A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Darla Ken Pearce]

You must be the only person left in America who believes Terrorists were involved. It was an inside job and the whole world know it ; ) xoxox

[Zook]

MOD hat OFF

Posted by Ty (here)
Zook,
I’m confused. Befuddled. Can’t make heads or tails out of you.

It has become apparent that you could be any number of things but an honest seeker of the truth is not one of them. Were I you, I might claim that the following provides irrefutable proof of this. Unimpeachable testimony even. Why? Because it is almost all an exposition of your own inconsistencies, incoherencies and double-standards.

Rhetoric is fine ... if you can back it up.

... on TRUTH:
[...]

Deleted in the above (in the interests of brevity) ... were the noble sentiments that our mischief-seeking friend, Ty, alludes to below ... as he fishes for the smallest inconsistency in my statements to run with and make hay.

Noble sentiments that we share. I find it curious, then that you are so willing to ignore evidence and alter truth to fit whatever your current need in defending the flyover.

Please, Ty, you don't have noble sentiments so how can we share? At best, I'll have to let you borrow some of mine.

Jan 21:

We can start impeaching all the Southside witnesses in the above video. Indeed, the pursuit of truth demands it.

The pursuit of truth would be to acknowledge that so many witnesses are not likely to be wrong and to seek some other explanation. How is your impeachment of them going by the way? I haven’t heard much on that front other than you accusing some of being liars but not bothering to point out the lies so I assume they are holding up OK and you are just using whatever is at your disposal to try to diminish and degrade them.
You do realize that was just one of 5 or 6 collections of testimonies, right?

Yup. Mostly bunk'um.

Let me start with one ... I can impeach them all if required (either on the grounds of outright lying ... or for being fooled by the flyover legerdemain, as were all thirteen Northside witnesses who thought that they saw the jetliner crash into the Pentagon!)! The concept of legerdemain, Ty, is that not all is as it seems. But while all Northside witnesses can be impeached with respect to their testimony of seeing the jetliner crash into the Pentagon on the grounds of legerdemain (as can be most Southside witnesses) ... the Northside witnesses, especially Officer Lagasse, cannot be impeached on the their testimony describing the Northside approach of the jetliner to the Pentagon. Lagasse provides incontrovertible testimony because he is recorded on the gas station security video pumping gas as the jetliner approached on the Northside. If it had approached from the Southside - as the official propaganda asserts - its view would have been blocked from Lagasse by the gas station canopy. End of discussion. Northside jetliner approach established conclusively.

But I promised to spank one of your Southside witnesses, Ty ... so let me do that now.

This Southside "witness" and where-the-Sun-don't-shine-backside "creep", Mike Walter, is caught with two contradictory versions of his story.

Version 1:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qouaq9GFtOk

Version 2:
The famous Gumbel interview where he tells a very different story:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=119

beginExcerpt
GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and...

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away.
end


So we have the video above where Walter clearly describes the wings folding in; and the Gumbel interview where he basically concedes is that all he saw were the obstructing trees and the huge explosion afterwards. Wait it gets better ... in another video, Walter claims that the jetliner made a bank before it allegedly hit the Pentagon:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6jrV7SMOg

(Key evidence at 43 seconds ... and again at 1:17 seconds ... where he talks about the jetliner making a pivot and a bank. A bank is inconsistent with the official Southside fable, not least because of the lamp posts that were purportedly brought down by the jetliner ... also, a bank is fully consistent with the Northside approach and Northside witness testimonies.

So, Ty, if I can so easily destroy this goober of a boob box news bumpkin (Mike Walter) using the goober's own words ... imagine what I can do to your credibility here on this thread using your own words and distortions? Imagine it, because my tolerance for your type of bullcrap is just about at the threshold. I've been nice up until now because you haven't gone after my character. But this last post of yours tells me that's where you are headed. Friendly reminder: I'll clock you but good - both with the facts and a standard of logic that apparently hasn't visited your small bubble of existence yet.

Most Southside witnesses were fooled by the legerdemain ... as were all Northside witnesses. Alas, being fooled is not a crime (e.g. as accessory after the fact). Lying outright, as Mike Walter has done ... is a crime (e.g. obstruction of justice).

[...]
So clearly in both of these posts you believe the truth is that the flyover and explosion occurred more or less simultaneously. Then from out of the blue…

Yes ... more or less simultaneously.

[...]
Actually he said it could have been as many as 10 seconds. You watched the video all the way through again and still got it wrong? That could explain why you find yourself painted into the corner you are now in.

Wait ... are you really trying to argue that my use of more or less simultaneously at the alleged impact face of the Pentagon ... here, count off a few seconds as the plane continues over the Pentagon to the South Parking lot on flyover; a few more seconds before Roosevelt Roberts identifies it ... that this is not consistent with a dozen seconds or so after the hug explosion remark that I made (e.g. a general, deliberately inexact interval that I used to frame the time wrt Roberts sighting of the jetliner after flyover)?

