It's our old pal Henk, the man so dogged in the pursuit of journalistic accuracy that he thinks that Tony Blair is only PM of England. Anyway, enough of the ad hominen, where to start....

"Could you than please be so kind and refute the arguments given by eminent scholars and other distinguished professors/scientists, architects, investigating journalists, politicians, and many international secret service and government specialists, who daily say that nobody on our Earth - not even the Bush' cabal - can declare the Laws of Nature - like Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, his truly brilliant understanding of the force of gravity - null and void? That this can not be done even by a so called 'Presidential decree' or on his orders?"

Okay Henk, this should be easy. Let's see the arguments given by eminent architects supporting the conspiracy claims then - speaking as someone rather familiar with the architectural press, I do seem to have somehow missed that one.

Then lets see you flesh out what the structural engineering community say about the collapse.

And finally, if we filter out the eminent scholars and distinguished professors/scientists who do not actually have any relevant qualifications or experience in fields such as fire engineering, structural mechanics, controlled demoliation, and architecture? Because if you're talking about the likes of Scholars for Truth then you're going to be left with a short, short list.

Hello, Architect, it's insidejob.

Architect, you need to ask yourself a question: "Am I deluded?

Or rather can I demonstrate that because you believe the official 911 conspiracy concerning the Pentagon you, like others, are hopelessly deluded?

That’s easy. Answer this question about the Pentagon strike:

Is it likely that the results of a 757 airplane weighing 220,000 pounds and travelling up to 530 mph is the same as that seen on the CCTV images recently made public by Judicial Watch?

The CCTV images are available on the Judicial Watch website,  http://judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

A 757 crashing into reinforced concrete would make a MASSIVE explosion. Probably, it would be heard up to ten miles away. There would be a massive fire. Much of the Pentagon wall would be destroyed. Parts of the plane would be flung half a mile away. Yet, this is not what we saw on the recently released CCTV images. If it was a 757, what the CCTV showed us would be a physical impossibility. And if witnesses claim they saw a 757 smash into the Pentagon, they must be deluded.

SO, ARCHITECT, IS A 757 TRAVELLING AT 530MPH HITTING REINFORCED CONCRETE LIKELY TO PRODUCE A MASSIVE EXPLOSION OR NOT?

You see, if the answer is no, then the Government is lying to us about 911 and is involved in a conspiracy.

Extract from Boeing webpages:
 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html
Commercial Airlines
757-200 Background
‘…The 757-200 takeoff weights range from 220,000 pounds (99,800 kilograms) up to a maximum of 255,000 pounds (115,660 kilograms) for greater payload or range. A freighter configuration of the 757-200 also is available….’


Below is an eyewitness who actually sees a drone but is so deluded he thinks he sees a 757. It's evidence of how deluded the witnesses are. He didn't 'hear anything at all until' the plane was above him and although it was 20ft above him!!?? And the plane's turbulence did not affect to him!!??
 http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_crash_eyewitness_comforted_victims.html
'"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.'

BBC version shows the plane travelled at 530mph:
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3919613.stm#third
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 FROM WASHINGTON TO LOS ANGELES
'...The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.
At 09:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, travelling at approximately 530mph....'

...here we go again.

 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/fetzer.html

I am with Chomsky on this:

'There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.'

Source:

 http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050131.htm

Bacofoil,

Oh, don't hide behind such rubbish. Why don't you find out about the US intelligence service are capable of before you start acting as their PR officer?

Just because Chomsky and most people in the US wouldn't believe that the CIA have been in charge of drug smuggling from South East Asian since they invaded Vietnam doesn't mean they haven't been. You only have to look at BCCI to know that the CIA, MI5 et al are quite happy to do business with Abu Nidal terrorists, the Medlin Cartel and, of course, Osama Bin Laden. (If you don't know what BCCI was, find out.)

Why would Chomsky know whether or not the whole US defence and intelligence services or powerful elements within it would or wouldn't commit the 911 act? Why would he be able to tell us whether they could or could not keep the mouths of hundreds of people's mouths shut or not? Are they gonna tell him?

