• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

benthamitemetric said:
What do you mean? It is an absolute fact that WTC7's debris removal was expedited so that a new substation could be built (plus the human remains search at WTC7 did not need to be nearly as intensive as in the tower debris piles). And the new WTC7 contains that new substation to this day.
Click to expand...

I have added this fact to my book with a few other things, but I had to put the NY Times quotes in the Appendix, else spend days rearranging the pictures and text on all following pages... which I'll do sometime!
 
MattNelson said:
You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.
Click to expand...

I suggest you really take in what the professionals in this board are telling you. Not just skim over them.

Think...and you're certainly capable of that, you left the no planes crap years ago. But think about what led you to believe them. What fundamental biases you held (unfamiliarity with plane crashes and debris behavior, surface conditions, for instance).

One could deduce easily from reading about NTSB investigations or even just watching air disaster documentaries that the crashes in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon probably aren't the wisest areas for a conspiracy theorist to claim something's amiss.

Now explore other biases and false premises you hold. It may explain your obsession here.
 
MattNelson said:
You are wrong when you say I don't care about 9/11 truth.

You are right when you say I am gullible. I believed the no planes crap for a few months in 2008/9. Now I've created some of the best material for bringing truth to the misled no planers. Obviously I have some other crap to work out. That's why I'm here taking punches.
Click to expand...

Have you watched any of Chris Mohr's videos? You seem to be going over a lot of the same ground.
 
There is no shortage of books written by people who were actually at ground zero on or in the months after 9/11.

Here are some that I've read:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ii4oHnDfw9gC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=4VD--5-T5IcC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=7EYjl-f3DhAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Hw9JZu7DWFAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=nOVAyVcEj1QC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=cOlqd4jWigYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uixp9REhsz8C
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=d83M6yIBao0C
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=pV1AqPxMnqUC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=D3YQIY1ShFYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=F-aFmMRBdbQC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-_7GlXXvgc8C

There are also quite a few hardcopy photography books that I discussed over at metabunk in this thread.

The NYTimes also has no shortage of extensive articles about survivors and the clean-up (see, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/fighting-to-live-as-the-towers-died.html). Seriously, go to your local library (or pay a small fee for an account) and just search the NYTimes for "9/11" or "ground zero" and you will find hundreds of articles that discuss the attacks and aftermath with first hand accounts.

As to what actually happened and why, the 9/11 Commission Report is actually highly comprehensive and well-organized.

The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.

So are you a serious scholarly investigator trying to add some value to this subject for posterity or are you just content to be some rube on the internet who, in his own ignorance of the subject he studies, has assembled a hodgepodge of incomplete information that grossly misleads others? For whatever reason (I suspect a combination of motivated reasoning and an echo chamber effect) you have spent countless hours preparing a book on a subject that studiously ignores the key aspects of that subject. You need to go back to brass tacks and try a different approach to researching because what you've been doing, while it did lead you to a few sources that the typical truther dunces would never find, really isn't treading any new ground that others couldn't themselves tread via google and you are still somehow missing the big picture.

Step back and remember there were tens of thousands of people who were actually directly affected by the attacks or involved in the actual investigation of them. You aren't going to assemble via internet searches a PDF report that provides some amazing evidence for controlled demolition of the towers when the NYPD arson and explosives team didn't find any such evidence during its months at ground zero. Wake up and snap out of it.
 
Last edited:
benthamitemetric said:
The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.
Click to expand...

Correction to be clear: the FBI spent almost 4 million hours on the PENTTBOM investigation through 2003.
 
benthamitemetric said:
There is no shortage of books written by people who were actually at ground zero on or in the months after 9/11.

Here are some that I've read:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ii4oHnDfw9gC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=4VD--5-T5IcC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=7EYjl-f3DhAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Hw9JZu7DWFAC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=nOVAyVcEj1QC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=cOlqd4jWigYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uixp9REhsz8C
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=d83M6yIBao0C
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=pV1AqPxMnqUC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=D3YQIY1ShFYC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=F-aFmMRBdbQC
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-_7GlXXvgc8C

There are also quite a few hardcopy photography books that I discussed over at metabunk in this thread.

The NYTimes also has no shortage of extensive articles about survivors and the clean-up (see, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/fighting-to-live-as-the-towers-died.html). Seriously, go to your local library (or pay a small fee for an account) and just search the NYTimes for "9/11" or "ground zero" and you will find hundreds of articles that discuss the attacks and aftermath with first hand accounts.

As to what actually happened and why, the 9/11 Commission Report is actually highly comprehensive and well-organized.

The FBI PENTTBOM report is similarly a must read. The FBI spent almost 4 million collectively (and that was only through 2003) on the PENTTBOM investigation. As beachnut would say, the FBI does criminal investigations, 9-11 truthers do woo and half-baked, bias-motivated internet searches. If you investigated 9/11 nonstop, 24 hours a day for 457 years, you'd have investigated 9/11 as much as the FBI did in its first two years of investigation.

So are you a serious scholarly investigator trying to add some value to this subject for posterity or are you just content to be some rube on the internet who, in his own ignorance of the subject he studies, has assembled a hodgepodge of incomplete information that grossly misleads others? For whatever reason (I suspect a combination of motivated reasoning and an echo chamber effect) you have spent countless hours preparing a book on a subject that studiously ignores the key aspects of that subject. You need to go back to brass tacks and try a different approach to researching because what you've been doing, while it did lead you to a few sources that the typical truther dunces would never find, really isn't treading any new ground that others couldn't themselves tread via google and you are still somehow missing the big picture.

Step back and remember there were tens of thousands of people who were actually directly affected by the attacks or involved in the actual investigation of them. You aren't going to assemble via internet searches a PDF report that provides some amazing evidence for controlled demolition of the towers when the NYPD arson and explosives team didn't find any such evidence during its months at ground zero. Wake up and snap out of it.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the list of books. From that list I have American Ground, Report from Ground Zero, What We Saw, and the 9/11 Commission Report. I've read Watching the World Change, but the other books in your list I've never seen.

I have been to the library a couple times to scour the many 9/11 articles in the microfiche NY Times. I need to go again.
 
MattNelson said:
Thank you very much for the list of books. From that list I have American Ground, Report from Ground Zero, What We Saw, and the 9/11 Commission Report. I've read Watching the World Change, but the other books in your list I've never seen.

I have been to the library a couple times to scour the many 9/11 articles in the microfiche NY Times. I need to go again.
Click to expand...

Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
 
benthamitemetric said:
Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
Click to expand...

Still ticks me off that truthers often just gloss over that...just like they gloss over the NIST reports and then try to search for alternatives, though they have not really refuted the content therein, they just don't like it.
 
benthamitemetric said:
Ok, and what of the comprehensive background information on the actual perpetrators of the attack that the FBI and 9/11 commission ultimately compiled through millions of hours of investigation? Surely that is worth discussion in your book, right?
Click to expand...

Matt—the above should be easy to answer unless your book isn’t actually interested in documenting what is actually knowable re 9/11. In the three weeks that you’ve been unable to answer that question, I hope you’ve reflected on the cognitive dissonance that is preventing you from answering.

The 9/11 truth “movement” was never a movement and is just dead end. Reread your own book and look and how often you jump to conclusions that do not necessarily follow and repeatedly ask open ended questions in order to imply sinister answers when non-sinister answers exist and are never even discussed. Take your inability to answer the question as a prompt to reevaluate your own biases, then embrace the concept of sunk costs and move on with your life.
 
Thanks. The book is about Ground Zero, so a full background on the terrorists would be out of the scope. However, I do get a bit off topic going into the 1st plane impact and lower level explosions.

You make a good point. A proper story, even non-fiction, needs to have the cause as well as the effect. Three or 4 of the WTC terrorists were identified by DNA, apparently. I agree that I should at least name them. (We never learned the names of the terrorists identified by DNA.)

What open-ended question with sinister implications did I ask that made you take notice?
 
I was going to post this anyway:

Announcing the release of a PDF picturing most of the WTC plane debris, "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." It's 84 pages, 48 MB. I made a video on my channel CTV911 also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCyBtXLI8U4

CBS shows some Flight 11 debris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coqYraFn-B4#t=2m40s

"Collateral Damages" shows more, mostly from Flight 175: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYt1Xm7LMAE#t=7m28s

Some talk about the 2 engines. The Flight 11 engine was never identified as such. The Flight 175 engine was mythologized as coming from the wrong kind of plane, but it was eventually proven to be the correct model.
 
LSSBB said:
They did manage to find a drawing that was off.

By a whole, entire, inch.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And even that inch - if you are referring to the one I'm thinking of - was irrelevant in the context where it arose. The proof of girder walk off which led to a near enough valid assumption that it needed half the beam width which was thought to be .....

...so the walk off was independent of the actual width in inches - and the initial wrong inch figure was reverse engineered from what was thought to be the actual width. Much to the delight of T Sz who for the umpteenth time in his career was working from false premises... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
MattNelson said:
Thanks. The book is about Ground Zero, so a full background on the terrorists would be out of the scope. However, I do get a bit off topic going into the 1st plane impact and lower level explosions.

You make a good point. A proper story, even non-fiction, needs to have the cause as well as the effect. Three or 4 of the WTC terrorists were identified by DNA, apparently. I agree that I should at least name them. (We never learned the names of the terrorists identified by DNA.)

What open-ended question with sinister implications did I ask that made you take notice?
Click to expand...

Here's one from page 9: "If the City of New York was in charge, then who gave the military orders to prohibit photography before Mayor Giuliani's announcement on the 25th, as we saw with WTC dust investigator Paul Lioy on the 17th?"

This is a stupid question based on a series of false premises. An unspecified military person told someone not take pictures of ground zero on 9/17. From this you infer there must have been military orders in place prohibiting photography at ground zero. Could it be that the military person himself used his own discretion to ask for no pictures (as many firemen and police officers also reportedly did independently out of respect for all of the dead bodies in the rubble)? Joel Meyerowitz, who by all accounts was the first civilian photographer allowed to photograph ground zero extensively, discussed this phenomenon at length. Why doesn't your pdf make any mention of that? And why is there no discussion at all of the legitimate interest those at the scenes had in limiting the prurient and exploitative photography of corpses of deceased victims?

Moreover, even if the military person had been ordered by one or more of his superiors to limit photograph by civilians, so what? There is nothing inconsistent with that (contrary to the implication you attempt to draw) and NYC generally being in charge of ground zero. Anyone in the command chain could have made a judgement call re the limitation on photographers and that call, even though I personally disagree with it, would be defensible on the merits. for the reasons stated above There was no playbook for this kind of event, as the vast amount of writing by the people actually involved makes clear, and so it is not at all surprising that all of the different agencies pouring people and resources into the site were not magically unified as to the limitations applicable limitations placed on civilian photography, among other things, within 1 week or even much longer after the collapse. They were focused on saving peoples' lives, first and foremost, and it should be obvious that the various agencies and individuals were all improvising towards that end.

Does you pdf have any meaningful discussion of this and the various agencies and individuals and their actual goals in exposing themselves to danger day in and day out at ground zero? Not really. Instead, you are content to ask stupid questions based on false premises in a transparent attempt to imply sinister motives to unspecified people.

It's par for the course for your book -- snippets strung together with important information somehow missed (I note you still haven't even fixed the key section re the reason WTC7's clean-up was rushed, by the way), and sad attempts to gin up controversy without any actual interesting or meaningful discussion.

And no this isn't the stupidest of the questions you breathlessly ask in your pdf; it's merely the first of many. I'm not going to bother skimming it over again further to pull out others. You get the idea.
 
Thanks for taking the time. To answer your note that I "haven't even fixed the key section re the reason WTC7's clean-up was rushed, by the way" -- As soon as it was brought up, I added (was able to fit) one sentence to the main body: "Perhaps the best reason to rush was the electrical substation. See App. 4, 2018 edits."

I've been making many additions in the Appendix 4, which works as a notepad for items to work into the main document when I have time to deal with the glitchy formatting all at once. A link to the appendix leads to several paragraphs. Under the heading UPDATE 2018 we read: "Perhaps the most important update is in the WTC 7 section, because I unintentionally left out the fact that the electrical substation – like it was in the old WTC 7 – was rebuilt in the new WTC 7. Obviously repairing the electrical grid warranted fast demolition. ..." A few quotes follow from reputable sources.

I'll get that worked into a new version that also fixes the Available Images section to address the lame conspiracy innuendo. It will take some time to weed out such throughout the document. You bring up good points I will steal. Thanks again. I need to get that Joel Meyerowitz book.
 
Last edited:
"Perhaps the best reason to rush was the electrical substation. See App. 4, 2018 edits."
Click to expand...

why 'perhaps the best reason' instead of 'the reason'. there is no 'perhaps' or 'best' about it.
your tiptoeing around the actual facts just show you are a conspiracy theorist and could care less about the truth.
 
Brainster, I may give up the idea. With all the airplane debris and human remains, I won't support switched planes.

Whip, maybe it was 'the' reason. I wonder sometimes if part of the reason was just to be working on the job at all. People wanted to work fast as part of their patriotic duty.
 
BREAKING NEWS: MATT NELSON AND FRIENDS SOLVE PHOTOSHOP MYSTERY - NOT!

With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight on why Matt Nelson and his friend waypastvne are sadly mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage not having been surreptitiously modified [Photoshopped].
According to waypastvne (the supposed expert in digital art) Baker's image has not been altered in the manner I've described, simply because he/she "looked at the photos and didn't see any photoshop, or any reason to photoshop." Rather, "You just need to look at it at the right perspective." With that being said they marked key features like the leftmost protuberance on the larger chunk of fuselage with red arrows to make their point. But the problem is that supposed obstruction is clearly resting hard against the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....]. Indeed, is it's well outside the window opening. And in light of the fact that the smaller chunk of fuselage had been propped up against that all too obvious rust coloured piece of metal, and inline with the larger chunk of fuselage, further proving my point that someone paint brushed out [Photoshopped] the aforementioned window opening is the fact that a ley line drawn along the bottom edge of the leftmost (first and second) window openings on the larger chunk of fuselage clearly runs along the top of that protuberance, thereby intersecting said window opening at roughly its midpoint.
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's supposition that Baker "crouched to the level of the handrail" at the time of exposing the photograph in question, that too is grossly misleading because had Baker done so then his camera lens would have been below the staircase landing and roughly level with the hip of the person in the foreground; not his head and shoulder. But the Horizon Line in Baker's image is clearly higher than the lower horizontal joint on the adjoining pieces of exterior wall cladding to the left, not to mention the staircase landing that feature intersects with. And because of it Baker's perspective on the fuselage wreckage in question here was undoubtedly looking down on those features, and particularily the piece of metal cladding on the lower staircase tread.
All of which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.
So too, Nelson's claim that Baker's "official" photograph of purported UA Flight 175 fuselage wreckage atop WTC 5 "is in fact authentic aircraft fuselage fallen from the plane with tail number N612UA" reeks like ********! Because as Nelson pointed out, the FBI's response to Aidan Monaghan's FOIA civil complaint seeking records pertaining to the recovery and identification of wreckage generated by the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proves that based on the premise that “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks.
All of which means that despite Nelson's argument that the DNA argument the authenticity and provenance of the fuselage wreckage in question is not a scientifically established fact!
Furthermore, with respect to Nelson's claim that officialdom hasn't exploited Baker's image, that too is ******** because the Exif Metadata for Baker's image proves someone accessed that image for whatever reason on January 12, 2005. And that date was a mere three weeks before it and W. Gene Corley's claim that he "was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied" and "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2" debuted in Popular Mechanics magazines February 5, 2005, hit-piece entitled 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report'. Wherein every subsequent version of that partisan rags take on their 9/11 experts recollections the authors routinely tout Corley's unsubstantiated claim as proof that the passenger aircraft once registered as N612UA slammed into World Trade Center 2.
And knowing what I do of Baker's image after reading Corley's ******** claims I attempted to contact him a number of times with questions concerning his apparent falsification of that supposed evidence. And because he failed to respond to my line of questioning I emailed Corley for the last time with the following challenge to his much touted expertise on January 25, 2011:
"Hello Mr. Corley, I wrote you on November 26, 2010 with a few questions regarding the aircraft wreckage you discovered on the rooftop of WTC 5 but I never received a reply from you, so I went ahead and posted my findings at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum without your input or rebuttal. Should you like to respond to my original questions or any of the damning evidence therein the United 175 thread Who Knew Then What I Know Now Of Corrupted Wtc Site Evidence? you are more than welcome to do so at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum. I encourage you to do so, seeing as your name and reputation are all over that travesty you swore to under oath."
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide. Likewise then, after all these years of knowing about the anomalous threaded fasteners [HiLoks] joining the sheet metal skin to the upper stringer [longeron] immediately AFT of the window opening on the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number [N6....] Nelson and his friends have yet to investigate the matter by getting off their sorry asses and actually proving that a run-of-the-mill [unmodified] Boeing 767 passenger airliner slammed into WTC 2. Opposed to simply regurgitating half-truths and factoids with the chat room fools who follow their lead.
Last but not least, NIST's World Trade Center investigators best guess estimation [WTC 2 Base Case Global Impact Analysis] states that the primary impact path of the aircraft nose cone was the 81st floor slab, which sliced the the fuselage in half along its longitudinal axis and severely damaged the fuselage structures as they penetrated the exterior columns and plowed through the floor slab, all the way from the Southern exterior wall to the buildings core. And according to those investigators the right-hand [starboard] engine did not impact, nor take out, any of those core columns. Consequently, the mass/force consisting of much of the aircraft fuselage combined with office furnishings is said to have "bulldozed" its way through the Southeast corner of the buildings core, all the way through to the far side [North face) of the building, severing an estimated 5 core columns and heavily damaging 4 others in the process.
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking.
 
questionitall said:
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence ...
Click to expand...

And you are...? Sorry if you identify yourself later - tl;dr
Wow - You were silent almost 9 years - and this detail now riles you up so much you have to blow your cover??
 
questionitall said:
With the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us I feel the time is right to break my silence and set the record straight...following nonsense snipped
Click to expand...

The post as a whole is a great example of an amatuer "investigation" based on confirmation bias - the author's pov is that 9/11 is just another piece of a larger, long running conspiracy.

A simple explanation of this pov through analogy -

You have a residential fire with one fatality.

The medical examiner does their job, the fire department investigator does theirs.

Report comes out, electrical fault shorted, caused the fire. Decedent dead from smoke inhalation.

Along comes our hero, the amatuer "Investiuator" No access to physical evidence, no access to the fire scene.

The question that is put to the real investigator? "Did you test to see if the fire was caused by Spontaneous Human Combustion?" answer? No. Aha! cover-up! incompetent investigators! Eleventy!
 
questionitall said:
... Needless to say that scenario smacks of the Kennedy assassination investigation and its magic bullet trajectory/theory, and anyone who still believes Corley wasn't a liar and perjurer truly needs to get a brain and reevaluate their way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, what the heck did you say?

Based on personally investigating aircraft accidents over the years, stuff survives.

Based on observing 9/11 truth claims, they are based on ignorance and speculation.

What is your point, because the reference to JFK makes your entire post BS, no need to read.
 
beachnut said:
Needless to say, what the heck did you say?

Based on personally investigating aircraft accidents over the years, stuff survives.

Based on observing 9/11 truth claims, they are based on ignorance and speculation.

What is your point, because the reference to JFK makes your entire post BS, no need to read.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the pooster knows just as much about aircraft as they do about ballistics.
 
questionitall said:
Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide how much he cared about a bunch of kooks arguing on the internet.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you. By the way, he passed away on 2013.
 
Last edited:
Cause of the crash, terrorists flew into a building/ground on purpose

questionitall said:
... “The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question,....” the FBI and NTSB World Trade Center site investigators dispensed with forensically analyzing the aircraft wreckage they recovered and absconded with in the days and weeks following those attacks. ...
Click to expand...

You know why the planes identities were never in question? Are you completely in the dark? Let me start with the simple stuff.

If you had a friend who regularly flew Flight 11 or 175 for business on the west coast!, what is the first thing on 9/11 you would have done? My niece is one of those people who flew on one of the flights out of Boston on business all the time, and also her office mates too. As she explains, she and her office mates called everyone as soon as it was announced Flt 11/175 were hijacked and missing, when they impacted the WTC.

Oh, not good enough. You parents, or sister, or bother, or aunt, or friend flew on 175 or 11 on 9/11, and now they are not alive.

Not good enough? Radar proves it was 11 and 175 which impacted the WTC towers.

Not good enough? Only four planes in the whole of USA failed to land at airports in the USA on 9/11. Guess which four planes failed to reach their destination on 9/11.


You have no idea what the NTSB does, as you think they need to do a forensic analysis of the crashes. NTSB does not do crime, the FBI does crime. As soon as it was verified by crew testimony before the crews died on 9/11, the crashes were on purpose. The NTSB does accidents, not on purpose crashes, aka Crime. When a pilot/terrorist crashes a plane on purpose, murder, a crime, the NTSB does not have to look for why the plane crashed, it was a Crime.

The NTSB investigates crashes to find the cause of the Accident. The cause of the crashes on 9/11 was a terrorists pilot flying planes into buildings and the ground. NTSB has no job, the cause is known, they are done.

For 9/11 the NTSB was used as needed to supply products to the FBI. These product also are proof of which planes when where.

If you don't think the planes are the planes the FAA knows were used, then you don't trust the FAA, better stop flying.

Summary, NTSB investigate the cause of a crash, an accident - the moment the NTSB finds evidence the crash was on purpose, a crime, they bring in the police/FBI - and then the prime on the investigation is the Police/FBI. Thus, the cause of the crashes on 9/11 is known to be terrorists flying planes into building and the ground.
 
questionitall said:
According to waypastvne
Click to expand...



Hey wait a second. I know you. You're the Butt Joint Guy I made fun of in post #86 of this thread. You're the guy that can't count 2 windows and then look for a butt joint without screwing it up. You gave this long rant about how the part had to be fake, and then provided us with the photos that proved you wrong. That was hilarious.

Z4qPUYA.jpg


And the Hi-Lok fasteners that would only be used for repairs. N612UA was obviously repaired around the aft exit starboard side, further confirming this debris came from UA175.

Do you have any more evidence I can laugh at.
 
and I know what I'm talking about.

waypastvne said:
Hey wait a second. I know you. You're the Butt Joint Guy I made fun of in post #86 of this thread. You're the guy that can't count 2 windows and then look for a butt joint without screwing it up. You gave this long rant about how the part had to be fake, and then provided us with the photos that proved you wrong. That was hilarious.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Z4qPUYA.jpg[/qimg]

And the Hi-Lok fasteners that would only be used for repairs. N612UA was obviously repaired around the aft exit starboard side, further confirming this debris came from UA175.

Do you have any more evidence I can laugh at.
Click to expand...

Pilots for Truth (truth in 9/11 truth speak is 1984 for idiotic lies based on massive ignorance) is the perfect place for his nonsense. He also gives McVeigh a pass, and claims OKC was destroyed inside out. Clueless for 8 years plus.


Humor at pilots for idiotic lies
questionitall - with all due respect you understand I've been at this research a very long time and I know what I'm talking about. When people come along out of the blue and challenge what I know is fact I get testy to say the least, as 21Investigator found out at my previous UA175last month.
Click to expand...
 
It's the punchline to an old joke that every pilot in the world knows.

What are the four most useless things in aviation?

If you are not a pilot then you probably never heard the joke.

If you google "doctor killer" you will understand the third line.
 
Last edited:
waypastvne said:
It's the punchline to an old joke that every pilot in the world knows.

What are the four most useless things in aviation?

If you are not a pilot then you probably never heard the joke.

If you google "doctor killer" you will understand the third line.
Click to expand...

Add 5 knots on final for wife and 5 more for each kid.

When will the one post pilot for truth follower make the second post of woo? Never

The 9/11 hit and run, 18 years of ignorance.
 
questionitall said:
In other words we're expected to believe two relatively light-weight chunks of aluminum originating from the exact same location at the rear of the aircraft fuselage survived the maelstrom in their path and after slamming all the way through that buidlings core they were magically ejected from the North face window openings by the force of the exploding jet fuel alone and hurled hundreds of feet clear onto the rooftop of WTC 5 in a dead straight trajectory.
Click to expand...


It flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5. If you come back I'll explain HOW to you.


Do you want to play or not.


rrzZ9hR.jpg
 
pgimeno said:
questionitall responded after three weeks to a post by waypastvne, and is getting impatient because waypastvne hasn't replied within 2 days.
Click to expand...

Uhm questionitall said "All of us are still waiting", and I wanted to know who, besides questionitall her/himself is waiting.
Also, waypastvne did already reply. I am not under the impression that another reply is warranted.
 
Oystein said:
I wanted to know who, besides questionitall her/himself is waiting.
Click to expand...
My bad, I misunderstood your "Who?" as meaning "who are you calling Mr. KnowItAll?", rather than as "Who is waiting?".


Oystein said:
Also, waypastvne did already reply. I am not under the impression that another reply is warranted.
Click to expand...
Um, I'd say it is, as waypastvne offered an explanation of how the piece had that trajectory:

waypastvne said:
If you come back I'll explain HOW to you.


Do you want to play or not.
Click to expand...
I'm personally curious to learn about it, so I guess you can count me in as one of the people waiting.
 
Last edited:
waypastvne has claimed that it flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5. And by that I presume he was referring to Corley's "chunk of fuselage which clearly had windows in it"?
So too, waypastvne wrote in post #193 that if I come back he'd explain HOW to me.

Edited for rule 8, rule 12 and rule 0.

Please refer to other members by their forum names, and be civil and polite, and address their posts, not them.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom