Americans to reject fear and move forward in hope. The exact opposite of what Bush would have done.

There is no need for explosives.

[TrustingDog]

24. I think there was a 'need' for the scene to be as it was...

it had to be as spectacular as any disaster movie - that's what we are conditioned to, and expect.

[UdoKier]

29. Dozens of floors of 2 giant buildings burnt, hundreds of corpses...

...as well as simultaneous atttacks on Washington would certainly be enough.

Hitler was able to do it just by burning down the near-empty Reichstag...

[Old and In the Way]

42. Your eyes didn't deceive you, I saw it too.

It was nono-seconds before the actual tower started to go.

I think it was the structural weakpoint where the load bearing aspect of the building gave way. If it had been explosives, I don't think it would have geysered out like that

[leftofthedial]

27. the nagging question to me is not whether commercial aircraft or

something else hit those targets. Something clearly hit those targets.

My concern is that the official explanation of who caused it to happen and how strains credulity. The total absence of accountability also makes no sense. The only official reprimands and firings have been directed against whistleblowers, not those who caused or allowed the events to happen.

[nostamj]

30. yes, and the more this wacko chatter prevails

the less credibility legitimate questions receive.

[tridim]

32. Questions about anomalies are wacko chatter?

I guess we shouldn't question Bush's motives in Iraq either.. It's just wacko chatter after all. Kennedy comes to mind as well, why even question the official explanation? Everyone knows magic bullets are available at your local K-Mart.

What's your definition of a legitimate question? Any question the officials approve?

[RH]

38. Yes.

The "anomaly" method is always pretty much the same:

They'll purport with no attmept of any sort to to substantiate themselves that something "should" have been the case.

Then they'll childishly expect us to all to take their assertion at face value, with all the usual straw man arguments, red herrings, irrelevant allusions and ad hominem attacks against anybody not inclined to pay hommage.

Then when they've proceeded to prove that their presumption was unfortunately mistaken they assert instead that the World at large has perpetrated some kind of gross deception.

Whacko, QED over and over again.

A legitimate question is a genuine attempt to seek an answer in good faith from somebody whose authority in the matter will thus be honestly respected.

[DulceDecorum]

39. Question for RH

There is a certain website which has collected quotes from people claiming to be eyewitnesses.

According to these so-called eyewitnesses,
was any metal part of an aircraft found at the Pentagon
and if so,
what was the color of said metal parts that were found at the Pentagon and why were they that color?


(This is a two part question.
If no metal debris was found at the Pentagon, then that proves something, doesn't it?)

Oh,
and RH,
do try and see if you can cut back on the personal attacks
and comply with DU rules.

[RH]

40. The question is not for RH

The question is for the witnesses themselves. I was not there. I have nothing to add except to repeat what anybody here may go read for themselves.

Most of those who were at the scene to see for themselves will probably now have had more than enough of attempting to set the record straight only to regret to be beating their heads against the brick wall of the stubborn prejudice we have since seen so much of. There may, nevertheless, be a few of them still willing to explain.

News reports are not court quality evidence. If anybody here thinks that they stand the slightest chance of getting anybody to sign a sworn affidavit to impugn what they like call the official version, then by all means they should proceed immediately. In the mean time please excuse me if I shall not be betting my life on the eventuality, nor shall I be holding my breath.

There are now a number of collections of eye witness reports online. Being the first to produce one for the Pentagon event I know something about the way that this has developed. My original is still online by courtesy of Steve Riskus, a witness who also provided a number of useful photos.

Curiously, at the time, he'd been under the impression that not so many people had seen so much, so without being prompted he volunteered to put the compendium up on his web site to inform his personal aquantances. He felt that the compendium as a whole verified what he had to say for himself. I had some sympathy for that, aware from personal experience of just how irksomely hurtful it can be to have personal testimony ignored for the sake of other people's political bigotry.

Anyway, the point here would be that when my first attempt was poroduced I had never expected it to be taken at face value, nor did I intend to make out any particular case, the intention was rather to show that a great deal further information was and is available if only people would bother to take the trouble to go find it instead of continually expecting to be spoon fed. The Internet does not account for everything that ever happened on this Planet. On the contrary a good number of authors and photographers deliberately avoid he Internet especially to keep control of their copyright.

[MercutioATC]

41. No metal parts found at the Pentagon? What are THESE made of:

really shiny paper?

[Old and In the Way]

43. Forgetting about the real shiny paper evidence, the other pics

should be conclusive to ID these as 757 parts

That hub is definitely correct for the 757 main landing gear....but it's strange that it was found outside where the nose penetrated...I'd have expected it to be the nose landing gear.

The compressor hub (minus the vanes) looks about the right size too.

Here's a Rense story on the interior Pentagon debris which concludes it was a commercial airliner:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757NG04.htm&h=540&w=399&sz=46&tbnid=T1jaHCrrRqoJ:&tbnh=129&tbnw=96&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3D757%2Blanding%2Bgear%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

[RH]

44. Here is a link to another bit

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/showbig.asp?photoID=7725

Somebody recognised it.

"I saw this pic on your site. I recognize the cylindrical part" mounted on the plate at the lower middle of the picture. It is definitely part of a 757. It is a geared rotary actuator for the slats, made by Sundstrand. I worked on this unit over about 2 years, doing manufacturing support and some small design changes. The end cover and housing are missing, but I recognize the mounting flange (which has a very distinctive shape), input shaft, ring gears, and I can see one of the planet gears. Definitely a 757 slat actuator.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/archive/english2.html

[MercutioATC]

45. I hadn't seen that before, RH. Thanks :)

[RH]

46. It illustrates, doesn't it,

just how absurd some of the conspiracy assertions are.

Who is going to hope to get away with showing photos of objects falsely purporting to be parts of a Boeing when people who actually work with Boeing parts on daily basis are eventually going to notice?

Because the fools get away with it themselves but nobody of any consequence thinks their baloney is worth the trouble to bother with, they think that a governmental institution or a reputable news source can do the same? Ridiculous.

:silly:

I am sure that there must be more photos around except that their owners never thought them to be so significant, so they never went so far out of their way. anablep dug up a lot of stuff simply by searching for email addresses to ask a few questions of people who were there at the scene. For simply taking that trouble she was then accused of being a conspiratorial spook blessed with exclusive, privileged access. The truth, of course, was simply that none of the others had ever attempted to progress so far. Maybe one or two of them felt that a sensible enquiry from a ten year old child would not be taken seriously.

The only attempt I've yet heard of to invoke the FOIA was that to procure the list of positively identified Flight 77 passengers. It was then invoked as if to prove (erroneously) that no Arabs were on the plane, but if you then want to use it to show that passengers must have been on the plane that hit the building they won't have it. They want it both ways. You can't win.

:crazy:

[impe]

47. Speaking of Pictures

I've noticed in several of the pentagon pictures, near one of the holes that the 757 supposedly slipped through, the words
"punch out" and next to that is the anarchist symbol?! I've seen the words "punch out" but just noticed this symbol?!

[RH]

49. I suspect that

the whole debate about that hole may be totally superflous because the size and shape changed when loose rubble was removed before the photos were taken. I don't know if that was the case but does anybody else here know that it was not? It is prposterous to presume to be qualified to judge these things from hearsay at a distance with no willingness to respect or rely upon the first hand experience of people at the scene. The attitude doesn't just distort the truth of the event, it distorts an appreciation of reality as a whole, of the very nature of life.

[Blue Member]

58. New Danish Site / New Pics

And it you think this is from 8600 gallons of jet fuel going off at 400 MPH, then you suffer from this condition:

http://tinyurl.com/66mcm




http://www.terrorize.dk/

[RH]

59. So what else then

was the cause of the stench of aviation fuel?

[MercutioATC]

60. Oooooh! I know! I know!

It was "planted".........

:tinfoilhat:

[tridim]

31. Thank you!

Very well put. Of course Bushco also stonewalled and discouraged any 9/11 investigation from day one. Nothing adds up.

[DU GrovelBot]

36. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.