CBS' The Early Show on the morning of 9-11 (Part 1)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Listen to the witness interview/testimony of Wendell Klein (begins at 5:25), the Doorman on duty at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel on the morning of 9-11, which would have put him in very close proximity to the North Tower when it was allegedly struck by American flight 11 (a Boeing 767 commercial jetliner) at 8:46 a.m.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2GV56KvwoWk

At 5:55 in the video:

Gumbel: ...Tell us what you saw and what you heard.

Klein: ...I heard first an explosion.

Isn't that interesting? I guess the hijackers must have switched those massive jet engines to "whisper" mode -- probably out of consideration for the many NYC area college students that might have been trying to study.


------------------------------------------------------

Now have a listen to the first 20 seconds of this video to get an idea of what Wendell Klein should, and surely would, have reported hearing first had a commercial jetliner actually slammed into the North Tower:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3mJOLWvb1s


Here's what a low passing Boeing 727 sounds like:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wzidphcp6N8


------------------------------------------------------

At 6:48 in the CBS video:

Gumbel: ...How much debris, can you give us an idea how much came crashing to the ground?

Klein: ...It's just a lot, umm brick -- a lot of bricks, a lot of glass, umm, enough to damage cars on the street, made cars swerve into each other, that kind of thing.

What? No mention of any aircraft wreckage? Gee, that's a little puzzling. Oh wait a minute, that's right, now I remember, 9-11-01 was the day basic crash physics was temporarily suspended -- so rather than crash AGAINST the steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, the aluminum commercial jetliner was simply swallowed whole, disappearing completely into the building with absolutely no discernible bending, crumpling, shearing, or deceleration. And if you don't believe this, why just have a look at the cartoon video of UAL flight 175 slamming into the South Tower:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zoSaZv7Jcxc

What more proof could you ask for? Cartoons don't lie, folks -- now move along, there's nothing to see here.

[Sweet Pea]

1. How thick was the facade the aircraft crashed into?

You have an aircraft that weighs over 100 tons, with much of that weight made up of the mass of fuel and titanium, steel, block aluminum and other dense metals, traveling at 500-something knots.

The outer framework of the WTC at the floors it impacted was made up of 3/8" steel with 14" box beams made up of the same 3/8" steel, all held together with welds and 4 rivets and covered with aluminum cladding.

And you sit there and try to tell me the aircraft, the 100+ tons at 500 knots, is going to bounce off this 3/8" steel an daluminum cladding - bounce off and fall to the street below.

THIS is why the Troofer and No Planers and Pilots for Twoof are the laughing stock of the sane world.

edited for a coupla thangs

[SidDithers]

2. Not only the sane world...

there's crazy people out there saying "Damn, those folks is nuts!"

Sid

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Gee, you're not gonna just make shit up...

...are you, Sweet Pea?

Sweet Pea: And you sit there and try to tell me the aircraft, the 100+ tons at 500 knots, is going to bounce off this 3/8" steel an daluminum cladding - bounce off and fall to the street below.

Please feel free to provide a link to any post where I made any such claim. And while you're at it, perhaps you should have a look at how the towers were constructed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=193176&mesg_id=193334


Also, I can't help but notice how you conveniently forgot to address the question of why Mr. Klein would not have identified screaming jet engines as the first thing he heard. Any reason for that, Sweet Pea?


Are you still having trouble solving this equation, Sweet Pea?

Absence of Plane Wreckage + Video Fakery + A Credible On-Site Witness Who Reports No Screaming Jet Engines = ?????

Study it and think hard. All that's required to solve it is a little common sense, enough courage to face the painful truth of it, and of course, some integrity -- you wouldn't by any chance be running a deficit in any of these three areas, would you Sweet Pea?


Pieces of the 9-11 puzzle are coming together -- watcha gonna do?

[Sweet Pea]

9. You really

like to point to videos rather than discuss anything verbally (or, in this case, digitally), don't you? I assume that is because of a failure on your part to be able to articulate or debate in a coherent manner, but I wish you would at least try.

As far as "bouncing off" is concerned, fine. I take back the "bounce off". That belonged to the late, great Spooked911, in any event, and was his explanation on what the aircraft should have done. You no-planers are all alike - I can't keep you apart.

The aircraft is moving at 750 fps - that is feet per second. And truth be known, the aircraft DID "bend..., crumpl(e)..., shear..., (and) decelerat(e)"! The problem that the No Planers seem to have is the fact all that happened in the microsecond of impact.

As far as the sound is concerned, are you kidding me? The Marriott World Trade Center hotel was located in 3 World Trade Center, *on the opposite side of WTC 1* from where the impact was. Look at a map of the WTC complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg">here, put one finger on 3 WTC, put another finger on the impact side of WTC 1, and tell me how a doorman at the Marriott could have heard the aircraft before it hit the building. Keep in mind the doppler effect with regards to sound waves and the fact that jet engines are much, MUCH quieter from the front than from the rear.

What's that "integrity" thing you were talking about? You'd better forget integrity. Try and embrace logic for a change.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. Sweet Pea doesn't like youtube -- yeah, jet engines are real quiet from the front...

:rofl:

[Sweet Pea]

18. GREAT rebuttal!

I stand....er....sit chagrined.

Did you look up doppler effect with regards to sound waves? I'm sorry, but here at work I can't check to see if there is a You Tube video to help you out.

But in any event, could you describe what the doorman *should* have heard, keeping in mind the direction the aircraft was coming, the altitude, the physics of sound propagation in ambient air and what was *inbetween* him and the aircraft?

And yes, when in front of jet engines, what you hear for the most part are the turbines and stator blades spinning, which is remarkably quieter than hearing it from the rear where the exhaust makes serious noise.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

40. The only time a Boeing 767 jet engine is quiet...

...is when it's not running. Did you even bother to listen to the first 20 seconds of this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3mJOLWvb1s

They're plenty noisy on the approach, and Mr. Klein would almost certainly have heard, and made mention of them, if a 767 had actually crashed into the North Tower.

You criticize my sources while always taking care never to provide sourcing for your claims/statements -- are we just supposed to accept your word for everything?

[SDuderstadt]

43. Are you saying a number of other people did NOT hear...

the planes? Why leave out their testimony?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

48. I did not make any claims about anyone else's testimony...

...nor did I represent my OP to be a comprehensive, all inclusive examination, or even a representative sample, of witness testimony related to American flight 11.


I will say that I do consider the testimony of witnesses who were interviewed before MSM went into full propaganda mode with the fake planes video, to be generally more credible than those who gave their accounts after the propaganda blitz was underway. Witnesses like this guy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ

Notice how the Fox reporter takes no interest in what this man has to say once it becomes clear he's not telling the story Fox wants to hear.


And then there's Don Dahler, who while talking live with Charlie Gibson as the alleged 2nd plane supposedly hits the South tower, had this to say: I did not see a plane go in, that just exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGC1aNUCm5M

Yet again, as with Mr. Klein, this on scene witness apparently neither sees nor hears the approaching, low altitude, 767 commercial jetliner.


And, of course, who can forget the remarks of Jamie McIntyre after his first walk-around on the scene at the Pentagon:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck


And let's don't leave out the testimony of Fox and NBC reporters live and on the scene of the alleged crash site of UAL flight 93:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0


As much as you may not like it, the fact is that these accounts do not support the OCT fairytale -- what they do support is "no planes."

[CGowen]

3. You can hear it in the Naudet movie, I don't know how it would sound between tall buildings

or how much of the sound would be altered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. The Naudet video raises more questions than it answers...

...Such as these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Sc37zsW-g


Here's an essay of their video of the alleged first plane impact:

---SNIP---

There is an answer to that question, but an extremely disturbing one. I believe the Naudet film of Flight 11 is a charade, staged to appear accidental. However bizarre that claim may appear to be, the evidence that justifies it is there in the film (the DVD version, issued in September 2002, titled "9/11 — The Filmmaker's Commemorative Edition"), and I challenge anyone watching it and following my arguments to reach any other conclusion. No-one can dispute that this is an extraordinary piece of film — because of its uniqueness as well as its content — and that there must therefore be an equally extraordinary explanation for how it came to be captured. I believe — for the reasons in this essay — that those who had both the motive and the effrontery to carry out these attacks also had the motive and the effrontery to film the first one for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story, the one told in the Naudet film. The second plane would have been filmed anyway, but having "accidental" film of the first one as well was obviously too good to resist. It was too important an event not to somehow record on film and, with the help of professionals from the industry, which has had a long and close relationship with the intelligence agencies, it would not be too difficult to disguise the fact that the scene was arranged — the film equivalent of the (long-outdated, but similar) steganographic technique of hiding a coded message in a microdot, where it would not even be suspected. (The absence of film from the Pentagon that morning, where security surveillance appears — if only to the chronically gullible — to be limited to the one car park camera that allegedly got stills of the explosion, with the wrong date and time, must have some other explanation.) . . .

Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

[CGowen]

6. Even if you want to believe this was no luck,

they just needed to be called to a gas leak in time which was none and from there on everything happened alone.



Don't forget this movie is the only one, I believe, documenting the destruction of the lobby, windows, panels etc.

Additionally the movie contained stuff like this:

fireman 1: "We made it at least 2 blocks and we started running. Floor by floor started popping out."

fireman 2: "It was as if they had detonators,"

fireman 1: "Yeah, detonators."

fireman 2: "As if they had plans to take down the building. It went boom boom boom..."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. The Naudet shoot of the North Tower supposedly being...

...struck looks very staged to me. I cannot imagine that the Naudet brothers are not involved in 9-11 coverup, but as for the question of who else at the scene of that shoot might also be culpable -- I don't know. I would just say again, it looked very staged to me.

[piobair]

8. Shame on you

Your link and quote from serendipity seem to be very closely related to the "research" of that ass hat Ray Ubinger. His premise is that the Naudet video was faked with help from the FDNY and that the FDNY had prior knowledge of the attacks. I asked him directly if he thought that Chief Officers of the FDNY knowingly sent 343 of their brother Firefighters to their deaths and he answered in the affirmative. He also believes that Chief Pfeiffer sent his own brother to die in the towers.
I have no problem if you want to espouse wild theories relating to "space beams" or mini nukes even though there is no evidence but when you use crap from cowards like Ubinger that slanders Firefighters and the FDNY to further your agenda then shame on you.
I also think that if you look closely you will find that Serendipity is a spin off of webfairy, home of the shape shifting chem sprayer.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. Great argument, Piobar...

...did you even read the essay? I doubt it.

Piobair: I have no problem if you want to espouse wild theories relating to "space beams" or "mini nukes"...

Wow. I don't suppose you'd care to dig up the post where I ever said anyting about "space beams" or "mini nukes" -- attributing words or a position(s) to someone which you know they have never taken is a classic Swiftboat tactic, Piobair. Why am I not surprised?

The author of the essay I linked is named Leslie Raphael, not Ray Ubinger.

[piobair]

24. you missed or ignored the point

I don't care what positions or theories you hold dear. It's when you start to repeat crap about the FDNY being complicit that I call bullshit. I also don't care what name the essay is under{and I have read it} it is almost verbatim what Ray Ubinger writes on his website, Foreknowledge. I am almost positive that serendipity, foreknowledge, and webfairy are connected. A bigger collection of ass hats you won't find and if you buy into their notions, well, you are known by the company you keep.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Like all members of the nuisance/distraction brigade...

...you offer belligerence in lieu of reasoned argumentation and it does not persuade.

[piobair]

56. reasoned arguement

Thats rich! You promote a website that advances the idea that the FDNY Knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and let 343 Firefighters go to their deaths and you want reasoned argumentation. Why don't you step up and state publicly if you believe this to be true? The idiot that wrote the exerpt that you quoted is too much of a coward to take his "evidence" directly to the FDNY so he posts on some internet back water.
I enjoy reading posts by no planers. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion knowing that no one is going to get hurt but getting to see the wild gyrations and dust fly as all the cars go off the track. It stops being fun when cowards malign the group that arguably suffered the greatest loss on 9/11. I'll say it again. You should be ashamed.

[HamdenRice]

7. I was in lower Manhattan that morning and I heard it

It was very loud and flew over my building. Then I heard a crash. I went down to the street and a guy said, a plane just flew really low over this area and crashed into the World Trade Center.

I was about 1/2 mile north of the WTC about a block away from directly under the flight path. I think it was much easier to hear from the north because the plane flew right over us.

The hotel iirc was slightly south of the north tower and faced West, onto West Street.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. You don't find it odd that Mr. Klein...

...says absolutely nothing about hearing any jet engines? He wasn't half a mile from the scene, he was virtually right there on it.

[HamdenRice]

13. I can only speak for myself

I heard a very, very loud plane. My window faced west toward Avenue of the Americans which was apparently the flight path. I heard very loud plane engines moving right to left (north to south) and then a loud boom. I immediately thought it was a military jet on a bombing run, and then dismissed the thought. Then I heard about it on the radio and went downstairs to look. A homeless type guy said he saw the plane fly over and crash into the WTC.

There is a really interesting site in which Mariott guests and staff collected their stories. Unfortunately, as time passes, more and more links are dead. But it does seem that from their vantage point, many report that the explosion was the first thing they heard.

It may be because the Mariott was off to the west and slightly to the south of the north tower, with its "back" toward the WTC towers. Iirc, it was also somewhat submerged to street level while the towers were set on a plaza that was a few stories above street level, so I could see how a lot would be muffled from within the lower floors of the hotel.

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php

On edit: here's the recollection of a guy in the hotel who heard the explosion first, but recalls hearing the second plane after he was outside. It suggests that the placement and structure of the hotel tended to muffle the plane noise and explosion, but the explosion was so loud they could hear it even from inside the hotel.

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php?storyfile=MichaelWald

[Flatulo]

15. Hamden -

This is the first time I've become aware that you were in lower Manhattan that day.

I sincerely hope that you have been able to cope well with what you've experienced.

I know that I was severely depressed for months after 9/11, and I was nowhere near NYC.

Best regards,

Flat

[HamdenRice]

16. That's why it's not just a word game for me nt

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. So would I be correct in assuming that you...

...do believe American flight 11, and UAL flight 175 did both slam into the WTC towers?


If you don't mind my asking, do you believe it was American flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. I know someone who was in the Marriot

he heard but didn't see a plane

[Flatulo]

14. He didn't say that he did not hear jet engines. He just stated that

he heard an explosion.

Here's an analogy:

A bunch of people are standing on the side of the road. Two cars collide head on right in front of them. Everyone was looking except for one fellow who was busy picking his ass and missed it.

Mr. Deffertone interviews the ass-picker and concludes that no accident happened.

Very strange logic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. What kind of convoluted BS is that?...

...He stated that he "heard first an explosion."

Did you even bother to read the OP or listen to the CBS video from from 5:25?

That has got to be the all time stupidest analogy I've ever read on DU.

[Sweet Pea]

22. He was on the OPPOSITE side of the building!

The aircraft was coming towards him!

Do you expect sound waves to accelerate ahead of the object making them when that object is traveling at 500 knots?

A Troofer and Physics....never the twain shall meet.

No, the fact he didn't hear the engines is not surprising nor odd in the least.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. You don't even do the most rudimentary research...

...or maybe you do and there just isn't any honest way to support the OCT fairytale:

FACT: The MAXIMUM cruising speed for a Boeing 767 is 568 mph at 35,000 feet.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

FACT: The speed of sound through the air is approximately 770 mph.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound


It is ridiculous to think that a 767 can be piloted at such low altitude (between 800 and 1500 feet), and at it's maximum cruise speed for 35,000 feet, with enough precision to find the WTC towers, not once but twice, by men with nothing more in the way of experience than some Cessna 172 training -- OCT is a fairytale.

Captain Russ Wittenberg:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjQANnrRpdU

[AZCat]

29. Your so-called "facts"...

are not actually such. The speed of sound, for example, is dependent on the density of the medium. Since density of air varies with altitude, this means that the speed of sound in air varies with altitude.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. Is that supposed to be an important correction?...

... These planes were presumably traveling through air, and the sound waves their jet engines would have produced would have been traveling through air, the speed I gave was stated as an approximate for sound traveling through air, which it is.

I made no misstatement of fact nor were my remarks misleading -- your make pretend correction is merely an unimportant elaboration on the relevant fact I gave.

