WTC Steel Found Buried at Ground Zero

Large steel columns from the fallen twin towers have been found beneath a service road being excavated at ground zero in the search for long-buried Sept. 11 remains, officials said Wednesday.

The surprising discovery of World Trade Center steel in the past week raises more questions about what was left at ground zero in the cleanup after the 2001 attacks and how the service road was created in the first place.

The steel, found during a dig for human remains that has yielded nearly 300 bones in the past three months, includes two heavy beams that were stacked horizontally in the landfill, as if moved and placed there, a person with direct knowledge of the discovery told The Associated Press. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss the findings and insisted on anonymity.

The discovery was confirmed by officials for the city and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the trade center.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Attacks-Remains.html

WTC steel found beneath Ground Zero road
http://www.amny.com/news/politics/am-wtc0201,0,4767941.story?coll=am-topheadlines

With nary a trace and absolutely no analysis. This is one of many things that bother me about 911. It was treated as a crime scene alright, but rather than a crime scene that needs to be preserved and analyzed, it seemed as if the criminals were in charge of it, rushing evidence off hastily and with no analysis of evidence. Truly sad, and really makes me wonder.

it was an inside job!
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

I read an interesting line which seems a truism stretching back to the beginning of human history:

"The petty criminal dreams of committing the perfect crime while the State Crminal dreams of controlling the crime scene with time to remove any incriminating evidence."

Yes, the criminals were in charge of it, and at the very least, the Busheviks are criminally negligent, at worst...LIHOP, HIHOP, or MIHOP.

And yes, in order to swiftly dispose of any evidence of negligence or, at worst, evidence of demolition charges, the Busheviks did indeed go to great lengths to ensure all evidence was swiftly disposed of (they were in such a hurry to dispose of it, but now nothing is even built there still!), the Busheviks went so far as to have the EPA lie and say the air was clean a mere two days after 9/11.

Not that they care much about the health or lives of the peasants, we are little more than animals to them, of that I am convinced.

Oh, and Bush/Cheney refusing to tesitfy except if they were together and NOT UNDER OATH! There is unquestionably Bushevik criminal culpability in 9-11, the only question is which kind: negligence, LIHOP, HIHOP or MIHOP.

And as for this:



So you 're arguing that Bush & Cheney engineered, or let happen, an event which cost thousands of American lives, but were absolutely unwilling to lie under oath?

and the downward spiral he has taken our country.

It needs to be saved, guarded, and then appropriately tested.

Hopefully a lawyer has asked for the Beams and FBI to test it.., then independant labs

This is the Truth that rises from the bottom and surfaces

The Truth will come out

at this point, rather than the FBI to make the analysis? It's so 'confuzzeling' (confusing) at this point....who can one trust to analyze and present trustworthy, honest, scientific data.

It's exhausting to think about it all, but we must push forward with expecting/demanding the TRUTH ~ wherever it may lead.

... eg. Switzerland, Germany, France, Sweden ... those with knowledge of steel and least amenable to arm-twisting...

I think a Canadian Lab should be asked to look at the materials. I am tired of spin and
cover up, let's get away from the politically correct answer.

It MUST be made available for analysis. And if the Cabal tries to obstruct the effort, it's proof positive of their complicity in 9/11.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20020110r.asp

More factual info here:
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/index.htm

disinfo at its finest

I see you're trying to deflect from the fact that I posted a link to a resource with many dozens of articles with many thousands of facts.

Interesting that you don't attempt to refute any one of them with a half decent argument.

but we will never see the results and if we do, lets just say that nothing out of the ordinary will be found.
Im sure Bushco is all over this one.
Same procedure so far. Shipping it to the "hanger" is one clue.

but it is already here. :toast:

My nephew's wife just rather casually let it drop in a conversation that her brother was working at a big construction site there and that they were using some of the scrap metal from the World Trade Center. Oddly enuf, what they are building in Sacramento is something called The Twin Towers - two 53-story condo towers. I haven't been able to confirm if this is true or not. Certainly no press coverage.