Is this really the sum of your rebuttal against Officer Lagasse's unimpeachable testimony placing the approaching jetliner Northside of Citgo (even as Lagasse himself - fooled by the legerdemain - believes that the jetliner crashed into the Pentagon?

Are we at ridiculous yet? Or still transiting through the sublime?

At any rate, 5 seconds, 10 seconds or 12 seconds, now you have the plane arriving WELL AFTER the explosion instead of concurrent with it. So, which truth is it Zook that you value? Which truth is it that is static and not a roving tour. Which truth is it that you will defend at all costs? I suppose this makes you one of Ptolemy’s descendent children – denying the truth of one of your accounts with the truth of another.

I must ask you in all earnestness, Ty, do you understand the concept of space and time? The difference between the damaged facade and the South parking lot facade or perhaps even the next facade from which the jetliner flew over before Roberts saw it? Remember, the damaged side of the Pentagon has the following relations with the four other sides: (1,2); (1,3); (1,4); (1:5)..........(1,3) and (1,4) are farther away ... more distance ... more time. The flyover jetliner looks to have emerged either over side 2 or side 3 (counterclockwise from the damaged side). It is not clear to me which side from Roberts testimony. But if he says it took about 10 seconds before he heard the explosion and saw the jetliner ... are you going to begrudge me my use of "a dozen seconds or so"??

Wow. Let's just leave it at that.

Note again that the flyover and explosion simultaneity has nothing to do with the time delta between when Roberts heard the explosion and when he saw the jetliner. And anyone who confuses the two separate events ... are just not qualified to be debating in this thread. Period.

This is most decidedly NOT the behavior of an honest seeker of the truth.
By the way. If you look at any of the flight paths from any of the videos it is obvious that there is no way a plane on those paths could possibly end up over the south lot. Whatever Roosevelt saw, it wasn't the plane that everyone else saw.
Simple deduction my friend. Something you seem to greatly struggle with.

Somehow, I don't feel threatened by your ad hominem remarks. Indeed, I think I shall wear them as a badge of honor. It is clear to anyone with an honest mind and a working brain that only one jetliner was involved in the immediacy of the huge explosion. If Roberts saw a jetliner. Then it was the same jetliner that Lagasse saw. And Lagasse puts this jetliner Northside of Citgo. Alas, a dynamic Northsiide jetliner profile cannot intersect with a static Southside damage profile which absorbs a Southside attacking incident angle. Not in the given physics that we know.

That's deduction, Watson.



ps: There is not one shred of humble opinion in my rebuttal here. If you find any in the above, please replace it with "informed opinion".

[Fred259]

Posted by Darla Ken Jensen Pearce (here)
You must be the only person left in America who believes Terrorists were involved. It was an inside job and the whole world know it ; ) xoxox

I don’t agree Darla KJP.

It wasn’t done by Arab Terrorists, but it was done by Terrorists.

It wasn’t an inside job, it wasn’t done by the US government or CIA or MI6 or Mossad or Israel as some would seem to think.

But it was done by Terrorists, so who are the real terrorists would you say?

[Zook]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by Darla Ken Jensen Pearce (here)
You must be the only person left in America who believes Terrorists were involved. It was an inside job and the whole world know it ; ) xoxox

I don’t agree Darla KJP.
It wasn’t done by Arab Terrorists, but it was done by Terrorists.
It wasn’t an inside job, it wasn’t done by the US government or CIA or MI6 or Mossad or Israel as some would seem to think.
But it was done by Terrorists, so who are the real terrorists would you say?

I'm a bit confused by your post, Fred.

Who do you think are the prime suspects?

[Fred259]

Posted by Zook (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by Darla Ken Jensen Pearce (here)
You must be the only person left in America who believes Terrorists were involved. It was an inside job and the whole world know it ; ) xoxox

I don’t agree Darla KJP.
It wasn’t done by Arab Terrorists, but it was done by Terrorists.
It wasn’t an inside job, it wasn’t done by the US government or CIA or MI6 or Mossad or Israel as some would seem to think.
But it was done by Terrorists, so who are the real terrorists would you say?

I'm a bit confused by your post, Fred.

Who do you think are the prime suspects?

Don’t be confused, you are not confused.

What needs to be established is that the missile hit the west section of the Pentagon.
A B757 flew over the Pentagon masking the missile.

Why the west section of the Pentagon, what was contained in the west section of the Pentagon that required to be eliminated.

It was technically difficult, a much easier flight path was available hitting the southerly or south east section of the building.

Why the West Section of the Pentagon?

