>>the video [_] tells the truth!

[The Power Hour]

This is part I of a series of videos I will share with you all to maybe help you better view what really took place on 9/11.

You will have your usual lynch mob coming in here to criticize each video,but if you can somehow weed trough the insults and immature one liners you may see something you never thought possible. I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed uploading them for your pleasure.


This first video clearly shows a computer monitor and an open book with no burn marks. Keep in mind according to RandomGuy and Chump the so called Passenger aircraft that did not make a large enough hole to even prove it was used in the bombing of the pentagon,was said to have such high heat on impact due to jet fuel that it melted all the passengers,the lugged ,and the black box that was never recovered so they say. Now ask yourselves..how can such a high heat massive fuel explosion destroy all that evidence and yet the Book and the monitor hardly have any dust or heat marks on them?

the video [_] tells the truth!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/911-by-mouse.gif

[txt msg]

lolllllllllll

[ChumpDumper]

the so called Passenger aircraft that did not make a large enough holeIt's large enough for the parts that could actually penetrate the reinforced conrete wall.
was said to have such high heat on impact due to jet fuel that it melted all the passengersThere were several passengers that were recovered more or less whole but severely burned. The pictures are too graphic to post here, but not difficult to find.
the lugged ,and the black box that was never recover so they say.Both flight data and cockpit voice recorders were recovered. The voice recorder was too damaged to get anything off it. Why are you making lies that are so easily exposed?

Because you want to prop yourself in the troll forum.

[txt msg]

Lol @ 9-11 conspiracies

bush haters?????hahhahaha

[The Power Hour]

It's large enough for the parts that could actually penetrate the reinforced conrete wall.

So if the wings did not penetrate where did they go?





There were several passengers that were recovered more or less whole but severely burned. The pictures are too graphic to post here, but not difficult to find.Both
There was only one burned body found and it was later found to be some maintenance worker already on the ground. The other pictures turned out to be from another disaster and some where later found to be photoshopped.







flight data and cockpit voice recorders were recovered. The voice recorder was too damaged to get anything off it.

You actually bought that lie? I know you love Bush but do you still think there is a tooth fairy also? out of all the planes that went down not one black box was ever salvageable, how ironic. If you really think that is true then you have no right not to believe half the crap we post then. you can't have it both ways brah!


Why are you making lies that are so easily exposed?

What have you exposed? You have not exposed crap, your just talking out your ass. just like your skateboard buddy RandonGuy You think cause you come in here what you say is the bottom line? You would be on the O'Reilly Factor if you knew so much. Your just a washed up Mod hoping to get my goat, not knowing I have no goats.


Because you want to prop yourself in the troll forum.
Who needs props when your already worshiped as a GOD?

[ChumpDumper]

So if the wings did not penetrate where did they go?Where do you expect them to be after hitting reinforced concrete at 500mph.
There was only one burned body found and it was later found to be some maintenance worker already on the ground. The other pictures turned out to be from another disaster and some where later found to be photoshopped.:lol Found by whom to be photoshopped? You?
You actually bought that lie?I'm supposed to buy YOUR lies instead?
I know you love BushWow. You really haven't been paying attention.
What have you exposed?Dude, you just said I love George W Bush.
Who needs props when your already worshiped as a GOD?Why can't GOD use his own screen name?

[The Power Hour]

Where do you expect them to be after hitting reinforced concrete at 500mph.

Why not? You think this is the first plane to hit a building? Did the wings turn into liquid? When we want proof of parts you all say it's all burned up in a ball of flames, But yet you want us all to believe it was not a missile? but acually a plane? then you post pics of plane parts? how dose that work?

Parts are gone when we try to prove a point, parts are there when you try to prove a point?

Do you see any of your contradictions? Come on brah lets keep it real!







:lol Found by whom to be photoshopped? You?I'm supposed to buy YOUR lies instead?Wow

Don't buy my words watch the Video





You really haven't been paying attention.Dude, you just said I love George W Bush.Why can't GOD use his own screen name?

The same way I sound stupid saying that you all are Bush lovers is the same way you all sound stupid calling anyone who questions 911 a Bush hater.

Post some Videos brah and save some of your reputation, many here are counting on you to debunk me.

[ChumpDumper]

Why not? You think this is the first plane to hit a building?If you have examples of planes hitting buildings constructed like the Pentagon at over 500mph, I'd love to see the pictures of those wings too.


Did the wings turn into liquid? When we want proof of parts you all say it's all burned up in a ball of flamesIt didn't all burn up. It was just reduced to thousands of small pieces.


But yet you want us all to believe it was not a missile? but acually a plane? then you post pics of plane parts? how dose that work?You want us to believe it was not a plane, bit actually a missile? Then you post pictures of the missile parts? How does that work?


