"GOP Insider Claims He Has Sept. 11 ‘Smoking Gun"

<<<snip>>>
“Contained in the film unrelated to 9-11, is a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower.

“We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service,” said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. “We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.

“This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue.”

Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.” Cont…

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/one-time_gop_insider.html

But I feel it will be buried by the MSM.

Hopefully with or without the MSM the story gets out and can uncover the truth. So what happened to the people? I'm just so confused.

:shrug:

OE oops "four" not "three"

I'll bet that would be an interesting read.

It's "old" news. The media has moved on.

Most Americans have already accepted the official version.

Yes, they are sheep and, yes, they are being led to slaughter, but, hey, they can go shopping!

You can judge for yourself, of course. But, this guy has been quite outspoken and consistent with our own finding about the BFEE and the Neocons.

Thanks

These kind of irrational conspiracy theories damage our case.

Which 737 flight was it? Who was on the flight? Can we speak to the families of those people?

And what happened to all those people who were on the real 767 flight, the one which actually hit the tower? And what about the ear-witnessing (via cell phone) which happened in *real* *time*. I'm sorry, this "alternative-737 flight" is whole-cloth rubbish. Even a cursory inspection falsifies it.

The truth is something that one can defend. CuckooBananas deliberately and willingly ignored glaring evidence that an attack was to occur. This is the message we ought to be voicing. Note that it is an impeachable offense.

We need to stop spreading lunacy like this and focus on the real target--CuckooBananas and *his* lunatics.

I second that!

I've heard there was some disagreement about whether or not the cellphones in use at that time (as opposed to today's generation) were able to stay connected at that speed and altitude, particularly when flying over rural areas.

They need a clear shot to a cell tower. An airplane at altitude would have a clear shot at any number of cells. The system even has a protocol to deal with the handover of a call when multiple cells have a clear shot.

So, do cell phones work well in flight? You betcha they do. That's why the in-flight staff have to repeatedly remind people to shut off their cell phones in flight (for fear of interfering with the onboard nav equipment).

It doesn't matter what the conspiracy theorists say about the cell phones on airplanes, or the melting point of steel, or the temperature of burning petrol, or the prices of apples in India. When it comes down to the bottom line, these rubbishy theories still divert attention away from the real conspiracy, that of the Bush Administration deliberately and willingly ignoring clear warnings of impending attack. And it doesn't matter if they knew about this particular attack. (I don't believe they did.) They are accountable for their omission just as if they knew about it.

Spewing this rubbish is a monumental waste of time.

If the plane was a 737 and not a 767?

Everybody is still just as dead. The towers are still gone.

A 767 is supposed to be the kind of plane that hit tower 2. A diferent plane means the government has been lying in a big way about a key event in our nation's course. That being said, be cautious about claims like this.

Look, I'm not saying the "official" story is a complete, straight line, either.

But really, I don't think the model of plane makes a big difference. I repeat, Everybody is STILL dead.

and AmericanFreePress.net is verboten here. Schwartz may be onto something but just be warned about him.

I think there are many problems with the official 9/11 story, please check out the September 11th section here at DU for more info. A good starting place for credible questions about 9/11 is David Ray Griffin's books. Lastly, my blog is devoted to 9/11, and I have recommended reading there.

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

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

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

Many of you likely are aware of it, but for those who aren't:

http://www.911blogger.com/

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

Forgive my ignorance or naivete, but how does this constitute a "smoking gun?" Couldn't the Bushistas claim to have been mistaken? Couldn't they offer the "we meant to say the other" argument? After all "737" is very close to "767" and could be confused; consider how often the candidates confused "Saddam" with "Osama" during the 2004 campaign, catching their mistake right after they made it, even though we knew who they were really referring to.

Enlighten me...:dunce:

mistake. Believe me, flight 175 is supposed to be a 767. If that didn't hit the tower, then the whole 9/11 story could be a giant lie.

The plane that did hit, if it were a 737, would be been nothing more than a projectile put there at that place and time to hit the tower, while the 767, a "legitimate flight with passengers," goes missing. I wonder why a dummy plane was used in this instance whereas the other planes were real, and I also wonder what happened to the real 767...

I believe I need to do so more reading about this theory...

