Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
there are very few witnesses that actually saw the impact [/B]the majority saw the plane fly very low and then an explosion but not actual impact..USA today reporters that said they did not see the impact and then 5 years later gave detailed accounts of the impact and are just not credible..it is had to believe this man and others are mistaken that they experienced this horrific explosion and after had a commercial airliner pass over their heads at less than a 100 ft above them described in such detail
This is a lie
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
911 Links - Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links page 1 of 2
wash, rinse, repeat
no, it isntwash, rinse, repeat
it is absolute proof that Buddy's 9/11 fact list...is indeed a LIE
AA77 was hijacked and then the passengers killed and the body parts tossed inside the pentagon
My point exactly. The conspiracy guys have no rationale' for anything. All they do is pick-nits here and there without looking at the real questions.
1. which agency/entity did it?
2. why was it done?
3. how many people were involved?
4. who is going to spill the beans and sell a book?
There is no "there" there.
there are very few witnesses that actually saw the impact [/B]the majority saw the plane fly very low and then an explosion but not actual impact..USA today reporters that said they did not see the impact and then 5 years later gave detailed accounts of the impact and are just not credible..it is had to believe this man and others are mistaken that they experienced this horrific explosion and after had a commercial airliner pass over their heads at less than a 100 ft above them described in such detail
This is a lie
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
911 Links - Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links page 1 of 2
right...bullshit
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emMTVPhHBTE]YouTube - National Security Alert [5/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNPoxPR4Crg&feature=related]YouTube - National Security Alert [6/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwk4JK1CuQ4&feature=related]YouTube - National Security Alert [7/8] - 9/11 & The Pentagon[/ame]
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NISTs investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, Questions on the WTC Investigations at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. I wish that there would be a peer review of this, he said, referring to the NIST investigation. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.
I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, explained Dr. Quintiere. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.
Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing for all to see
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down.
Why would you provide quotes that seem to support the controlled demolition thesis when the person you quote clearly does not support the thesis?
That is dishonest and is called quote mining. Please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting the evidence.
fuck you ...he says he thinks it is more likely a floor falling ...so don't lie...and the point is he calls the iinvestigation questionable that government lawyers deterred fact finding ..that critical questions have been ignored...that he encourages us all to become conspiracy theorist and calls for a new independent investigation...
so why don't you stop being dishonest
Actually, the onus is on you DiveCon.prove that the pentagon had better than standard security cameras before 9/11We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
This is the Pentagon security system.
You would think the Pentagon would have the latest and most up to date surveillance equipment that money can buy.
In my opinion, the government is hiding something.
Or else they would have released a video or a photo, even if the image was less than perfect.
To prove that the cameras were unable to capture the jet hitting the Pentgon.
so how do you interpret a call for a new investigation complaints government lawyers deterred fact finding and encouraging people to be conspiracy theorist ???
It does not support the demolition theory when the person making the statement specifically rejects that theory.
Its called quote mining and its intellectually dishonest.
I would say you are the one quote mining the entire body of the article is extremely critical of the report and its conclusions and you focus only on the line ..most likely a flloor falling and then exaggerate the the statement as he specifically rejects..as opposed to is most likely how much more dishonest can you get
I don't know the answer as to how many cameras cover the parameter of the Pentagon.Actually, the onus is on you DiveCon.prove that the pentagon had better than standard security cameras before 9/11
To prove that the cameras were unable to capture the jet hitting the Pentgon.
Question for you Sunni Man. How many security cameras are at the Pentagon and how many of those would have been pointed at the flight path?
I don't know the answer as to how many cameras cover the parameter of the Pentagon.Actually, the onus is on you DiveCon.
To prove that the cameras were unable to capture the jet hitting the Pentgon.
Question for you Sunni Man. How many security cameras are at the Pentagon and how many of those would have been pointed at the flight path?
But I would think that every square inch of the Pentagon and surrounding area is under video survillance.
Actually, the onus is on you DiveCon.prove that the pentagon had better than standard security cameras before 9/11We are not talking about security cameras for the parking lot at WalMart or 7-11
This is the Pentagon security system.
You would think the Pentagon would have the latest and most up to date surveillance equipment that money can buy.
In my opinion, the government is hiding something.
Or else they would have released a video or a photo, even if the image was less than perfect.
To prove that the cameras were unable to capture the jet hitting the Pentgon.
The Pentagon is surrounded by cameras.
You're using Mr. Quintiere's quotes to try and support your notion that there was controlled demolition involved which is dishonest.
The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.
lol about building fires, as if this is evidence that hundreds of fires started on all floors of the 47-story skyscraper 'and' those fires had sufficient energy to 'cut' all supporting girders, columns, beams and bar-joists required to create a Controlled Demolition Implosion-like collapse! cuckoo caused the catastrophic failure of 'all' massive steel supports at the very same time! 
Your blatant attempt to try and use his quotes to support your controlled demolition theory is idiotic.
The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.
No sir. Your claim is very much IMPOSSIBLE and you very well know it.
This Govt Stooge has no explanation for how all Compartmentalization Countermeasures (911Research Info) were compromised, so that "Building Fires"
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing for all to see
Why would you provide quotes that seem to support the controlled demolition thesis when the person you quote clearly does not support the thesis?
That is dishonest and is called quote mining. Please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting the evidence.
fuck you ...he says he thinks it is more likely a floor falling ...so don't lie...and the point is he calls the iinvestigation questionable that government lawyers deterred fact finding ..that critical questions have been ignored...that he encourages us all to become conspiracy theorist and calls for a new independent investigation...
so why don't you stop being dishonest
You're using Mr. Quintiere's quotes to try and support your notion that there was controlled demolition involved which is dishonest.
The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.
Your blatant attempt to try and use his quotes to support your controlled demolition theory is idiotic. He even goes AGAINST what you claim in that FIRES weakened the FLOOR TRUSSES, but you won't quote that part will you.
Biased 'til the end eh eots?
No sir. Your claim is very much IMPOSSIBLE and you very well know it.
fuck you ...he says he thinks it is more likely a floor falling ...so don't lie...and the point is he calls the iinvestigation questionable that government lawyers deterred fact finding ..that critical questions have been ignored...that he encourages us all to become conspiracy theorist and calls for a new independent investigation...
so why don't you stop being dishonest
You're using Mr. Quintiere's quotes to try and support your notion that there was controlled demolition involved which is dishonest.
The fact is, he wants a new investigation because, from what he has seen, the evidence supports his theory that FIRE caused the FLOOR TRUSSES to fail.
Your blatant attempt to try and use his quotes to support your controlled demolition theory is idiotic. He even goes AGAINST what you claim in that FIRES weakened the FLOOR TRUSSES, but you won't quote that part will you.
Biased 'til the end eh eots?
the floor truss was just an example of another theory you are dishonest to say that is the reason he calls for a new investigation for that reason...and you simply and conveniently ignore all the other problems an accusations he has toward the NIST REPORT HOW DISHONEST OF YOU
James Quintiere's paper said:3. Conclusions
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.
James Quintiere's paper said:The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions.
the floor truss was just an example of another theory you are dishonest to say that is the reason he calls for a new investigation for that reason..
James Quintiere's paper said:3. Conclusions
I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.
An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.
The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.