Parts are gone when we try to prove a point, parts are there when you try to prove a point?

Do you see any of your contradictions? Come on brah lets keep it real!Show me the missile parts. Keep them real.


Don't buy my words watch the VideoGood pic of the section that collapsed but didn't burn. So?



The same way I sound stupid saying that you all are Bush lovers is the same way you all sound stupid calling anyone who questions 911 a Bush hater.So you're saying you like Bush?


Post some Videos brah and save some of your reputation, many here are counting on you to debunk me.What, like the ones you were bitching that the government was hiding when in fact they had been released for six months. How about you get up to date with your own bullshit first. Then you might have something approaching credibility.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is part I of a series of videos I will share with you all to maybe help you better view what really took place on 9/11.

You will have your usual lynch mob coming in here to criticize each video,but if you can somehow weed trough the insults and immature one liners you may see something you never thought possible. I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed uploading them for your pleasure.


This first video clearly shows a computer monitor and an open book with no burn marks. Keep in mind according to RandomGuy and Chump the so called Passenger aircraft that did not make a large enough hole to even prove it was used in the bombing of the pentagon,was said to have such high heat on impact due to jet fuel that it melted all the passengers,the lugged ,and the black box that was never recovered so they say. Now ask yourselves..how can such a high heat massive fuel explosion destroy all that evidence and yet the Book and the monitor hardly have any dust or heat marks on them?

the video [_] tells the truth!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/911-by-mouse.gif



where is the video? Chump mentioned it was to graphic to show here so where can I find it?

[smeagol]

So if a missile hit the Pentagon, where the hell are the Flight 77 passengers?

[Ya Vez]

the wings are behind the shooter on the grassy knoll...

[DoubtingThomas]

Hummm....very interesting thread. Makes me wonder.

[Crookshanks]

So if a missile hit the Pentagon, where the hell are the Flight 77 passengers?
They're on an island with Elvis and JFK - drinking Margaritas and partying with the Aliens they kept hidden in Area 51! Come on - you mean you DIDN"T know?!

[Yonivore]

You think this is the first plane to hit a building?
Probably the first to hit one at greater than 500mph.


Did the wings turn into liquid?
No; they disintegrated. In the picture below you can see, behind the large piece of fuselage, smaller bits of fuselage that were ejected, in a cloud of debris, from the point of impact with the building of Flight 77 hitting a reinforced concrete wall at over 500mph.


http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-lg.jpg

You conspiracists are freakin' nuts.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You conspiracists are freakin' nuts.

:lmao This coming from a person who worships the biggest conspirator of them all.

[smeagol]

C'mon Yoni, you know the government planted that piece of fusilage.

Sorry, my bad, it was photoshopped.

Dan, mouse, care to opine?

[Yonivore]

Here's a better photograph showing that the larger piece of debris probably came from an American Airlines jet fuselage -- and, most likely, from the area bearing one of the letters in "American."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Fragment.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

As hell is freezing over I agree with Yoni on this one. That does look like a part of an American Airliner..

[smeagol]

Dan . . . mouse . . . mookie . . . elpimpo . . . dan . . . mouse . . . anyone?

*crickets*

[IceColdBrewski]

Plenty of plane wreckage pics at the Pentagon here:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[RandomGuy]

The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.

[Nbadan]

This is Mouse's baby, I've never debated that it was a jetliner that hit the Pentagon, what I have debated is that it would be much harder to hit the Pentagon on the first try than it would be to hit the Towers.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, I have no idea why it would be more difficult to hit some part of this building.

http://www.triviaqueen.com/images/pentagon.gif

[RandomGuy]

Plenty of plane wreckage pics at the Pentagon here:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm


ah yes, "rense.com" where one is gauranteed to get completely objective information and the FULL story every time.

[Nbadan]

Again, I have no idea why it would be more difficult to hit some part of this building.

It's because your going 300-500 mph chumpy, by the time you see your target you've already flown over it.

[RandomGuy]

It's because your going 300-500 mph chumpy, by the time you see your target you've already flown over it.

Unless of course the building is so wide and dominant of the surrounding scenery that you can see if miles away, especially from a 100-200 feet in the air.

Does the pentagon fit that description dan?

[Nbadan]

Flying without transponders, navigation, and a guy who learned to fly small wing aircraft that's still an amazing feat.

[ChumpDumper]

It's because your going 300-500 mph chumpy, by the time you see your target you've already flown over it.Looking at the flight path, it's quite likely that they saw the 29 acre building when they were 3.5 miles away from it at 7000-8000 ft before looping around again to lose altitue and lining up for the final approach.

[ChumpDumper]

Flying without transponders, navigation, and a guy who learned to fly small wing aircraft that's still an amazing feat.What do you mean no navigation? They used the autopilot until they were 35 miles out. These guys weren't good pilots, but they weren't completely ignorant of the controls of airliners. I've provided links with airline pilots saying it was very possible for these pilots to do what they did with their reported level of training. What do you have to dispute them?

[Yonivore]

It's because your going 300-500 mph chumpy, by the time you see your target you've already flown over it.
Actually, there's evidence he hit a little short and skidded into the Pentagon. With a visibility near limitless, there was little chance of overshooting the building -- even at better than 500mph.

What would have been hard for anyone but an experienced pilot to do, would be to "lawn dart" the thing into the "Ground Zero" kiosk in the Pentagon courtyard.

And, as for difficulty in flying an airliner, if you're not trying for a smooth landing, pretty much anyone -- with basic flight lessons -- who takes over in flight, could have achieved what was done with American Flight #77 as long as they had two arms and two feet and weren't yanking the controls.

[Nbadan]

There is a lot of evidence out there that Hani Hanjour was a very bad pilot...


At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said

Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story)

[Nbadan]

On December 12, 2000, [Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour] were settling in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight training. Brush up? He could barely fly a Cessna. By early 2001, he was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from continuing, but he persisted.

Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm)

[Nbadan]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11&notFound=true)

[ChumpDumper]

There is a lot of evidence out there that Hani Hanjour was a very bad pilot...I would not hire Hanjour as an airline pilot. But thanks for admitting he was familiar with airliner controls since he worked with simulators.

And again, is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building from the air?

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/photos/orig_pentagon_approach.jpg

[smeagol]

"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001


"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001


"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001


"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002


"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

Are all these people lying?

Are these guys paid by the government?

[RandomGuy]

Actually, there's evidence he hit a little short and skidded into the Pentagon. With a visibility near limitless, there was little chance of overshooting the building -- even at better than 500mph.

What would have been hard for anyone but an experienced pilot to do, would be to "lawn dart" the thing into the "Ground Zero" kiosk in the Pentagon courtyard.

And, as for difficulty in flying an airliner, if you're not trying for a smooth landing, pretty much anyone -- with basic flight lessons -- who takes over in flight, could have achieved what was done with American Flight #77 as long as they had two arms and two feet and weren't yanking the controls.

This actually jives with the witness descriptions that it hit a little shy.

[sabar]

So... every passenger on Flight 77 was killed by the goverenment to cover it up, plus the couple hundred witnesses on Interstate 395. Also, I know most Americans are dumb, but most people can tell the difference between a 53 meter long aircraft with wings and a 5.5 meter long cruise missile with stubs, no cockpit, window, ect. Not to mention that aircraft don't leave huge trails of visible exaust.

This is one of the weakest points in the conspiracy, the one people seem most reluctant to back.

[sabar]

Flying without transponders, navigation, and a guy who learned to fly small wing aircraft that's still an amazing feat.Also as a random sidenote, I image nearly anyone here on SpursTalk could fly an aircraft into the pentagon with no experience. It only takes a few minutes at the controls before you have a feel of your speed and such. Yeah, the thing can be going 500 mph, but it really isn't that fast in comparison to your visibility.

[RandomGuy]

If there is an evil conspiracy, and they put out obviously false evidence for most to find, then anybody who believes all the "evidence" is either not intelligent enough to figure out that the fake stuff IS fake, or lying about what they believe in order to spread the disinformation.

IF you believe all the conspiracy crap AND there actually IS an evil conspiracy, then you are either stupid or part of that conspiracy, and by definition, evil.

If there ISN'T an evil conspiracy, then you can't be evil (because you can't be part of a conspiracy that doesn't exist), but you CAN be stupid.

THEREFORE

IF you believe ALL the conspiracy evidence you MUST fall into one of two categories:

1) Stupid

2) Lying and evil.

[mullet]

i think NASCAR was behind 9/11. it was around that time they started showing it on fox sundays, and what could boost ratings more than trying to inject patriotism into the country. HuGE conspiracy!

[Nbadan]

Can anyone tell me the seating capacities of all three aircraft and how many people were actually, officially, on each flight?

[ChumpDumper]

Can you not look that up yourself?

[Nbadan]

Also as a random sidenote, I image nearly anyone here on SpursTalk could fly an aircraft into the pentagon with no experience. It only takes a few minutes at the controls before you have a feel of your speed and such. Yeah, the thing can be going 500 mph, but it really isn't that fast in comparison to your visibility.

You can try it for yourself on any flight simulation program, it's not that easy to hit a 110 story building much less a 5 story one.

[Nbadan]

Can you not look that up yourself?

I already know.

[ChumpDumper]

And again, is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building from the air?

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/photos/orig_pentagon_approach.jpg

Maybe I should rephrase that to make it easier to get an actual response.

Is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building that you have flown within 4 miles of once already and know is situated on the Potomac River one mile northwest of a major international airport and at the confluence of two major roads, one of which provides a near straight line guide into a side of the 29 acre building?

[ChumpDumper]

I already know.I already know the answer to my question about the 29 acre building's being difficult to see.

Are you going to answer that one?

[ChumpDumper]

You can try it for yourself on any flight simulation program, it's not that easy to hit a 110 story building much less a 5 story one.Have you tried to hit a five story building that covers 29 acres?

[RandomGuy]

I already think I know, but really I don't.

The story...

Another problem in the official account is that, although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names...
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.htm

Our take...

There are several arguments used to advance the “no hijackers on the passenger manifests” case, but they’re not nearly as definitive as their proponents like to pretend. David Ray Griffin’s assertion above, for instance, is footnoted with this explanation:

The flight manifest for AA 11 that was published by CNN can be seen at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html. The manifests for the other flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html .
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.htm

There’s an obvious clue here in the URL, which tells us it’s a “victims” list. Is it really surprising that the suspected hijackers wouldn’t be included? And in fact if you look on the site you’ll find CNN specifically say those names have been left out.

Further, the CNN lists aren’t an official manifest anyway. They were compiled from press reports, not names obtained directly from the airlines. We’ve more on this here.

When we’ve made this point, a common response has been: why? Why did CNN have to cobble together a list in this way, why didn’t they get the details direct from the airlines? Look at what one of the airlines says, though, and there’s an obvious answer: a UAL press release says that “At the request of the victims' families, a number of names have been withheld from release”. The same press release does list many passenger names, however (see here or here).

If the airlines wanted to contact family members before releasing names, then this would also explain why the hijackers details would be held back. It would plainly take longer to get in touch with citizens of other countries, than the families of Americans.

At least one newspaper reported that it had obtained the manifests from the two planes hijacked from Boston, though, and the hijackers did appear on the lists. They even printed their seat numbers. See the details here.

This early release of information tends to be ignored, though, in favour of other evidence showing “no Arab names on the passenger lists”. One commonly-quoted example was produced by Thomas Olmsted, who filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for the names of the Flight 77 victims. A list eventually arrived which did not include the names of hijackers, which he claimed indicated that they were not aboard (see an article here). But he’s wrong. Here’s why.

Olmsted also tries to compare his list with the CNN list to show there are inconsistencies. And that doesn’t stand up, either.

Further, journalist and author Terry McDermott reports that he obtained passenger lists from the FBI while researching a book, and they did contain the hijackers names. Read more details and see the full lists here.

And the complete passenger lists have subsequently been released as part of an exhibit at the Moussaoui trial, where a Flash applet details exactly who sat where, who made phone calls, and more. We’ve uploaded it to this page, though beware, in total these are more than 15MB in size so you’ll need a broadband connection.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

[RandomGuy]

Ok guys, I apologize ahead of time.

I am going to post some big ass gifs.

SORRY SORRY SORRY.

[RandomGuy]

um at the top of the next page.

[RandomGuy]

If I can get there from here...

[RandomGuy]

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Flight11Flash.gif Ah well. Here is the first.

[ChumpDumper]

If you are going to post the gifs of the manifests, just give the address to that page.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.911myths.com/html/official_manifest_images.html

all of the rest of the images can be found here.

UNLIKE THE CONSPIRANUTS THIS WEBSITE LISTS ITS SOURCES, INCLUDING WHERE IT GOT THE GIFS, SO YOU CAN FACT CHECK IT.

[RandomGuy]

If you are going to post the gifs of the manifests, just give the address to that page.


heh. already figerred that out for myself. I was typing that post before I read this one. :oops

[ChumpDumper]

That just means that the LA Times is also in on the conspiracy.

[RandomGuy]

Can anyone tell me the seating capacities of all three aircraft and how many people were actually, officially, on each flight?

DAN?

MOUSE?

MOUSE ALIASES?

MISC MOONBATS?

[ChumpDumper]

Things I've learned today:

There was no fire in the WTC towers.

Five story buildings that cover 29 acres of land are difficult to see twice.

The LA Times is behind 9/11.

[Nbadan]

Let me make things a little easier for you internet research disadvantaged...


The plane was a Boeing 757-222 on a morning route from Newark International Airport (now known as Newark Liberty International Airport) in Newark, New Jersey, near New York City, to San Francisco International Airport near San Francisco, California (EWR-SFO). It had 182 seats but was carrying only 37 passengers (33 regular passengers and four hijackers) and seven crew members: two pilots, the captain Jason M. Dahl and his first officer, LeRoy Homer; and five flight attendants. Because one passenger had booked two seats, some early accounts said there were 38 passengers on board. The four hijackers were seated in first class.
A flag flies over Gate A17. United 93 pushed back from this gate at 8.01AM on September 11, 2001. Two hours later it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania
A flag flies over Gate A17. United 93 pushed back from this gate at 8.01AM on September 11, 2001. Two hours later it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania

The aircraft was scheduled to depart at 8:00 a.m. but did not lift off until 8:42 due to routine heavy morning traffic.[2] Had the flight departed on time, it would likely have been hijacked around the same time as the other flights, and there is little chance the passengers would have had time

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93)

38 passengers on a flight of 182 possible seats, on a morning flight from two major hubs?

[ChumpDumper]

Did CNN have the full manifest at noon on 9/12?

Yes or no?

[Nbadan]

Aircraft type Boeing 767-223ER
Operator American Airlines
Tail number N334AA
Passengers 81 (incl. 5 hijackers)
Crew 11
Survivors 0

American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 -- Fatalities 92 including 11 crew....81 out of 181 seats full

Wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11)

81 out of 181 seats full

[ChumpDumper]

Why did you completely change your source from CNN on 9/12/2001 to anonymous wiki author?

[Nbadan]

Aircraft type Boeing 767-222
Operator United Airlines
Tail number N612UA
Passengers 56 (incl. 5 hijackers)
Crew 9
Survivors 0


American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200 -- Fatalities 64.


Boeing 757-223
Operator American Airlines
Tail number N644AA
Passengers 58 (incl 5 hijackers)
Crew 6
Survivors 0

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200 -- Fatalities 44


Aircraft type Boeing 757-222
Operator United Airlines
Tail number N591UA
Passengers 37 (including 4 hijackers)
Crew 7
Survivors 0

Anyone seeing a pattern developing here?

[ChumpDumper]

Why did you completely change your source from CNN on 9/12/2001 to anonymous wiki author?

Here's the link you gave, in case you forgot.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone seeing a pattern developing here?Your pattern of not answering questions is well-established.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone seeing a pattern developing here?


..of airlines over-scheduling a major hub?

THIS proves what exactly?

That US airlines make bad decisions? :lol

Tell me something I DON'T know.

[RandomGuy]

Tell ya what.

Why don't you look at the balance sheet and statement of cashflows of those airlines from 2001.

Better yet, do it by the first two quarters of that year. You can look up their SEC filings.

US airlines were waging a rather brutal turf war over hubs. The best way to do that is to overschedule flights.

THAT

and the combination of a the beginnings of an economic slowdown, meaning that not only were they over scheduling flights, their predictions about how much they could fill even then fell short.

Anything else?

[Nbadan]

Let's summarize...

American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.

American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.

United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.

[ChumpDumper]

Fascinating. Do you have the capacities and passenger and crew counts for every cross-country flight that morning from Dulles, Logan and Newark airports for comparison?

[Extra Stout]

Let's summarize...

American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.

American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.

United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.
To complete your analysis, you'll need to produce occupancy data for those routes on dates leading up to 9/11, in order to demonstrate that the light passenger numbers are unusual.

[RandomGuy]

Let's summarize...

American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.

American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.

United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.


FOR THE QUARTER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO 9-11


United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
Statements of Consolidated Operations (Unaudited)
(In Millions)




Three Months
Ended June 30

Operating revenues:
Passenger [2001 $ 4,028] [2000 $ 4,567]
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/101001/000010100101500008/bodyua.htm

Hows that for a summary AND a pattern?

[Nbadan]

American Airlines Flight 77: 29% of capacity.

United Airlines Flight 93: 18.5% of capacity.

American Airlines Flight 11: 44.9% capacity

United Airlines Flight 175: 39% capacity.

Can anyone tell me the national avg capacity rate for all airline flights from one coast, major hub, to another coast, major hub?

[ChumpDumper]

Can anyone tell me the capcities of all the cross country flights originating from Dulles, Logan and Newark airports on the morning of Tuesday, September 11?

[RandomGuy]

Granted this doesn't speak for that hub, but it STRONGLY suggests that low occupancy rates were more a function of overall industry and economic conditions.

DOES ANYBODY REALLY DOUBT THAT I COULD LOOK UP EVERY DAMN AIRLINES' QUARTERLY REPORT AND BACK UP THIS ASSERTION?

So much for "scientific method". :lol

First thing you do is examine wider contexts for confounding variables.

Nah, the obvious answer is "They did it".

[RandomGuy]

American Airlines Flight 77: 29% of capacity.

United Airlines Flight 93: 18.5% of capacity.

American Airlines Flight 11: 44.9% capacity

United Airlines Flight 175: 39% capacity.

Can anyone tell me the national avg capacity rate for all airline flights from one coast, major hub, to another coast, major hub?

I can.

Give me a time period and a few days for research.

It is in the financial statements if you can trick out the numbers.

I did a report comparing airlines for one of my accounting classes.

------------------
begin edit

To REALLY answer this question you need to give a time period though.

I assume the data you have/are looking for was from that time period, and not a few year after, when airlines started cutting back on unprofitable flights.

[ChumpDumper]

Is there a point to any of this?

[RandomGuy]

Is there a point to any of this?

Not really.

It does prove that RG knows how to read financial statements and research quarterly filings. :nerd :D

That may be the only thing it proves.

[ChumpDumper]

Is Dan going to give all the stats of all the cross-country planes that flew from all those airports that morning?

Or is he just going to move on to something else like it was a scheme to boost the ratings of Frasier.

[Nbadan]

Industry sources said post-Labor Day isn't normally a strong time and air traffic is off this year, but passenger loads on the four flights are off about 20 percent from similar routes last September.

"They may have done some research,'' said John Hotard, an American Airlines spokesperson. "If it's an issue of being able to control a fewer number of passengers, they may have been astute enough to know that Tuesday and Wednesday are your lower load factor days.''

Hotard said the airline hasn't detected any unusual booking activity on its two flights, dismissing speculation that the hijackers bought a large number of unused tickets.

CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/hijacked.planes/)

[RandomGuy]

Is Dan going to give all the stats of all the cross-country planes that flew from all those airports that morning?

Or is he just going to move on to something else like it was a scheme to boost the ratings of Frasier.

I finished reading though the quarterly filings of united and american.

SUMMARY:

We have a lot of overcapacity and are losing money.

Both airlines were slowlyreducing capacity, but business traveller cutbacks were greater than the airlines predictions, so they were caught with a LOT of extra capacity that they have only now started to correct.

[RandomGuy]

Is there a point to any of this?

To distract from all the other stupid shit that is flat out wrong?

Better to put in a coincidence that you know is slightly suggestive, than to risk being proven wrong again, I guess.

This s*** is weeaaak.

[ChumpDumper]

But there were fewer people flying!

On a Tuesday morning!

Wake up sheeple!

[Nbadan]

More:


The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.

Linky (http://www.nywtc911.com/hijack.htm)

[Nbadan]

The Hijacking of American 77


At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.

Linky (http://www.nywtc911.com/hijack.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

passenger loads on the four flights are off about 20 percent from similar routes last September.
Let's see the huge difference dan is trying to show here in bold.

American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 15 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 9 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.


American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 20 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.


United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 14 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.

[The Power Hour]

For some reason Chump in his Vodka induced mind thinks a plane smashing into a building at 500 miles per hour will not leave any marks where the wings and the huge engines would hit. As seen in the photo below you see no sign of any wings or engine marks but yet according to him we are to believe they smashed into millions of pieces...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/petagon-hole.jpg

Speaking of millions of pieces..(Chumps contradictions exposed) why is it when we want proof of wings, engines , and people , they always seem to have been smased into millions of pieces. and yet when you need a produce a plane part? you have all these nice clean bright red and blue metal aircraft parts just sitting their in the open?

That piece of so called aircraft debris that looked like American airlines was later found to not even be part of the same metal they use. It's not hard to paint an unmanned aircraft to look like Southwest airlines if you want. Many eye witnesses saw men wearing ties placing small light weight parts through out the debris field, as they Covered other parts using blue tarps. But that footage will come later.


It is not easy to debate with people who have not at least seen 1 of the 3 top 911 films. No one says you have to believe any of it, But by watching the films you don't have to ask basic simple questions that will only slow down the debate as we want to move froward with the videos. After all even though I may not like Gay cowboys I would at least watch Broke back mountain before I engage myself in any form of debate. It only makes sense.

now back to the TRUTH after all the video [_] tells the truth!

Some of you keep asking for proof of Termite charges being placed. A top demolition expert shows the TV crew how they use linear shape charges at an angle to produce the same cuts seen in the WTC steel beams that where still sticking out on the ground after the so called collapse.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/thermite-1.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Speaking of millions of pieces..(Chumps contradictions exposed) why is it when we want proof of wings, engines , and people , they always seem to have been smased into millions of pieces. and yet when you need a produce a plane part? you have all these nice clean bright red and blue metal aircraft parts just sitting their in the open?There are pictures of engine parts and landing gear and people widely available. Not my fault you don't even try to look for them.

[ChumpDumper]

Some of you keep asking for proof of Termite charges being placed.An animated gif is proof of thermite? :lmao

[Nbadan]

Let's see the huge difference dan is trying to show here in bold.

American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 15 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.

United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 9 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.


American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 20 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.


United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.

Dan says that the fact there are 14 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.

Stay off the vodka chumpy. Either the 911 conspirators knew exactly what flights to target or they were extremely lucky.

[ChumpDumper]

Stay off the vodka chumpy. Either the 911 conspirators knew exactly what flights to target or they were extremely lucky.They knew that these flights would have an average of 15 fewer passengers onboard compared to the previous year?

Please give me the stats of all the cross country flights originating from Dulles, Newark and Logan Airports that morning so you can show just how big a difference there was.

[The Power Hour]

This next video shows a steel framed building that burned for over 20 hours and did not collapse and yet it was still strong enough to support a heavy craine


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/truth-2.gif

[ChumpDumper]

And please Dan, tell me what ratio of hijackers to passengers would have deterred the hijackers from their plan? I'm sure you have that magic number as well.

[ChumpDumper]

This next video shows a steel framed building that burned for over 20 hours and did not collapse and yet it was still strong enough to support a heavy craineThe steel frame did indeed collapse while the concrete used in the structure remained standing. The building was constructed using a completely different method and was not hit by a jetliner traveling over 500mph. The building had to be demolished. Sometimes a picture is worth nothing.

[The Power Hour]

More truth to come...............



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/the-truth-1.gif

[ChumpDumper]

You might want to compress them more some more while you are at it. Quality shouldn't be a concern for you.

[Yonivore]

American Airlines Flight 77: 29% of capacity.

United Airlines Flight 93: 18.5% of capacity.

American Airlines Flight 11: 44.9% capacity

United Airlines Flight 175: 39% capacity.

Can anyone tell me the national avg capacity rate for all airline flights from one coast, major hub, to another coast, major hub?
Yes. For those flights, on that Tuesday morning, 32.85%. Any more stupid questions?

[ChumpDumper]

32.85%

Just like they planned it.

[RandomGuy]

This next video shows a steel framed building that burned for over 20 hours and did not collapse and yet it was still strong enough to support a heavy craine


The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

[RandomGuy]

For some reason Chump in his Vodka induced mind thinks a plane smashing into a building at 500 miles per hour will not leave any marks where the wings and the huge engines would hit. As seen in the photo below you see no sign of any wings or engine marks but yet according to him we are to believe they smashed into millions of pieces...
speaking of millions of pieces..(Chumps contradictions exposed) why is it when we want proof of wings, engines , and people , they always seem to have been smased into millions of pieces. and yet when you need a produce a plane part? you have all these nice clean bright red and blue metal aircraft parts just sitting their in the open?

That piece of so called aircraft debris that looked like American airlines was later found to not even be part of the same metal they use. It's not hard to paint an unmanned aircraft to look like Southwest airlines if you want. Many eye witnesses saw men wearing ties placing small light weight parts through out the debris field, as they Covered other parts using blue tarps. But that footage will come later.


It is not easy to debate with people who have not at least seen 1 of the 3 top 911 films. No one says you have to believe any of it, But by watching the films you don't have to ask basic simple questions that will only slow down the debate as we want to move froward with the videos. After all even though I may not like Gay cowboys I would at least watch Broke back mountain before I engage myself in any form of debate. It only makes sense.

now back to the TRUTH after all the video [_] tells the truth!

Some of you keep asking for proof of Termite charges being placed. A top demolition expert shows the TV crew how they use linear shape charges at an angle to produce the same cuts seen in the WTC steel beams that where still sticking out on the ground after the so called collapse.



a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[RandomGuy]

REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[ChumpDumper]

many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.I might believe that if you put in in a gif with a glowing font.

[RandomGuy]

I might believe that if you put in in a gif with a glowing font.

many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

[ChumpDumper]

Not quite the same. Ask mouse if he'll do it for you.

[RandomGuy]

Not quite the same. Ask mouse if he'll do it for you.

If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick. :elephant

[smeagol]

So now the fact that there were low occupance rates at the hijacked planes proves a conspiracy? Again, through as much shit against the wall as you can in the hope that some will stick. Classic conspiracy theorist.

And dan is accusing other posters of drinking to much vodka?

You are beyond hope, danny-boy

[The Power Hour]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/wtc-beams-large.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Wow a new time stamp.

[IceColdBrewski]

Yep. That's definitely the WTC. No doubt about it. :rolleyes

$1200.00 for that? Yep, you took it up the ass on that deal. :lol

[DeBunkChump]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/wtc-beams-3.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Preofessional looking time stamp. no way that could be faked.

D for the new troll name. Caps are all wrong.

A+ for showing the blast-proof, fire-proof, thermite-proof rubber band though.

I wonder what C-3 means....

[mookie2001]

many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.thousands of pounds is nothing in building that big

[sabar]

I like how the timestamp is losslessly compressed while the rest of the video is lossy. Obviously post-production.

Anyways, are you done spewing garbage? At least Dan and co don't flat out lie and create fake evidence when they talk about 9/11 conspiracy.

[DeBunkChump]

Here's a better photograph showing that the larger piece of debris probably came from an American Airlines jet fuselage -- and, most likely, from the area bearing one of the letters in "American."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Fragment.jpg



If you look at the picture you will notice the white stripe around the large aircraft is around a foot and a half, The piece they say came from the so called aircraft that hit the pentagon clearly shows the white stripe around 4 inches.

Also, if you look at the white stripe on the larger aircraft you will see it has a blue stripe on top of it. In the piece they found there is no blue stripe to be found..

In addition, the small piece has many small holes in it that clearly shows it came from a much smaller aircraft that uses those type of rivets.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/wtc-beams-large.gif

[smeagol]

So what hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757 nor a missile, it was a smaller aircraft?

Hmmmm . . . Ok.

[Nbadan]

Nice, Mouse is making a good case that maybe it wasn't AA 77.

[Nbadan]

Here is the seating capacity for Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Flight77Flash.gif

Remember, this plane disappeared from radar for a time and was flying without transponders.

[Extra Stout]

Nice, Mouse is making a good case that maybe it wasn't AA 77.
mouse is making a good case that the markings on the piece of debris are one of the letters in 'American.'

[Nbadan]

What letter would that be? The rivet pattern makes that hard to believe.

[Extra Stout]

Assuming the rivets run circumferentially, I believe you are looking at the letter 'n' from the starboard side.

[The Power Hour]

I should sell this shit to Alex Jones.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-debunks.jpg

[IceColdBrewski]

Assuming the rivets run circumferentially, I believe you are looking at the letter 'n' from the starboard side.

That's exactly what it is. Anyone with half a brain can see it. But Mouse wants to play his little games. :rolleyes

[IceColdBrewski]

Here's an eyewitness who has no problems saying, "contact me if you have any questions." Here's your chance Mouse. Contact him and see if his account doesn't convince you of the REAL truth.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.html

[Extra Stout]

That's exactly what it is. Anyone with half a brain can see it. But Mouse wants to play his little games. :rolleyes
You have to admit, the video skit was pretty funny. At least I thought so.

[The Power Hour]

Assuming the rivets run circumferentially, I believe you are looking at the letter 'n' from the starboard side.

wrong find another letter.


The letter N only has one curve and there is a red [] notch on the left hand side. plus the letters have a thinner white stripe then what you see. You guys will just keep finding different letters until you can prove your point that will be meaningless once the actually footage is released. what ever helps you sleep at night fellas.

As for the man placing the shape charge, that was to show how they are placed. I never said that man was inside the WTC.

[Extra Stout]

wrong find another letter.


The letter N only has one curve and there is a red [] notch on the left hand side. plus the letters have a thinner white stripe then what you see. You guys will just keep finding different letters until you can prove your point that will be meaningless once the actually footage is released. what ever helps you sleep at night fellas.
:lmao More videos!

[ChumpDumper]

As for the man placing the shape charge, that was to show how they are placed. I never said that man was inside the WTC."Hidden camera of basement WTC on 09/10/01"

[Extra Stout]

http://www.911review.com/coverup/imgs/fitcloser.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

I can't wait to see the "actually" footage that you actually said would be shown Thursday. Then you actually lied about actually being on dialup.

[IceColdBrewski]

As for the man placing the shape charge, that was to show how they are placed. I never said that man was inside the WTC.

Oh goodie. More games. C'mon Mouse. Give it up already. Nobody's buying it. Nice try though. Try stirring the pot some other time.

[IceColdBrewski]

I can't wait to see the "actually" footage that you actually said would be shown Thursday. Then you actually lied about actually being on dialup.

I'd lie too if I got raped for $1200.00

[ChumpDumper]

I'd lie too if I got raped for $1200.00He actually lied about that too.

[RandomGuy]

He actually lied about that too.

Mouse= :dramaquee

RG= :rolleyes

Although, in the strictest logical sense, one cannot reach a conclusion about the validity of a theory by the quality of its adherents, if one has to reach a decision based on available evidence and the way it is presented, it is quite reasonable to place a high bar when talking about this subject, and unerringly mouse et al. have proven quite adept at the limbo...