9/11 - what happened?

[SxyPorkie]

To be honest, everyone needs to calm down in here, no reason to get all uptight, there are some questions that were not being answered directly, When some of you think there was really a plane (757) that crashed into Pentagon, My question is were you there when the plane (757) crashed into Pentagon? I'm certain the answer is no, Why argue there was a plane (757) did crashed into Pentagon?

Now, Cloggy was wondering where were the wings, and the engines of the plane? You guys haven't came up with an answer, Why? Because you don't know.

SxyPorkie, You stated that your sister saw the plane, She did not tell you what kind of plane it was? No, so how do you really know it was plane 757?

Pictures/cameras are the real hard evidence if American people haven't seen pictures/camera of the crash area, then what should we believe? words from the officals reported? Or pictures/camera views? You decide.

Cheri.... my sister only said she saw plane.. did not say what kind of plane... i tried to question her... she clammed up and refused to discuss any more.... she went lots of HELL....now she is at peace....i also tried to question my brother in law... he refused to discuss...

 

[Cheri]

Cheri.... my sister only said she saw plane.. did not say what kind of plane... i tried to question her... she clammed up and refused to discuss any more.... she went lots of HELL....now she is at peace....i also tried to question my brother in law... he refused to discuss...

I know, I'm aware of that, You've stated that more than five different times already, but that's not the point Hun, the point is she did not say the type of plane that crashed into that building, How do we really know it was plane 757 that's the point Hun. That's what Cloggy is trying to find out and some of us here are trying to find out also. Nothing against your sister at all, We're just helping your sister by solving the mystery that been hidden from us all.

 

[IslandGal]

Calculations shows that if the plane would be the blur, and on the next frame the plane is hitting the pentagon, then it was going 700+ MPH. Not possible. Regarding the speed of a 757, the time between pictures and the distance there are either frames missing OR it was a really fast flying object...
Had it been there - it should look like this:

Still... where are the engines??? Wings ??

Just read this and have a look here.

Cloggy, remember the camera had a fish-eye lens and also the plane was not flying at a straight angle when it slammed into the Pentagon. Haven't it occured to you that the wings and the engines may have been blown into pieces?

 

[Cloggy]

Cheri, can you answer how can 64 people and some hi-jackers fit in a smaller plane or a missile if you don't think it was a 757? There were several eyewitnesses who saw the 757 going into the Pentagon even though some people are asking where were the wings and the engines. Maybe they got burned or blown into hundred pieces? There were pictures of the damaged AA plane on the ground and inside the Pentagon. What more do you guys want to believe that it was not a 757?

Here's my way of thinking... I don't see a plane, I don't see wreckage (and a little unscorched piece of AA-fuselage doesn't count, I'm talking about pieces that are too strong to melt.. engines...) SO therefore I don't believe there were 64 people that died THERE.
As you said, every crash is different, but allways the engines are found and big pieced that shear off. (I tried to show you that with the different crash pictures.)

Cloggy, remember the camera had a fish-eye lens and also the plane was not flying at a straight angle when it slammed into the Pentagon. Haven't it occured to you that the wings and the engines may have been blown into pieces?

You could be right about the fish-eye lens. You are absolutely right about the angle of attack. So if the plane is not displayed correctly.... Where is it?

I appreciate that you have thought about these possibilities, really.
I know that when tere is proof that there was no 757, the world will turn suddenly in a very scary place, because then there will be an avalanche of new questions.. With that in mind.. I can imagine they will NEVER reveal any pictures....

 

[Reba]

... I don't believe there were 64 people that died THERE. ...

Then where did they go? To the Mothership hovering above Area 57?

Oops, sorry; wrong conspiracy.

 

[Cloggy]

Then where did they go? To the Mothership hovering above Area 57?

Oops, sorry; wrong conspiracy.

I have not seen any bodies. But as explained before, it's beside the point for now. That's for the next question.

Let's first get an answer on the question regarding what hit the Pentagon.

(I allways learned it's impolite to answers a question with a new question....)

 

[SxyPorkie]

Then where did they go? To the Mothership hovering above Area 57?

Oops, sorry; wrong conspiracy.

thats good one...

 

[SxyPorkie]

I have not seen any bodies. But as explained before, it's beside the point for now. That's for the next question.

Let's first get an answer on the question regarding what hit the Pentagon.

(I allways learned it's impolite to answers a question with a new question....)

For me .. it is end of discussion.....

 

[Reba]

Firehouse Magazine Reports
WTC: This Is Their Story
From the August 2002 Firehouse Magazine

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
Division 14 - 34 years

...I don?t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn?t see any fire at that time.

...Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they?re not trying to put this fire out? I didn?t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we?ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that?s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you?ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we?ve got to get those people out of there.

I was looking at the mass of people out there. There was no unit identification. I felt that I was losing control over this thing to begin with and now he was telling me to get them out of there. I was thinking, how the hell am I going to do this? There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way.

I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we?ve still got people here, we don?t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn?t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn?t get hit by a plane, why isn?t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.

Now, it got to the point where I had some people moving, but there was still a tremendous number of people who were not moving. Here?s what I decided to do ? there was a company there and I grabbed the officer. I said, I need you and your guys. There was a guy, Danny Messina from the 14th Division, with me the whole day and I sent him out as a runner. I said OK, go out, see that group over there, grab them, get somebody?s whose in charge, get one of the bosses, tell them we?re backing out of here. I sent him to these different places and I don?t know how long it took, 40 minutes, half an hour, an hour, I don?t know, but we started to get them out.

As I was getting them out, they were asking, where do you want us to go? Then somebody tipped me off, tell them to go to the North Cove Marina, that?s where the water was, tell them that go out that way. I said there?s a North Cove Marina and I think they had already started setting up water and triage and stuff, so we sent them out that way and it took a while. There were individual stragglers and everybody was walking this way and then some guy would walk in, we?d have to get to him.

I got a chief. I said, stand here, if you see anybody out there, get them back. I had to get the guys away from the north pedestrian walkway. There were a lot of people out there.

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we?re moving the command post over this way, that building?s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn?t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up ? and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.

I said, that building is not coming this way, you could see where it was going, but I was concerned about debris. I got over near a vehicle, I don?t know what kind of vehicle. I sheltered in there a little bit and this dust cloud of debris came up and next thing you know, silence. Guys were all right. Nobody was running, hurt or anything like that. I heard later on that somebody got trapped in the debris of 7, but I don?t know....

Firehouse.com's 9-11 Coverage: News 9/9/02 - WTC: This Is Their Story

 

[Reba]

Firehouse Magazine Reports
WTC: This Is Their Story
From the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine

Firefighter Peter Blaich
Ladder 123 - 2 years
(was at Engine 9 on 9/11)

...We took nine lengths of satellite hose down to the water. We hooked up to a fireboat down there and we operated the monitor at that point into the seven-story building in front of Tower 1. It pretty much put that out, reached great. We had good water pressure. We were augmented by another engine company from the water to the satellite. They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. We were still operating the satellite at that point. We ran. It really didn?t come up to where the satellite was, but it came close enough....

Firehouse.com's 9-11 Coverage: News 9/9/02 - WTC: This Is Their Story

 

[Reba]

Firehouse Magazine Reports
WTC: This Is Their Story
From the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

...Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that?s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn?t seem so bad. But that?s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn?t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody? My feeling early on was we weren?t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn?t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn?t go further north on West Street. And I couldn?t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. But you could see the fires burning in 4, 5 and 6. They became fully involved. We had fire on the 15th floor of one of the high-rises. I gave a battalion chief two companies. I said go up there, put this fire out. I told him, don?t call for any help, don?t give any signals, just put the fire out and come back and tell me when the fire?s out. This is all you?re getting, put it out. Fortunately, you know, it wasn?t large, it was out one window. At some time that night, it was dark and I had had it. I went down and I got my eyes washed out. They took me to the eye station and then they took me to Bellevue. I had my eyes washed out and then I met up with my brother, who?s also a firefighter....

Firehouse.com's 9-11 Coverage: News 9/9/02 - WTC: This Is Their Story

 

[IslandGal]

I have not seen any bodies. But as explained before, it's beside the point for now. That's for the next question.

Let's first get an answer on the question regarding what hit the Pentagon.

(I allways learned it's impolite to answers a question with a new question....)

Why would you want to see the dead bodies?
You have not seen them because you were not there, get it?
They were flown to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and then they were buried by their families and friends, get it?

We already gave you the answer on what hit the Pentagon. I posted in a link for you to look at the pictures but yet you refuse to believe that it was an American Airline. What more do you want us to tell you?

Hey Reba, these stories were interesting to read. Thank you for posting them.

 

[Cloggy]

Why would you want to see the dead bodies?
You have not seen them because you were not there, get it?
They were flown to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and then they were buried by their families and friends, get it?

We already gave you the answer on what hit the Pentagon. I posted in a link for you to look at the pictures but yet you refuse to believe that it was an American Airline. What more do you want us to tell you?
.........

I don't want to see the bodies...
I'm saying that if they say it's a 757 and there is no 757, why should there be bodies if they say so.
I don't refuse to believe it's an AA, I refuse to believe it is a 757.

The animation you showed (here) is very nice. Excellent piece of work. But it's just that! An animation.
In the animation they show damage.... to the building. Fair enough, except that on pictures take straight after impact, there is no damage from where the tail section should have hit.
They show wreckage....
* 1 piece of nosegear.... where are the 2 main landing gears... (They are huge! And build to carry a full-weight 757. Probably made of titanium.)
* 1 piece of turbine .... which is too small for the main engine AND there should be two of them, made of titanium. Contact has been made with manufacturers of the Boeing engines, and they did not recognised the item.
* Many other pieces of wreckage that indicate a plane. And colours indicating American Airlines, but nothing indicating a 757.

The animation suggests strongly a plane entered the building.... but instead of drawing a 757, they could have drawn a corporate jet as well. (Which some witnesses have seen!!) THAT (a corporate jet) would in fact be more consistent with the small nosegear and the small turbine.

But even without these speculations ..... IF it had been a 757, what is the problem showing that to everyone by showing the tape of the hotel, the tape of the gas-station, any tapes of the camera's on other places of the Pentagon.
If there was a 757... it would be so easy to show it...

Instead... they cry "conspiracy theory" and for the rest deny any information... They are backing up their story with.... nothing.

Other people do not believe there was a 757.. backing it up with.... the lack of any image showing a 757!!!

--------------
From this article:

It is indisputable that many eyewitness accounts argue very passionately in favor of a 757 crash. Similarly the physical (photographic) evidence has many features which seem designed to comport very closely with a 757 impact: for example, the 5 downed light poles whose distribution implies they were hit by something with the correct wingspan for a 757 (although no one has explained why they were displaced laterally to the forward motion of the 757); the "engine fingerprints" (damage to the concrete ventilation structure and generator trailer at the correct spacing for a pair of 757 engines, although the alignment of the gash on the trailer is debatable); the hole in the building, 20 feet high and 20 feet wide for the fuselage, with broader damage extending about 90 feet along the first floor, which seems about right for a 757 (if you are willing to buy into the argument that the tail and wingtips might have shattered into confetti on impact, without even breaking the nearby windows); and the "fuselage fragment" photographed by Mark Faram, with the letters, colors and even the rivets all looking pretty much like an American Airlines 757 (if you can explain how it came to rest where it supposedly did, and why it isn't scorched or burned, and why it isn't on display at the Smithsonian now.) In this context, it is very difficult for skeptics to present a case which is simultaneously brief, convincing, accurate, comprehensive and fully forthright about the many confusing and seemingly contradictory factors.

 

[Cloggy]

Reba...

Your testimonies show the building came down. They show there was a fire....
They do not explain why it collapsed...

Never before did a structure based on a steel foundation collapse due to fire. Since 9/11 it has never happened.

Never in history did a building collapse due to damage onto it's own footprint. Never after 9/11 has this happened.

We have to believe that 3 buildings collapse on their footprints due to fire-damage ONLY on 9/11.

We have to ignore people that heared additional explosions, we have to ignore video-footage.

We just have to believe the conspiracy theory of the government that on 9/11 laws of nature were suspended and spontanious collapse occured.....

 

[Reba]

duplicate

 

[Reba]

Reba...

Your testimonies show the building came down. They show there was a fire....
They do not explain why it collapsed...

You previously stated that the buildings had to have been imploded because there was little structural damage or fire. These testimonies say otherwise. Also, I highlighted where each witness referred to "pulling" from the buidling as meaning withdrawing the firefighters. It was never used as a demolition term. These testimonies were taken with months of 9/11, long before the "official" report came out. These testimonies were from professional firefighters who were on the scene. They are NOT the words of paranoid conspiracy geeks sitting at their computers creating wild websites.

Never before did a structure based on a steel foundation collapse due to fire. Since 9/11 it has never happened.

So? There are some events in life that are unique. There's a first time for everything. Also, you say since 9/11 it has "never" happened. "Never" isn't over yet. Since 9/11 has only been five years, not a decade, not a century, not "never".

We have to ignore people that heared additional explosions, we have to ignore video-footage.

You don't seem to have any problem ignoring professional eye-witness testimony.

We just have to believe the conspiracy theory of the government that on 9/11 laws of nature were suspended and spontanious collapse occured.....

Whatever floats your boat.

If conspiracy theories give meaning to your life, so be it.

 

[Cloggy]

Regarding "You don't seem to have any problem ignoring professional eye-witness testimony."

On the contrairy;

I know "pulling out" means withdrawing.
However, the owner of the building Larry Silverstein, talked about "pull" the building... and later on he said "so they pulled it".
Have a look here....

Larry Silverstein Admits to Demolishing World Trade Center 7 on 9/11
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitting that he gave the order to "pull" Building 7 on 9/11.

In addition there's footage of firefighters that explain that experienced the collapse as a controlled demolosion. If you're interested in their testimony, go here...

NYC Firefighters say 9/11 WTC collapse seemed like controlled demolition
NYC Firefighters in an NYC Firehouse discuss how the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th, 2001 appeared to them as if explosives ...

And what's with

" Whatever floats your boat.
If conspiracy theories give meaning to your life, so be it."

I'm not saying you'll go to hell because you are covering up for sinners that killed 3000 people because they wanted the power.... (So much for "saved by grace")

 

[Reba]

I know "pulling out" means withdrawing.
However, the owner of the building Larry Silverstein, talked about "pull" the building... and later on he said "so they pulled it".

He also later stated that he meant the firefighters withdrawing, not a pre-planned demolition.

Have a look here....
In addition there's footage of firefighters that explain that experienced the collapse as a controlled demolosion. If you're interested in their testimony, go here...

I've seen and heard that video. They indicate what it "looked like" which is not the same was saying, "it was". They were giving a description, not an analysis. After they finish their description, they don't say, "wow, that's suspicious--I wonder who set those charges?" No, they continue on with their recollections.

No one said that they saw any explosives, or that they saw anyone setting charges, or that they heard anyone planning a demolition. No one saw any explosives being brought in or set up.

And what's with I'm not saying you'll go to hell because you are covering up for sinners that killed 3000 people because they wanted the power.... (So much for "saved by grace")

How am I "covering up" for anyone? I don't have any power to do that.

Is your case so factually weak that you have to attack my integrity or motivation?

 

[Cloggy]

He also later stated that he meant the firefighters withdrawing, not a pre-planned demolition.

Yes, first saying in a statement explicitely that it should be "Pulled" and then later saying he meant pulling firefighters away.....
Look at the video with in mind that me meant "pulling firefighters out..) and the video makes absolutely NO SENSE!!!
If you believe that.....

I've seen and heard that video. They indicate what it "looked like" which is not the same was saying, "it was". They were giving a description, not an analysis. After they finish their description, they don't say, "wow, that's suspicious--I wonder who set those charges?" No, they continue on with their recollections.
Amazing how this explanation by firefighters is not valid, but an explanation of "steel melting due to the fire" by an organisation that has no expertise is perfectly OK...
I know you're trying to make sense out of it, but the way you explain things are far-fetched....

No one said that they saw any explosives, or that they saw anyone setting charges, or that they heard anyone planning a demolition. No one saw any explosives being brought in or set up.

WOW... nobody was seen carrying bags with "explosives" up... Weired....
(Remember the WTC powerdowns, evacuation exercises, guards working shorter shifts...

Is your case so factually weak that you have to attack my integrity or motivation?

My "case" is supported by the lack of evidense. Your case is crumbling down by the lack of evidense.

 

[Reba]

My "case" is supported by the lack of evidense. Your case is crumbling down by the lack of evidense.

????

So I guess that means when you make personal attacks you do that just to be rude or feel superior?

Well, I'm not playing that game.