[daledo]

Here is my contribution to this great thread.
Daledo

Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III, head of all intelligence says:
Pentagon NOT hit by a plane

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

911 Passengers Could be Fictitious

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_QIGGTs6xlk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hygru8bNQRE

Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

[Grace For Ki]

Mathaba World Exclusive: Russian Expert Confirms Nukes Beneath New York WTC | we must know

There is a brilliant man that you probably did not hear of by the name of Jeff Prager. He does not have a personal or a corporate agenda.He is a retired journalist who wants to know what really happened on 9/11.. He sits infront of his computer for hours everyday researching 9/11 without any agenda besides finding out the honest to god truth.

I am not an expert on any of this, but from what I read this is the best explanation that ive seen so far.

He writes books on the subject and lets people have them for free. You can find him on facebook and if you have any science questions you should ask him instead of me. He can go deeper with the understanding then I can.

I will give you his analysis right here on his latest book...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/Analysis.pdf

I think we are getting so close to this matter that one day we will find out what really happened.
A little food for thought. Hope you enjoy.

[Grace For Ki]

Here is another article by Jeff thats related to his book.

Just Some Of The Reasons Nuclear Fission Fits ~ Perfectly
by Jeff Prager

A nuclear event explains several odd anomalies. It explains everything if you take the time to fully understand what happens during one. There are more scientific anomalies that people glance past while viewing the larger surface, I think. At the same time that it explains the oddities perfectly, it also explains all of the regularly discussed anomalies perfectly, if you understand that an explosion has zones that are determined by distance and learn some basics about underground detonations, temperatures and effects.



To those that bring up radiation I say examine the data for the Boeing 757 that allegedly hit the Pentagon. Radiation is like the ghost plane. We'll never know but that doesn't mean for a moment that there wasn't radiation and 900 people are dead now to prove this.



To those that raise EMP, study an underground explosion. There may be none. It's grounded to the earth.



To those that raise other questions, do the research.



I've spent many months scouring Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge and Sandia web sites, among others, and I understand Energetic Compounds. There are many mixes of what you refer to as "thermate" and they have names, like Metastable Intermolecular (MIC) Sol Gels and others. I've read the patents from 1940 through current. They can't do this, not alone, not even close. They're fancy matches; they're specifically designed as efficient burners and consume all of their fuel and then, voila, in just milliseconds ALL the fuel is spent and they cool quickly, often 15-30 minutes.



They don't "burn" or "melt" steel. They create a chemical process that moves molecules and yes, they do "cut" steel, but they can't demolish 200,000 tons of steel, 400,000 tons of concrete and 4 acres of marble, and hundreds of thousands of additional objects like file cabinets, desks, computers and people.



Do the hard research and the truth is easy to ascertain.



1. All trucks were washed before leaving ground zero in what was described as an effort to remove dangerous asbestos. Except the USGS data says a lot. The dust was spread primarily west, south and north. The asbestos level, although the data is admittedly not specific, appears to be as hazardous, and at places more hazardous, then ground zero and any movement and all movement of people, buses, trucks, cars and, yes, even animals, was spreading the dust. So we washed all of these trucks, why?



2. Multiple Myeloma is a very rare cancer of plasma cells, a type of white blood cell normally responsible for the production of antibodies. One per 100,000 is the rate in the US population, Blacks and Hispanics at slightly higher rates then Caucasians. Only 1.0 percent of people who get it are under 65 years of age. There were 40,000 rescue workers and a significant number, I believe 75, of the 900 that have died, had this disease. They were between 37 and 60, most between 40 and 55. This is being attributed to elements that have no scientific factual basis and on close look the mainstream excuse is a fraud.



3. Molten metal and the steel. This is an interesting hoax. All sorts of explanations, none with a foundation based on known science. They are frauds on intellect. Within 1 to 30 feet or so of a nuclear explosion the temperature reaches millions of degrees (a lot of very different chemical reactions are occurring rapidly. Just seconds and milliseconds).



"17 meters, the explosion temperature was 300,000 degrees Celsius. Within 50 meters it was 9,000-11,000 degrees, and at ground level beneath hypocenter the temperature exceeded 6,000 degrees."

Jason Soo, "Atomic Education." Enscquire. 7, 4 (September 1995): 10.



You see the difference between 6,000 at ground zero, 300,000 at 17 meters, (just 51 feet), and millions of degrees at the heart, the very center? For just a few seconds, while the dust has it all covered from view.



Do you understand the concept with neutrons and protons flying around, invisibly, with light speed? Radiation, which people see as "something" is a process and it has signatures and the mechanics need to be considered too. The zones, a number of them, are part of the known mechanics of a nuclear explosion.



The zones are described by:



heat or temperature

chemical processes

distance



Very different things happen based on those zones.



NIST states, "It is estimated that roughly 0.25% to 0.5% of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the towers was recovered."



I have a list of what was recovered against a list of an all steel product inventory for construction; from core columns to ducts, from heat and ac piping to trusses and clamps.



Nothing is left of the steel. It's all gone. That means 99.75% to 99.50% of the steel was not recovered and was reduced to micron sized particles.



The most advanced energetic nano compounds are (MIC) Metastable Intermolecular Sol Gel Compounds. They're used as rocket fuel, among other things. The test data I examined used a small rocket fastened to a holding structure to test the product and provide customer data. These things burn rapidly, heat to max temp in milliseconds and their fuel is gone. They don't even efficiently attack steel. They react chemically, they don't actually "burn" or "melt" the steel. They do cut it, not always perfectly and depending upon mix. They heat to extremely hot temperatures and begin cooling in less then a second. They cool rapidly. 15-30 minutes. They can be painted on but they can't yet disintegrate a building and it's 4 acres of marble. Their millisecond burn just won't do it.



5. There were 4 acres of marble. That's gone. I have only one explanation for this.



6. Loads of dirt and sand, like they were getting fresh soil and sand as fast as they could and as fast as the piles were dumped there, they were spread out. I only have one valid explanation for this but have heard some pretty odd ones yet this was still an "excavation" site, not a burial site.



7. There were hundreds, perhaps 1000's of porcelain toilets. We find these after 2000 years at archaeology sites. They're gone. I understand this but there are no real valid answers expressed as science aside from my answer.



8. There are testimonies of people looking back and seeing people "vaporized" which is a word used in that testimony. This is nuclear. There is a purely scientific explanation for that. People vaporizing, all in testimony from people running their asses off while their feet, arms, legs and back were being singed with invisible radioactive heat. These people, the few that survived, were moving from one zone to the next as described above, in fringe zones.



9. There were cars that burst into flames without provocation, and there were cars upside down and there were cars burnt in the pattern of nuclear generated high heat if you examine incidents of several cars parked side by side or in any formation. You see the high heat signature across the vehicles where one protects the other. There are what would be considered heat/shadow effects that are visible.



10. Steel beams bent in U shapes - 4 inches thick without rips or tears along the longer radius of the bend. This takes over 5,000 degrees to do rapidly and the hotter it was the more easily these beams would bend without rips and tears in the long sides. These weren't pressure bends as much as they were extremely high heat bends, in my opinion. Science dictates this.



11. Shadow burns - All of these temperatures, these various zones are also cooling just as rapidly by the dust, which carries the heat away at the end of the initial nuclear process, perhaps just seconds. This is a confined underground explosion, confined by a city. The dust follows street paths and accounts for the destruction we see across the city because it hides waves and zones, but no one is looking at it, these waves and zones are hidden by the dust. You need to examine the buildings surrounding the destruction. This is forensics. They were all damaged visible, in zones. You need to understand the "zones" that occur in just seconds and then disappear.



12. Pyroclastic clouds - Clouds driven by heat and energy while the elements making up the clouds are turned to microns by the components of a nuclear explosion, heat and energy, extraordinary heat and energy are produced, moving those clouds. You think these were thermate clouds? Building falling clouds? Come on now.



13. Why all the paper? The city had inches of eight by eleven pages of peoples work product scattered everywhere. Unharmed. Paper has no mass. What wasn't disintegrated in the portion below the floors where the alleged planes hit was spared and floated down from upper floors that eventually were what we found all over New York.



14. Why the Secrecy? Why all the dust? It was 200,000 tons of steel and 400,000 tons of concrete of an estimated 1.5-3 million tons removed (glass, plastic, wood and other dust) in the most dynamic and little viewed or recorded cleanup in history. They'll tell you the secrecy was to prevent your own injury, toxic dust and all, asbestos, but they won't tell you this was a nuclear event. No one is going to admit that.



15. Most importantly, why did the second building to be hit by a plane fall first? This is the elementary question and the answer, the nuclear answer, is the only one that doesn't make me laugh my ass off.





For an answer to why the second tower hit by a plane fell first, read page 62 of my book, Nuclear 911 below and for a more detailed analysis read Dimitri Khalezov's book, also linked below.



Dimitri Khalezov (required reading):



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/Dimitri.pdf



Nuclear 911 - A supplement to Khalezov's book - the mechanics of a nuclear demolition



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/10%20Nuclear.pdf



Murdering Liberty Killing Hope: A forensic financial investigation of 911 with early speculations and rarely seen images of ground zero.



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/1%20Murdering.pdf



After 911: Connecting the dots on the SubPrime Crisis and an introduction to lesser known players and their intelligence connections



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/1%20Murdering.pdf



Golden Lily: 911 from 1945-1975



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/3%20Golden.pdf



The Suitcase Bomb



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/3%20Golden.pdf



Fascism In America: Why The Media Is The Media



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/5%20Fascism.pdf



There Were Bombs in The Pentagon: How?



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/6%20Bombs.pdf



911 Gold: Connecting the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the Banks, the Office Of Naval Intelligence, Cantor-Fitzgerald and the Bush Mob to 911.



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/7%20Gold.pdf



ChemPharma: They make your food, the 10,000 toxic chemicals and the pharmaceuticals that allow you to live the nightmare.



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/8%20Chem%20Pharma.pdf



FEMA: Born Out Of Cocaine Sales



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/9%2...aine-email.pdf



Dust: What Really Happened at Ground Zero



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/xBush.pdf





Above ground detonation reports:



"Immediately after the explosion time, the temperature of the weapon material is several tens of million degrees and the pressures are estimated to be many million atmospheres."

Glasstone, Samuel & Philip J. Dolan. "Scientific Aspects of Nuclear Explosion Phenomena."The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense & Energy Research & Development Administration, 1977.



"… instantaneously reached several million degrees centigrade"

Ochi, Yukiko. Nagasaki marks 53rd anniversary of atomic bombing. Internews, 1998.



(Nuclear) "reactions require that the atoms be raised to temperatures of millions of degrees."

Zitzewitz, Paul & Robert Neff. Physics. New York: Glencoe, 1995.



While underground nuclear explosions and above ground nuclear explosions are as different as night and day, you get the idea.

[Ty]

Fred,

Posted by Fred259 (here)
The Pentagon was hit by a Maverick Missile launched from a remotely operated A4 Skyhawk designed by Raytheon. Don't ask me for proof because they slaughtered 7 of the Raytheon guys who worked on the technology.

A maverick missile that no one saw and that includes the bodies, body parts and personal belongings of flight 77's passengers and looks like a 757 as it takes out lightpoles and hits the building.

Yeah - that's the ticket.

And what, in our prior discussions would lead you to think I'd expect you to have proof. Though in fairness, proof would be too high a bar for any of us to expect or claim, Zooks repeated declarations of such notwithstanding. But some compelling evidence should at least accompany such a claim. As Zook likes to say but ignore... assertion is not evidence.

I think, though that there is a far simpler explanation. TPTB, deeming it far simpler to fool the public into thinking a plane hit the Pentagon rather than actually crashing a plane into it, put their Mad Scientist heads together and cracked the code and were able to combine the powers of Superman with Rubber Man, creating Super Rubber Man - faster than a speeding bullet and able to assume any shape it chooses. And this, I submit is what struck the Pentagon, speeding along, shaped like a 757.

Don't ask me for evidence, though, because I don't have any. Which makes my theory every bit as viable as the flyover. More so even, since it aligns better with witness testimony. Well, except for the explosion part. But we'll just ignore that. Since the theory argues AGAINST flight 77 hitting the Pentagon we don't need to let inconvenient observations get in the way, do we? Simple assertion is all we need so I'm sure this theory is the real answer.

[Ty]

Honestly Zook, I don't know why you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this flyover hole. You make this so easy. Though I guess when arguing truth to nonsense that's to be expected. Time prevents me from a more detailed reply so this will need to suffice for now.

I must ask you in all earnestness, Ty, do you understand the concept of space and time? The difference between the damaged facade and the South parking lot facade or perhaps even the next facade from which the jetliner flew over before Roberts saw it? Remember, the damaged side of the Pentagon has the following relations with the four other sides: (1,2); (1,3); (1,4); (1:5)..........(1,3) and (1,4) are farther away ... more distance ... more time. The flyover jetliner looks to have emerged either over side 2 or side 3 (counterclockwise from the damaged side). It is not clear to me which side from Roberts testimony. But if he says it took about 10 seconds before he heard the explosion and saw the jetliner ... are you going to begrudge me my use of "a dozen seconds or so"??

Wow. Let's just leave it at that.

…

Somehow, I don't feel threatened by your ad hominem remarks. Indeed, I think I shall wear them as a badge of honor. It is clear to anyone with an honest mind and a working brain that only one jetliner was involved in the immediacy of the huge explosion. If Roberts saw a jetliner. Then it was the same jetliner that Lagasse saw. And Lagasse puts this jetliner Northside of Citgo. Alas, a dynamic Northsiide jetliner profile cannot intersect with a static Southside damage profile which absorbs a Southside attacking incident angle. Not in the given physics that we know.

That's deduction, Watson.

You call it deduction, I call it delusion.

I'm not begrudging you your 12 seconds Zook. Just pointing out that after, if I count right, 3 viewings of the video you still didn't hear what Roosevelt said. One could argue that goes to your credibility as a researcher.

Now as for your 12 seconds, I'll let you have them. In fact since you question my concept of space time, I even insist that you stick to your 12 seconds and use your concept of space-time and some basic math that an intelligent 5th grader could manage to prove your assertion.

So here's my challenge to you. This is a problem of simple math. If you can demonstrate that the plane was still over the South parking lot 12 seconds after flying over the west wall (I'll grant that just for this exercise) you can keep Roosevelt as a witness to the flyover.

If not, then along with my other "ad hominem" remarks that you'll wear as a badge of honor, you get to choose which of the following to also wear.

Either:

1) Gullible, intellectually challenged or… I'll tell you what. I'll give you a shot at intellectual integrity here and let you name this badge. Just be honest about it.

or

2) POD - Promoter of Disinformation

I'll be back in a week or so to see how you do. Good luck.

As for Mike Walters, it's hard to tell whether he saw the plane hit the Pentagon or not. Maybe he was where those trees blocked his view. Maybe he wasn't. He did say he saw it hit, though his brain may have filled in the blanks, so to speak. Like might have happened with Office Legasse, leading him to believe he saw the plane when all he saw was the shadow.

One thing we can conclude about Mike Walters, though is that even if the trees blocked his view of the Pentagon, based on where he was, like Robert Turcio, there is no way he would have not seen a flyover.

So a month after your call to start impeaching southside witnesses you have managed to locate conflicting testimony from one. Only 119 or so to go Zook. Better pick up the pace though or we'll both die of old age before you get through the list.

As for an attack on your character, I'm just the messenger. To whatever extent you feel your character has been demeaned you did it with your own words. I didn't force you to demonstrate a double-standard and lack of integrity in your arguments. I just collected your posts and pointed out the obvious.

As for "clocking" me with my own words, feel free. I collected all my posts for Fred a few posts ago. Dig in. If I have misrepresented, distorted or otherwise argued irrationally as I demonstrated you did then by all means, "clock" me. I deserve it. That is, after all, why I took the time to "clock" you. If similarly guilty, I deserve no less.

On another note, I believe I may have found substantiating evidence for your claim to Lergerdemain. I think this could be the missing hinge-pin to the flyover theory. See? I'm even willing to help further your cause and admit when I might be wrong. See? I'm even willing to help further your cause and admit when I might be wrong.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

"I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster."

[Zook]

Mod Hat Off

Posted by Ty (here)
Honestly Zook, I don't know why you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this flyover hole. You make this so easy. Though I guess when arguing truth to nonsense that's to be expected. Time prevents me from a more detailed reply so this will need to suffice for now.

Time? Or lack of substance?

I must ask you in all earnestness, Ty, do you understand the concept of space and time? The difference between the damaged facade and the South parking lot facade or perhaps even the next facade from which the jetliner flew over before Roberts saw it? Remember, the damaged side of the Pentagon has the following relations with the four other sides: (1,2); (1,3); (1,4); (1:5)..........(1,3) and (1,4) are farther away ... more distance ... more time. The flyover jetliner looks to have emerged either over side 2 or side 3 (counterclockwise from the damaged side). It is not clear to me which side from Roberts testimony. But if he says it took about 10 seconds before he heard the explosion and saw the jetliner ... are you going to begrudge me my use of "a dozen seconds or so"??
Wow. Let's just leave it at that.
…
Somehow, I don't feel threatened by your ad hominem remarks. Indeed, I think I shall wear them as a badge of honor. It is clear to anyone with an honest mind and a working brain that only one jetliner was involved in the immediacy of the huge explosion. If Roberts saw a jetliner. Then it was the same jetliner that Lagasse saw. And Lagasse puts this jetliner Northside of Citgo. Alas, a dynamic Northsiide jetliner profile cannot intersect with a static Southside damage profile which absorbs a Southside attacking incident angle. Not in the given physics that we know.
That's deduction, Watson.

You call it deduction, I call it delusion.

I'm not begrudging you your 12 seconds Zook. Just pointing out that after, if I count right, 3 viewings of the video you still didn't hear what Roosevelt said. One could argue that goes to your credibility as a researcher.

Now as for your 12 seconds, I'll let you have them. In fact since you question my concept of space time, I even insist that you stick to your 12 seconds and use your concept of space-time and some basic math that an intelligent 5th grader could manage to prove your assertion.

So here's my challenge to you. This is a problem of simple math. If you can demonstrate that the plane was still over the South parking lot 12 seconds after flying over the west wall (I'll grant that just for this exercise) you can keep Roosevelt as a witness to the flyover.

Clearly, our friend Ty has no arguments to offer. I mean, Officer Lagasse's testimony clearly exposes Ty's arguments as being without factual merit . But instead of being honest about it and conceding defeat - like anyone with any amount of integrity would do - Ty is now attempting to steer away from his defeat by focusing on trivial pursuits. For instance, he is now trying to repackage my casually offered inexact remark of "a dozen seconds or so" into an exact interval of "12 seconds". But let me stop his trivial pursuit in its tracks. I accept whatever size of time interval that Roosevelt Roberts states on the video. I went back and watched the video again specifically to find the exact words Roberts used: "... ten seconds tops!". Wow. Wow. Wowie. Didn't realize that my "dozen seconds or so" remark (that I recollected months after watching the video) was so far off the mark that it could be in a distant quasar! [Zook's sarcasm-meter just broke big time!]


At this point, Ty, I must ask you to specifically address Officer Lagasse's unimpeachable Northside jetliner Citgo gas station approach testimony ... or leave before I load you into a catapult and cut the chord.



[deleted below for brevity: rest of Ty's prevarications and distortions ... please go to Ty's post above if you want to read, or can stomach the paucity of his brain-free natterings]

[Zook]

Hi Grace For Ki,

Posted by Grace For Ki (here)
Mathaba World Exclusive: Russian Expert Confirms Nukes Beneath New York WTC | we must know
There is a brilliant man that you probably did not hear of by the name of Jeff Prager. He does not have a personal or a corporate agenda.He is a retired journalist who wants to know what really happened on 9/11.. He sits infront of his computer for hours everyday researching 9/11 without any agenda besides finding out the honest to god truth.
I am not an expert on any of this, but from what I read this is the best explanation that ive seen so far.
He writes books on the subject and lets people have them for free. You can find him on facebook and if you have any science questions you should ask him instead of me. He can go deeper with the understanding then I can.
I will give you his analysis right here on his latest book...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/Analysis.pdf

I think we are getting so close to this matter that one day we will find out what really happened.
A little food for thought. Hope you enjoy.

I think we can rule out nukes on 9/11/2001. Nukes would not have resulted in a pancake collapse. Also, the sulphidized steel and iron spherules point to thermate and nanothermate. Besides if you've watched any of the nuclear testing videos (e.g. Bikini Atoll) ... you'll note the tremendous force of the percussion waves even at a significant distance from ground zero. In short, the force of a nuclear fission blast would likely have blown things out much farther than observed. The only reason one would even try to argue in favor of nuclear fissionon 9/11/2001, IMHO, is to build into the minds of the gullible the concept of "suitcase nukes". With suitcase nukes, the argument of Islamic terrorists becomes somewhat plausible because the sheeple have already been conditioned to the idea of rogue sellers and Arab buyers. Of course, it then becomes patently absurd that hypothetical Arab terrorists led by Osama bin Goldstein (e.g. Orwell's 1984) would then use both airplanes and suitcase nukes to pull off the New Pearl Harbor (as it were). But hey ... the sheeple are so obedient that perhaps even such obvious improbability poses little or no added risk for the real culprits. After all, they are at great risk as it stands by the existing evidence uncovered so far by truthseekers.

To wit ... I'm 99% confident that nukes were not involved on 9/11/2001 ... and that nukes are only being promoted now - in 2011 - to segue into a designed convoluted discussion of suitcase nuke Arab terrorists. The remaining 1% I'll keep around until the final determination is made (whenever that occurs).



ps: Humble opinions all around.

ps2:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z29H_AX-jTs

[ThePythonicCow]

I think we can rule out nukes on 9/11/2001.

Against my better judgment, I wade into this swamp once again.

The towers were not a pancake collapse. Rather most of the steel, concrete, porcelain and granite was converted to dust, all in about 10 seconds. That took enormous energy, very rapidly applied.

The presence of nukes does not rule out the presence of thermites and other explosives as well. Pretty clearly, there were multiple stage affects here, to keep us confused.

The shape of the blast wave depends very much on whether the epicenter was above or below ground, so comparisons with Bikini Atoll may not be relevant.

[Zook]

Posted by Grace For Ki (here)
Here is another article by Jeff thats related to his book.
Just Some Of The Reasons Nuclear Fission Fits ~ Perfectly
by Jeff Prager
[...]
Nothing is left of the steel. It's all gone. That means 99.75% to 99.50% of the steel was not recovered and was reduced to micron sized particles.

Tell me you aren't serious? Here in this one small photograph alone you can see massive amount of unreduced steel.

[...]
15. Most importantly, why did the second building to be hit by a plane fall first? This is the elementary question and the answer, the nuclear answer, is the only one that doesn't make me laugh my ass off.
For an answer to why the second tower hit by a plane fell first, read page 62 of my book, Nuclear 911 below and for a more detailed analysis read Dimitri Khalezov's book, also linked below.
Dimitri Khalezov (required reading):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/Dimitri.pdf
Nuclear 911 - A supplement to Khalezov's book - the mechanics of a nuclear demolition
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21822842/10%20Nuclear.pdf
[...]

I debunked Khalezov's hypothesis previously on this very forum. IMO, he is a disinformation agent. Let me retrieve those posts now. Here, found them:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ll=1#post72817

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ll=1#post49965

Humble opinions all around.

[Zook]

Posted by Paul (here)

I think we can rule out nukes on 9/11/2001.

Against my better judgment, I wade into this swamp once again.

The towers were not a pancake collapse. Rather most of the steel, concrete, porcelain and granite was converted to dust, all in about 10 seconds. That took enormous energy, very rapidly applied.

The presence of nukes does not rule out the presence of thermites and other explosives as well. Pretty clearly, there were multiple stage affects here, to keep us confused.

The shape of the blast wave depends very much on whether the epicenter was above or below ground, so comparisons with Bikini Atoll may not be relevant.

Oops ... hit edit post instead of reply to post ... ahh the powers of a Junior Mod can be a dangerous thing. LOL.

Anyways, Paul, I posted the Bikini Atoll video to demonstrate the percussion force of a nuclear blast even at a mile from ground zero. How many kilotons from a suitcase nuke? Who really knows? The stepwise floor-by-floor destruction (which I casually and perhaps carelessly referred to as a pancake collapse) ... is not compatible with a nuke. So let me retract the phrase "pancake collapse" and replace it with the phrase "stepwise collapse" (the latter is what I meant).

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Zook (here)
Tell me you aren't serious? Here in this one small photograph alone you can see massive amount of unreduced steel.

Along one or two edges some steel remained intact. My impression from looking at many pictures is that less than one per-cent of the steel remained so. Almost all the steel, concrete, granite and porcelain was converted to fine dust, in the space of about ten seconds.

[Zook]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Zook (here)
Tell me you aren't serious? Here in this one small photograph alone you can see massive amount of unreduced steel.

Along one or two edges some steel remained intact. My impression from looking at many pictures is that less than one per-cent of the steel remained so. Almost all the steel, concrete, granite and porcelain was converted to fine dust, in the space of about ten seconds.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

beginExcerpt
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage
end

185,101 tons at 1% ---> 18,510,100 tons at 100%

So if 1% was hauled away, the original skyscrapers would each have been built with 9,205,050 tons of structural steel. Hmmm ... anyone have the specs on the original tower materials ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...el_salvage.htm

beginExcerpt
Each of the twin towers contained some 78,000 tons of recyclable steel alone.
end

78K versus 9205K (according to the nuke hypothesis and hauled away steel)

That alone scuttles the nuke hypothesis, Paul.

[ThePythonicCow]

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away

I call bs on that number.

My guess: the furor over "sending the scrap to China" was cover for "there wasn't much scrap."

Looking at the pictures of ground zero shortly after 9/11, there is not much left. A couple stories of exterior wall steel along one corner (the NW corner of WTC2, IIRC) were left in a recognizable form.

That alone scuttles the nuke hypothesis, Paul.

It scuttles something -- perhaps the reports of how much steel was hauled away?

[aikisaw]

Paul wrote
The towers were not a pancake collapse. Rather most of the steel, concrete, porcelain and granite was converted to dust, all in about 10 seconds. That took enormous energy, very rapidly applied.

I think the amount of steel argument is only half of Paul's point. What did happen to the buildings that they collapsed at free fall speed and turned to dust.

The floors pancaking would increase the time it took for the collapse. Pancaking would not pulverize concrete to dust .

If not nuclear then what ?

[Zook]

Posted by aikisaw (here)

Paul wrote
The towers were not a pancake collapse. Rather most of the steel, concrete, porcelain and granite was converted to dust, all in about 10 seconds. That took enormous energy, very rapidly applied.

I think the amount of steel argument is only half of Paul's point. What did happen to the buildings that they collapsed at free fall speed and turned to dust.
The floors pancaking would increase the time it took for the collapse. Pancaking would not pulverize concrete to dust .
If not nuclear then what ?

Who's arguing floor pancaking? Not I. I already wrote above that my use of pancaking was a misnomer as I really meant stepwise floor-by-floor collapse. So if we all agree that the pancaking hypothesis that MIT shill Eagar hoaxed us with is just that, a hoax ... why are we still discussing it in the context you are discussing it? As for pulverizing to dust, we already have viable candidates in a broad category called "high energy explosives" (which includes nano-thermite), the exact identification of which will arrive in due time as the truth wills out and wins out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

beginExcerpt
Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.
end

So nukes are unnecessary. Indeed, there is no evidence of nukes. merely conjecture. Khalezov's presentation is disinformation. And those who promote it haven't asked the critical questions. For if they had, they will understand that a stepwise-floor-by-floor destruction is incompatible with what Khalezov is proposing (read my rebuttal in the post above): https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post158564

The crushed zone that rises through the structure (as Khalezov asserts) ... is not compatible with a stepwise collapse. The tall spire that is evident in one of the twin towers (as it collapsed) is further evidence of the phoniness of Khalezov's nuke hypothesis where he states that all the steel and everything else inside the crushed zone would have been reduced to microscopic dust.