Oh right... Chemistry and Physics.

Of course what the Hell do I know? I believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

The report didn't even mention the collapse of that building, also in its footprint like the others.

possibly have weakened WTC7. Physics is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

or wouldn't all the other surrounding buildings, some even closer as #7 was three hundred feet away and #6 was between the towers and #7, wouldn't they also collapse completely? :eyes:

it was pointed out that that theory completely ignored the central support beams.

Then it became the building "top hat" held up the structure until they weakened.

But until the new theory was proffered, anyone who questioned the first theory was a kook who couldn't understand structural engineering.

to spot a stripped tiger.

And when the second theory came along, not one person could be
found to defend the original theory.

Is this science? Is this America?

I don't think they ever bothered deciding what the real story was there.

I knew a woman once who operated that way. She'd tell you
five different versions and leave it to you to pick out the
one you liked best.

You don't understand structural engineering. Period. That is obvious.

The "fire weakened trusses" still remains undisputed. They are a major factor for the collapse, the other being the elimination of a major part of the support structure located as a "tube" on the exterior of the building.

The HOW of the WTC collapse has been thoroughly examined and explained by ALL engineers and they ALL agree on the cause. Unanimously.

The building was a "tube" - the exterior "skin" was actually the outer ring of the structure. The outer "skin" was not a superficial, non-structgural "curtain wall" like in most buildings today - it was over 2/3 the structural support for the building.

The inner "core" was the other support structure.

The planes took out about 1/4 of the structural support by removing a large part of the exterior structure.

What was amazing is that the towers continued to stand as long as they did...

You know jack shit about engineering...

My niece has a masters in structural engineering. I would give her opinions a lot more credence than someone who supports their arguments with "You know jack shit about engineering..."

For the record, my degrees are in journalism and law, so I tend toward finding facts (hard to do) rather than forming opinions (easy). I sincerely doubt that "ALL engineers" have examined the cause of the the collapse, especially since so much ("ALL?") of the materials were disposed of so quickly. Besides, when have "ALL" of any group of people ever agreed on anything? We're still fighting over whether Bud Lite is Less Filling or Tastes Great.

The NIST has been "researching" the collapse of WTC 7 for six years and still can't explain it. Why don't you give it a shot?

and thermite residue. Three buildings do NOT come down in their own footprints by accident. They were brought down intentionally....with 3000 people still inside. It's been known since 1989 that the combination of asbestos and corroding steel infrastructure meant the buildings were only going to last 30 years, instead of planned 200-300.....and they were going to have to be taken down.

and poke around the archives. All your points have been debunked many times.

seriously... :rofl:

1. High explosives were used somewhere in the towers to cut some columns.

2. Thermate was used somewhere in the towers to cut some other columns (that for some reason could not be cut by high explosives)

3. More high explosives were spread on each floor to:
- pulverize concrete floors.
- create Hoffman's pyroclastic flows

You are talking thousands of tons of explosives (especially if you believe Hoffman)

Couple of general comments:

1. The above is as detailed as it gets - not a single 911 truth seeker has even bothered to put forward a detailed scenario on how all the above was actually accomplished. How many tons of explosives? How many miles of det cord? How long to install? How many people needed? We simply to take their word for it.

2. We are expected to believe that the biggest and most complex controlled demolition in history was done with non-standard techniques and non-standard materials and done perfectly the first time. After fully loaded 767 had slammed into each tower. How can it obviously be CD when no CD before or since has ever been done that way? Who would have the expertise do engineer and execute such an engineering feat?

And that's the problem. No one is telling you what to believe.

Do you need to "believe" something or be told what to believe or are you willing to think for yourself? That's the real question.

What you have is a bunch of curious people digging into the evidence at hand and attempting to fit it all together. There are a dozen different ideas for why the World Trade Centers collapsed the way they did.

And you ask for a complete, detailed analysis of the collapse with all the documentation. And it needs to be done by certified experts of which you approve. Otherwise you will dismiss it as insufficient.

The rest of us look at the paucity of evidence given us by this criminally run administration and demand a thorough, wide-spread investigation.

How was it done? I'll tell you as soon as you tell me on what they spent the missing $2.3 trillion.

As a veteran I can assure you that the government has a lot of "goodies" that you will never know about until they choose to reveal them.

tell you with no small amount of certainty that buildings do not "implode" unless all of the major supports have been obliterated at the same time. The only way for a structure to collapse like the World Trade buildings did is for it to achieve a free fall status. Any decent resistance to it's downward movement will cause a tumbling effect and you get debris flying off in every available direction with a resulting dissipation of the gravitational energy of the fall. By themselves those airplanes should have left huge portions of the skyscrapers standing since there is no way they could have compromised the World Trade towers main supports all at the same time. How it was pulled off is still a mystery but you can make book on the fact that those buildings were "pulled" by experts.

I AM a professional. NO engineer or architect supports such nonsense as you spew. Period.

You only look foolish by repeating nonsense...

Most of the so-called debunking generally goes along these lines:

"Wow, did any of you see that documentary _____ about 9/11?"

Debunker: "You are a retard and anyone who believes the bullshit in _____ is retarded."

And so on.

This is the first time I have noticed you outside the 911 forum. Are you coming out of your shell ?

IMHO! Those things have only been debunked in your mind and the few who assist you there with this "debunked" myth. Yes I do recommend visiting the dungeon though. :hi: Nothing about 911 has been settled yet!

:hi:

Freaky.

What could possibly have been the reason someone would just bury those beams?

I doubt they were trying to use them as structural support for that service road - that would be WAY out of standard specs, I'm sure. Not to mention illegal since who ever got paid to make that road would surely get busted for swapping junk materials for the materials they would have been PAID to place there.

Of course, that's assuming that any sort of "support" was required for that service road in the first place.

So I like your take: that they were deliberatly placed there and buried by someone who was concerned about a cover up. They were making a time capsule of evidence of sorts?

This could get very interesting...
:popcorn:

> two heavy beams that were stacked horizontally in the landfill,
> as if moved and placed there,

How do people know that they came from "the WTC" rather than
just being found there?

Which building were they from? (e.g., 1, 2 or 7 might be useful, the
others not so)

When? (before or after 11-Sep-01?)

Just things that make you go "Hmmm?"

Some contractor saves money and time by sticking steel form the -facade- beneath an access road instead of hauling it to the dump where it would be shipped to Taiwan!

WOW! The conspiracy unravels! Bush is doomed! Truther Science is vindicated! The most complex and improbable plot in human history is revealed!

Or, maybe not.

imagination concocting their debunkings than the conspiracists
spend on their theories.

Without any evidence at all, you make up an explanation that sounds
plausible and comforting to you.

As soon as I heard about these buried beams, my screenwriting mind
started working.

I see two Ground Zero workers at break time at 4:30 a.m. muttering
into their coffee

"Jim, you ought to take a look at this steel over here. It looks
real strange."

later: "If I rig a pully and a cable over here, we can drag it over
there, and then Roger can bury it. But we need to arrange a distraction."

"We could get killed doing this."

"We're here to do the right thing, or why are we here at all?"

later: a noisy collapse incident in the rubble pile is arranged. Lights
go out. It takes several hours to ensure that nobody's been hurt.

later: pulmonary disease, health failing--"It was worth it." Whispered
deathbed conferences.

Now that's fiction, and I don't go around mistaking it for truth.

But for years I believed the fiction I assumed--that the four 9/11 aircraft
attacked simultaneously and it was all over in 15 minutes. It was only
after some truthists informed me that there was no air defense for 100
minutes that I realized that I had done the Bushcists' propagandizing to
myself, creating the lie that made everything make sense.

and recommended! :hi:

the dungeon straight away!!!

Hey, DU, it is time to let it out and not sequester it to the dungeon every single time.

I say, allow Dr. Jones to do some tests on these beams as well as independant labs.

9-11 was/is MIHOP all the way. No doubt about it. Time to re-open it and investigate it properly, without the Bush Crime Family and the Neo-con Rethug administration or cronies involved in any way. Let the skeletons comeout into full daylight.

:yourock:

PDF file here.
:hi:

Hey, people WAKE-UP AND SMELL THE MIHOP!

Read about it here.

So miles of det cord and ls charges were timed to go off after being unaffected by the impact of a jetliner. The jet and massive fuel fire missed any and all det cord strung. You are aware that lsc has to contact steel to cut it? That the copper jet leaves a brilliant fingerprint unlike any cutting torch. I am sure no one would notice the WEEKS of prep on a building to blow it up. The whole topic makes me feel sorry for those that pimp it.

This topic turns normal people to drooling idiots. It belongs in the basement.

After being part of many projects in the NG, and industry here and abroad here is my guess. Some guys took beams and used them for temporary cover over a ditch, hole, or muddy area and left them. Somebody did not feel like moving multi ton beams and covered them over. Human laziness.

Nukes caused the tsunami too.

todays modern technology! Radio remote control works well. :eyes: Remember IEDs? You aware that your post is full of sophistry? :shrug:

hundreds of charges were detonated with rf signals or cell lines at the EXACT same time. RF that is subject to interference from a light ballast? With no VISIBLE or AUDIBLE effect. Have you ever heard a high explosive go off. It stands out, even a little bit.

Radio control, no way. Even assuming you had a perfect signal from a source, a detonator that was impervious to interference, and no interference from the MASSIVE FUCKING JET that flew into your wired up structure..You would still see, hear, smell explosive, and leave trace visible to any mouth breathing slob.



Note the marking from a hypersonic blast. I am sure if the res was better you could see the residue of the cutting jet of metal.


I am not an explosives expert but was an NG engineer, and drank plenty of beer with them. This "explosives" idea is bullshit.

You are better off saying the hijackers were our guys. At least that CANT be disproved in 2 minutes by common sense sources.

as to how it could have been done. I don't know either but I know WTC #7 wasn't hit by any plane and collapsed completely. I know that if it was indeed a surprise attack, the secret service should have gotten Bush the hell out of harms way. Instead he was there at least 30 minutes after he'd been told the country was under attack! They thought as many as 8 planes had been hijacked. One could have been bearing down on Bush at the school! WTF!?
Perhaps you'd give Jones' pdf file linked above a read and then get back to us.
:eyes:

I sat through an engineering degrees worth of reality at nc state and worked with people who blow stuff up for a living to know bullshit when i hear it.

I know metal inside and out. It is my job. I will never dignify these discussions with anything more than a dismissive tone. Like if someone said I should give all my possessions to someone and join up and live in a commune to solve my problems. It is crap pandered by idiots. No real science supports it.

If you bother to look there are independent pre 9/11 sources covering the behavior of metals in heat, load, and combinations of failure methods. It is a fucking science, a discipline that has put men in orbit and at the bottom of the ocean.

It is BULLSHIT assert anything else as fact to . Metal (pick your formula), under load, heat, and stress vectors it was not designed to support will fail.

The solution of fire and load is SO much simpler than detonation. Orders of magnitude simpler, difference in cutting your grass and assembling a jet liner.

I have a clue, some assholes flew jets into the buildings.

Tell us then where Jones' research is wrong. This should be very easy for you. Though I doubt you can. I'll expect slander of Jones as usual but no solid refutation. We'll see. :popcorn:

you are the one selling snake oil, you convince me that jones it correct. I looked at his ppt and there are lots of assertions by nameless people. references to thermite, which burns with a brilliant light and is subject to gravity in loose form. No application in a cutting charge. Not exactly impossible to trace considering is leaves a mess.

What I read is bullshit. Steel structures referred to as heat sinks other basic failures. Fucking morons, any material can absorb energy. The SPEED at which it does this is more important here. Thermal absorption and radiation rates are pretty simple concepts, not addressed.

I refuse to be dragged into the shit with the pigs here. I have never heard (even after reading this shit) an explanation that covers the events of 9/11 in a more logical fashion than .. big jet crash , big damage, big fire, structural failure..

Explosives, thermite, and space lasers are possible, but just not probable.

You go ahead and believe the bullshit if you want. Are you saying here, "What I read is bullshit. Steel structures referred to as heat sinks other basic failures. Fucking morons,...", that a nuclear physicist along with many more concurring scientists know less than you? Yes I realize you "know metals inside and out" and all. Right! :eyes: But I know bullshit inside and out. And the Bush/PNAC CT has already been proven a lie.

Who are you calling pigs, by the way?

who wallows in the belief that the government destroyed the twin towers. That is who. The jews all got the heads up, and it was all a fix, blah, blah, blah.

Bush is a fucking moron, however they did not blow up the twin towers.

The fact that NIST and the engineering community shit on this garbage is accepted. Coupled with a host of people who could make a fortune by proving it was a fix, speak volumes. Do you know how much that would be worth?

They run a shitty website and beg for money to proffer their crap. Do you know how many BILLIONS the insurance companies would pay not to have to cover the claims on property alone. You think they would just accept, the government did it, oh well.

As for credentials I have met people with all kinds, and a title on your business card does not mean you are not full of shit.

ED:spelling

I mean sounds like you have all the facts... and done the research...if you really want to convince people its the way to go.
Because frankly your debunking type posts with "I've done a little engineering in my time..." style claims aren't quite cutting it.

Tip: Avoid overuse of the words "Occam" and "razor".

when can we expect to see their research published for peer review?

Duh! It's published on the web at his site for anyone to review! :eyes: Yet no one has yet published a refutation. :shrug:

really means in the scientific and academic world. A biased web site is not peer review and Jones would be the first to tell you that.

did that research, as did a host of peer reviewed articles from around 80 groups and 120 individuals. I am stating the position of the engineering.

Why the hell would I start posting technical information in response to bogus technical information? Would some random out of context on the laws of thermodynamics help here?

mister "I know metals inside and out"! Just link us those so called proofs you alledge. And please not more like minded bullshit opinion but solid scientific evidence, please.

man. You are on your own. I refuse to jump in the pig shit with you. You come in claiming the sky is green and there is no gravity, you pony up. The proof is out there from nist and the engineering community. hit up the google. Read any trade mag, pick one. They talked about NOTHING but the collapse for a year.

Here is the proof, if you can actually prove the bullshit you spew you will be rich, very rich. The insurance companies will void the policies, you will be on the cover of every engineering magazine published, and win a nobel prize.

go for it.

it should be fairly simple for you to take the key evidence used to support your position and narrow it down to a few bullet points and make your point with a simple post. if the alternative theories are so ridiculous there MUST be a simple and obvious way to debunk them..

Try Engineering News Record.

or ANY other Engineering magazine.

Same with a few dozen Architectural organizations, the American Institute of Architects is a good place to start.

Then there are the dozens of UNIVERSITY publications...

Take your pick - NONE of them support anything other than LOGICAL STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE CAUSED BY THE ELIMINATION OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORT AND WEAKENING BY FIRE, FOLLOWED BY THE KINETIC FORCE OF "PANCAKING" MILLION POUND FLOORS OF EVER INCREASING LOAD, AS ONE FLOOR ADDS TO THE LOAD OF THE LOWER FLOOR.

NOT ONE PROFESSIONAL WHO DOES THIS FOR A LIVING HAS SAID ANY OTHER THING...

And this is the point.

You bought the "pancake" theory. Now you believe it, even as the official cause of initiation of collapse has changed.

So if NIST has abondoned there own theory, on what grounds do you continue to cling to it?

And if all the magazines which you don't link to which you probably haven't read anyway are supporting the "pancake" theory, then they were wrong, according to NIST.

NIST doesn't even have any physical evidence (ie steel)to support there temperature/time hypothisis.
And NIST, supposedly had access to the physical evidence.

NIST never even tested for the presence of high explosives, a simple and fast test to rule out the possiblity. You call that an investigation?

None of the magazines you site had access to the steel. So it's all just a bunch of conflicting hypothises without any hard physical evidence to back it up.

To be fair, many on the other side of the argument go off just as half cocked.

Senator Max Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission, saying "The 9/11 Commission is compromised."

What America needs is a thorough independent investigation of all aspects of the 9/11 attacks. Until that happens, there is no reason for anyone to have any confidence in the crap we've been getting so far.

as usual. :yourock:

NIST=BUSH/PNAC!
Popular Science/Ben Chertoff=Bush/PNAC!

still waiting or has Jones' research shut you down? :popcorn:

"Shock and Awe" really works well.

was sucked in by the complete idiocy of it all. Bad science and raving political theory in one package.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

here is some more contemporary tripe.

is post slanderous crap yet no solid facts which dispute Jones' claims! How predictable! :eyes:

the only ones that were cut to destroy the entire structure? It it pretty fucking obvious what happened. Why and who are great topics.

How is pretty well defined.

Some idiot posted nukes caused the tsunami, this topic shares a realm of stupidity with that assertion.

How stupid of us to question the Bush/PNAC conspiracy theory, with all it's holes! :sarcasm:

a well documented plan going back a decade. Flying jets into targets was described by an Indonesian, and tried by a pissed off guy at fedex.

Question all you like, but the gravity will be working when you roll out of bed tomorrow.

:hi:

World Trade Center 7 - Not hit by any aircraft.

Falling debris, fire, failure, simple. Untraceable explosives and a perfect drop on an unprepped structure, umm, not so much

"If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse..." Link

But they promise us: "WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October 2005; final for December 2005."

Do you have a copy of the final report in hand? Where you do you get your information for your dismissive reply?

And if falling debris and fire can cause a total collapse, please explain WTC 3 (which was heavily damaged and had fires) and yet managed not to "progressively collapse":

did not plant untraceable explosives and fire them in a specific sequence despite massive damage?

N/T

Again I'll ask Do you have a copy of the final report in hand? Where you do you get your information for your dismissive reply?

You said "Falling debris, fire, failure, simple."

Back that with a link to the final report. That should be "simple."

Put up or shut up.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Feel free to read that massive pile of paper to conclude what any person with a middle school education would. Shit fall, fire burns, structure fails.

or it could be a zionist cia plot...using technology undetectable by modern science.

You are the one pimping snake oil, so you can fight the engineering community in your spare time. Hint if you can prove the zionist agents, cia, or feith did it you will be a rich man.

as truth seekers conveniently forget.

Is WTC 7 as damaged as the non collapsing WTC 3?

should be in cad. Be sure to show load distribution specs include failure specs to boot..

But a pretty picture is much more convincing.

First you tell us it's the heavy damage.

Shown a photo of another building with even heavier damage that did not collapse, you resort to asking for "cad". What became of your "simple" argument of earlier?

The "pretty picture" is more than you've ever provided to back your theory.

Please come to the discussion armed with a least a modicum of data. We've heard the snarky comments before.

a byproduct of lsd in the water the onus is on me. my simple position stands.

I did not post the pic. However the cute gif of a collapsing structure is worth DICK. A structural diagram would be a bit more useful.

in regards to 911? Or can you show me pictures of all the explosions everyone supposedly heard? What about Mr William Rodriguez's eye witness account - I have no problem ignoring it without photographic proof.

you have no problem falling for the "plane hit the pentagon" hypothesis without any photographic proof when there certainly should be plenty. Hmmm?

If a 47 story building collapses, I expect to see evidence.

Did you get a copy of the final report by NIST? If so, please provide a link. Otherwise you have no real information to offer, particularly since NIST only had a "working hypothesis" the last time it released any information about WTC 7.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's time to take off the pink goggles folks. 9/11 was a false-flag operation orchestrated from within the national security state. It is the key to the whole shabang and the one thing that could HANG these murderers and traitors.

1: According to the official story, American Flight 77 disappeared from radar several minutes after take off. The plane identified as Flight 77 once radar contact was re-established was ASSUMED to be AF77 although no visual confirmation or other evidence has ever been made public to support that assertion;
2: The plane assumed to be F77 penetrated Washington DC airspace unchallenged by military air defense even though it was being traced even by Cheney within the WH -- and this after two planes had struck the WTC and America was "known" to be "under attack."
3: The information Pilots for 9/11 Truth has was provided by the NTSB as a result of a FOIA;
4: This information purports to be be from the Flight Data Recorder (aka Black Box) of Flight 77 given to the NTSB by the FBI;
5: This information includes the FDR spreadsheet and raw data as well as the NTSB animation.
6: Pilots for 9/11 Truth analysis of this information shows conclusively that the airplane from which this data was derived could not have hit the Pentgon for the following reasons:

1. ) The heading of the aircraft from which this black box was taken is significantly different from that of the official story, placing it NORTH of the Citgo gas station -- where the impact vehicle that knocked down the light poles would had to have been approaching from the South of the Citgo station;
   
2. ) The video that has been released by the Pentagon which purportedly shows Flight 77 crashing into it is completely inconclusive except for the fact that it shows whatever hit the Pentagon traveling horizontally inches above the ground, whereas the data supplied by the NTSB shows the angle of approach to be too steep to have leveled off in this manner prior to impact;
   
3. ) Finally and most importantly this data shows conclusively that the altimiter was properly adjusted in flight for barometric pressure both during the assent to 18,000' and, again, during the descent below 18,000', of this aircraft and these adjustments would place the aircraft from 480' to 520' higher above sea level than shown on the NTSB animation; because the NTSB animation does NOT show the readjustment of the altemiter upon descent.
   

7: Therefore, according to the NTSB data acquired by the FOIA request by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the aircraft from which this black box was taken (which may or may not have been Flight 77) could not have hit the Pentagon because it was traveling on the wrong heading and because it was at too high an altitude to do so.
8: This is a blatant cover-up and distortion of data by the NTSB, provided by the FBI, in an effort to use this data to corroborate the official story when in fact it does just the opposite.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Edit HTML

and stay up until independant investigators can analysis them.

but I expect they won't. But great idea!
:hi:

It looks more and more to me like 9.11 was an inside job.

they buried at ground zero where it had to be discovered one day? One hell of a smoking gun. :eyes:

And is not being treated as evidence at a crime scene. Very suspicious.

This is from the first article: "Unlike the stacked columns, this steel appeared to be burned at one end."

I'm going back to reading more...

...by thermite placed on the beams inside the building to initiate the eventual collapse of the building.

It's just something to look at on those particular beams; analyze the cuts to see what chemicals were involved in the cutting process.

OMG!!!!11111eleven1!!!1

maybe the beams wouldn't show any evidence of thermite.....would you roll your eyes then?

Or maybe they would show evidence of thermite.

Why don't you want to know an honest answer/analysis like most of us here do? That's the REAL qauestion that begs an answer.

Did you even TRY to think about that, or is poking fun at peoples ideas higher on your priority list?

No, wait... You already answered that.
:eyes:

Isn't that how 2001: A Space Odyessey started?

rocknation
:wow:

I strongly believe this to be so.

Steel burned at one end/ Maybe nothing, maybe something. Let's have some independent experts and organizations have a lookesee.

No no no, says the Emperor, store it and never let it see the light of day again.

were given on 911, AND katrina, and anthrax, and national security including airport security.

They built a service road on ground zero, and used or left some of the debris as part of the road construction.

How could this happen? Definitely proves typical construction practices were in place. Shocking!!!!!!!!!