[AZCat]

37. It's just fucking typical of your posts.

You don't bother to actually look into anything before recycling the crap produced by the rest of the truth movement.

[SidDithers]

54. Yes, it is an important correction...

and they fact that you don't know why it's important is another indication that you're way out of your depth.

Sid

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

59. Another one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co

Sid

PS - your link is broken

[Sweet Pea]

64. Oooops

That's what I get when working from home and DU'ing at the same time. I wonder if there is a link to a French KC-135 video on Embry Riddle's eletronic blackboard? Need to check....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoprb_amateur-davion_extreme">Here is that KC-130 high-speed low-pass

Thanks Sid

[HamdenRice]

60. Point of information

Are you saying that a plane traveling at sub-sonic speed can not be heard approaching?

I could see if you were saying a plane traveling at super-sonic speed could not be heard, but not one traveling at sub-sonic speed.

[AZCat]

61. Even the supersonic one will be heard.

It will just be heard later than one travelling at less than the speed of sound. The "boom" might be confused with later noise.

[HamdenRice]

62. Can it be heard before the plane passes?

I thought the poster was saying that if a plane is traveling at super-sonic speed, you won't hear it until after it has passed, because the plane is traveling faster than the sound coming from the plane.

Clearly, this should not be true of a plane traveling at sub-sonic speed.

Are you saying that an observer would also hear an super-sonic plane approaching before the plane passed the observer?

[AZCat]

63. No, I'm sorry.

I guess I was confused about the point being made.

[Sweet Pea]

65. Not at all

Are you saying that a plane traveling at sub-sonic speed can not be heard approaching?

Again, not at all. What I was submitting is that the dynamics of the event were such that it is not surprising that the explosion of the aircraft hitting the building was heard by the Marriott doorman vice the sound of the engines while the aircraft was approaching.

Anyone who has spent time around aircraft know that the level of sound emitted from the engines is far less from in front of the aircraft that from behind. Add that to the fact that the doorman was approximately 600 feet farther south from the impact point, there was a 200 foot square building between him and the aircraft as well as the Marriott building itself, and add in whatever ambient noise was coming from the street or surrounding area.

Add in the fact that the aircraft was traveling at 750 feet per second and sound propagation factors being controlled by the doppler effect (i.e. sound waves are shorter, higher frequency, higher pitched and more compressed as the aircraft speed approaches mach when viewed/heard from directly in front of a moving object, akin to what is the case here), whatever sound the aircraft was going to "throw out" in front of it would very likely not be heard by the doorman in the seconds immediately prior to the sound of the impact.

I am in no way stating that a sub-sonic aircraft would not be heard approaching. I am saying that a hotel doorman, located in the doorway of the location of where the Marriott hotel was in relation to where the impact point was, would very likely not hear the sound of the engines because of the above stated anomalies.

edited to add mach reference

[HamdenRice]

71. That's why I said the hotel was west, south and below the tower grade

But I would add that the sound of the plane was incredibly loud at street level -- louder than any plane I'd ever heard in the city and away from the airport because it was flying so low and at full throttle.

[jberryhill]

17. Jeff, Old Bean, You Missed The Payoff Line....

While you are parsing the casual comments of traumatized bystanders, you missed this important clue:

"umm brick -- a lot of bricks"

Bricks?

That didn't jump out at you? I'm shocked.

What part of the WTC was made of bricks? But this guy reports bricks. My goodness, this can only mean there was a brick building that was blown up somewhere at the same time!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Please feel free to clarify what you're suggesting...

...I took it to be his way of referring to rubble and/or chunks of concrete -- you have a different take?

[Flatulo]

25. Funny how you selectively interpret comments literally. nt

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. Funny how you make a hit and run comment like that...

...and then fail to provide your own interpretation. Do you think he was being dishonest? Or maybe he was drunk on the job? Or he's simply unable for some reason to distinguish concrete rubble from bricks? Or maybe he saw brick from some other damaged buildings?

I offered my interpretation, which I think is reasonable. You show up to criticize it without offering your own. That's the behavior of a nuisance/distraction spammer -- and certainly no surprise from our good friend, Flatulo.

