Here's food for thought from a slice of my preliminary analysis of the eyewitness record I have on my shelf: Times New RomanIn terms of proof, physical evidence ranks number one with prosecutors and scientists, while eyewitness testimony ranks lower, certainly no higher than second. Yet eyewitness testimony is an important part of the 911 puzzle. As far as I can tell, there is a dearth of testimony from disinterested witnesses affirming flights into the WTC towers. Consider the first plane that flew into the North Tower: many thousands of people in Central Park plus northbound drivers, passengers and pedestrians along First, Second and Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc., would have seen a low-flying AA Boeing 767 thundering south/southwest down the island of Manhattan. At high speed it would have been incredibly noisy, extraordinary and a bit scary. At 400+ mph the jetliner would have taken approximately one minute to fly less than seven miles from just north of Central Park into the North Tower, plenty of time to see and track such a large plane. Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses could have confirmed a Boeing 767 flying overhead if the official story were true but I’ve not seen such interviews. I’ve searched the internet in vain for credible “street interviews.” Help me. The witnesses offered are largely media people, “anonymous” or those who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all. From a legal, adversarial point of view, most WTC “eyewitness” testimony in favor of large airliners is vulnerable. Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That’s a whole new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard Holmgren" variety would crush them. We do not even need that, as suggested below (and I can deliver more). CNN, otherwise known as the Complicit News Network, was the lead dog that day, quickly setting up the party line within minutes. 0000,0000,FFFF 0000,0000,FFFF At 8:46 a.m., according to CNN, “Flight 11 slams into the World Trade Center’s north tower at an estimated speed of more than 400 mph and explodes in a huge fireball. The plane, loaded with 16,000 pounds of jet fuel, tears a gaping hole in the building and sets it afire.” Then at 8:49 a.m. “CNN Anchor Carol Lin interrupts a commercial with the breaking news: ‘This just in. You are looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center, and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.’” Question: who called in these unconfirmed reports? We’ll never know. CNN writers probably had it scripted in advance. Here’s the key to CNN coverage that day: at 8:54 a.m. Sean Murtagh, CNN’s vice president of finance and administration, “witnessed the crash from his nearby office” and tells [CNN Anchor Carol ]“Lin via an on-air phone call that the plane that hit the north tower was a ‘large commercial passenger jet.’” Uh huh. “My office faces south toward…the…what,…where the trade center used to be and… probably caught the last 5-6 seconds of flight of the first plane flying straight into the north tower. Impact, fireball and when it hit, it was like, you got like a thud in your stomach, like did I just see what I just saw?” Uh huh. Here's what is wrong with Murtagh’s statement: first, CNN offices then were at 5 Penn Plaza on W. 33d street, almost three miles north of WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That’s not “nearby” by my lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st floor sounds good but it’s not a good vantage point because the plane would fly by in a flash, too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would take over 20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not “the last 5-6 seconds of flight” claimed. Murtagh’s timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely effective, Murtagh is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report from one of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North Tower. They did not even have enough respect for the audience to interview a hired actor on the street, instead putting the lie “in plain view” by broadcasting it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a lousy actor, with a flat, disinterested delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly into the North Tower could possibly muster. Ok, let's continue for a bit. We all know that some truth leaks out in early media coverage of a disaster. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is immediately overturned by the first unidentified female witness who insists the North Tower hit came from inside, and then the second, Jeanne Yurman, who reports a sonic boom. Neither witness confirms Murtagh's report of a large airliner. Times New RomanCNN transcript 9/11 0000,0000,FFFF ArialCNN BREAKING NEWS Terrorist Attack on United States Times Aired September 11, 2001 - 08:48   ET Times New RomanTHIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. Times THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: This just in. You are looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center, and have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. CNN Center right now is just beginning to work on this story, obviously calling our sources and trying to figure out exactly what happened. But clearly, something relatively devastating happening this morning there on the south end of the island Manhattan. That is, once again, a picture of one of the towers of the World Trade Center. VINCE CELLINI, CNN ANCHOR: We could see these pictures. It's obviously something devastating that has happened. And again, there are unconfirmed reports that a plane has crashed into one of the towers there. We are efforting more information on the subject as it becomes available to you. LIN: Right now we've got Sean Murtagh -- he is a CNN producer -- on the telephone. Sean, what can you tell us what about you know? SEAN MURTAGH, CNN PRODUCER: This is Sean Murtagh. I just was standing on the vice president of the vice president of finance for CNN. CELLINI: Shaun, we're on the air right now. What you can tell us about the situation? MURTAGH: Hello? CELLINI: Yes, Sean, you are on the air right now. Go ahead. What you can tell us? MURTAGH: I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude over New York City, and it appears to have crashed into -- I don't know which tower it is -- but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Center towers. LIN: Sean, what kind of plane was it? Was it a small plane, a jet? MURTAGH: It was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737. LIN: You are talking about a large passenger commercial jet. MURTAGH: A large passenger commercial jet. LIN: Where were you when you saw this? MURTAGH: I am on the 21st floor of 5 Penn Plaza. LIN: Did it appear that the plane was having any difficulty flying? MURTAGH: Yes, it did. It was teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip, and it looks like it crashed into, probably, 20 stories from the top of the World Trade Center, maybe the 80th to 85th floor. There is smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center. LIN: Sean, what happened next? Does it appear to you that the plane is still inside the World Trade Center? MURTAGH: From my angle -- I'm viewing south towards the Statue of Liberty and the World Trade Center. It looks like it has embedded in the building. I can't see, from my vantage point whether it has come out the other side. CELLINI: Sean, what about on the ground or any debris that has hit down there? MURTAGH: My vantage point is too far from the World Trade Center to make any determination of that. LIN: Did you see any smoke, any flames coming out of engines of that plane? MURTAGH: No, I did not. The plane just was coming in low, and the wingtips tilted back and forth, and it flattened out. It looks like it hit at a slight angle into the World Trade Center. I can see flames coming out of the side of the building, and smoke continues to billow. CELLINI: Generally, is that a trafficked area in New York for aircraft? MURTAGH: It is not a normal flight pattern. I'm a frequent traveler between Atlanta and New York for business, and it is not a normal flight pattern to come directly over Manhattan. Usually, they come up either over the Hudson River, heading north, and pass alongside, beyond Manhattan, or if they are taking off from LaGuardia, they usually take off over Shea Stadium and gain altitude around the island of Manhattan. It is rare you have a jet crossing directly over the island of Manhattan. LIN: For our viewers who are just tuning in right now, you are looking at live picture of the World Trade Center tower, where, according to eyewitness Sean Murtagh -- he is the vice president of finance and eyewitness to what he describes as a twin-engine plane -- or possibly a 737 passenger jet -- flying into the World Trade Center. It appears to be still embedded inside the building. Sean, are you in a position to hear whether any sirens are going, any ambulances, any response to this yet? MURTAGH: Not from my vantage point. I am probably 1 1/2 to two miles from the World Trade Center. LIN: It is a remarkable scene: flames still coming out of the windows, black smoke billowing from what appears to be all sides. Obviously, windows are shattered, and steel is jutting out from the structure right now. CELLINI: Sean, we are looking at these pictures. MURTAGH: I see them in my office. I have them on all my TVs. CELLINI: And you are telling us you believe the plane remains embedded. MURTAGH: I can't tell from my vantage point. LIN: Sean , thank you so much for your eyewitness account there. Right now, we want to go to our affiliate NYW, reporting on this as we speak. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A little girl in his arms? JIM RYAN (ph), WNYW REPORTER: Did you see what happened, sir? Did you see what happened? What happened? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was in the PATH train, and there was a huge explosion sound; everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around the 80th floor. RYAN: Was it hit by something, or was it something inside. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was inside. RYAN: It was inside. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It looked like everything was coming out. All the windows and the papers. RYAN: What is on the sidewalk? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn't see anything. I just ran, and everyone on the passenger train just ran. I don't know if anyone was hurt, but I assume they were because the windows were all blown out. RYAN: Thank you. You have to assume a very, very terrible situation if that is indeed the case, because I'm sure there were people up there. We have lost -- again, our transmitter is on top of the World Trade Center. So we, apparently, have lost contact with Dick Oliver. But we are on the phone with an eyewitness. Rosa, can you hear me. Is Rosa there? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello? RYAN: Rosa? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes! RYAN: This is Jim Ryan here in the studio. What is your last name, please? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Cardona Rivera . CELLINI: Again, you are looking at pictures now. We understand from a CNN vice president, Sean Murtagh, who was an eyewitness to this, that a commercial jet has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. You can see the smoke billowing out. There are flames billowing out there, a commercial jet crashing into one of these towers. At this point, we do not have official injury updates to bring you. We are only now beginning to put together the pieces of this horrible incident. LIN: Just a few second ago, we were tuning into one of our affiliates in New York, WNYW. We want to go to an eyewitness on the telephone right now. Jeanne, what can you tell us what you saw? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching. LIN: Can you hear anything from your position now, ambulances, sirens? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. Positively. There are crowds of people downstairs in Battery Park City. Everybody's come out from the buildings. This is the financial area in Manhattan. There are a lot of fire engines; I can see them from my window. LIN: Jeanne -- I don't know if you can tell which tower it is that is on fire, or the kinds of services that are inside that tower. JEANNE YURMAN, WITNESS: I can't tell what is inside. It's the northern tower versus the southern tower, and it seems to be all sides of the building, from what I can tell. The west side, the south side, and it looks like smoke's coming from the east side as well. CELLINI: Jeanne, can you see any of the debris currently on the ground area? YURMAN: Absolutely. It's continuing to flutter down like leaflets, and at first there was tons of debris, and it continues to fall out. And it looks like these uppermost floors are definitely on fire. CELLINI: Can you see any actual people in that area who may have been may have been hit by any of this debris or were not able to get out of way? Can you see any crowds that are maybe too close to where they should be? Anything like that? YURMAN: No, I don't think so. It's not a highly trafficked area at the base of the World Trade Center. So that is one fortunate thing. LIN: Jeanne, we are continuing to look at pictures of this devastating scene, according to Sean Murtagh, vice president of finance, who witnessed what he described as a twin-engine plane, possibly a 737. e was almost absolutely sure it was a large passenger jet that went into that. Jeanne, you are saying you didn't see anything initially. You didn't see a plane approach the building? YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange. On Mar 28, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Nico Haupt wrote: >>>>>>>This is a start: GOOGLE: "I saw the plane" WTC 0000,0000,EEEE David Gabbard, EdD <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< good idea, i like that. and here is chapter 1: "The witnesses who didn't see any plane at south tower" 1) "...I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the Supreme Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane. (NOTE: BQE Bridge is local slang for Brooklyn Queens Express running over the Williamsborough Bridhe) 2) "...We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors ab! ove the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a candle. The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the footage of the attack)..." 3) "...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I DI! DN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..." 4) ... Gemma McDonald, Houston, Texas: On the morning of September 11. I was getting ready to go to school, when the news station broke in with breaking news. They said a plane had hit the world trade center. They were in the middle of broadcasting that story live, whenever a big fireball appeared out of the other tower. In order to see what hit the tower. They had to replay the tape in slow motion. We didn't know what had happened because we didn't see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what happened I got this weird feeling across my! body that I can't describe..." 5) TV'"witness": "...stood there watching the coverage in the airport until my flight was called. I saw the explosion in the second tower and thought it was because of the first tower burning as I didn't see the plane hit. My flight was called about 9:20 and I boarded the plane, we all sat there until about 9:35 when the pilot announced taht all flights were cancelled. After I got of the plane I went back to the TV and saw what was going on.." 6) Hispano amateur cameraman, who didn't see any object hitting south tower, while filming both towers: Compare with same geograpical position of towers aT Rosalee's site (Antenna is in the back of second= north tower) "...When I was back in the roof I saw just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2. I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other guys on the roof. We speculated for a few minutes. The only thing we could imagine was on of the wings of the first plane hitting the other tower and provoking the explosion, but that was very unlikely...." 7) From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers: "...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...." Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..." Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane) 8) Don Dahler vs. ABC Dahler: ...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i... Gibson: We just saw another plane coming in from the side. Dahler: You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view... Gi! bson: That was a second explosion. You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen... (=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor) 9) Witness Reporter Winston on NBC, which had same synched W-ABC clip: the "building is exploding right now" The studio host doesn't even see his monitor where the same W-ABC footage shows same black flying object vanishing behind first tower, then followed by explosion and fireball (no sound). The studio host agrees with street reporter (who didn't report any incoming 'plane', that this explosion must have been forced from 'parts of the first plane..." (RENDERING UPLOAD MISTAKE) 10) Witness: NO ! second plane, it was a bomb.... FOX clip Reporter is whisking witness away: "we heard about tv reports..." "Gabbard, David A" < wrote:This is a start: GOOGLE: "I saw the plane" WTC 0000,0000,EEEE David Gabbard, EdD Professor Dept of C&I College of Education East Ca! rolina University -----Original Message----- From: Gerard  Holmgren [0000,0000,] Sent: Tue 3/28/2006 11:24 AM To:; Cc: 'Rosalee Grable'; 'Nico Haupt'; 'RichardCurtis su'; Gabbard, David A; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; 'MorganReynolds';;;;;;;;;;;;;; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;;;;;;;;;; 'PlaguePuppy';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; duffy@HCI.NET;; 'malaprop'; Subject: Documentation please Jim. Jim Fetzer writes [[The "no plane" proposal requires ignoring ...hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness reports.]] Jim, Could you please provide 50 such reports ? With documentation please ? If you assert "hundreds of witness reports" to a large jet, then linking us to 50 of them is not an unreasonable request. -----Original Message----- From: [0000,0000,] Sent: Wednesday, ! 29 March 2006 1:56 AM To:; Cc: 'Gerard Holmgren'; 'Rosalee Grable'; 'Nico Haupt'; 'RichardCurtis su'; 'Gabbard, David A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; 'MorganReynolds';;;;;;;;;;;;;; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;;;;;;;;;;; 'PlaguePuppy';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; duffy@HCI.NET;; 'malaprop'; Subject: RE: back to that damned question Rob's right, of course.  The "no plane" proposal requires ignoring or distoring extensive film and video footage of the impacts, as well as hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness reports.  It is unscientific to exclude relevant evidence that falsifies an hypothesis.  This clip Rob provides, absent proof of alteration, is sufficient to refute the "no plane" hypothesis.  So it has been refuted!  Unless the no-planers are prepared to argue for the alteration of every photograph and film that records these events, their position ! doesn't get off the ground! And the idea that government agents or whomever would be rushing off to collect this footage, alter it, and return it, is simply absurd!  I would also observe that this monster Holmgren does not even know the meaning of "inertia", which is the tendency of bodies with mass to either remain at rest or in motion until acted upon by other forces. His arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance. That suggests to me he is completely incompetent to discuss the issues involved here, one more reason his opinion is meaningless and this debate is pointless. Quoting Rob Rice <: > > I don't know why I am doing this, but here's but one example of the many > amateur videos taken that day, when the event occurred. > > In this video > Part Three, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear > 0000,0000,EEEE > > Move the bar to 12:58 into the documentary. > > Now, surely you are not going to try to claim that those people were actors > or agents ie: "what's that plane doing?" or that this is another example of > "bluescreen CGI" at work.. > > Since it was a cloudless day, maybe the whole sky over Manhatten was > "bluescreen" and God himself was the GCI manipulator, since we know he told > Bush to invade Iraq..? > > There are a number of such amateur videos, and all show the same thing, from > different angles and levels of focus, including still images. > > The "all images and videos were faked" nonsense is just that, nonsense. > > They would have to show how each and every video, and every sti! ll photo, was > faked, and for what purpose, when some of those photos in fact can be used > to show that the plane, the real plane, was not flight 175. > > 0000,0000,EEEE > 0000,0000,EEEE > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerard Holmgren [0000,0000,] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:02 AM > To:; 'Rosalee Grable' > Cc:; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Richard Curtis su'; 'Gabbard, David > A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; > 'MorganReynolds';;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;; >;;; >;;; >;;; > 'PlaguePuppy';;; >;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; duffy@HCI.NET; >; 'malaprop'; > Subject: RE: back to that damned question > > [[It's called *Inertia* Gerard. ]] > > "Inertia" means that something continues its motion.  "Stopped" means to > cease motion. > > So it ceased its motion and continued it simultaneously ? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Rice [0000,0000,] > Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2006 5:53 PM > To: 'Gerard Holmgren'; 'Rosalee Grable' > Cc:; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Richard Curtis su'; 'Gabbard, David > A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; > 'MorganReynolds';;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;; >;;; >;;; >;;; > 'PlaguePuppy';;; >;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; duffy@HCI.NET; >; 'malaprop'; > Subject: RE: back to that damned question > > > It's called *Inertia* Gerard. > > I've seen your work. > > Your stuff on the BTS data base, for scheduled flights was first rate. > > This is terrible. > > Been to Webfairy's site, saw your stuff at reopen911. > > There's nothing there. > > The only stuff that's half ass is Morgan's, which raises a valid point about > deceleration, which is dealt with if there was a massive detonation occuring > just slight in front of the plane within the confines of the building. > > Flight 175 DID take off that day though didn't it? > > Swapped drone, very simular to the Operation Northwoods scenario. > > What's with this bluescreen all videos and images are fake nonsense anyw! ay? > > Is Webfairy that effective? > > And why are you such an asshole? > > Anyway, I've had enough of this! > > Cya Bubye. > > Good work on the flight schedules and the passenger lists though. > > You don't live with Webfairy or something do you? > > I heard that you were in jail and that Haupt was homeless.. > > I guess I was wrong. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerard Holmgren [0000,0000,] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:38 AM > To:; 'Rosalee Grable' > Cc:; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Richard Curtis su'; 'Gabbard, David > A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; > 'MorganReynolds';;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;; >;;; >;;; >;;; > 'PlaguePuppy';;; >;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; duffy@HCI.N! ET; >; 'malaprop'; > Subject: RE: back to that damned question > > This doesn't answer the question. I want to know how it made a cutout of the > wing shape, when the wings had Buckley's chance of even reaching the > building. > > I want to know how the tail slid in so neatly, when it had Buckley's chance > of getting anywhere near the building. > > Remember, there is just 34.5 ft of plane penetration before it hits the core > and starts smashing itself up, or blowing up. > > Furthermore, if  it blew up when most of the plane was still outside the > building, how did all the debris blow *into* the building? > > Furthermore, this contradicts the ghostplane video, which the planehuggers > claim shows a real plane doing its thing. > > It shows the *entire* plane ! sliding smoothly into the building with no > deformation of the plane, and no deformation of the building. And the > explosion occurring *after* the entire cartoon has disappeared. > > So with no explosion prior to the plane * completely* disappearing inside, > then how did the wings and tail even reach the building, if the plane was > already smashing itself up on the core after only 34.5 ft of penetration ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Rice [0000,0000,] > Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2006 4:59 PM > To: 'Gerard Holmgren'; 'Rosalee Grable' > Cc:; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Richard Curtis su'; 'Gabbard, David > A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; > 'MorganReynolds';;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;; >;;; >;;; >;;; > 'PlaguePuppy';;; >;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; duffy@HCI.NET; >; 'malaprop'; > Subject: RE: back to that damned question > > > Here is my LAST response > > 0000,0000,EEEE > > That is how the plane suddenly stopped after penetrating through the .25" > thick outer perimeter steel beam framework, and yes, getting smashed and > crushed and mangled by the floor pans and other interior structures - it ran > into a detonation and then itself detonated, filling the volume of space > within the building and ejecting through the holes punched out, both as a > result of a warhead detonation, and by preplanted explosive charges. > > It was a remotely piloted drone aircraft, a real one, almost certainly a > Tanker Transport, the technology which was in place! by that time, and thus, > a prototype could easily have been produced, and then shell gamed by none > other than the Pentagon Controller Dov Zakheim. Perle and Kissinger were > also involved in the Tanker deal, which might have had something to do with > it. > > Your no planes theory is utterly absurd and must be discarded in favour of > new information. There are a growing number myself among them who believe > that the disinfo could very well serve to discredit the movement to some > degree. In other words, what you are doing is NOT HELPFUL, to the cause of > truth, and justice, if only historical justice, by setting the historical > record STRAIGHT and TRUE! > > RR > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerard Holmgren [0000,0000,] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:49 AM ! > To:; 'Rosalee Grable' > Cc:; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Richard Curtis su'; 'Gabbard, David > A'; 'JOHN SMITH'; 'JimmyWalter'; 'Michael Morrissey'; 'Jones, Steven'; > 'MorganReynolds';;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >; MARCUS.FORD@NAU.EDU;; >;;; >;;; >;;; > 'PlaguePuppy';;; >;; >;;; >;;; >;;; >;;; duffy@HCI.NET; >; 'malaprop'; > Subject: back to that damned question > > Here again is the question which is sticking to Fetzer like toilet paper to > his shoe. After all, the idea was to subject the no plane evidence to > scrutiny wasn't it ? > > Funny, all of a sudden, everyone seems to have lost interest in that little > pursuit. > > Next loser ? > > Here are Eastman's claims (summarized). > >    a) The plane punched easily through the outer wall, making a cartoon >   cut out  of itself, but was then stopped by the core of the building, >   which was too  strong for it. > >    b) That while this was happening, one of the engines burst through >   the wall,  missed the core, and then came out the other side. > >    Here is my response. > >    Let's lay to rest this silly idea from Eastman about an engine flying >   through the building and missing the core to come out the other side. > >    Let's see some photos of the tower damage, and let's see a plane >   hugger's view of the mythical plane superimposed upon the damage. > >    For this I have chosen the darling of the plane huggers, Eric Salter, >   who has done more to accidentally provide us with proof of no planes > &n! bsp; than any other plane hugger. > >    He does so again here, by kindly illustrating my point with the >   photos at > >    0000,0000,EEEE > >    Scroll about 40% of the way down the page until you see the photos of >   the hole in the building with the mythical plane superimposed. > >    Note the position of the engines. Now note the following figures. > >    The Buildings were 208 ft x 208. The core was 79 by 139. > >    To give the plane theory a better chance, lets assume that the width >   of the  core  facing us in the photo is the smaller - 79 ft. > >    That's 38 % of the width of the buil! ding. > >    So, draw a line down the middle of the building and then from that >   middle point, the core extends 38% of the way to each extremity of the > building. > >    Now look at where the engines are positioned, on the assumption that >   the cutout shape represents where the plane went in. > >    Does either engine fall to the outside of that 38 % ? > >    Of course, if the longer width of core were to be facing us - 139 ft >   - then this covers 66.8 % of the building so that makes the situation even > worse. > >    This of course, will cause the plane huggers to fly into a panic and >   assert that it's the shorter width of core facing us, and if they >   squint hard enough at it, and fudge the figures enough, t! hat one of >   the engines might just fall outside the 38 % line. > >    Well, even if it did, that means that the shorter core width - 79 ft >   - is facing us, which means that the longer core - 139 ft is pointing >   towards us >    - meaning that the plane penetrated just 34.5 ft of the building >   before [[the plane was stopped by the core]] > >    That leaves 125.5 ft of plane still outside the building when [[the >   plane was stopped by the core]]. > >    So even the wing roots were about 45 ft from the building when [[the >   plane was stopped by the core]] > >    Which means that the engines were over 50 ft from the building when >   [[the plane was stopped by the core]]. > >  !   Which means that the outer sections of the wings were something like >   80 ft from the building when [[the plane was stopped by the core]] > >    And the tail was 125 ft from the building when [[the plane was >   stopped by the core ]] > >    So, I'm wondering, > >    a)       how the  wings and tail and engines even got to the building at >    all, let alone with enough velocity to punch a nice neat shape of >   themselves, since "stopped" means to cease motion. > >    b)       How the engine, after somehow managing to fly off the wing which >    never made it to the building, somehow managed to steer itself around >   the core ? > > ! New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. 0000,0000,EEEECall regular phones from your PC and save big.