But, Bacofoil, I'm not clear on whether you are saying that the Pentagon-757 hijacked managed to defy the laws of physics or not. I'm sure you answer the question.

After all, don't you think you would you notice a quarter of a million-pound heavy 757 travelling at 20 feet before it flew over you in your car or not?

And would a 757 travelling at 530mph practically demolish the whole facade of reinforced concrete if it smashed into it, cause a massive fire and cause quite loud bang that would be heard ten miles away, or not?

Or are you going to support a ridiculous assertion which is that the quarter of a million-pound heavy 757, travelling at 530mph, was fairly quiet when it smashed into the Pentagon?

"A 757 crashing into reinforced concrete would make a MASSIVE explosion.Probably, it would be heard up to ten miles away."
"

Would it? What kind of explosion? How much fuel was there on board? What happens if it the fuel largely explodes inside the building? Produce data. Comparators. Peer reviewed data. Then I'll answer you.


"Much of the Pentagon wall would be destroyed. "

I look forward to you producing information on the performance of concrete and framed structures in explosive impacts in order to back that up.

"Parts of the plane would be flung half a mile away"

Really? How do you work that out?

Yet, this is not what we saw on the recently released CCTV images. If it was a 757, what the CCTV showed us would be a physical impossibility. And if witnesses claim they saw a 757 smash into the Pentagon, they must be deluded.

But you, who didn't, and have presumably seen only the CCTV, are to be believed despite the absence of substantiation?

Space aliens who killed JFK also faked the moon landings and 9/11. And if you don't agree you are a plant!

Hoot!

Inside Job

You can cherry pick snippets of information as much as you want, but it seems to me that an overhwelming number of people clearly did see a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon

 http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Architect,

Your suggestion about tests is a good idea. Afteral, you can ask the same questions of the official explanation of the Pentagon strike. Independent tests would answer many questions. but...

...But neither you or Bacofoil have answered the questions. Architect, unless you are saying you cannot make any claim about the Pentagon impact without doing tests, even my O-Level physics tells me that the official story of the impact is goobledygook. (OK, even I was suckered into believing it at one stage, so it's not just you who were deluded.) So, let's try again.

Would a 757 weighing over around quarter of a million pounds, travelling at 530mph and crashing into reinforced concrete create a very big explosion or not?

Bacofoil, the witness I quoted are the deluded witnesses your support of the official explanation depends on. I have heard no reports of any Pentagon witness who said the 757 flew over them on the way to the facade who stated that the engine noise was loud or that there was a lot of turbulence. Can you point me to any?

Do you endorse the statement made by the witness I quoted?

Are you saying that it usual that a plane 20 feet off the ground would not produce a lot of noise and turbulence?

Taking inspiration from Hoot, was the 757 built by space aliens?

insidejob

'And if witnesses claim they saw a 757 smash into the Pentagon, they must be deluded'.

I really do not know how you can say this, you were not there, and you have absolutely no proof for your assertions that all those people were deluded. Plenty of people saw the plane hit, as I said before, you can cherry pick statements as much as you want.

'I have heard no reports of any Pentagon witness who said the 757 flew over them on the way to the facade who stated that the engine noise was loud or that there was a lot of turbulence. Can you point me to any'

From the link I posted earlier, here are some extracts mentioning the plane roaring over head and the impact of the explosion. I do not understand your position on this, these people were eyewitnesses, not established authors so the fact that not all people evoked every single detail of the sights, sounds and smells of the deeply traumatic event that they witnessed does not mean that their accounts are therefore irrelevant.

Extracts


I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen.

Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel [located 1.6 mile from the explosion], (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a "loud roar": Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook.

Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Inside the Pentagon, the blast lifted Beans off the floor as he crossed a huge open office toward his desk. "You heard this huge concussion

Mickey Bell : The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast.

It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane, Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls.


It would appear you, Inside Job, would rather jettison all this testimony in favour of your own subjective interprepation based on a few frames of silent CCTV footage. Seriously, I cannot see how you can maintain your position on this.