[Flatulo]

41. I don't have any interpretation of his remarks. The poor guy was

probably still struggling to comprehend what happened.

It is certainly possible that by 'bricks' he meant rubble.

It's also possible that he just didn't hear the engine roar. Or was preoccupied and didn't notice it.

I don't read very much into these tiny nuances of speech that people use when describing a catastrophic event. I tend to take the whole general gist of the stories as being more indicative of what happened than any particular recounting.

Mostly I was trying to express surprise that you would sieze on the comments of one witness who happened to not mention hearing the jet whine, and ignore the many accounts of people who *did* hear the engines. It's a quirk that I see used constantly in the Truth movement, where one witness's words are siezed on to the exlusion of many others' accounts.

It just makes no sense to me.

[AZCat]

42. Speaking of accounts of those who did hear engines...

he doesn't have to look far (only to post #7 in this thread) to find someone who did hear them. I guess Jefferson is not interested in that sort of evidence.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. I responded to Hamden's post and I do not discount his remarks...

...try to follow along could you, AZCat?

[jberryhill]

28. Yes, I have a different take...

My take is that he said "bricks".

Do you have a problem taking the man at his word?

If you are going to say he is too stupid to know the difference between "chunks of concrete" and "bricks", then you might as well interpret away what he meant by the "first thing" he heard.

"First thing" when? That day? In his life? Was he deaf until then?

I would imagine the first thing he heard was his mother's heartbeat prior to his birth, but he didn't mention that in the interview.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. Is that supposed to be the clarification of your post #17?

...If you're trying to say something about Mr. Klein, why not lay it out?

[CJCRANE]

26. Game to the neocons.

Your OP illustrates why the neocons win the propaganda war. If you go up to the other fora you'll see real news stories about real people who can influence whether a terrorist attack happens or not. Very rich people who are close to Bush & Blair. One or two people are starting to connect the dots (but not that many. Most people have their own biases and will always blame one side or another, they don't see the connections between individuals who appear to be on different sides but in reality work together).

But when it comes "9/11 truth" what do we get? Muddying the water with nonsensical theories. I don't know what your agenda is but you might as well be working for the neocons. If you're not then they should hire people like you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. Is that supposed to pass for some kind of counter argument or rebuttal...

... to the OP?

If you wish persuade, at least make some kind of argument. You condemn the OP and question my motives while offering absolutely no substantive refutation of anything.

Now, what was it you were saying about Neocons?

[CJCRANE]

33. I'm just in a cynical mood.

Some evidence has come out this week about who facilitated the hijackers and the 9/11 money trail etc. These are the facts hiding in plain sight that show a big part of how 9/11 was pulled off. The other side of the story is what Bush-Cheney were doing before and on 9/11 to make it easier for the hijackers to pull off their stunt.

The only missing link is to connect these two sides of 9/11, the LIHOP of Bush-Cheney and the MIHOP of the financiers and handlers.

So...IMHO the no-planes theories and even CD are red herrings. They might worth investigating once the political and financial leads have been exhausted and acted upon.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. I don't claim to have all the answers...

...I may be wrong about some things, maybe a lot of things, and even if everything I think about 9-11 is true, my ideas (all of which come from the research of others) are still very much incomplete, but I'm not here with any hidden agenda.

You mention the money trail, I suspect if Sibel Edmonds' story is ever fully disclosed, some light will be cast on how the patsy hijackers were set up. I think this may be the reason she has been so heavily gagged.

"No planes" took me a while to accept -- I have to admit, on its face, it just sounds nuts. I dismissed it out of hand for a long time. CD on the other hand, I didn't find very hard to believe after I started looking at it -- it actually appears obvious from the videos when I look at them now. Fire and falling debris from WTC 1 and 2 as an explanation for building 7's neat little free fall collapse into its own footprint is not believable to me by any stretch of the imagination. I don't understand how anyone can possibly swallow that.

[CJCRANE]

35. I can see

the attraction of looking into the technical side of things.

There are obviously a number of players involved in 9/11 from different countries and the whole problem of trying to prove who did it runs into the obstacles of bias for or against those countries or individuals implicated.

But if you can prove what happened from a technical standpoint - that avoids those biases, especially if you can cast doubt on the official explanation. Also I guess visual evidence is always more powerful (the first time I saw the WTC7 collapse was about two years ago and that definitely rekindled my interest in 9/11 truth).

[truedelphi]

44. I saw the footage wherein the building shimmered and then

The entire plane was swallowed, due to the temporary suspension of the laws of physics.

Because of the laws of physics being suspended, nothing blew off the plane - no wings, no other structures.

It was swallowed, don't cha know!

Then Cheney issued an order putting physics back into normal mode, and all went well until the second plane came along.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Except debris from the planes...

was found all over the streets below.

[truedelphi]

46. So they say - once the buildings collapsed

the dust from the collapsed towers pretty much obliterated everything below that debris.

However a friend of mine, whose brother had an apartment in the area, I think she told me that part of the plane ended up on his balcony.

My big objection is noT to whether there were or weren't planes, but to that one video, obviously made for the War games going on, where a section of the Tower becomes a molten shimmer (Much like the effects in Terminator II BTW.) And then the plane comes along and it is "swallowed"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

50. I notice when you talk of all that bountiful plane wreckage...

...strewn all over the place, we're always expected to just take your word for it -- with what are you supporting this claim of "debris from the planes...found all over the streets below?"

[wildbilln864]

51. Link please?

:popcorn:

[SDuderstadt]

53. Jesus Fricking Christ, how many times do we have to post links to the photographic evidence?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

In addition, browse through these first responder oral histories and you'll find countless examples of them describing the debris from the aircraft. Or are we supposed to believe they're "in on it too" and were all coached on what to say?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Trying to reason with "no-planers" is an exercise in futility.

[Flatulo]

55. Hey, I didn't see ...

... the hydraulic rudder damper assy connecting rod clevis pin interposer shaft sleeve in any of those pictures!

[wildbilln864]

57. boohooo....

quit fucking whining! Obviously you need that exercise you speak of. :rofl:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

66. THAT'S what you're offering in support of ...

"...debris from the planes was found all over the streets below?"

Pretty weak.

[SDuderstadt]

68. I give up....

apparently we're supposed to believe that "disinformation agents" must have rushed to place aircraft debris on the streets to fool people, but it didn't work because it's not enough. Why, oh why do I try to reason with no-planers?

Are you suggesting that it's not enough evidence? Where do you think it came from? Are you seriously denying it was found all over the streets? Do you have a seeing eye dog?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

70. The reason you always have to be prodded to offer support...

...for your BS claims is obvious -- the links you provide are ALWAYS so incredibly lame. You can't make the case for the OCT fairytale because it's a fairytale.

[SDuderstadt]

72. This is unintentionally ironic again, right?

Mr. J.,

With all due respect, you're a "no-planer". You're a "no-planer" DESPITE the overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the form of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and deductive reasoning. It is the height of absurdity for you to remotely claim that the links I provide are "incredibly lame" when the truth is you resort to attempting to trivialize what I provide simply because you can't refute them. You are, in fact, the king of the cherry-picked quote, the ludicrous YouTube video from posters who can't even manage basic facts, let alone basic physics, adequately. I suspect that the only people here who grant you any credence whatsoever are fellow "no-planers" who are equally absurd in their allegations.

Your tendency to single out the one person who says something slightly contrary to what fifty other people say and attempt to parlay that into some sort of coherent alternative hypothesis is astounding. I really have no further desire to educate or otherwise engage in conversation with anyone (especially you) who makes such absurd allegations. Frankly, I think the word of hundreds of first responders is far more trustworthy than yours. Bye.

[Flatulo]

73. You need a new tune, bud.

You used this same bullshit response on me just yesterday.

Do you ever stop to think how ridiculous you look? Obviously not.

You should be banned as a disruptor, because you have no intention of ever debating anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195410&mesg_id=195623

[greyl]

67. "Trying to reason with "no-planers" is an exercise in futility."

That's a damn safe bet.
The response to your 2 links should make it clear that no-planers should never be taken seriously.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. Blown back out by the fireballs??

:shrug:

All of the videos I've seen look like the planes just glide into the buildings, nothing breaking, or falling, until the fireballs blow back out....

Do you have any pictures of the plane or building shedding any debris prior to the fireball?