Operation Northwood (or Norwood) during the JFK admin was developed by the Pentagon to start a war with Cuba. One of the ideas of the joint chiefs of staff was to fake a hijacking and crash of an airliner, and they laid out the plan for it. They would take a plane full of people friendly to their goals, land it on an island, and launch another identical plane from there, crashing the second plane, either with corpses of just empty. The people on the original flight would be safe, and they would keep quiet, but the world would think Cuba had shot down or crashed a plane, and the US could invade.

This plan is part of records declassified not long ago. There is no doubt it existed. JFK rejected the plan and basically broke up the joint chiefs because of it.

Now, I don't believe it, but some people believe that's one possibility for 9-11. I don't believe it because I think it's an amateur plan. I think Bush basically opened a door for UBL and turned the other way, expecting something big to happen. I think, but have no proof, he may have been surprised at how big it was. But we had a terrorist plotting to do something like this for years, and getting foiled every time. All it took to make it happen was not foiling it one more time. I don't see the need for the risk of an Operation Northwood.

But that's the primer.

What I don't understand was why they didn't just find an outbound flight that already was a 737 or use a missile laden 767?

They deserve no benefit of the doubt.... with hindsight we can more clearly see how bushco has used thie 911 event, and we can see clear evidence of how the neocons called for a "New Pearl Harbor" like event to enable them to sway the public to follow them into war!

PLEASE.. I beg you to see the FOREST for the trees... I dont know what happened on 911, and neither do you... we only know what they wanted us to know.. PLUS, what we have learned since, and the stories dont jive! So, bush lies?... hmmm I think so!

just ask yourself this, why did WTC7 fall?

Whatever flight struck the tower was documented to be a 767. If it's a 737, then it wasn't that flight, and that opens a whole can of worms.

Now, to be clear, I think this is all delusional fantasy. No way a videotape of the south tower plane is going to prove it was a 737 rather than a 767. The plane struck the tower live on national television, and there were a dozen films of it, at least. The only way some new film could be more conclusive if is it was closer than the media's films, and if it was that much closer, it's view of the plane is going to be very quick. This is just another shaky evidence claim, like Pierre Salinger's video of the missile striking the plane over the Atlantic.

I could be wrong, of course. Just my interpretation.

If the news won't tell of it, how do you get it out there?

Forgive me if I hold off supporting this bunk until I see the actual tape.

:eyes:

There is plenty of footage of the south tower hit, (I still have it videotaped from live shots from the networks) clearly showing what kind of airplane ran into it. (I'm a commercial pilot since 1963 and I know what they look like.)

This is a bunch of crap.

put what you think you know aside.......go to www.karlschwarz.com......and read about it....or go to www.rbnlive.com....and listen to the archived programs on the John Stadmiller show with Karl.....you can also catch archived programs of Karl on www.meria.net

then you can go off

People are beating this to death. You won't find anything but dead ends following those sorts of questions. The towers fell because a hijacked 757 and 767 hit them, the steel melted and they fell. End of story.

Now... I'm not saying there isn't a coverup, but -- the question should be asked is this : how did those 19 men get into the country and on to those planes in the first place? If there's a conspiracy, that's where you'll find it.

Besides, if a 767 did not hit the tower, then we have a missing 767 and a bunch of missing passengers. Where is it? How do you hide something like that? The short answer is - you can't hide it. It hit the tower.

But, point taken. :)

Consider that jet fuel is really highly refined kerosene. In perfect circumstances, it will burn between 800 and 900 degrees F. However, in the Towers, matters were not perfect. Sticking with the fire code of NYC, the draperies, furniture, carpet, wall coverings, and other standard office items were all fire retardant. Also consider that the Towers had a sprinkler system that was functional and worked. Accounts from eyewitnesses and firemen state that the sprinkler system was working that day, doing its job just fine. Also consider that in both Towers, tapes of the firemen who went up reveal the firemen are asking for only three lines in each tower to put out the fires. I'm a former fireman, and I can tell you that if only three lines are being called for, it means that the fire is relatively minor, can easily be controlled, and is not the roaring inferno that the press has since made it out to be.

None of this points to an inferno that is weakening steel, it is simply impossible, due to the fact that jet fuel cannot reach the temperature needed to do the job, especially when the fire is being smothered by both the large quantities of fire retardant materials, and the functioning sprinkler system. This is borne out by the tapes of the firefighters. They aren't pushing the panic button, though are calmly doing their jobs, reporting a fire that is controlable, and that certainly isn't hot enough to weaken steel.

It takes aprox 1,100 degrees F worth of heat to weaken steel. In perfect circumstances, jet fuel will reach 900 degrees F. In the case of 911, no circumstances were perfect, therefore there is no way that the fire would have gotten hot enough to weaken steel, especially to the point of the Towers collapsing.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

With Bushco. Propaganda isn't the truth, go out and do your own research using impartial resources.

A couple of quick items from this PM article that is a dead giveaway that it is a propaganda piece, not the truth.

First: "Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors."

I don't know what your morning routine is, but while I'm drinking my coffee in the morning I watch the tail end of the local news(for the weather forecast) and the beginning of the Today show on NBC. On 911, perky Katie Couric came on at 7am Central time(8am eastern) and the first news piece mentioned was the hijacking of four flights over the NE air corridor. They even had maps outlining where the planes were, how they were looping back over Ohio, etc. Pretty detailed movements. Now if the ATC couldn't find these flights, how did NBC know where they were and how were they tracking them? Does NBC have its own radar system? Of course not, they were getting their information from the same place every other media outlet was getting the information, from the ATC.

Second: "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."

What PM neglects to tell you here is that three other jets, a trainer and two F-16s out of Florida were escorting Stewart's Learjet within minutes, not an hour and twenty-two minutes later:eyes:. Here's a couple of links to help. <http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews><http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/printer.pat,local/3773f436.a25,.html>

Third: Burning temperature of jet fuel.

Yes, PM is correct about jet fuel being able to reach temperatures of 1500 degrees F. What they neglect to tell you is the jet fuel can only reach these temperatures under certain special conditions, specifically when in the jet engine itself, with the fuel being atomized into mist, and being force fed air, and under full throttle. So yes, it is possible that the fuel in the engines, at the time of impact, was burning at 1500 degrees F. But the fuel that was spilled inside the building wasn't being force fed air, nor atomized, nor was in under full throttle. Therefore, the fuel could only burn at its normal max temp, 800-900 F, and probably a lot less given that ignition temp is 480 degrees F, and fire automatic fire suppression systems were functioning. You can go check out the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics for these numbers.

Fourth: "He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper."

There is absolutely no consideration of the massive amount of fire retardants that are impregnated, by law, into these materials. Every one of these material mentioned, excepting the paper, is mandated by law to be fire retardant. And paper burns relatively cooly, aprox 450-700 degrees F, unless there are special circumstances. Here is a link to the NYC fire codes concerning the use of fire retardant materials in building construction.<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/bldgs_code/bc27s5.pdf>

A couple of other things worth mentioning. First, the sprinkler system was working, and it was suppressing the fire. This is verified both by people in the building, and by firefighters on the scene. This too would be suppressing the fire, and thus keeping the temperature down. Secondly, the tapes of the firemen on the scene do not report a raging inferno as PM likes to claim. Instead, they are saying that the fire is controllable, and they are only calling for three lines in each tower. I've been a fireman friend, and I don't care if they're calling for three inch lines, if they're only wanting three of them, that right there means that the fire isn't raging, and that it can be brought under control easily.

Now then, let us take a look at Popular Mechanics. PM is owned by the Hearst Corporation, a notoriously conservative corporation. In fact the Hears Corporation, and Hearst family were some of the top media donors to Bush and the 'Pugs in the '04 election cycle. I've linked an article pointing this out as early as May '04, and also linked to a political donation database. You'll have to do your own searching on the database, but it is an eye-opener.<http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000518554><http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_efview.exe?DoFn=C000034182006&Rptno=175034&server=PML2>

So, with all of this buddy buddy schmoozing between the Hearst Corporation and their boy Bush, do you honestly think that they would publish a piece exposing the lies and coverups involving 911? Of course not, instead they are going to back up their boy 100%, and actually use their media outlets to publish distortions and outright lies in order to bolster the official story. And as I've demonstrated above, that is all this PM piece is, lies and distortions, all designed to bolster the official story. This is the same tactic used when JFK was assassinated, and people began questioning the official story. I forget, but some major media whore even brought in a panel of ballistic experts and physicists to explain just how the magic bullet performed its magic.

Rather than believe in the pablum put out by the propaganda machine, go do your own research, come to your own conclusion. And always, always, follow the money trail. That in itself is the telling clue in why a corporation is motivated to put out such blatant falsehoods.

The asbestos spray covering them had flaked off over the years, and one floor fell on the next, which fell on the next, and the whole mess pancaked down.

First off, how did they know the fire retardant(which wasn't asbestos by the by) had flaked off all of the beams? Remember, this is a complete demolition sight, and it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to find out this sort of information.

Secondly, I don't know if you've done any welding, but I have, and welds are designed by their very nature to hold up to both stress and heat as well as, if not better than the material that is being welded. If these welds failed due to either condition, either the stress or the heat, then quite frankly it is a miracle that the Towers stood as long as they did with such substandard welding. Besides, major loads were not only taken up by welds, but also by large bolts also.

You're free to stop focusing on that, if you so wish. Why do you feel the need to tell others what they should focus on?

"The towers fell because a hijacked 757 and 767 hit them, the steel melted and they fell. End of story."

Well, the steel clearly didn't melt, as those fires wouldn't have been able to cause them to do that. The theory is that the fire could weaken the steal sufficently to cause the collapses.

The steel was weakened... yes... my mistake. Sorry about that.

But still - I guess I get frustrated because most people seem to focus on the simple mechanics of the collapse. The more important questions of why the hijackers got on to the planes do not seem to be pursued with the vigor that people put into proving the collapse was caused by something other than the planes. What happened to the towers after the planes hit is kind of a moot point.

The more important question is how did those planes get there in the first place? Who let these people into the country and on to the planes? Where did the money come from? What are these people's connections to the Bush administration?

These are the important questions.

I too am more interested in the other aspects of 9/11 than those physical questions. The nature of the so-called al-Qa'ida for instance, which always seems to be a willing participant in US/UK covert operations in the Muslim world (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya). While they allegedly hate Israel more than anything, they have never attacked Israeli interests or embassies.

It is also interesting that all those hijackers, as well as "20th hijacker" Moussaoui, were recruited in Europe, not in the Muslim world (the Freepers would of course say that Europe belongs to the Muslim world). Ayman al-Zawahiri, who I think is more important than Bin Ladin, lived freely in London while he was a wanted terrorist. Bin Ladin bought an estate in London in 1994 and lived there for a while. The most well-known Islamist cleric in London has been accused of being an MI5 agent provocateur. Usama Bin Ladin is said to be a protégé of prince Turki Bin Faisal, Saudi ambassador to the UK, who allegedly presonally selected him to be the poster boy of the joint CIA/MI6/ISI "jihad" in Afghanistan.

A French parliamentary investigation into money laundering and terrorism found that Bin Laden had links to over 40 banks, financial institutions and individuals in London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. British authorities were even less cooperative than the Swiss in helping the investigation.

It has emerged that the MI6 (UK military intel) paid an al-Qa'ida cell £100,000 to assassinate Moammar al-Ghadaffi in 1995.

A Dutch govt report reveals that US military intel in collusion with Iran and Turkey surreptitiously helped mujahedin (al-Qa'ida?) guerrillas into Bosnia in 1992-95.

When the British SAS started training the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1998/99, Ayman al-Zawahiri's brother Muhammed joined them. They were also trained by Bin Laden himself.

The CIA station chief visited Bin Laden when he was hospitalized at the American hospital in Dubai in July 2001.

So there's reason to question what the real motivations of people like Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are. This line of inquiry is in my opinion more interesting than how the towers fell etc.

Still, it's damn conspicuous that three skyscrapers should collapse in that peculiar fashion that day, one of them without having been hit by a plane, while we haven't seen anything remotely similar with skyscraper fires before or since.

And the trajectory of the plane that hit the Pentagon is extremely suspicious. Clearly, Hani Hanjour did not fly that plane.

God made the Earth in 6 days then rested.. and so end of story!... stop showing me evidence that contradicts the story I know! GEEZ ... name 1 other thing bush has tiold the truth on?! SEE the forest for the trees... think, everything that has happened since then! BIG LIE, hard to accept... so be skeptical, but open minded!

I dont know what happeened 911, and neither do you! Lets demand the truth together!

Science can explain evolution quite well.

Science also explains fairly completely how a 757/767 can take down those towers.

If you want to talk about alternate theories for the collapse, then, just like someone trying to disprove evolution, you will need provide some very sound science to back it up.

Once again -- The important coverup is the sequence of *human* events leading up to the point where the planes hit the towers. Who knew what and when did they know it? If people follow THAT trail, I bet it would implicate a lot of very important people.

But thanks .. it was :sarcasm: .... I was just trying to say that asking people to stop looking at a subject because you have made up your mind is not helpful.

As for the 911 issue and the collapse of the bldg... it is possible that that towers fell due to the fires... possible, not likly but possible... HOWEVER, it is IMPOSSIBLE that WTC7 collapsed neatly due to the small fires in that bldg. SO, when someone explains THAT collapse we may have a better picture of what happened to the towers! SEE.. they are connected, so.. I need a thoery that explains ALL collapses and fits in with the evidence we DO have.

got 1?

That bothers me in all of this.

...but you're right, I'm a layman.

spare engines (or broken ones that need repair, etc.) as cargo, so finding a 737 engine in the rubble proves nothing.

This guy's a fuckin' loony. He's no expert on anything but the voices in his head.

statement says more about you than Karl.....go read post #37

and coming from the Freeps, it likely is. Consider the source!

that there was some government attack on the WTC on 9-11? They want all of us to focus our energies chasing phantoms and nonsense rather than pointing out Bush's complete failure and cowardice on 9-11. That way we never prove anything, and we look goofy in the process.

"The greatest trick the devil ever played was making people believe he didn't exist." I probably got the quote wrong, but you get the picture.

For The Canadian News Service. I can't find anything by that name. Maybe others will have more luck.

:shrug:

I have a vivid imagination, huh!!! :bounce:

:shrug:

Use your imagination.

What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

It was also reported by the FAA, and noted by the Pentagon, that Flight 77 either crashed or landed near the Ohio/Kentucky border.
See info on another thread on this. This all supports the
Operation Pearl scenario on the physics911 site

Operation Pearl A.K. Dewdney- (Airliner Flight Takedowns/Exchange and Replacement) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2

on Sept. 11.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097883/

This looks like a Dis-Info to discredit/silence Schwarz. The guy wrote a book that reveled a lot of damaging info toward *, so let's make people think he's a total KooK to discredit him.

I'll believe it when I see this alleged 737 video.

NOTE: the Video Post-Production industry has had the ability to replace a 737 in a video tape for almost 20 years (Quantel "Harry" Video Paintbox)

It's from Denys Arcand's film "Les Invasions Barbares" (which has nothing to do with 9/11 except that short clip in there). I have the dvd and can vouch for the authenticity of the video clip. I've seen it on the internet too, but I don't remember where at the moment. I couldn't personally tell if it's a 737 or a 767 though.

must STIFLE the truth around here....right?

:argh:




A man cries out over his brother's body at Yarmouk hospital, after Maj. Gen. Wael al-Rubaei, director of the National Security Ministry's operations room, and his driver were assassinated by two carloads of gunmen in a drive-by shooting on their way to work, in Baghdad's Mansour district in Iraq Monday, May 23, 2005. (AP Photo/Mohammed Uraibi)

website.

copied the article from another source......I betch money it's an effort to discredit Karl......

The publication you cited is run by either complete morons or Nazis. Don't care which--they aren't worth listening to.

"The grandfather of all alternative newspapers. This insightful publication prints news you can't get from the mainstream, corporate-driven media. Take a look and buy a subscription."

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/page/page/1628847.htm

Here's an article where he talks with a Rethug goon who thinks that the evil--you guessed it--J-E-W-S control the media.

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/25028.htm

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

don't throw around Nazi, not to nice.

The American Free Press, official mouthpiece of the American Fascist and Holocaust denial movements, is less credible than George W. Bush on crack.

around here, wake up.
Buzzflash video at the link !
http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html

C'mon, folks. This one is just TOO EASY after Rathergate & the Newsqueak retraction, not to mention Hatfield & the cocaine story.

Insider comes up with the information we want to hear, all cloaked in credible (& no doubt true) details. We bite & splash it all over. Then the source is discredited. (Hatfield's felonious past comes to light; documents found to be either forged or arguably so; highly placed gov't source retracts. 737 story blows apart.

Egg on face. Embarrassing retractions. The real, unrefuted story goes down the tube with the retraction.

Think Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown folks. Get a grip.

I don't trust him, but I'm covinced he's genuine. His theories are a little, shall we say, unorthodox though.

He doesn't write for the AFP, they just reprinted his article.

WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
By Jon Carlson carlson.jon@att.net 4-4-5
http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/may2005/articles/911.htm

From another thread.calipendence http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x127372

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
Tuesday, 24 May 2005, 2:26 pm
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
From: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
snip---
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander
snip---
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00295.htm

AmericanFreePress is considered a hate site (anti-Semitic) and not appropriate for citation on DU.

Lithos
Sept 11 Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground