that was george bush, grandson of prescott bush, a known nazi, who covered this up from the start. the u.s. was had. if the u.s. ever gets over the fact that they were made fools of they can get back to business by first arresting george bush and his cohorts.
I am not obliged to publish such insults from someone like you on my comments pages. I am an honest researcher, although I do not claim to be right, all of the time, but I do know that there are more questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered, than there are plausible answers within the 9/11 Commission's report.
You are clearly not interested in a respectful dialogue, so I am blocking you.
@ctcole77 - It seems to me that Mr. Lawsome prefers to deal with fairy tails more than with sheer facts. On the clip he abuses facts and orchestrates theories suitable to his agenda.
He failed to refute a very simple and crucial fact that I've presented here namely; If 9/11 is an inside job why then, Al Qaeda was so keen to take responsibility over the attack, and why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack and by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?
"Before you open you piehole gullible shill, Al Jazeera didn't waterboard him."
If you would like to remove your baseless "shill" insult, and give some references to your claim about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s "confession" we may have some basis for a dialogue, until then, I've removed your comment.
Along with working as an engineer for 12 years, I also have a degree in history.
I have no respect for people who spread fairy tales like "the CIA created Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan". A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE.
Bin Laden stated many times he would never work with westerners. Yes, the CIA provided weapons to Pakistan for distribution to the Afghan rebels. No, the CIA NEVER ran training camps nor cooperated with Afghan rebels.
How strange that even the now staunchly Zionist BBC has admitted that the CIA created "al Qaeda". You may have a degree in history, but that doesn't mean that the history you've learnt is accurate.
What you have just written is so wrong, that anyone who is interested need only do a search for:
This video fails so many standards of logic, but the most prominent and repetitive is the argument from ignorance. Why should anyone believe a Truther if they can't get Logic 101 right?
I’m really confused here, If 9/11 is an inside job why then, Al Qaeda was so keen to take responsibility over the attack, and why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack knowing full well that he'll be persecuted by all major western's intelligent agencies and that by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?
Your country is China, so you may not be able to access everything, but try a search phrase like:
bin laden denies responsibility for 911
You will find many articles to read.
Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA and bin Laden was used to help get Russia out of Afghanistan, then the CIA turned on him and he has been blamed for all kinds of actions ever since. Bin Laden was more intelligent than to claim responsibility for 9/11, and the CIA's claim that he did it is false.
@alawson911 - Mr. Lawson, you can't turn black into white just by saying so! google - osama bin laden takes responsibility for 9 11 and you'll have it, black on white all over...
"Osama bin Laden said for the first time that he ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a videotape made public today, and he accused President Bush of "misleading the American people" about the attacks."
Osama bin Laden has denied taking the responsibility for 9/11. You are entitled to believe what you like, but people lies, so lease look deeper than the NY Times for your information, and an article written by a person whose name indicates she may be Jewish.
The nation that benefited most from 9/11 was Israel, bin Laden would have known exactly what would have been rained down on Arabs and Muslims had he been responsible. In the end, it was, because the world was lied to.
The interesting thing is that you seem to be arguing against the most logical answer to your question:
"...why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack knowing full well that he'll be persecuted by all major western's intelligent agencies and that by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?"
Many people are accused of crimes that they didn't commit, because it suits someone else's agenda. Bin Laden was never tried and convicted in a court of law. He was murdered.
@alawson911 - The interesting thing is that you seem to be arguing against the most logical answer to your question: "...why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind”...
-
The interesting and most EMBARRASSING thing is the fact that you failed to answer such a trivial and simple fact.
@alawson911 - (cont.)You say; “written by a person whose name indicates she may be Jewish” I say; it’s an ASUMPTION and an utter irrelevant argument. It smells and implies like a raciest remark. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
You say; “The nation that benefited most from 9/11 was Israel” and I ask you; why should Israel care if the Americans are attacking bunch of Jihadists in Afghanistan, a country which has no border with IL nor direct conflict with her?
Why would implying that someone is Jewish be racist? Judaism is a religion, not a race. Many Jews are intolerant of other people, calling themselves "The Chosen People" so there is good reason to be wary of what some of them write, particularly in the NY Times, because their agenda is to protect Israel, no matter what.
As to the true perpetrators of 9/11, you are entitled to think what what you like, but I am not obliged to agree with you, so I will not be responding further.
@alawson911 - You say; “Osama bin Laden has denied taking the responsibility for 9/11” I say; PROVE IT!
You say; “You are entitled to believe what you like, but people lies” I say; it has nothing to do with “believe”, unless “9 11 is an inside job” turned into a cult religion. It has to do thogh, with Bin Laden taking responsibility on camera, which is a fact.
9/11 was a brilliantly evil operation, planned and executed by our own government. It was a false flag attack. Even the FBI didn't charge OBL for the 9/11 "attacks".
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If explosions were heard in the basement of WTC 1, why did the building fail at the point of impact?
If the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, how did the nanothermite charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the building?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
You were caught lying when you falsely claimed that NIST denied that people heard things blow up in the fires. Now, you misrepresent a quote from NIST stating--correctly--that window breakage patterns consistent with explosives and characteristic sounds of demolition were not observed. Your desperate squirming reveals that your fantasy has been destroyed. NO physical evidence exists for explosives use anywhere in the WTC complex.
There you go again. Don't you realise that making things up is telling lies?
Of course I cannot be certain that I have not said or written something that may have been deliberately misconstrued, by someone like you, but I do not think that I have ever claimed anything close to the following:
Anthony Lawson wrote/said: "NIST denied that people heard things blow up in the fires."
Please supply evidence for this alleged statement of mine.
Anthony, YOU are the one who doesn't realize that making up things is telling lies. You have stated that NIST said there were no explosions. That is utter nonsense. NIST said that there was no evidence of EXPLOSIVES. Stop these silly games and salvage a scrap of your self-respect.
You did fine work exposing the no-planers. You can't defend the indefensible. 9/11 was not an inside job.
What do you play with when you are not playing with words?
NIST denied that there were any explosions caused by explosives that were used to cause the building to collapse.
That is undeniable, because NIST claims that explosives had nothing to do with the collapse of the building. That is the issue.
I have never claimed that NIST denied that windows did not break explosively or that there were no other explosive sounds. If I did, then give me the quote.
You stated that NIST denied that there were explosions. That is incorrect. NIST explained why there were no explosives in WTC 7 or anywhere else in the WTC complex.
I notice that one of my posts from three days ago comments on your statement about NIST. Your post, the one I'm responding to, is missing.
If you are ever interested in totally DEBUNKING 911 twoof, just ask any 911 twoofer if they actually read the 911 Commission Report. They will "pretend" to have read it. But when they make moronic statements like NIST denied that there were any explosions caused by explosives that were used to cause the building to collapse, you know they are lying.
At 6:46, we're supposed to "listen carefully" because we might miss the sound of the explosive detonation that brought down Building 7, which was so faint that it didn't even disturb the people in the video, chatting a block away.
So if I understand you correctly, the "hallmarks" of controlled demolition include burning out of control for several hours, gushing smoke through various fire holes, and dull thuds before the building's collapse?
No you don't understand me correctly, and you never will, because your mind is made up. NIST claimed that a single support or cross beam buckled and caused the uniform collapse, during which the top of the building was in free fall for just over 2 seconds. But a buckling support column or beam does not sound like a single low frequency explosion. And, on top of that, NIST had claimed that there were no explosions, whatsoever, before this video turned up.
@alawson911 Um, only we'd expect the sound of a massive CD to be louder than the dull thud we have to listen carefully even to hear in your video.
The building had been gushing smoke for several hours, after all. Since hardhats were walking around telling everybody "this building's coming down" well before the collapse, it seems like its condition was no secret. Or are we supposed to believe the evil henchmen were telling everyone on the street about the demolition before it happened?
No, evil henchmen of the elite lurk on the forums, trying to bully anyone into conforming to the official fairy tale that is 9/11.
You're not seriously suggesting that WTC7 collapsed without the aid of explosives? If you are, I figure you'll stay the hell away from any high-rise building because you never know when one starts coming down again.
Don't be an idiot. The hallmarks of controlled demolition are just the dull thuds.
That is because, like every child knows, controlled demolitions require pin-point accurately placed SMALL charges so that the demolition will cause the building to implode upon its own footprint. WTC7 did exactly that.
I would remind you that those who comment on JREF are also nameless.
Your comment has been removed, but when you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of his oft-quoted statement:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
do get back to me.
You will not browbeat me into submission. The aircraft parts were never forensically identified, including that dumped engine, which constitutes reasonable doubt that the plane was UA175.
There will be no recantation: you have been exposed as a fraud, I am sorry to say. There is not the slightest doubt that UA 175 hit the south tower. Your mindless, infantile antics cannot stand reality on its head. When you get around to explaining those teribly inconvenient phone calls from UA 175 and explain the presence of the remains of passengers and crew members at Ground Zero, you will have taken the first step on the road to mature, responsible debate.
This comment as an example of the way in which people like Mr Wieck claim that they are about to reveal important testimony, but who, when "called" on their claims, refuse to so.
You cannot fault me on these two facts:
The plane's were never forensically identified, and authenticated-transponder contact WAS lost, prior to them hitting the WTC.
That constitutes reasonable doubt that the planes that hit the WTC were not what was claimed by the 9/11 Commission. /cont...
The claim that UA 175 hit the south tower was NOT the product of the 9/11 Commission. The fate of UA 175 was established by the air traffic controllers, United Airlines, the FAA, and the crash investigators at Ground Zero. The plane, as you have been told MANY TIMES, was NEVER lost to primary radar.
You have NEVER offered the slightest evidence to support your fantasy that there is a mystery over the identities of the planes that crashed into the twin towers.
As for the DNA and alleged phone calls, until these issues are subjected to the tests of cross examination, in court, I see no reason to blindly trust ANYONE.
Would you not protest if you were accused, tried and convicted without due process?
Presenting a so-called investigative local TV programme does not make you the sole authority on what should or should not be questioned, but phrases such as:
Pray tell, what exactly are those minor modifications?
And as we can see in the video, the parts that are from a 747 have those spigot-like things ADDED to the ring whereas a 767 does not have those features.
It may be a minor modification but there is no explanation that this supposedly 767 engine part has features added that are only meant for a 747.
@RonaldWieck , you're simply a fool or a disinfo shill. That was not an airliner that hit that building. Go back to sleep, sheep, judgement from the most High God is coming.
@RonaldWieck Since you are such an authority on the subject of 9/11 mr wieck and believe everything mark roberts tells you, can you explain to me what that peculiar object is on the underbelly of the plane at 0.44 to 0.47 of this video?
Oh and by the way the kadar toy factory is in thailand, not singapore like roberts explained and it's 4 stories high. It does'nt come much more disingenous than that.
Dave Bottiglia is currently visiting friends and family in San Diego. He will appear on 'Hardfire' either the end of March or early April to talk about his experiences on 9/11. For now, he states that UA 175 was never lost to primary radar. He said he didn't know where the plane went when the hijacker pilot switched codes. UA 175 was identified to him by another plane that flew close to it. The notion that planes were switched is absurd.
When I hear Dave Bottiglia state that "The notion that planes were switched is absurd", then we can get down to brass tacks, because there are others who do not think it is absurd. See:
"ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash"
The next thing I want to hear from you is the link to Dave Bottiglia categorically denying even the possibility that a plane swap could have taken place, without him being aware of it.
So now you are swallowing the lies of one of the most dishonest idiots infesting the net, Cap'n Booby Balsamo?
No, ACARS confirms no such thing. Have you noticed the fraud Balsamo revealing his blockbuster revelations to any real news outlets? Have you noticed that he NEVER does?
Again, the real pilots, crash investigators, and air traffic controllers refute the ignoramuses. Messages SENT are not necessarily RECEIVED.
Speak for yourself. "UA175" - or any plane that flew close enough to have its radar reflection merge with that of UA175 is not the problem.
The problem is that the engine rotor of the plane that did hit the WTC, does not match that of the type of plane that was UA175. And they ditched it in a landfill before any inquiry was begun.
Do you believe in the official 9/11 fairy tale? Talk about pathetic.
Google search - "USA Today: FAA Employee: Hijacked jets almost collided"
Related to the subject of this video, I think its worth mentioning that the "official story" has flights 11 & 175 over Stewart International Airport at the same time; an airport, 55 miles north of NYC, that serves as both a commercial AND military airfield.
What are the odds that two hijacked aircraft - flying aimlessly about, as the hijackers gained their bearings, in the HUGE airspace over NY state - would almost collide?
@alawson911 "Why was part of a murder weapon dumped in a landfill, without being properly identified, before an official enquiry was instigated?"
Um, because they were still trying to locate any possible survivors, and took debris from Ground Zero away by the dumptruck full? Were they supposed to wrap yellow police tape around Lower Manhattan so that none of the millions of pounds of wreckage could be accounted for to your satisfaction?
What a pathetic response. You are implying that the NTSB and the FBI were so involved in the clean up that neither agency could spare one person to check the serial numbers on the engine and compare them to UA's records. This amounts to the same implications in the following courtroom exchange.
Q: "Did you examine the gun to try to match it to the bullet?"
A "No, we were taking the suspects fingerprints and didn't have time to do that."
@alawson911 Sorry to disappoint you. You seem to have a vested interest in the myth of the big bad government's precision and thoroughness. It was their negligence, disorganization, and bureaucratic bungling that left the door wide open for the terrorist attack in the first place.
After all, if they're as nefarious as you seem to think they are, they wouldn't have thought to list a serial number in their phony cover story? That would satisfy the boundless suspicion of you amateur sleuths?
@alawson911 "How did an unidentified person know where to stand to track that plane's last moments?"
Are you serious?
The plane was in the sky above Manhattan, so let's at least admit there are countless vantage points where the plane could have been filmed. And since everyone with a camera within ten miles had theirs running within minutes of the first plane's impact, I'm not sure why we're supposed to be suspicious that someone took footage of the second plane flying into its target.
You keep ignoring questions about those terribly inconvenient phone calls made from UA 175. George Papcun writes that those calls could not have been faked. Tell us what the expert gets wrong.
Your ignorance of DNA testing procedures caused you to make reckless and indefensible charges against the NYC Coroner's Office. Tell us what you actually know. How did remains of passengers and crew members of AA11 and UA 175 find their way to Ground Zero?
Oh, Anthony, you seem to have ignored my comments about the phone calls made from UA 175. Dr. George Papcun, the "father of voice-morphing technology," has explained why those calls could not have been faked. Tell us what the expert gets wrong. Can we assume that he's yet another lying shill? What exactly do you KNOW about the relevant science?
@alawson911 175 terrorists changed the squawk. 175 never disappeared from RADAR. RADAR is taped, the raw data never "lost" Flt 175. A controller might not see exactly where 175 is when 175 change code, 175 not lost to RADAR. After the event the RADAR from Multiple RADAR sites confirm 175 impacted the WTC tower. If you are claiming 175 was lost, it means nothing. If you don't comprehend 175 on video matches RADAR data; you can't do rational research.
A mid-air swap is the equivalent of a person walking behind a pillar, and another person, of the same build and in similar attire, walking out at the same speed. Easy.
Regarding radar dead spots, see "Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?"
With regard to video matches, no video exists of alleged 175 taken from a distance greater than that from the WTC to Liberty Island, about 1.5 miles, so claiming radar/video matches is dishonest.
Wow, that's original! I'll bet you're the first brain-dead twoofer who can't support any of his stupid fairy tales to accuse one of his many intellectual and moral superiors of being a shill.
There are no shills. There are rationalists and conspiracy liars.
Warning: Cover-up artists can never resist making personally abusive comments.
Beware of ANYONE who claims that not even ONE of the apparent anomalies in the official 9/11 story is worth looking into. For example:
Why did an anonymous camera operator climb onto a roof, with restricted access and "just happen" to get that shot of the South Tower plane pulling out of its steep descent with the twin chimneys used as a marker? Counter 4:07
Desperate rubbish. The engine parts found near Ground Zero belonged to a 767. The photos don't lie, but twoofers lie all the time. Your unnamed "engineer" was proved wrong. Are you turning into a no-planer, Anthony?
The engine in question was ORIGINALLY fitted to Boeing 747s and later to 767s. This one almost certainly came from one of the Boeing 767 series of aircraft, because the South Tower plane looked like a 767.
BUT the HPCD on the engine found in Murray Street was NOT the duct used in the later engine types that were fitted to the ENTIRE United Airlines Boeing 767 fleet, as confirmed by a retired Pratt & Witney engineer.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F-15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
If WTC 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, how do you explain firefighters predicting the building's collapse 3 hours before the actual collapse?
comment has been removed because he insists on lying. There is no doubt that alleged UA 175 was "lost', as far as positive and continual identity of the radar return goes, but Wieck insist that it wasn't, and refers to JREF threads and claims:
"You will soon have the opportunity of hearing Dave Bottiglia explain the matter in detail."
Okay. Let's wait for that. Send me the podcast, presumably it will be on Hard Fire. Until then, stop accusing me of lying.
@alawson911 "all showing visual holemarks of classic controlled demolitions" sorry but WTC 1 and 2 doesn't look like controlled demolitions... they fall from the top to down + the core columns were seen for few seconds after the collapse still standing, this actually dissproves the controlled demolition. Nice video tho.
You are right. They certainly look like controlled demolitions, but "classic" ones tend to start at ground level.
However, the fact that the core columns can be seen for a few seconds doesn't disprove the demolition theory. The ejection of massive amounts of material, outwards, from the top of the buildings could not have been caused by gravity, and why would the cores remain for only a few seconds? It appears that something must have helped their total collapse.
Please explain why "the ejection of massive amounts of material" NEVER occurs in a controlled demolition (hint: that's the "controlled" part).
The gravity-driven collapse of 110-story skyscrapers was an unprecedented event. Physicists and structural engineers have calculated the enormous amount of energy released by those collapses, vastly more than enough to explain the ejection of large chunks of debris. There are many peer-reviewed papers. Have you read ANY?
I am equally fed up with the truth movement becoming the laughing stock of the world. Controlled demolition theorists are the creationists among 9/11 truth, period.
I think it's freaky that this awesome 9-11 video is 9 minutes and 11 seconds long : ) ....please make the next one twice as long; you're awesome at speaking the truth.
If you think that controlled demolitions did not occur, I cannot help you, because I can see no other reason for the Twin Towers to have collapsed, in the way they did. And I certainly think the WTC 7 could not have suddenly collapsed as it did, without demolition charges.
As for the unidentified planes, that is not a theory, it is a fact. The wreckage from the four planes that crashed was never linked, forensically, to the planes that were allegedly hijacked.
You can make these points on 'Hardfire,' where they will be challenged by a well-informed rationalist. You seem to conflate the 9/11 Commission Report with the actual investigation that commenced within hours of the last crash. I know you to be an intelligent man. Are you engaging in deliberate obfuscation?
Are you content to preach to a choir of angry ignoramuses? How about appearing on the show?
Anthony, you can't accept facts inconvenient to your fantasies. The four planes were tracked to the crash sites by air traffic controllers. Are they all complicit in your imaginary conspiracy? Tell us more about the remains of the passengers and crew members. They were identified by DNA testing. Are you claiming that the forensic examiners are also in on it?
Avionics techs state that you are flatly wrong about the engine recovered at Ground Zero. Why don't you care?
An aircraft cannot be accurately tracked in busy airspace after its transponder has been switched off. What is left is a radar blip; no identifier. If two blips merge, there is no way of knowing which is which when they separate on the radar screen.
Alleged AA11: Transponder off at 08:21. Impacts North Tower 08:46:40s. Period of anonymity: 25m 40s.
Alleged UA 175: Transponder code changes at 08:47. Impacts South Tower 9:03:11s. Period of anonymity: 16m 11s. /cont
The gaps can be likened to a lapse in the chain-of-custody of tangible evidence. What happened during these time gaps is anybody's guess, but it cannot be certain that the planes that crashed were those that were allegedly hijacked.
In an investigation which failed to forensically identify the primary murder weapons, I do not consider the claims about DNA evidence to be realistic. Clear and readily available evidence with identifying serial numbers was totally ignored... /cont
... but the mashed up body parts of the alleged passengers and crews, crushed beyond any hope of visual recognition, are somehow separated from each other and painstakingly matched to DNA samples supplied by relatives? Oh, really!
And why do you specify that "Avionics techs" dispute my claims about the engine? They deal in electronics, not jet engines.
However the daughter of a retired Pratt & Witney engineer has confirmed that her father thinks I am right about the engine.
Let's ignore unnamed retired mechanics and focus on what real avionics techs have to say. Here is a link to a thread on the JREF where your claim is discussed comprehensively, with photos:
It is beyond silly that your imaginary conspiracy would plant, in plain sight of hundreds of rescue workers, the wrong aircraft part. It is sad that you cannot back off a demonstrable error.
Your argument from ignorance does not impress. Uninformed dismissal of science you fail to understand is unlikely to persuade anyone except the agenda-driven zombies you are appealing to by producing a YouTube video. I have linked to one of many articles describing the process of identfying victims crushed and burned beyond recognition on 9/11:
As you have been told many times, the crash investigators and air traffic controllers do not agree with you. You were unable to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE where serial-numbered parts were used to identify a crashed airliner. You have made a practice of hand-waving away photos of serial-numbered parts from AA77. Please explain Dave Bottiglia's comments as he and his colleagues tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower.
Anthony, why do you continue to promote such nonsense? Nobody who works in the demolition industry swallows your cult's snake oil. The characteristic sounds of controlled demolition--a near simultaneous series of blasts followed immediately by the collapse of the building--were conspicuously absent from the auditory record. Absolutely NO physical evidence of explosives was found anywhere in the WTC complex.
Discussing anything with someone who lies by innuendo and makes things up is futile. Here is a list of the way you have attempted to twist my response.
Quote: "Let's ignore unnamed retired mechanics..." Of course you want to ignore information you don't like, and the person in question was not a mechanic, he was a P&W engineer.
Quote: "...your imaginary conspiracy would plant... the wrong aircraft engine" I have never claimed that the engine was planted. /cont
Quote: "Your argument from ignorance does not impress. Uninformed dismissal of science..."
I've known of the document you cited for some time, but did you notice that it is not a peer-reviewed paper and that it includes this disclaimer:
"Any opinions in this handout are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or any other Federal agency."
Quote: "You were unable to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE where serial-numbered parts were used to identify a crashed airliner."
It is not incumbent on me to produce such an instance. The NTSB is seldom required to make a positive identification of an entire aircraft; they use serial numbers to identify parts that may have caused a crash by referring to the purchase and maintenance logs.
Quote: "You have made a practice of hand-waving away photos of serial-numbered parts from AA77" /cont
That is a flat out lie. I have never ignored any relevant evidence, but these alleged photos of serial numbered parts, which I have never seen, would be useless without reference to a purchase or maintenance log.
Why don't you produce such photos with matching ID references?
Considering that the FBI has refused to provide serial numbers of the Black Boxes alleged to have been found and that the NTSB did not investigate any of the crashes, you may have a tough task ahead of you. /cont
Quote: "Please explain Dave Bottiglia's comments as he and his colleagues tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower."
According to one very detailed report, at 8:51 Dave Bottiglia called out to another controller, “I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to....”
That certainly does not tally with your claim that Dave Bottiglia "tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower."
Finally, you dismiss the findings of the architects, engineers and scientists who cite molten steel being ejected from the corner of one of the Towers as it was collapsing; something that aircraft fuel could not have caused, as well as the clear audio evidence at 6:40 in this video.
You have called such people "agenda-driven zombies" but your justification for using such an insult is full of holes, so what does that make you? Are you just an ignorant fool or a paid government lackey?
Gage's frauds flee from confrontations with real structural engineers and metallurgists for an excellent reason. No molten STEEL was identified, nor could it have been. Your desperation has driven you to resort to the favored insults of ignorant adolescents who learn everything from YouTube videos cranked out by agenda-driven incompetents. The audio record of the collapses contains nothing remotely resembling the characteristic sounds of demolition, AS YOU KNOW.
NO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS THINK THAT THE PLANES THAT CRASHED AT THE WTC COMPLEX WERE ANYTHING BUT THE PLANES THAT TOOK OFF FROM LOGAN!
You clumsily ducked away from those terribly inconvenient forensic examinations that identified the passengers and crew members. Your argument from ignorance fooled nobody except the willfully blind zombies you appeal to.
Of course it isn't a peer-reviewed paper. It is an explanation, one of many, of the procedures used by forensic specialists to identify human remains that have been crushed or burned beyond recognition.
Is this what you call a hopeless fantasy in regard to the veracity of your claims that the DNA was properly identified?
"Any opinions in this handout are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or any other Federal agency."
A document with the above disclaimer in it would never be accepted as evidence in a properly constituted court of law.
WHO exactly is questioning the methodology of the forensic labs that identified the remains of people killed on 9/11? WHAT errors of science are we talking about? For unfathomable reasons, your mindless cult wants us to reject the conclusions of the forensic examiners. Can you flesh out the argument a bit?
This non-controversy was invented by an uninformed twoofer and is absurd. The photos don't lie. If you read through the JREF thread I linked to, you will see that all your questions have been answered. Your retired engineer is simply wrong.
If an aircraft part was found near Ground Zero and it did NOT come from either of the two planes that crashed there and it was NOT planted, uh, please explain how on earth it got there.
Ronald Wieck is a proven liar (see my recent responses to his comments, above) and I have long given up debating important issues with liars.
People who have genuine concerns on certain issues are different, but when someone makes a statement knowing that it is false, any basis for a reasonable discussion flies out of the window.
Sorry, Anthony, no twoofer has ever caught me in a lie and none ever will. There is a reason why you, like other peddlers of pernicious nonsense, refuse to subject your fantasies to the scrutiny of open debate. Real avionics techs and crash investigators discussed on the JREF your absurd claim about the engine found near Ground Zero. TELL US WHAT THEY GOT WRONG!
No smears of the JREF--no blather about "paid shills"--TELL US WHAT THEY GOT WRONG.
The difference between me and many of those who post on JREF and other sites is that I only use the facts. I do not make things up. But I do think about what COULD have happened, for example, in order to rationally explain the distinct possibility that the engine found in Murray St. did not come from a UA 767-200.
It was the Bush administration that decided not to forensically identify this engine, or any other debris.
Then, as we later finally found out, there were no WMD in Iraq.
@alawson911 "I only use the facts. I do not make things up."
Well, you did make up the "fact" that someone dropped the wrong kind of jet engine on Murray St. to make people think that UAL175 had crashed into the South Tower.
Would you also make up the "fact" that the body parts of UAL175 passengers were planted at Ground Zero? Or is there some sort of limit to your game of Let's Pretend?
If you listen carefully to the commentary you will find that I have been careful with what I have stated:
"This research, which had to rely on photographs, SEEMS to indicate that this component, called a High Pressure Turbine cooling duct, is from a Pratt and Witney JT9D-7 series engine as used on the Boeing 747."
I then go on to point out that the cooling ducts from the engines used in UA's 767 fleet were a different type and used a different HPT duct. cont/
This discrepancy has been noted for some time and the daughter of a retired P & W engineer has confirmed it. Of course this engineer is not about to throw away his pension by going public, but I had no cause to doubt his daughter's statement, and the fact that the engine, a vital section of a murder weapon, was buried in a landfill gives me the right to make such a deduction, and end this section: "So if the South Tower plane was not UA 175, what was it?" Note the conditional "if".
As far as I know, no body parts from the rubble of the South Tower were subjected to DNA testing to try and separate out the remains of the alleged passengers and crew of the plane that hit it, from those of the occupants.
And why would I make up such "evidence"? It certainly would not further my theory that I think that the plane may not have been UA 175. But if you have such "evidence", please let me know how I can look into its validity.
@alawson911 "As far as I know, no body parts from the rubble of the South Tower were subjected to DNA testing"
And how extensively are we supposed to assume you have investigated this before spitting out your latest melodramatic video? Have you talked to anyone at the NYC coroner's office or the fire department? Have you talked to anyone at the FBI, or the victims' families? Is this about real inquiry or just pandering to people's suspicion and presumption?
"As far as I know..." implies that I have found no information on the matter, one way or another, and, given the known problems of identifying ANY of the dead from the Towers, which it is quite easy to check out on the Internet, I see no reason to expect that such work was carried out.
You can do some research and prove me wrong. You are the one who indicated that I might make something up.
By the way, they didn't find any WMD in Iraq. That was a lie, so....
@alawson911 The WMDs aren't relevant. In fact, if Bush & Co. had engineered 9/11, they probably would have blamed Saddam and not had to fabricate the WMDs to excuse their land grab there.
I'm just wondering why we should take the word of some advert director when it comes to the DNA identification of the UAL175 passengers at Ground Zero. Did you interview the people likely to have done the testing, or conduct any sort of responsible research before making your melodramatic claims? Hm?
The US government's claim about WMD is relevant because it proves that they were not averse to lying when launching a war which cost the lives of well over a million human beings. Or don't those deaths concern you?
Your original proposal was:
"Would you also make up the "fact" that the body parts of UAL175 passengers were planted at Ground Zero?"
My answer was, basically, why would I do that?
You don't seem to know what you are arguing about.
You're still flogging the lie that over a million people died in Iraq? How silly!
A hundred thousand deaths is an appalling figure, but most Iraqis were killed, as you know, by other Iraqis and your beloved foreign jihadists.
Tell how the remains of passengers and crew members from AA11 and UA175 ended up at Ground Zero. Are the forensic examiners ALL part of your insanely bloated imaginary conspiracy? Are those examiners incompetent? Tell us what you know, Anthony.
So when I do do some research, you don't believe me.
No Pratt & Witney engineer, nor any Boeing engineers will come forward and be named, because they would be risking at least their jobs or pensions and possibly more.
This woman contacted me about the issue, and volunteered the information. The cooling-duct rings do NOT match those of the engine's used in UA's fleet of 767s.
Now come up with something else to explain this, of I'll block you.
@alawson911 All I'm asking is what research you conduct, aside from surfing the Web. Concerning the DNA identification of the passengers of UAL175 at Ground Zero, you claimed, "I see no reason to expect that such work was carried out." A responsible investigator would interview emergency personnel, FBI agents, families of the victims, or the NYC coroner's office before making such a claim. Did you?
I do not have the resources or the authority to carry out such work.
You are asking why I cannot wield the power of a police detective or district attorney, in a way that suggest that any other kind of research is invalid. Stop being silly.
@alawson911 Um, you don't have a telephone? You need some sort of complicated licensing to interview the NYC chief medical examiner before you make melodramatic claims about his identification of victims of UAL175 at Ground Zero?
Yes, I have a telephone and a brain, as well. That brain tells me that, given the lies and obfuscations about what really happened on 9/11, and the determination on the part of the authorities not to open a proper enquiry, with all of the forensic evidence made public, including the serial numbers of the Black Boxes and their provenances and the videotapes from the cameras surrounding the Pentagon, I realise that anyone will be able to tell lies with impunity.
@alawson911 Okay. So the reason you haven't done any responsible research into the matter is that you "realize"the NYC chief medical examiner is going to lie to you anyway. So this gives you an excuse to continue to assume (and report as fact to people watching your videos) that the remains of the passengers of UAL175 were never identified at Ground Zero.
Sounds like a pretty convenient way to avoid having to do any real work in your "research."
@alawson911 I'm sure in your extensive research on this matter you've talked to NYC's chief medical examiner, Dr. Charles Hirsch, who as you know had the daunting task of identifying the human remains culled from the Staten Island landfill. I'd be interested to know what Hirsch told you that led you to believe that no such work was, in fact, ever carried out.
Hirsch's office claimed that several passengers from UAL175 had been identified at Ground Zero. Should I believe them or you?
You can believe what you want to, but you are now writing about the remains found on Staten Island.
Just as the flight paths of the planes cannot be verified, I doubt that a chain-of-custody log was maintained for the transported remains. And it is now known that DNA can be faked.
If this was a false flag operation, which I think is highly likely, the possibility of fooling a medical examiner to put "icing on the forensic cake" cannot be ruled out.
Utter crapola. Your cult's lies about the engine found near Ground Zero have been exposed. Find me one twoofer who will subject his snake oil to serious scutiny by facing a real crash investigator.
@RonaldWieck your use of the word twoofer shows the extreme poverty of your so called arguments. I advise Anthony not to engage with this fake as he has zero interest in truth but only wants to protect the guilty
Thank you for the backup. You are right, attempting to denigrate the integrity of people who are genuinely concerned about the many discrepancies in the official 9/11 story by calling them names is a sure sign of someone who knows he stands on shaky ground.
Quoting the anonymous contributors to the JFEF site, for example, as "authorities" is another dead giveaway.
Anyone can make a mistake, but just one lie, repeated over and over, says it all about Mr Wieck.
@alawson911 So you think it's more likely that the conspirators planted the human remains of UAL175 passengers in the Staten Island landfill than that they were transferred there from Ground Zero. In the same way that you believe it's more likely the conspirators planted the wrong jet engine on Murray St., than that the enormous engine fell from a jet that crashed into the South Tower.
You certainly have a unique way of assessing probabilities.
Speaking of fakes, how about YOU showing us your evidence? Show us something that hasn't been disproved a thousand times. Show us something that can stand critical scrutiny.
There is a reason why the frauds and fools who lead you zombies by the nose hide under their beds and refuse to confront the real scientists and engineers. It is the reason why your evil cult exists solely on the net.
The fact that alleged UA175 was unidentifiable for the last 16m 40s (about 100 miles) of its flight means that the possibility of a swap cannot be ignored.
A period during which all FAA and NORAD air-safety and security measures were suspended for about two hours cannot be looked upon as normal. If no ATC is prepared to suggest that there may have been a swap, perhaps they needed to feed their families.
They would remember what happened to them under Ronald Reagan.
Gee, most of us remember that Reagan fired air traffic controllers for refusing to call off an illegal strike. How blatant was the illegality? Well, Democratic members of Congress, invariably in the pockets of labor unions, blustered and squirmed, but ultimately could not begin to justify such an obvious violation of the contracts signed by the striking workers.
Tell us more about your imaginary "swap." Where were those planes on the radar screens?
I think the 9/11 Commission's failure to mention the Saudi sponsors of terrorist cells like the one that carried out the 9/11 attacks is a much more glaring omission than the collapse of Building 7. But I'm kooky like that.
There is no evidence that proves that four planes were hijacked, on 9/11. This means that there is no evidence that any hijackers existed. No hijackers; no Saudi-sponsored terrorist cells.
The twists and turns of the lies within false-flag operations can be almost infinite, and when one lie unravels, all other factors must be re-addressed.
A false-flag attack is far more difficult to fathom, than a genuine attack by one national entity against another.
@alawson911 You only say there's no evidence of hijackers because you find it easy to dismiss anything that official bodies or mainstream sources reported about the event. There's a considerable body of mutually-corroborating information about the hijackers. Since the OS doesn't implicate Iraqis, I assume it wasn't made up out of whole cloth to excuse our invasion of that country.
But you'd rather focus on anomalies and coincidences, and pander to people's suspicion. Fine work you're doing.
I don't just "say" that there is no evidence that the planes that allegedly did the damage were never forensically identified; the NTSB has confirmed it. This means that there is no solid evidence that puts hijackers in these planes. Of course the government can SAY there were hijackers, but just saying something is not proving it. Do you really think that if there were no issues about the planes' identities, they would not have properly identified the debris?
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG 9 minutes and 11 seconds long.
joshbarber89 2 days ago
@joshbarber89
Well spotted. No accident, I can tell you.
alawson911 2 days ago
Comment removed
joshbarber89 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
that was george bush, grandson of prescott bush, a known nazi, who covered this up from the start. the u.s. was had. if the u.s. ever gets over the fact that they were made fools of they can get back to business by first arresting george bush and his cohorts.
vengencefrom1979 1 week ago
I'm in that crazy part of YouTube
CasualUTubeGuy 2 weeks ago
Check the Pilots for 911 truth movies! they know what they are talking about!
pot5678 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77
"Just another 911 nazi twoofer."
I am not obliged to publish such insults from someone like you on my comments pages. I am an honest researcher, although I do not claim to be right, all of the time, but I do know that there are more questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered, than there are plausible answers within the 9/11 Commission's report.
You are clearly not interested in a respectful dialogue, so I am blocking you.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ctcole77 - It seems to me that Mr. Lawsome prefers to deal with fairy tails more than with sheer facts. On the clip he abuses facts and orchestrates theories suitable to his agenda.
He failed to refute a very simple and crucial fact that I've presented here namely; If 9/11 is an inside job why then, Al Qaeda was so keen to take responsibility over the attack, and why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack and by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?
akai1221 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77
For a civil engineer, you are very insulting
"Before you open you piehole gullible shill, Al Jazeera didn't waterboard him."
If you would like to remove your baseless "shill" insult, and give some references to your claim about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s "confession" we may have some basis for a dialogue, until then, I've removed your comment.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911
Along with working as an engineer for 12 years, I also have a degree in history.
I have no respect for people who spread fairy tales like "the CIA created Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan". A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE.
Bin Laden stated many times he would never work with westerners. Yes, the CIA provided weapons to Pakistan for distribution to the Afghan rebels. No, the CIA NEVER ran training camps nor cooperated with Afghan rebels.
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77
How strange that even the now staunchly Zionist BBC has admitted that the CIA created "al Qaeda". You may have a degree in history, but that doesn't mean that the history you've learnt is accurate.
What you have just written is so wrong, that anyone who is interested need only do a search for:
cia created al qaeda
and have a look at some of the 61 million hits.
Try it yourself.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77 , dude, WAKE UP!
pot5678 3 weeks ago
This video fails so many standards of logic, but the most prominent and repetitive is the argument from ignorance. Why should anyone believe a Truther if they can't get Logic 101 right?
evanharmon1 3 weeks ago
I’m really confused here, If 9/11 is an inside job why then, Al Qaeda was so keen to take responsibility over the attack, and why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack knowing full well that he'll be persecuted by all major western's intelligent agencies and that by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?
akai1221 4 weeks ago
@akai1221
Your country is China, so you may not be able to access everything, but try a search phrase like:
bin laden denies responsibility for 911
You will find many articles to read.
Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA and bin Laden was used to help get Russia out of Afghanistan, then the CIA turned on him and he has been blamed for all kinds of actions ever since. Bin Laden was more intelligent than to claim responsibility for 9/11, and the CIA's claim that he did it is false.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 - Mr. Lawson, you can't turn black into white just by saying so! google - osama bin laden takes responsibility for 9 11 and you'll have it, black on white all over...
"Osama bin Laden said for the first time that he ordered the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a videotape made public today, and he accused President Bush of "misleading the American people" about the attacks."
A New York Times article By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: October 29, 2004
akai1221 3 weeks ago
@akai1221
Osama bin Laden has denied taking the responsibility for 9/11. You are entitled to believe what you like, but people lies, so lease look deeper than the NY Times for your information, and an article written by a person whose name indicates she may be Jewish.
The nation that benefited most from 9/11 was Israel, bin Laden would have known exactly what would have been rained down on Arabs and Muslims had he been responsible. In the end, it was, because the world was lied to.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
The interesting thing is that you seem to be arguing against the most logical answer to your question:
"...why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind of the attack knowing full well that he'll be persecuted by all major western's intelligent agencies and that by doing so inviting a death penalty upon him?"
Many people are accused of crimes that they didn't commit, because it suits someone else's agenda. Bin Laden was never tried and convicted in a court of law. He was murdered.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 - The interesting thing is that you seem to be arguing against the most logical answer to your question: "...why had Bin Laden claimed to be the mastermind”...
-
The interesting and most EMBARRASSING thing is the fact that you failed to answer such a trivial and simple fact.
akai1221 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 - (cont.)You say; “written by a person whose name indicates she may be Jewish” I say; it’s an ASUMPTION and an utter irrelevant argument. It smells and implies like a raciest remark. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
You say; “The nation that benefited most from 9/11 was Israel” and I ask you; why should Israel care if the Americans are attacking bunch of Jihadists in Afghanistan, a country which has no border with IL nor direct conflict with her?
akai1221 3 weeks ago
@akai1221
Why would implying that someone is Jewish be racist? Judaism is a religion, not a race. Many Jews are intolerant of other people, calling themselves "The Chosen People" so there is good reason to be wary of what some of them write, particularly in the NY Times, because their agenda is to protect Israel, no matter what.
As to the true perpetrators of 9/11, you are entitled to think what what you like, but I am not obliged to agree with you, so I will not be responding further.
alawson911 3 weeks ago
@alawson911 - You say; “Osama bin Laden has denied taking the responsibility for 9/11” I say; PROVE IT!
You say; “You are entitled to believe what you like, but people lies” I say; it has nothing to do with “believe”, unless “9 11 is an inside job” turned into a cult religion. It has to do thogh, with Bin Laden taking responsibility on camera, which is a fact.
akai1221 3 weeks ago
@akai1221
9/11 was a brilliantly evil operation, planned and executed by our own government. It was a false flag attack. Even the FBI didn't charge OBL for the 9/11 "attacks".
lmfecher 3 weeks ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If explosions were heard in the basement of WTC 1, why did the building fail at the point of impact?
If the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, how did the nanothermite charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the building?
How do you explain Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to planning 911 in an Al Jazeera interview back in 2002?
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77
3 QUESTIONS DEBUNKTARDS WON'T ANSWER....
1. Where does UA 175 crash and explode AGAINST the outer, load bearing, steel framed wall of WTC 2?
2. How can many of the 9/11 "hijackers" be alive and well?
3. How did Building 7 fall into it's own footprint?
Go bother your butt buddy Merlin5by5. You two have much in common, you're both fucktards.
lmfecher 3 weeks ago
@lmfecher
1) Flight 175 went through the outer wall and damaged the core moron.
2) Please submit the names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers of the so call "still alive hijackers" so they can be brought forward to testify.
3) Oh yeah, WTC 7 fell soooooo neatly into its footprint that debris damaged five surrounding buildings!
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
@ctcole77
1. How did UA 175 travel THROUGH the outer, load bearing, steel framed wall without first crashing AGAINST it?
2. Even the state run media propaganda machine have admitted many hijackers being found alive and well.
3. Not only did WTC 7 collapse into it's own footprint, it came down at free fall speed.
I used to be proud of The Ohio State University, until I discovered they graduate fucktards like yourself.
lmfecher 3 weeks ago
@lmfecher
This isn't Jeopardy uneducated gullible shill.
There's no need to phrase your "answers" in the form of unrelated questions.
Please answer the questions.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
High-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, and controlled demolition technicians
layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.
watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
ewingsco 4 weeks ago
Hahahahaha LOl
FearLugz 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck's LIAR'S CORNER
Wieck wrote:
"NIST never claimed that there were no explosions. Why do you continue to lie?"
And he will probably claim that NIST admitted there were explosion-like sounds as office copiers and water coolers blew up. But Google this:
"Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES were not observed."
The references can be followed, and they put the explosions/explosives issue in its proper context.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
You were caught lying when you falsely claimed that NIST denied that people heard things blow up in the fires. Now, you misrepresent a quote from NIST stating--correctly--that window breakage patterns consistent with explosives and characteristic sounds of demolition were not observed. Your desperate squirming reveals that your fantasy has been destroyed. NO physical evidence exists for explosives use anywhere in the WTC complex.
An appalling performance, Anthony.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
There you go again. Don't you realise that making things up is telling lies?
Of course I cannot be certain that I have not said or written something that may have been deliberately misconstrued, by someone like you, but I do not think that I have ever claimed anything close to the following:
Anthony Lawson wrote/said: "NIST denied that people heard things blow up in the fires."
Please supply evidence for this alleged statement of mine.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Anthony, YOU are the one who doesn't realize that making up things is telling lies. You have stated that NIST said there were no explosions. That is utter nonsense. NIST said that there was no evidence of EXPLOSIVES. Stop these silly games and salvage a scrap of your self-respect.
You did fine work exposing the no-planers. You can't defend the indefensible. 9/11 was not an inside job.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
What do you play with when you are not playing with words?
NIST denied that there were any explosions caused by explosives that were used to cause the building to collapse.
That is undeniable, because NIST claims that explosives had nothing to do with the collapse of the building. That is the issue.
I have never claimed that NIST denied that windows did not break explosively or that there were no other explosive sounds. If I did, then give me the quote.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
You stated that NIST denied that there were explosions. That is incorrect. NIST explained why there were no explosives in WTC 7 or anywhere else in the WTC complex.
I notice that one of my posts from three days ago comments on your statement about NIST. Your post, the one I'm responding to, is missing.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
You really are pushing it now, claiming that I have deleted one of my posts, the one which contains what you accuse me of having written.
How low can you sink? I have deleted some of your posts, under the terms that I warned you about, now you are lying again.
You are playing with words, and wasting my time. Have a moan about it on your own programme, HardFire, or make your own video about it.
You have lied once too often in my comments pages.
You are now blocked!
alawson911 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911
LMAO!
If you are ever interested in totally DEBUNKING 911 twoof, just ask any 911 twoofer if they actually read the 911 Commission Report. They will "pretend" to have read it. But when they make moronic statements like NIST denied that there were any explosions caused by explosives that were used to cause the building to collapse, you know they are lying.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 4 weeks ago
@facelikedog
Comment deleted. No swearwords, please.
alawson911 1 month ago
At 6:46, we're supposed to "listen carefully" because we might miss the sound of the explosive detonation that brought down Building 7, which was so faint that it didn't even disturb the people in the video, chatting a block away.
So if I understand you correctly, the "hallmarks" of controlled demolition include burning out of control for several hours, gushing smoke through various fire holes, and dull thuds before the building's collapse?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago 2
@unRompecabezas
No you don't understand me correctly, and you never will, because your mind is made up. NIST claimed that a single support or cross beam buckled and caused the uniform collapse, during which the top of the building was in free fall for just over 2 seconds. But a buckling support column or beam does not sound like a single low frequency explosion. And, on top of that, NIST had claimed that there were no explosions, whatsoever, before this video turned up.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Um, only we'd expect the sound of a massive CD to be louder than the dull thud we have to listen carefully even to hear in your video.
The building had been gushing smoke for several hours, after all. Since hardhats were walking around telling everybody "this building's coming down" well before the collapse, it seems like its condition was no secret. Or are we supposed to believe the evil henchmen were telling everyone on the street about the demolition before it happened?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago 2
@unRompecabezas
No, evil henchmen of the elite lurk on the forums, trying to bully anyone into conforming to the official fairy tale that is 9/11.
You're not seriously suggesting that WTC7 collapsed without the aid of explosives? If you are, I figure you'll stay the hell away from any high-rise building because you never know when one starts coming down again.
AudieHolland 3 weeks ago
@alawson911
NIST never claimed that there were no explosions. Why do you continue to lie?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
Don't be an idiot. The hallmarks of controlled demolition are just the dull thuds.
That is because, like every child knows, controlled demolitions require pin-point accurately placed SMALL charges so that the demolition will cause the building to implode upon its own footprint. WTC7 did exactly that.
AudieHolland 3 weeks ago
@RonaldWieck
I would remind you that those who comment on JREF are also nameless.
Your comment has been removed, but when you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of his oft-quoted statement:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
do get back to me.
You will not browbeat me into submission. The aircraft parts were never forensically identified, including that dumped engine, which constitutes reasonable doubt that the plane was UA175.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
There will be no recantation: you have been exposed as a fraud, I am sorry to say. There is not the slightest doubt that UA 175 hit the south tower. Your mindless, infantile antics cannot stand reality on its head. When you get around to explaining those teribly inconvenient phone calls from UA 175 and explain the presence of the remains of passengers and crew members at Ground Zero, you will have taken the first step on the road to mature, responsible debate.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 3
@RonaldWieck
This comment as an example of the way in which people like Mr Wieck claim that they are about to reveal important testimony, but who, when "called" on their claims, refuse to so.
You cannot fault me on these two facts:
The plane's were never forensically identified, and authenticated-transponder contact WAS lost, prior to them hitting the WTC.
That constitutes reasonable doubt that the planes that hit the WTC were not what was claimed by the 9/11 Commission. /cont...
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
The claim that UA 175 hit the south tower was NOT the product of the 9/11 Commission. The fate of UA 175 was established by the air traffic controllers, United Airlines, the FAA, and the crash investigators at Ground Zero. The plane, as you have been told MANY TIMES, was NEVER lost to primary radar.
You have NEVER offered the slightest evidence to support your fantasy that there is a mystery over the identities of the planes that crashed into the twin towers.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 3
As for the DNA and alleged phone calls, until these issues are subjected to the tests of cross examination, in court, I see no reason to blindly trust ANYONE.
Would you not protest if you were accused, tried and convicted without due process?
Presenting a so-called investigative local TV programme does not make you the sole authority on what should or should not be questioned, but phrases such as:
"Your mindless, infantile antics..."
say more about you than they do about me.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Straight from Boeing:
"Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications."
Now, about those phone calls from the hijacked planes...
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
@RonaldWieck
I can read brochures, too. This has nothing to do with the engine types that UA specified for THEIR 767 fleet.
alawson911 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Pray tell, what exactly are those minor modifications?
And as we can see in the video, the parts that are from a 747 have those spigot-like things ADDED to the ring whereas a 767 does not have those features.
It may be a minor modification but there is no explanation that this supposedly 767 engine part has features added that are only meant for a 747.
AudieHolland 3 weeks ago
@RonaldWieck , you're simply a fool or a disinfo shill. That was not an airliner that hit that building. Go back to sleep, sheep, judgement from the most High God is coming.
benmacabre 2 weeks ago
@RonaldWieck
Dunce, or shill?
paschnn1 2 weeks ago
@RonaldWieck Since you are such an authority on the subject of 9/11 mr wieck and believe everything mark roberts tells you, can you explain to me what that peculiar object is on the underbelly of the plane at 0.44 to 0.47 of this video?
Oh and by the way the kadar toy factory is in thailand, not singapore like roberts explained and it's 4 stories high. It does'nt come much more disingenous than that.
doire7 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@alawson911
Dave Bottiglia is currently visiting friends and family in San Diego. He will appear on 'Hardfire' either the end of March or early April to talk about his experiences on 9/11. For now, he states that UA 175 was never lost to primary radar. He said he didn't know where the plane went when the hijacker pilot switched codes. UA 175 was identified to him by another plane that flew close to it. The notion that planes were switched is absurd.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
@RonaldWieck
When I hear Dave Bottiglia state that "The notion that planes were switched is absurd", then we can get down to brass tacks, because there are others who do not think it is absurd. See:
"ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash"
The next thing I want to hear from you is the link to Dave Bottiglia categorically denying even the possibility that a plane swap could have taken place, without him being aware of it.
So, Bye-bye, for now, Ronald.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
So now you are swallowing the lies of one of the most dishonest idiots infesting the net, Cap'n Booby Balsamo?
No, ACARS confirms no such thing. Have you noticed the fraud Balsamo revealing his blockbuster revelations to any real news outlets? Have you noticed that he NEVER does?
Again, the real pilots, crash investigators, and air traffic controllers refute the ignoramuses. Messages SENT are not necessarily RECEIVED.
Why have you chosen to humiliate yourself?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
@alawson911
UA 175 was NEVER lost to primary radar. Eventually this fact will penetrate the wall surrounding your brain.
Did you ever imagine that you would be reduced to peddling Balsamo's mindless hogwash? How utterly pathetic, Anthony.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
@RonaldWieck
Speak for yourself. "UA175" - or any plane that flew close enough to have its radar reflection merge with that of UA175 is not the problem.
The problem is that the engine rotor of the plane that did hit the WTC, does not match that of the type of plane that was UA175. And they ditched it in a landfill before any inquiry was begun.
Do you believe in the official 9/11 fairy tale? Talk about pathetic.
AudieHolland 3 weeks ago
Google search - "USA Today: FAA Employee: Hijacked jets almost collided"
Related to the subject of this video, I think its worth mentioning that the "official story" has flights 11 & 175 over Stewart International Airport at the same time; an airport, 55 miles north of NYC, that serves as both a commercial AND military airfield.
What are the odds that two hijacked aircraft - flying aimlessly about, as the hijackers gained their bearings, in the HUGE airspace over NY state - would almost collide?
jelinto 1 month ago
@jelinto
Whatever anyone tries to claim, there is reasonable doubt that what hit the South Tower was not what was designated as United Airlines 175.
I have no absolute knowledge, but there are enough anomalies to show that the official story may very well by wrong. e.g.
Why was part of a murder weapon dumped in a landfill, without being properly identified, before an official enquiry was instigated?
How did an unidentified person know where to stand to track that plane's last moments?
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 "Why was part of a murder weapon dumped in a landfill, without being properly identified, before an official enquiry was instigated?"
Um, because they were still trying to locate any possible survivors, and took debris from Ground Zero away by the dumptruck full? Were they supposed to wrap yellow police tape around Lower Manhattan so that none of the millions of pounds of wreckage could be accounted for to your satisfaction?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
What a pathetic response. You are implying that the NTSB and the FBI were so involved in the clean up that neither agency could spare one person to check the serial numbers on the engine and compare them to UA's records. This amounts to the same implications in the following courtroom exchange.
Q: "Did you examine the gun to try to match it to the bullet?"
A "No, we were taking the suspects fingerprints and didn't have time to do that."
As I said: Pathetic.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Sorry to disappoint you. You seem to have a vested interest in the myth of the big bad government's precision and thoroughness. It was their negligence, disorganization, and bureaucratic bungling that left the door wide open for the terrorist attack in the first place.
After all, if they're as nefarious as you seem to think they are, they wouldn't have thought to list a serial number in their phony cover story? That would satisfy the boundless suspicion of you amateur sleuths?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago 2
@alawson911 "How did an unidentified person know where to stand to track that plane's last moments?"
Are you serious?
The plane was in the sky above Manhattan, so let's at least admit there are countless vantage points where the plane could have been filmed. And since everyone with a camera within ten miles had theirs running within minutes of the first plane's impact, I'm not sure why we're supposed to be suspicious that someone took footage of the second plane flying into its target.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911
You keep ignoring questions about those terribly inconvenient phone calls made from UA 175. George Papcun writes that those calls could not have been faked. Tell us what the expert gets wrong.
Your ignorance of DNA testing procedures caused you to make reckless and indefensible charges against the NYC Coroner's Office. Tell us what you actually know. How did remains of passengers and crew members of AA11 and UA 175 find their way to Ground Zero?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@jelinto
There is no "official" story.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Once again: Your comment has been deleted, as promised.
When you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
get back to me,
Don't you know what "...I don't know where he went means"?
alawson911 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Your comment has been deleted, as promised.
When you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
get back to me.
alawson911 1 month ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911
Oh, Anthony, you seem to have ignored my comments about the phone calls made from UA 175. Dr. George Papcun, the "father of voice-morphing technology," has explained why those calls could not have been faked. Tell us what the expert gets wrong. Can we assume that he's yet another lying shill? What exactly do you KNOW about the relevant science?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Your comment has been deleted, as promised.
When you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
get back to me.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 175 terrorists changed the squawk. 175 never disappeared from RADAR. RADAR is taped, the raw data never "lost" Flt 175. A controller might not see exactly where 175 is when 175 change code, 175 not lost to RADAR. After the event the RADAR from Multiple RADAR sites confirm 175 impacted the WTC tower. If you are claiming 175 was lost, it means nothing. If you don't comprehend 175 on video matches RADAR data; you can't do rational research.
iSunTzu 1 month ago
@iSunTzu
A mid-air swap is the equivalent of a person walking behind a pillar, and another person, of the same build and in similar attire, walking out at the same speed. Easy.
Regarding radar dead spots, see "Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?"
With regard to video matches, no video exists of alleged 175 taken from a distance greater than that from the WTC to Liberty Island, about 1.5 miles, so claiming radar/video matches is dishonest.
PS: Your taste in videos is disgusting.
alawson911 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, what happened to the passengers and crew?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
If flight 77 was a missile and not a plane, what knocked down the pole lights outside the Pentagon?
ctcole77 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Your comment has been deleted, as promised.
When you have Dave Bottiglia's recantation of:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to...”
get back to me.
alawson911 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck you are a shill
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
@thisisyourwakeup
Wow, that's original! I'll bet you're the first brain-dead twoofer who can't support any of his stupid fairy tales to accuse one of his many intellectual and moral superiors of being a shill.
There are no shills. There are rationalists and conspiracy liars.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 3
@RonaldWieck , @thisisyourwakeup
Warning: Cover-up artists can never resist making personally abusive comments.
Beware of ANYONE who claims that not even ONE of the apparent anomalies in the official 9/11 story is worth looking into. For example:
Why did an anonymous camera operator climb onto a roof, with restricted access and "just happen" to get that shot of the South Tower plane pulling out of its steep descent with the twin chimneys used as a marker? Counter 4:07
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Desperate rubbish. The engine parts found near Ground Zero belonged to a 767. The photos don't lie, but twoofers lie all the time. Your unnamed "engineer" was proved wrong. Are you turning into a no-planer, Anthony?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
You are proving your total lack of comprehension.
The engine in question was ORIGINALLY fitted to Boeing 747s and later to 767s. This one almost certainly came from one of the Boeing 767 series of aircraft, because the South Tower plane looked like a 767.
BUT the HPCD on the engine found in Murray Street was NOT the duct used in the later engine types that were fitted to the ENTIRE United Airlines Boeing 767 fleet, as confirmed by a retired Pratt & Witney engineer.
alawson911 1 month ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
If NORAD was told to “stand down” how do you explain F-15 fighters ordered to intercept the high-jacked planes 6 minutes after WTC 1 was hit?
How can Dick Cheney order NORAD to “stand down” if he was never in charge of NORAD?
If WTC 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, how do you explain firefighters predicting the building's collapse 3 hours before the actual collapse?
ctcole77 1 month ago
@thisisyourwakeup and your a proven pedophlie.
The 9/11 movement should be ashamed to have idiots like you.
koertje 2 weeks ago
video length is 911, compare planted landing gear with the size of windows in the WTC!!!! Its like getting an elephant through a cat flap
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck's
comment has been removed because he insists on lying. There is no doubt that alleged UA 175 was "lost', as far as positive and continual identity of the radar return goes, but Wieck insist that it wasn't, and refers to JREF threads and claims:
"You will soon have the opportunity of hearing Dave Bottiglia explain the matter in detail."
Okay. Let's wait for that. Send me the podcast, presumably it will be on Hard Fire. Until then, stop accusing me of lying.
alawson911 1 month ago
Dude stop spamming my inbox with all your videos
byteusa 1 month ago
@alawson911 "all showing visual holemarks of classic controlled demolitions" sorry but WTC 1 and 2 doesn't look like controlled demolitions... they fall from the top to down + the core columns were seen for few seconds after the collapse still standing, this actually dissproves the controlled demolition. Nice video tho.
sebastiansz 1 month ago
@sebastiansz
You are right. They certainly look like controlled demolitions, but "classic" ones tend to start at ground level.
However, the fact that the core columns can be seen for a few seconds doesn't disprove the demolition theory. The ejection of massive amounts of material, outwards, from the top of the buildings could not have been caused by gravity, and why would the cores remain for only a few seconds? It appears that something must have helped their total collapse.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Please explain why "the ejection of massive amounts of material" NEVER occurs in a controlled demolition (hint: that's the "controlled" part).
The gravity-driven collapse of 110-story skyscrapers was an unprecedented event. Physicists and structural engineers have calculated the enormous amount of energy released by those collapses, vastly more than enough to explain the ejection of large chunks of debris. There are many peer-reviewed papers. Have you read ANY?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Well delete as many of my comments as you want.
I am equally fed up with the truth movement becoming the laughing stock of the world. Controlled demolition theorists are the creationists among 9/11 truth, period.
pacificaLuca 1 month ago
I think it's freaky that this awesome 9-11 video is 9 minutes and 11 seconds long : ) ....please make the next one twice as long; you're awesome at speaking the truth.
worldphilosopher101 1 month ago
@worldphilosopher101
Thank you. It wasn't easy. YouTube's clocks round things up and down in an odd way. Trial and error was the only way.
alawson911 1 month ago
@pacificaLuca
You can disagree without using swearwords.
I'm fed up deleting them from my comments pages, but I will continue to do so in respect for other contributors to these discussions.
alawson911 1 month ago
What about the supporters of the 9/11 truth movement that don't exactly cling to controlled demolition and "unidentified plane" theories?
Do we still have a place in the movement?
pacificaLuca 1 month ago
@pacificaLuca
If you think that controlled demolitions did not occur, I cannot help you, because I can see no other reason for the Twin Towers to have collapsed, in the way they did. And I certainly think the WTC 7 could not have suddenly collapsed as it did, without demolition charges.
As for the unidentified planes, that is not a theory, it is a fact. The wreckage from the four planes that crashed was never linked, forensically, to the planes that were allegedly hijacked.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
You can make these points on 'Hardfire,' where they will be challenged by a well-informed rationalist. You seem to conflate the 9/11 Commission Report with the actual investigation that commenced within hours of the last crash. I know you to be an intelligent man. Are you engaging in deliberate obfuscation?
Are you content to preach to a choir of angry ignoramuses? How about appearing on the show?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
Anthony, you can't accept facts inconvenient to your fantasies. The four planes were tracked to the crash sites by air traffic controllers. Are they all complicit in your imaginary conspiracy? Tell us more about the remains of the passengers and crew members. They were identified by DNA testing. Are you claiming that the forensic examiners are also in on it?
Avionics techs state that you are flatly wrong about the engine recovered at Ground Zero. Why don't you care?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
An aircraft cannot be accurately tracked in busy airspace after its transponder has been switched off. What is left is a radar blip; no identifier. If two blips merge, there is no way of knowing which is which when they separate on the radar screen.
Alleged AA11: Transponder off at 08:21. Impacts North Tower 08:46:40s. Period of anonymity: 25m 40s.
Alleged UA 175: Transponder code changes at 08:47. Impacts South Tower 9:03:11s. Period of anonymity: 16m 11s. /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
The gaps can be likened to a lapse in the chain-of-custody of tangible evidence. What happened during these time gaps is anybody's guess, but it cannot be certain that the planes that crashed were those that were allegedly hijacked.
In an investigation which failed to forensically identify the primary murder weapons, I do not consider the claims about DNA evidence to be realistic. Clear and readily available evidence with identifying serial numbers was totally ignored... /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
... but the mashed up body parts of the alleged passengers and crews, crushed beyond any hope of visual recognition, are somehow separated from each other and painstakingly matched to DNA samples supplied by relatives? Oh, really!
And why do you specify that "Avionics techs" dispute my claims about the engine? They deal in electronics, not jet engines.
However the daughter of a retired Pratt & Witney engineer has confirmed that her father thinks I am right about the engine.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Let's ignore unnamed retired mechanics and focus on what real avionics techs have to say. Here is a link to a thread on the JREF where your claim is discussed comprehensively, with photos:
forums(dot)randi(dot)org/showthread(dot)php?t=208381
It is beyond silly that your imaginary conspiracy would plant, in plain sight of hundreds of rescue workers, the wrong aircraft part. It is sad that you cannot back off a demonstrable error.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
Your argument from ignorance does not impress. Uninformed dismissal of science you fail to understand is unlikely to persuade anyone except the agenda-driven zombies you are appealing to by producing a YouTube video. I have linked to one of many articles describing the process of identfying victims crushed and burned beyond recognition on 9/11:
integratedtrainingsummit(dot)org/presentations/2005/266(dot)pdf
Will you read the material presented?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
As you have been told many times, the crash investigators and air traffic controllers do not agree with you. You were unable to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE where serial-numbered parts were used to identify a crashed airliner. You have made a practice of hand-waving away photos of serial-numbered parts from AA77. Please explain Dave Bottiglia's comments as he and his colleagues tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
Anthony, why do you continue to promote such nonsense? Nobody who works in the demolition industry swallows your cult's snake oil. The characteristic sounds of controlled demolition--a near simultaneous series of blasts followed immediately by the collapse of the building--were conspicuously absent from the auditory record. Absolutely NO physical evidence of explosives was found anywhere in the WTC complex.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Discussing anything with someone who lies by innuendo and makes things up is futile. Here is a list of the way you have attempted to twist my response.
Quote: "Let's ignore unnamed retired mechanics..." Of course you want to ignore information you don't like, and the person in question was not a mechanic, he was a P&W engineer.
Quote: "...your imaginary conspiracy would plant... the wrong aircraft engine" I have never claimed that the engine was planted. /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
Quote: "Your argument from ignorance does not impress. Uninformed dismissal of science..."
I've known of the document you cited for some time, but did you notice that it is not a peer-reviewed paper and that it includes this disclaimer:
"Any opinions in this handout are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or any other Federal agency."
So much for ignorance. /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
Quote: "You were unable to provide a SINGLE INSTANCE where serial-numbered parts were used to identify a crashed airliner."
It is not incumbent on me to produce such an instance. The NTSB is seldom required to make a positive identification of an entire aircraft; they use serial numbers to identify parts that may have caused a crash by referring to the purchase and maintenance logs.
Quote: "You have made a practice of hand-waving away photos of serial-numbered parts from AA77" /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
That is a flat out lie. I have never ignored any relevant evidence, but these alleged photos of serial numbered parts, which I have never seen, would be useless without reference to a purchase or maintenance log.
Why don't you produce such photos with matching ID references?
Considering that the FBI has refused to provide serial numbers of the Black Boxes alleged to have been found and that the NTSB did not investigate any of the crashes, you may have a tough task ahead of you. /cont
alawson911 1 month ago
Quote: "Please explain Dave Bottiglia's comments as he and his colleagues tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower."
According to one very detailed report, at 8:51 Dave Bottiglia called out to another controller, “I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to....”
That certainly does not tally with your claim that Dave Bottiglia "tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower."
Why did you need to lie about this?
alawson911 1 month ago
Finally, you dismiss the findings of the architects, engineers and scientists who cite molten steel being ejected from the corner of one of the Towers as it was collapsing; something that aircraft fuel could not have caused, as well as the clear audio evidence at 6:40 in this video.
You have called such people "agenda-driven zombies" but your justification for using such an insult is full of holes, so what does that make you? Are you just an ignorant fool or a paid government lackey?
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Gage's frauds flee from confrontations with real structural engineers and metallurgists for an excellent reason. No molten STEEL was identified, nor could it have been. Your desperation has driven you to resort to the favored insults of ignorant adolescents who learn everything from YouTube videos cranked out by agenda-driven incompetents. The audio record of the collapses contains nothing remotely resembling the characteristic sounds of demolition, AS YOU KNOW.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911
Yes, Anthony, why DO you continue to lie?
historycommons(dot)org/entity(dot)jsp?entity=dave_bottoglia
NO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS THINK THAT THE PLANES THAT CRASHED AT THE WTC COMPLEX WERE ANYTHING BUT THE PLANES THAT TOOK OFF FROM LOGAN!
You clumsily ducked away from those terribly inconvenient forensic examinations that identified the passengers and crew members. Your argument from ignorance fooled nobody except the willfully blind zombies you appeal to.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
Of course it isn't a peer-reviewed paper. It is an explanation, one of many, of the procedures used by forensic specialists to identify human remains that have been crushed or burned beyond recognition.
Why do you cling to such hopeless fantasies?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Is this what you call a hopeless fantasy in regard to the veracity of your claims that the DNA was properly identified?
"Any opinions in this handout are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or any other Federal agency."
A document with the above disclaimer in it would never be accepted as evidence in a properly constituted court of law.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
WHO exactly is questioning the methodology of the forensic labs that identified the remains of people killed on 9/11? WHAT errors of science are we talking about? For unfathomable reasons, your mindless cult wants us to reject the conclusions of the forensic examiners. Can you flesh out the argument a bit?
WHY NOT?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@alawson911
This non-controversy was invented by an uninformed twoofer and is absurd. The photos don't lie. If you read through the JREF thread I linked to, you will see that all your questions have been answered. Your retired engineer is simply wrong.
If an aircraft part was found near Ground Zero and it did NOT come from either of the two planes that crashed there and it was NOT planted, uh, please explain how on earth it got there.
This is very silly stuff.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
Ronald Wieck is a proven liar (see my recent responses to his comments, above) and I have long given up debating important issues with liars.
People who have genuine concerns on certain issues are different, but when someone makes a statement knowing that it is false, any basis for a reasonable discussion flies out of the window.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
Sorry, Anthony, no twoofer has ever caught me in a lie and none ever will. There is a reason why you, like other peddlers of pernicious nonsense, refuse to subject your fantasies to the scrutiny of open debate. Real avionics techs and crash investigators discussed on the JREF your absurd claim about the engine found near Ground Zero. TELL US WHAT THEY GOT WRONG!
No smears of the JREF--no blather about "paid shills"--TELL US WHAT THEY GOT WRONG.
Will you do that?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck
You've just lied again.
You claimed that Dave Bottiglia "tracked UA 175 right to the doorstep of the south tower."
Yet all accounts of the progress of UA 175, including the Commission's, state that it changed its transponder.
At 8:51 Dave Bottiglia called out to another controller:
“I can’t get a hold of UAL 175 at all right now and I don’t know where he went to.”
So Dave Bottilia could not possibly have done what you claimed he did.
You lied about not lying!
alawson911 1 month ago
The difference between me and many of those who post on JREF and other sites is that I only use the facts. I do not make things up. But I do think about what COULD have happened, for example, in order to rationally explain the distinct possibility that the engine found in Murray St. did not come from a UA 767-200.