I used to collect old Marvel comics. There was a certain thrill in finding, buying and owning a particularly rare edition. There was an attendant feeling of prestige, woth and superiority.The problem is that very often when you actual put your gloves on, slipped a rarity out its protective sleeve and read it, it was total shite- which left a nagging sense of being rather stupid.

Comic collecting is a very small community and the hardcore tends to be sad, socially-isolated nerds with nothing better to do than nurture an encyclopaedic knowldege of comics that are essentially a poor and unsatisfying read. Not content with that, they then go on to create a false value for these "rarities" by competing to own them.

The reason that the 911 industry is just a small ineffectual minority is nothing as outlandish as an elaborate plot by all seeing-all powerful regime, it's simply because it's totally rubbish and totally unsatisfying.

I love conspiracy theories too. They are good fun, they are amusing and they provide some level of social interaction for people who have nothing real in their lives. But like the comics, they are essentially rubbish that only has a false value to a sad minority.

Witnesses, eh?

Mrs. Deb Anlauf heard a "loud roar": “Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible.”

Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head.”

He and two colleagues saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming."

Let me repeat. The plane was travelling 530mph and as Boeing says:
'Engines are available from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce in thrust ratings from 36,600 (162.8 kilonewtons) to 43,500 pounds (193.8 kilonewtons).'
 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html
Let’s say, it’s very noisy and would throw cars around if they were near the engine.

Yet, we still have witnesses who heard nothing until a “plane right outside my window”. It was going 530mph but the witness said: “You felt like you could touch it…” Seeing it flash past you would be remarkable enough. Or the witness cutting the grass who only noticed a very noisy plane when “it came in screaming over my head”.

Perhaps it was an alien spacecraft if we are to believe the witness who said he saw a plane, travelling 530mh, dive and level off at 30 feet. How does a pilot in a plane travelling at 530mph level off at 30 feet?

If we are to believe these witnesses, it is clear they saw and heard nothing on this planet. Or perhaps what they did see was a cruise missile.

And we still have the mystery of a very heavy plane travelling at 530mph that when it smashed into reinforced concrete only created a hole it couldn’t fit into, an explosion with flames that lasted a couple of seconds and cars and spools right next to the impact that weren’t instantly destroyed or thrown up in the air. It seems the hijackers created magic and they disappeared most of the energy that would result from such a crash.

People are so deluded that they can dismiss conspiracy theories and not realise that the idea that Iraq was behind 911 which millions of people in the US thought justified war, was no more than a conspiracy theory. Even the FBI say they don’t have enough evidence to charge Bin Laden.

Inside Job

Those quotes took me two minutes to find, yet you claimed, after 'researching' this issue that you 'have heard no reports of any Pentagon witness who said the 757 flew over them on the way to the facade who stated that the engine noise was loud or that there was a lot of turbulence.' Do you even bother to read anything posted by those who disagree with you?

You focus unduly on one witness who failed to mention the noise made by the plane and try to build a 'case' around this. By the way, your link reagrding that quote does not work, could you provide a working link please.

You 'cherry pick' bits and pieces to suit your arguments, but the fact is, it seems that hundreds of people saw the plane hit. You might have a case if there had only been four or five witnesses, but there were hundreds, your case simply does not stack up. You neglected to draw attention to the woman who said 'I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common' Perhaps aircraft engine noise was nothing unusual?

As you seem unwilling to even read the links I have previously posted, I will reprint some salient bits here re the impact of the plane:

History of the Issue

The Pentagon no-757-crash theory first came to prominence in early 2002 when French author Thierry Meyssan published "The Frightening Fraud," which theorized that a truck bomb was responsible for the damage to the Pentagon, and then "Le Pentagate," which held that the damage was produced by a missile. These well-marketed books sold millions of copies in Europe. Meyssan's analysis is notable for wild inaccuracies in characterizing the damage to the Pentagon's facade. He suggests the impact hole was 15-18 feet in diameter, and that there was no damage on either side of that hole. That description completely ignores the first floor damage, in which walls were punctured over a width of about 90 feet, a fact that is easily determined from analysis of photographs available on the web in early 2002.

 http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html

 http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

 http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html


'People are so deluded that they can dismiss conspiracy theories and not realise that the idea that Iraq was behind 911 which millions of people in the US thought justified war, was no more than a conspiracy theory. Even the FBI say they don’t have enough evidence to charge Bin Laden'

How many more times do I have to say this, merely conceding that Islamic terrorists were behind 9/11 does not justify the subsequent actions of the west. By the way, I am not sure anyone has ever said Iraq was behind 9/11 as far as I am aware. Just because Bush/Blair used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war does not mean that they manufactured the event in the first place. The issue is not as simple as many conspiracy theorists have made it (ie. if you think terrorists committed 9/11 you therefore support the war, to argue that it was an inside job is therefore the only progressive stance) This is not the only position it is possible to have on this issue, and I am staggered why this never seems to sink in. I do beleive terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks (they do exist and occaisionally they can pull off events such as these). However, I do not believe that you can combat terrorism by invading countries and bombing the shite out of innocent people - indeed, I think it has quite the reverse effect from that intended. This does not make me a 'spook' or a war-monger.

Your frankly 'deluded' version of the events at the Pentagon, makes no mention of what happened to the very real plane and passengers that went missing. As soon as you start talking about planes being diverted, the passengers being bumped off and the plane being replaced by a drone, your 'explanation' becomes ludicrous. How any conspiracy theorist can seriously talk about 'occam's razor' then offer up this incredulous over complicated pile of nonsense is beyond me.

No doubt, we will continue to have this argument ad nauseum, but I find no reason to question the evidence given by hundreds of people who clearly saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon. I refer you back to the Chomsky quote I referred to earlier:

'The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky'.

I'm not even going bother with nutty pseudoscience that you quote, it has been debunked many a time in the public domain.

This however made me snigger:

"People are so deluded that they can dismiss conspiracy theories and not realise that the idea that Iraq was behind 911 which millions of people in the US thought justified war, was no more than a conspiracy theory. Even the FBI say they don’t have enough evidence to charge Bin Laden."

Here we have the classic conspiraloon false opposition/equivalence.

To dismiss 9/11 Truth as rubbish is by no stretch of the imgaination to endorse anything other than the disbelief in 9/11 Truth "theses". Anyone who can't grasp that is plainly too stupid to be let loose on a computer.

That certain people used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq is by no stretch of the imagination proof of any complicity in 9/11. In itself, it proves only opportunism.

Again, if you can't grasp that you must be mentally subnormal.

And judging by the tripe you endorse, I suspect you are.

. . . . of that, there isnt doubt.
. . . . and a stream of bullshit trying to cover it up.
in fact, perhaps this "public access" terminal got used for that too.



so, to "make up" - - - -
+ to prevent it happening - again
WTC TRUCKBOMB TRIAL, TRANSCRIPTS, CRYPTOME, PROSECUTION WITNESS, AA MOHAMED. APB, FT. BRAGG, RECORD, (FOIA), but perhaps it wasnt "blowback" but a puppet played as "blowback" by old ex-intel puppeteers on the take. . . .
"remember the scams"
. . . . how often is the "smoking gun" the cack-tentacled cover-up itself.
VERY?
mmmm . . . . questions....

. . . . dont assume the israelis are involved even if a few good seeming leads point that way - google "itsallzogoritsallbollocks" for a good explanation of some infowar ---- "red heron of choice" for some, see also "smedley dartington 1933" + "so what" !
spotting a pattern, + asking "why" d o e s get you quite a long way
keep up the thinking -
- that goes most for the people from the actual UNsubcontracted surveillance.
If you dont. . . . then
? ? ? ?




ps - dont fall for the "internal" cynicalSEEMIN' spin - it WASNT official, all that "petrodollars/euros" spin is shite, the fact that the aei or the afghanistan foundation had "reason$" is more stacking up slushfunds/cut-outs. . . .
a bunch of old spivs with "intel"exp
+ old "moral tutors", school/uni "spotters" etc. . . . the ST TRINIANS set, leonora?
dont rule it out.

OK, Bacofoil and IQ, I admit it. I’m biased. I don’t believe any witness saw a 757. That’s because I don’t believe that a 757 could dive to an altitude of 30 feet, level off and fly into the Pentagon. And I don’t believe that because IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. Unless, of course, the 757 was made by space aliens.

The issue of the hole in the Pentagon has been extensively discussed. The 911 myths type websites are seriously misleading, as is your description. They present photographs of the Pentagon when the roof had collapsed at 10:10am. The plane hit the building at 09:30am and left a roughly 16-18 foot hole in the Pentagon fascade. There is TV footage of the façade actually collapsing and, of course, the crew wasn’t present when the plane hit the Pentagon. To state that the impact immediately created the collapse is not true.

I think you can say that the involvement of another country’s defence or intelligence agencies in 911 constitutes a conspiracy theory:
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Poll: 70% BELIEVE SADDAM, 9-11 LINK
Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM
‘WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.’

Only one mad man has been convicted for sort-of involvement in 911. The FBI says they don’t have enough evidence to say the Bin Laden did 911. These are not strong grounds to dismiss any claim other than the Bin Laden did it. I’m actually presuming you think Bin Laden did it rather than some other shadowy Islamic terrorists no one knows about - since that would constitute a conspiracy theory.

As to the issue of Bush exploiting the 911 attack for his neo-colonial ‘War on Terror’, this is clearly critically important for the world but neither here nor there as to the row over who really did the attack. If anything, it supports the contention that Bush did it. If the ‘War on Terror’ is so strategically important, it is barely credible to believe that members of the elite would sit around on the off chance that mad Islamic terrorists would carry out a 911 attack against a multi-billion dollar defence system.


What follows is
1. evidence of how absurd the statements from Pentagon witnesses were. It is advice from the website of a Floria aviation school and says how much disruption would be caused by the jet blast and wake turbulence of a jetliner.
2. Then there is an extract from an article in a anti-New World Order campaigner. In the article, a pilot says how absurd the statements from the Pentagon witnesses were. (And before you go on about how mad New World Order campaigners are, the words are on the US dollar bill.)
3. 911 research finding out how many passengers on the 911 flights are dead
4. A report on 9/11/01 of what happened to Flight 93 (not the Pentagon flight but you get the picture.)

Distance Learning Technologies, Boca Raton, Florida 33427-2729 U.S.A.
 http://www.aviationwise.org/AC90-23E.html
4. VORTEX GENERATION. Lift is generated by the creation of a
pressure differential over the wing surfaces....Most of the energy is within a few feet
of the center of each vortex, but pilots SHOULD AVOID A REGION
WITHIN ABOUT 100 FEET OF THE VORTEX CORE.

d. When the vortices of larger aircraft sink close to the
ground (within 100 to 200 feet), they tend to move laterally over
the ground at a SPEED OF 2 or 3 KNOTS. (Figure 7.)

a. Engine exhaust velocities, generated by larger jet
aircraft during ground operations and initial takeoff roll,
dictate the desirability of lighter aircraft awaiting takeoff to
HOLD WELL BACK OF THE RUNWAY EDGE at the taxiway hold line.

( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm
FORMER PILOT SAYS 'JET BLAST' DISMISSAL DOESN'T FLY
‘…Therefore the pilot states unequivocally that jet blast would have tossed people and cars around like rag dolls if they were 20 feet or less below a Boeing 757, as is claimed by eyewitness reports.

Regarding the eyewitness report of Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer Frank Probst, who claimed that the plane flew so low past him that the engine was six feet away, our source exclaimed that this was a ridiculous impossibility.

The pilot said that Probst would have been sucked into the engine like a bird in a giant vacuum and that he had personally been in the cockpit and seen birds from 100 feet away that almost immediately get sucked into the engines.

Similar devastation would have been wrought on cars 20 feet below the plane according to the pilot, contradicting eyewitness reports describing only light shaking of vehicles.

The pilot also entertained the notion that eyewitnesses had grossly overestimated the altitude of the plane and that it was higher than the reported 20 feet but he was still adamant that those who claimed to have seen the faces of the passengers in the window were living in a fantasy land because the speed of the plane would have meant it appeared as a blur and akin to a bullet flying over their heads.

Our source, having had direct and extensive personal flying experience at low altitudes, also completely dismissed the feasibility that a Boeing 757 could be flown for any significant distance at just 20 feet above ground. He also cited other pilots of large commercial aircraft who concurred.’

 http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html
The 911 Passenger List Oddity :
SSDI = Social Security Death Index (SSDI)

911 Victims Compensation Fund.
Flight 11 :
Of the 92 people that are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%).
Of these 20 people only 3 are on the 911 Compensation Fund List.

Flight 77 :
Of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%).
Of these 64 people only 5 are on the Compensation Fund List.

Flight 175 :
Of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%)
Of these 65 people, only 3 are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list.

Flight 93 :
Of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%)
Of these 45 people, NONE are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list.

NOT ONE OF THEM!

Of the 266 people that we were told died on these jets, only 11 relatives applied for compensation.

who benefited has been omitted from this report. Even without this, it does contain an interesting
fact. According to the report, 98% of all the people who suffered a loss on 9-11 took the fund money.
The average payment was $1.8 million.

But here's where it gets strange:

Out of a total of 92 people on Flight 11, only 65 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 65 people on Flight 175, only 46 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 64 people on Flight 77, only 33 accepted the 9-11 fund (52%)
Out of a total of 45 people on Flight 93, only 25 accepted the 9-11 fund (56%)

Does any of this seem a little odd to you? Or is it possible that not only were the jets on 9-11 magical, but their passengers as well?

So there you have it; yet another glaring 9-11 inconsistency - just maybe the biggest of them all?
Skeptically yours,
Vincent Sammartino

 http://www.911inplanesite.com/bomb_threat.html
WCPO.com
PLANE LANDS IN CLEVELAND; BOMB FEARED ABOARD
Reported by: 9News Staff

Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

From your own posted link re the Boeing engines, Inside Job

'High-bypass-ratio engines combined with the wing design help make the 757 one of the quietest, most fuel-efficient jetliners in the world. The engines have large-diameter fans that move more air outside and around the hot core, boosting efficiency while reducing noise. Noise containment is further aided by acoustic linings in the engine nacelles.'

'These improvements reduce community noise of the already quiet 757-200 engines. In fact, noise levels are significantly lower than the requirements set forth in U. S. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, Stage 3, as well as ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Annex 16 Chapter 3.'

Saying you could almost 'touch the aircraft' is clearly a figure of speech. You neglect to reproduce the additional information that the woman was 1.6 miles away from the blast. How fast do you think planes are travelling when they take off from a runway? In short, pretty fucking fast mate, in order to take off. You ever seen that happening from a distance? Does it look like they are travelling fast when they launch themselves into the air? No!

By the way, BBC said nothing more than the plane was travelling at approximately 530 mph.

As far as I can see, alll of your recycled objections to a 'plane hitting the Pentagon' have been dealt with many times. Try this:

 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

The eyewitness evidence corroborates the physical evidence left at the scene. I still cannot see you have a case.

Again, the Bush exploitatin of 9/11 proves nothing in itself. The fact that you seem to think it does speaks volumes about what you think constitutes evidence, and explains your inclination to accept any drivel so long as it fits your prejudice.

The War oon Terror[ism] was totally inevitable. Bush's election campaign was full of sabre-rattling rhetotic aimed at various states- See Project for the New American Century's agenda.

Again, that in itself is no proof of complicity. It was only a matter of time before some sort of pretext presented itself- Al Qaeda had been hitting US targets for years before the Bush admin got a sniff of power.

Remember the early days of the Bush admin getting its arse spanked by China for Bush's swipes at them (downing of the spy plane)? The Chinese were firing a warning shot.

The rest of your nonesense belongs on "Elvis lives on the moon" type sites.

If you really believe that some shady cabal could fake a 757 hitting a building in broad daylight, you need professional help.

The fundamental principals of 9/11 Truth are so fucking pathetically stupid, it takes a special ind of person to buy into them.

Total bloody nonsense bereft of any kind of real world reasoning.