It was the Bush administration that decided not to forensically identify this engine, or any other debris.
Then, as we later finally found out, there were no WMD in Iraq.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 "I only use the facts. I do not make things up."
Well, you did make up the "fact" that someone dropped the wrong kind of jet engine on Murray St. to make people think that UAL175 had crashed into the South Tower.
Would you also make up the "fact" that the body parts of UAL175 passengers were planted at Ground Zero? Or is there some sort of limit to your game of Let's Pretend?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
If you listen carefully to the commentary you will find that I have been careful with what I have stated:
"This research, which had to rely on photographs, SEEMS to indicate that this component, called a High Pressure Turbine cooling duct, is from a Pratt and Witney JT9D-7 series engine as used on the Boeing 747."
I then go on to point out that the cooling ducts from the engines used in UA's 767 fleet were a different type and used a different HPT duct. cont/
alawson911 1 month ago
This discrepancy has been noted for some time and the daughter of a retired P & W engineer has confirmed it. Of course this engineer is not about to throw away his pension by going public, but I had no cause to doubt his daughter's statement, and the fact that the engine, a vital section of a murder weapon, was buried in a landfill gives me the right to make such a deduction, and end this section: "So if the South Tower plane was not UA 175, what was it?" Note the conditional "if".
alawson911 1 month ago
As far as I know, no body parts from the rubble of the South Tower were subjected to DNA testing to try and separate out the remains of the alleged passengers and crew of the plane that hit it, from those of the occupants.
And why would I make up such "evidence"? It certainly would not further my theory that I think that the plane may not have been UA 175. But if you have such "evidence", please let me know how I can look into its validity.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 "As far as I know, no body parts from the rubble of the South Tower were subjected to DNA testing"
And how extensively are we supposed to assume you have investigated this before spitting out your latest melodramatic video? Have you talked to anyone at the NYC coroner's office or the fire department? Have you talked to anyone at the FBI, or the victims' families? Is this about real inquiry or just pandering to people's suspicion and presumption?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
"As far as I know..." implies that I have found no information on the matter, one way or another, and, given the known problems of identifying ANY of the dead from the Towers, which it is quite easy to check out on the Internet, I see no reason to expect that such work was carried out.
You can do some research and prove me wrong. You are the one who indicated that I might make something up.
By the way, they didn't find any WMD in Iraq. That was a lie, so....
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 The WMDs aren't relevant. In fact, if Bush & Co. had engineered 9/11, they probably would have blamed Saddam and not had to fabricate the WMDs to excuse their land grab there.
I'm just wondering why we should take the word of some advert director when it comes to the DNA identification of the UAL175 passengers at Ground Zero. Did you interview the people likely to have done the testing, or conduct any sort of responsible research before making your melodramatic claims? Hm?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
The US government's claim about WMD is relevant because it proves that they were not averse to lying when launching a war which cost the lives of well over a million human beings. Or don't those deaths concern you?
Your original proposal was:
"Would you also make up the "fact" that the body parts of UAL175 passengers were planted at Ground Zero?"
My answer was, basically, why would I do that?
You don't seem to know what you are arguing about.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911
You're still flogging the lie that over a million people died in Iraq? How silly!
A hundred thousand deaths is an appalling figure, but most Iraqis were killed, as you know, by other Iraqis and your beloved foreign jihadists.
Tell how the remains of passengers and crew members from AA11 and UA175 ended up at Ground Zero. Are the forensic examiners ALL part of your insanely bloated imaginary conspiracy? Are those examiners incompetent? Tell us what you know, Anthony.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911 "the daughter of a retired P & W engineer has confirmed it."
Wow. This speaks volumes about the extent of your research.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
So when I do do some research, you don't believe me.
No Pratt & Witney engineer, nor any Boeing engineers will come forward and be named, because they would be risking at least their jobs or pensions and possibly more.
This woman contacted me about the issue, and volunteered the information. The cooling-duct rings do NOT match those of the engine's used in UA's fleet of 767s.
Now come up with something else to explain this, of I'll block you.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 All I'm asking is what research you conduct, aside from surfing the Web. Concerning the DNA identification of the passengers of UAL175 at Ground Zero, you claimed, "I see no reason to expect that such work was carried out." A responsible investigator would interview emergency personnel, FBI agents, families of the victims, or the NYC coroner's office before making such a claim. Did you?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
I do not have the resources or the authority to carry out such work.
You are asking why I cannot wield the power of a police detective or district attorney, in a way that suggest that any other kind of research is invalid. Stop being silly.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Um, you don't have a telephone? You need some sort of complicated licensing to interview the NYC chief medical examiner before you make melodramatic claims about his identification of victims of UAL175 at Ground Zero?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
Yes, I have a telephone and a brain, as well. That brain tells me that, given the lies and obfuscations about what really happened on 9/11, and the determination on the part of the authorities not to open a proper enquiry, with all of the forensic evidence made public, including the serial numbers of the Black Boxes and their provenances and the videotapes from the cameras surrounding the Pentagon, I realise that anyone will be able to tell lies with impunity.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Okay. So the reason you haven't done any responsible research into the matter is that you "realize"the NYC chief medical examiner is going to lie to you anyway. So this gives you an excuse to continue to assume (and report as fact to people watching your videos) that the remains of the passengers of UAL175 were never identified at Ground Zero.
Sounds like a pretty convenient way to avoid having to do any real work in your "research."
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@alawson911 I'm sure in your extensive research on this matter you've talked to NYC's chief medical examiner, Dr. Charles Hirsch, who as you know had the daunting task of identifying the human remains culled from the Staten Island landfill. I'd be interested to know what Hirsch told you that led you to believe that no such work was, in fact, ever carried out.
Hirsch's office claimed that several passengers from UAL175 had been identified at Ground Zero. Should I believe them or you?
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
You can believe what you want to, but you are now writing about the remains found on Staten Island.
Just as the flight paths of the planes cannot be verified, I doubt that a chain-of-custody log was maintained for the transported remains. And it is now known that DNA can be faked.
If this was a false flag operation, which I think is highly likely, the possibility of fooling a medical examiner to put "icing on the forensic cake" cannot be ruled out.
alawson911 1 month ago
Comment removed
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@alawson911
Utter crapola. Your cult's lies about the engine found near Ground Zero have been exposed. Find me one twoofer who will subject his snake oil to serious scutiny by facing a real crash investigator.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
@RonaldWieck your use of the word twoofer shows the extreme poverty of your so called arguments. I advise Anthony not to engage with this fake as he has zero interest in truth but only wants to protect the guilty
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
@thisisyourwakeup
Thank you for the backup. You are right, attempting to denigrate the integrity of people who are genuinely concerned about the many discrepancies in the official 9/11 story by calling them names is a sure sign of someone who knows he stands on shaky ground.
Quoting the anonymous contributors to the JFEF site, for example, as "authorities" is another dead giveaway.
Anyone can make a mistake, but just one lie, repeated over and over, says it all about Mr Wieck.
alawson911 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911 So you think it's more likely that the conspirators planted the human remains of UAL175 passengers in the Staten Island landfill than that they were transferred there from Ground Zero. In the same way that you believe it's more likely the conspirators planted the wrong jet engine on Murray St., than that the enormous engine fell from a jet that crashed into the South Tower.
You certainly have a unique way of assessing probabilities.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@thisisyourwakeup
Speaking of fakes, how about YOU showing us your evidence? Show us something that hasn't been disproved a thousand times. Show us something that can stand critical scrutiny.
There is a reason why the frauds and fools who lead you zombies by the nose hide under their beds and refuse to confront the real scientists and engineers. It is the reason why your evil cult exists solely on the net.
RonaldWieck 1 month ago 2
@RonaldWieck
The fact that alleged UA175 was unidentifiable for the last 16m 40s (about 100 miles) of its flight means that the possibility of a swap cannot be ignored.
A period during which all FAA and NORAD air-safety and security measures were suspended for about two hours cannot be looked upon as normal. If no ATC is prepared to suggest that there may have been a swap, perhaps they needed to feed their families.
They would remember what happened to them under Ronald Reagan.
alawson911 1 month ago
Comment removed
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawson911
Gee, most of us remember that Reagan fired air traffic controllers for refusing to call off an illegal strike. How blatant was the illegality? Well, Democratic members of Congress, invariably in the pockets of labor unions, blustered and squirmed, but ultimately could not begin to justify such an obvious violation of the contracts signed by the striking workers.
Tell us more about your imaginary "swap." Where were those planes on the radar screens?
RonaldWieck 1 month ago
thank u for making the time in the video 911 that is very thoughtful of u
bschlude 1 month ago
I think the 9/11 Commission's failure to mention the Saudi sponsors of terrorist cells like the one that carried out the 9/11 attacks is a much more glaring omission than the collapse of Building 7. But I'm kooky like that.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
There is no evidence that proves that four planes were hijacked, on 9/11. This means that there is no evidence that any hijackers existed. No hijackers; no Saudi-sponsored terrorist cells.
The twists and turns of the lies within false-flag operations can be almost infinite, and when one lie unravels, all other factors must be re-addressed.
A false-flag attack is far more difficult to fathom, than a genuine attack by one national entity against another.
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 You only say there's no evidence of hijackers because you find it easy to dismiss anything that official bodies or mainstream sources reported about the event. There's a considerable body of mutually-corroborating information about the hijackers. Since the OS doesn't implicate Iraqis, I assume it wasn't made up out of whole cloth to excuse our invasion of that country.
But you'd rather focus on anomalies and coincidences, and pander to people's suspicion. Fine work you're doing.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago
@unRompecabezas
I don't just "say" that there is no evidence that the planes that allegedly did the damage were never forensically identified; the NTSB has confirmed it. This means that there is no solid evidence that puts hijackers in these planes. Of course the government can SAY there were hijackers, but just saying something is not proving it. Do you really think that if there were no issues about the planes' identities, they would not have properly identified the debris?
alawson911 1 month ago
@alawson911 Denial is okay when you do it with an English accent.
unRompecabezas 1 month ago