TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Spam from "The Wisdom Fund": Scientific Evidence That Flight 77 Did Not Strike (47 posts)

1. truthmod
   Administrator

   Unsolicited spam from some group I've never heard of...

   http://www.twf.org/

   ---

   July 2, 2009 The Wisdom Fund Scientific Evidence That Flight 77 Did Not Strike The Pentagon

   by Enver Masud [Watch, read author's rebuttal of The 9/11 Commission Report.]

   A simple formula, familiar to high school students, may debunk the official account of American Airlines Flight 77 that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

   That formula is: Force = Mass X Velocity Squared / Radius.

   This formula gives the additional force that would be exerted on a moving object when it transitions from its downward path to level flight in a circular arc.

   The official account is that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at "530 miles per hour" (The 9/11 Commission Report, p10) with "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground" (Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14).

   So the velocity input to the preceding formula is given as 530 miles per hour. Next we determine the mass.

   Flight 77, a Boeing 757, had taken off from Washington Dulles International airport, and was bound for Los Angeles. Assuming its fuel tanks were full, and ignoring the weight of the 64 passengers, and cargo (which should be available if one wants to include them), the weight of the plane would be about 255,000 pounds (Boeing Technical Specifications).

   For our calculation we'll assume that weight and mass are equal, i.e. 255,000 pounds.

   To calculate the radius, we need the slope of the flight path before Flight 77 levels off. We then draw a circle for which this slope and a horizontal line are tangents -- a simple problem in geometry.

   We can calculate the slope from the following description of its final moments from The 9/11 Commission Report (p9): Flight 77 was "5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon" when it "began a 330-degree turn. At the end of turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet".

   Alternatively, we calculate the slope from the Flight Data Recorder data.

   Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained the Flight Data Recorder data following a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the National Transportation Safety Board.

   Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated a radius equal to about 579 feet.

   From this they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity.

   There has been some criticism of the calculations performed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and they have answered their critics.

   With mass, velocity, and radius equal to 255,000 lbs, 530 mph, and 579 feet respectively, the preceding formula yields force equal to 8,276,850 lbs, i.e. the Boeing 757 would act as if it weighed 8,276,850, or more than 32 times its normal weight.

   With a force of this magnitude, the Boeing 757 would have disintegrated in front of the Pentagon. There is no evidence that this is what occurred.

   This fact alone is sufficient to debunk the official account of Flight 77.

   If you disagree, figure out the mass, velocity, and radius, and plug them into the formula to calculate the force. If you have a better formula, use it. Could a Boeing 757 survive the calculated force?

   Given the scientific, and other evidence, we stand by the conclusion we reached four years ago: Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon.

   ---

   Enver Masud, "What Really Happened on September 11 at the Pentagon," The Wisdom Fund, March 7, 2005

   Enver Masud, "9/11 Unveiled," The Wisdom Fund (September 11, 2008)

   Enver Masud, "When Did Fort Meyer Fire Department Engine 331 and Foam Unit 161 Arrive at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?," The Wisdom Fund, January 1, 2009

   Posted 14 years ago #
2. JohnA
   Member

   Enver Masud is founder and CEO of The Wisdom Fund, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He is also a co-author of Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, and 9/11 and American Empire.

   Masud has worked as an engineering management consultant for the World Bank, EBRD and USAID in throughout the world. He managed the U.S. Department of Energy's National Power Grid Study. For his efforts to expose waste in the electricity sector he was the subject of TV, radio, newspaper reports including one by nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson.[citation needed]

   He has BS and MS degrees from the University of Oklahoma, a BS from St. Stephens College in New Delhi, India, and has been on the Advisory Panel of the international journal Electric Power Systems Research. He is a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement.

   Posted 14 years ago #
3. truthmover
   Administrator

   Totally freakin pitiful. Right back to how the JFK truth movement was undermined. Dumb distractions that could fool enough of the people most of the time. No strategic or intellectual discipline. Sensationalism wins the day. Whatever is interesting is better than being bored by only caring about the facts.

   This shit is done. Cooked. Over. Too many people have been duped. Most of our defacto leaders and scholars are totally clueless about disinformation. And you don't have a movement when the only functional people are the tiny group you can't fool. The Julian Ware 9/11 truth movement is going nowhere. And I can count on my hand and feet the number of other people I'd be willing to include.

   I'm still into it. This is just some healthy venting. But a good bit of practical reality has to leak in here from time to time. I'm getting sick of the blind optimism from people who aren't shrewd enough for it. Steven Jones, bless his soul, can't see disinfo if it's waved in front of his face. And Alex Jones is a total asshole moron.

   The movement is too compromised and what is not is too vulnerable. We just don't have enough people involved who really know what they got themselves into or how to avoid the crap.

   Disinfo works!

   Posted 14 years ago #
4. JohnA
   Member

   Of all the 9/11-related disinformation circulating out there, the urban legends surrounding the Pentagon attacks are proving to be the most enduring. Flyovers. No-planes. Multiple planes. Remote controlled planes. And – as you can see – many of these urban legends present diametrically opposing ideas.

   I think the reason why the allure of these ideas is so strong is a result of the general improbability of the D.C. attack itself. People have always felt (rightfully or wrongfully) that something was seriously wrong with the official explanation of the Pentagon attack. 90 minutes after the 2nd tower was struck in NYC – with reports of multiple hijackings underway – with America on high alert - a plane was able to enter arguably the most secure airspace in the world – unchallenged by fighter jets – and strike the very heart of the military industrial complex?

   eh?

   While America was on high alert a plane was simply able to fly into Washington DC and hit the Pentagon? This is a STARTLING fact. Even non-conspiratorial types must concede that much.

   This disturbing fact created internal conflict in most people’s minds – and created a fertile ground for planting theories and disinformation.

   From the very beginning we were treated to the ‘no plane at the Pentagon’ theory planted on a French URL. (Those damned French!!!) Hunt the missing Boeing. Can you find the missing Boeing in this photo? Where are the wings? Etc etc. - all since thoroughly debunked.

   When this theory became besieged by certain inconvenient truths – like actual physical evidence and eyewitnesses – the theory itself morphed into the loosely knit hodgepodge of ideas and misshapen belief systems we see today.

   It’s understandable. It resonates with people who do not have the time or inclination to look any deeper than the surface.

   But – what I find most interesting is the organized campaign underway to foist these ideas on the public. For some time now it has been rather obvious that certain ‘parties’ want to keep this issue at the top of the scrabble heap of circulating ideas on certain forums – for example TruthAction.org. We see endless discussion on the subject of CIT’s research that seems more designed to embed useless debate and circular logic – than clarify actual facts. And it always follows the same pattern – no matter who fronts the CIT position. A never ending and tedious volume of incessant debate about minutia that always inevitably ends in personalized accusations of ad hominum attacks and personality conflict and faux indignation and calls for civility – hrmfff hrmpff hrmpff – and refusal to “just look at the facts damn it!” - while the actual topic at hand - the supposed Pentagon flyover – and the lack of evidence thereof - seems OBVIOUSLY obscured by slight of hand and misdirection and charlatanism.

   I could believe that this is all the product of an organic disagreement between two or more activists – once – maybe twice. But when the same pattern emerges – time and time again – always from the same CIT camp – it begins to smell ‘inorganic’ and contrived.

   In short – the only organic truths I see associated with CIT is their consistent BULLSHIT.

   Posted 14 years ago #
5. JennySparks
   Member

   In short – the only organic truths I see associated with CIT is their consistent BULLSHIT.

   There's does seem to be a great quantity of manure pushed by loads of people, eh? I suppose most of those people don't expect to be caught.

   Though in CIT's case they don't even try to hide their manipulative ways.

   Posted 14 years ago #
6. Victronix
   Member

   John, those are fascinating observations about the role of the improbability of the entire thing influencing the willingness to embrace nonsense.

   Posted 14 years ago #
7. Arcterus
   Member

   How absurd. Ignoring that their conclusion is consistent with the claim that a plane did hit the Pentagon (No evidence of disintegration? Why is it so hard for people to get that it's normal for planes to do that in high-speed crashes?), they did their calculations without any interest in the walls of the Pentagon. As far as their "calculation" is concerned, the Pentagon could have been made of paper and the plane would have disintegrated. You can calculate momentum easily enough. To calculate the effect, you need to have measurements on WHAT it is EFFECTING. Had they done this, they'd know that the little debris that did survive would end up inside of the Pentagon, the same place where many pieces of said plane were later found.

   No area of disinformation in the movement is more frustrating to me than no-plane theories at the Pentagon. It's not just the fact that they've been so successful in infiltrating the movement. It's also the fact that, while activists abroad can point and laugh at DEW or aliens, the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theorists will look at their evidence and purport to actually have any sort of validity in their evidence. CIT doesn't care that their conclusion is based entirely on their witnesses, no matter if the different witness flight paths are as far off as 30-40 degrees. That just gets written off as "fallibility in memory". Thierry Meyssan doesn't care if the pictures of the "16-foot hole" is right above a 90-foot hole being covered by water from firehoses. That just gets completely ignored. Our movement is completely tainted by theories like this. Even leaders like David Ray Griffin have been actively promoting such absurdities that no plane hit the Pentagon. It's this behavior that allows for those who use the scientific method to be scoffed at and ingored without any legitimate criticism of their findings. It's why people can deny evidence of any level of government complicity regardless of non-debateable evidence. All people see when confronted with such things are the same crazies saying planes don't disintegrate in high-speed crashes.

   Personally, I think if we didn't have theories like this then the movement wouldn't be half as alienating. I think of it like a bridge between the ludicrous theories and the legitimate evidence. Theories concerning the Pentagon are so widely accepted that it's easier to equate the movement with them, and harder to separate the real evidence from the utterly absurd.

   Posted 14 years ago #
8. Victronix
   Member

   dc911truth is promoting this event on their front page, right next to Richard Gage . . . .

   Posted 14 years ago #
9. Arcterus
   Member

   Experts and science placed skillfully next to abrasive speculation. Is this great or what?

   Posted 14 years ago #
10. Manatus
    Member

    Do you guys believe flt 77 is what hit the pentagon?

    Posted 14 years ago #
11. truthmod
    Administrator

    I don't think many people on the TruthMove forum believe that there is convincing evidence that flight 77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

    Posted 14 years ago #
12. Manatus
    Member

    OK. So it is assumed that it hit the building because that's what we have been told, despite myriad anomalies surrounding the incident.

    Posted 14 years ago #
13. mark
    Member

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAan...

    The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 by John Judge

    "Hundreds of people saw the plane from windows of nearby buildings, from cars along the nearby highways, and some ducked because it flew over so low. Pentagon employees and construction workers at the site saw the events unfold before their eyes. Hundreds more took part in the clean-up operation and saw the wreckage. It is not difficult to find eyewitnesses to the event in DC. ...

    "Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation.

    "There are many legitimate unanswered questions about the events of September 11, 2001, its sponsorship, and the official version of events. We benefit from serious research and the issues raised by victim's families seeking accountability. Not the least of these is the apparent lack of standard FAA/NORAD response to these emergency events. Rather than use our time proving and belaboring the obvious, or focusing on areas of total speculation that can only hurt our public credibility, I encourage serious researchers to focus on the historical context of the event, the alleged conspirators, the funding, and the government response or lack of it."

    ---

    http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline

    Posted 14 years ago #
14. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Mark,

    I am in full agreement that Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon, in fact it was your website back in 2005 that really helped me in deciphering who was wrong and who was right. I should say that Judge has one if not two inaccuracies in that article. One is about the 270 degree turn that, according to the NTSB Report, Flight 77 did not make and the other is about P56. Currently P56A is the White House, the Mall and the Capital Building and P56B is the Naval Observatory. From what I know, this is all after 9/11 and the 17 mile radius from the Washington Monument is currently the Flight Restricted Zone, but all of this was implemented after 9/11. Maybe Judge is right and that was P56 before 9/11? I would have to defer to someone else on that. He wrote the article in 2004 so I would be curious to where he found the information.

    Posted 14 years ago #
15. truthmover
    Administrator

    In fact Mark is responsible for getting our story straight here on the TruthMove site and certainly getting my head squarely centered on the lack of evidence suggesting anything other than the plane strike.

    Thanks again Mark.

    I'm pessimistic about the movement for the reasons we see above. It seems that disinfo junk always has a line of influence. And we always so predictably get hammered for it. They always have more resources than we do and too few prominent people in the movement really understand disinformation and the likelihood of infiltration. People are too casual.

    Posted 14 years ago #
16. Victronix
    Member

    I'm pessimistic about the movement for the reasons we see above. It seems that disinfo junk always has a line of influence.

    I actually think we're doing pretty good -- the propaganda machine being employed to lure and mislead people around issues like the Pentagon attack is fairly massive, started before any of us were involved, and is connected to protecting extremely powerful people. When you look at it in context, you see that this kind of thing happens across the board, even in issues which are not as politically motivated as this is.

    Look at the vaccine-autism and the man-made global warming debates. They are both rife with misinformation and similar situations to what we face. Discover magazine just devoted an entire issue to debunking claims of vaccines causing autism and man-made gw being wrong. Its a real statement on the role of politicized debate when the global warming-is-not-man-made issue is still having to be debunked. Imagine it -- the whole world of science practically agrees, yet they are still having to fight that battle. And the more that profit and power have a role, the more distorted the whole situation becomes. Note that our line of work involves the defense and insurance industries as well as intelligence agencies, amongst everything else.

    So when you look at the larger picture of other similar situations, as depressing as it sometimes feels in here, I honestly think it's really pretty amazing that we've even gotten even this far, particularly with the media power and black budgets for intelligence agencies in existence today.

    And yes, Mark single-handedly did more to put the brakes on the Pentagon nonsense than almost anyone else. What's interesting now is to see how both sides of the belief in the official story now do the same work to debunk CIT, and both sides have put in a LOT of time. Regardless of what you think really happened on 9/11/01, people know a hoax when they see it, and work to stamp it out.

    Posted 14 years ago #
17. Manatus
    Member

    To outright say flt 77 is definitely what hit the building is just as scientifically dubious as saying it just flew over. There's not enough evidence to scientifically confirm either claim. Just because the CIT claim may not be true doesn't mean flt 77 is what hit the building. This is not disinfo, it is logic.

    Posted 14 years ago #
18. truthmover
    Administrator

    So when you look at the larger picture of other similar situations, as depressing as it sometimes feels in here, I honestly think it's really pretty amazing that we've even gotten even this far, particularly with the media power and black budgets for intelligence agencies in existence today.

    Thanks for that. As you suggest, it's possible to get a bit isolated from the bigger picture of how much we do accomplish when you spend too much time just tooling around online.

    What's interesting now is to see how both sides of the belief in the official story now do the same work to debunk CIT, and both sides have put in a LOT of time. Regardless of what you think really happened on 9/11/01, people know a hoax when they see it, and work to stamp it out.

    I agree completely. And I really appreciate your willingness, specifically on the TruthAction forum to simply call it crap. I keep trying to play nice and I get stuck going back and forth between trying to engage and dismissing them entirely. Every time I engage I get nothing but crap. And, of course, every time I dismiss their facts without providing a 200 page analysis I'm accused of not being intellectually responsible.

    And yet I know that it's all a distraction. There's nothing some of those goons want more than to get me trying to defend my position as if I had the burden to disprove their hypotheses. Bleh.

    Posted 14 years ago #
19. JohnA
    Member

    Vic - it was actually your feedback on the vaccines/autism debate that helped me see thru all of the misinformation and hysteria on that issue.

    unfortunately - good polite analytical sober debate is in short supply on the internet these days.

    more often than not you see group-think and peer pressure determining what issues and what 'truths' get promoted. for example - i can remember the whole 'patsystan' troll tag teams exerting peer pressure over at 9/11 Blogger - years ago. you didn't DARE bring up Pakistan in the context of 9/11 - over fear of being labeled a zionist infiltrator.

    Jon Gold recently sent out an excellent editorial that he should re-post here on TruthMove about possible United States sponsorship of terrorist groups in Pakistan. Unfortunately, he spends valuable time genuflecting and apologizing for daring to bring up Pakistan. it just goes to show you how deeply some of these 'behavior modification psyops' run in people's minds! Its been years since the "Patsystan" nonsense on Blogger and Jon is still wincing like a dog that's been hit with a newspaper too many times. (giggle - sorry Jon - but you should never apologize for presenting honest questions about available research.)

    I feel the same way now about CIT. They may not be as OVERTLY threatening as the no-planers were. But, there is a not-so-subtle tone in their attempts to create peer pressure over the issue. and i am ashamed to admit that many legitimate researchers are - like Jon - genuflecting to their demands.

    Posted 14 years ago #
20. Arcterus
    Member

    To outright say flt 77 is definitely what hit the building is just as scientifically dubious as saying it just flew over. There's not enough evidence to scientifically confirm either claim.

    Not enough evidence? JUST as scientifically dubious? Witnesses saw a plane impact, the hole in the wall suggests a plane impact, the DNA of the flight 77 victims were identified, and this is JUST as scientifically dubious as claiming that everyone but a few witnesses got it wrong and even those witnesses got it wrong about the impact part and the physical evidence that suggests a plane impact was all faked? It's hardly my intention to be rude, but can you not see how ridiculous this sounds?

    Posted 14 years ago #
21. thatsmystory
    Member

    I find it odd when people question aspects of 9/11 (i.e. no plane hit the Pentagon) without having an explanation for such an MO. Here are some aspects of Griffin's work that I don't get:

    1) Griffin is an advocate of voice morphing. One would think if the calls were truly morphed that the plotters would seek to avoid suspicion of their authenticity. Doesn't Griffin find it odd that a fake operation would involve several calls (including cell phone calls)? IMO the best explanation for the bizarre MO is the transparent conspiracy (a concept advocated by John Judge and Vince Salandria) but I don't think Griffin has mentioned this concept.

    2) Why does he pick and choose when to believe the FBI? For example, on the one hand pointing to the FBI's failure to prove the 19 named hijackers boarded and hijacked the planes. OTOH, claiming the FBI hasn't indicted Bin Laden for 9/11 due to lack of evidence. He also references the FBI's evidence to prove that Olson's phone calls were fake. Is the FBI credible or not?

    3) Does he think the plot went according to plan? For example, if the planes were remote control or drones then what explains the delay of 77 and 93?

    4) Why would it be difficult to find 19 true believers to take part in the attacks? After all, people from Chomsky to Ron Paul believe that objection to US foreign policy is a credible motive for the hijackers. If they were indeed patsies then how were they fooled? One would think they would find it rather odd to be given funding for flight schools, first class airline tickets, etc. The Kevin Barrett line of thought (i.e. anyone who thinks real al Qaeda terrorists were involved in 9/11 must be anti-Muslim) is something to behold. Al Qaeda found people willing to crash vehicles filled with explosives into US embassies and the USS Cole. Does that rule out state intelligence complicity somewhere in the link? No. It does suggest that complexity and shades of gray should be taken into account.

    Posted 14 years ago #
22. truthmod
    Administrator

    Great points all around.

    Manatus--we've seen your transparent attitude a hundred times, it's just not going to fly here. If you want to have a reasoned, logical, respectful discussion, your welcome to, but don't come peddling horseshit to our forum.

    thatsmystory--

    2) Why does he pick and choose when to believe the FBI? For example, on the one hand pointing to the FBI's failure to prove the 19 named hijackers boarded and hijacked the planes. OTOH, claiming the FBI hasn't indicted Bin Laden for 9/11 due to lack of evidence. He also references the FBI's evidence to prove that Olson's phone calls were fake. Is the FBI credible or not?

    This seems to be a common practice in conspiracy research--use a source when it supports your claim but dismiss it or claim that is biased or disinformation when it doesn't. Often times, it is valuable to analyze and/or use all the information coming at us, no matter the source, in some way. Plenty of fairly accurate and pertinent information does slip out of the "official channels;" there is just no way they could stop everything.

    On the other hand, I think there is often a sort of desperate mindlessness for marginal perspectives (such as ours) to push any evidence and champion any "ally" that supposedly supports their position. For example, I've recently gotten very annoyed with the fact that people continue to prominently cite former CIA directer, William Colby, quoted by Dave Mcgowan in "Derailing Democracy:"

    The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

    Some people repeat this quote like it's gospel, like it's the smoking gun, like it's the answer. Some presumably well-meaning people in LA even made a 20-foot-long banner that says this quote. So they trust a former CIA director now--now that he said something they like? Come on...

    I don't know Colby's history too well, but I can tell you that repeating this quote as promotion or "evidence" for our perspective does not get us anywhere. It mostly makes us sound like whackos. And if it does help in "convincing" people, it's not doing it in the right way; it's doing it in a similar way as telling them that the hole was too small and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

    Posted 14 years ago #
23. JennySparks
    Member

    it just goes to show you how deeply some of these 'behavior modification psyops' run in people's minds! Its been years since the "Patsystan" nonsense on Blogger and Jon is still wincing like a dog that's been hit with a newspaper too many times. (giggle - sorry Jon - but you should never apologize for presenting honest questions about available research.)

    "Giggle"? Might want to reread what you wrote. If this is ever appropriate, it would be between good friends and in a private message.

    Maybe Jon's showing he can be reasonable--to counteract the rubbish spread about him. Not a bad tactic if done strategically. It out maneuvers them and steals their thunder.

    Posted 14 years ago #
24. Manatus
    Member

    Truthmod-

    You said this...

    "Manatus--we've seen your transparent attitude a hundred times, it's just not going to fly here. If you want to have a reasoned, logical, respectful discussion, your welcome to, but don't come peddling horseshit to our forum."

    What is disrespectful about my questions or points? Your statement is disrespectful to me. Your emotions or prejudices have skewed your objectivity. Don't blame me for disinfo or silly theories. My points are legitimate. Is questioning the assumption that it was definitely Flt 77 based on the authorities word and witnesses horseshit?

    I believe an aircraft of some sort hit the building. Was it Flt 77? Who has provided us with the evidence? Is their track record credible? Is the damage consistent with a 757? People saw an aircraft hit the building; how do they know it was definitely Flt 77? Don't assume I subscribe to theories that are dubious because I ask legitimate questions and don't agree with your view, that's a form of projection on your part. I'm not pushing alternative theories, I'm using logic to to try and understand why many here are so convinced it was definitely Flt 77.

    I'm interested in the subject and asked a question. To say that Flt 77 is definitely what hit the building based on evidence provided by the authorities is unusual in the context of this forum. It does not follow solid logic. There are still many more questions than answers.

    Posted 14 years ago #
25. Arcterus
    Member

    My points are legitimate.

    Bullshit, you haven't made any points. Read your own posts. All you've done is solicit your stances. "Man, there's so much evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. Totally." That's not a point, that's baseless supposition.

    Is questioning the assumption that it was definitely Flt 77 based on the authorities word and witnesses horseshit?

    Don't forget the physical evidence and that "DNA" thing I mentioned. Those are other critical factors.

    Is the damage consistent with a 757?

    YES!

    People saw an aircraft hit the building; how do they know it was definitely Flt 77?

    They don't. But characteristics described by a great deal of witnesses (as much as five to six times the witnesses CIT has to offer) are consistent with a Boeing 757-233, the model of Flight 77.

    Don't assume I subscribe to theories that are dubious because I ask legitimate questions and don't agree with your view, that's a form of projection on your part.

    None of that was said. By anyone.

    I'm using logic to to try and understand why many here are so convinced it was definitely Flt 77.

    I think that's been explained already. Witnesses, physical evidence, etc... The question you won't ask yourself is what legitimate evidence is there that anything other than Flight 77 hit the building?

    I'm interested in the subject and asked a question. To say that Flt 77 is definitely what hit the building based on evidence provided by the authorities is unusual in the context of this forum. It does not follow solid logic. There are still many more questions than answers.

    Are you being deliberately disruptive or are you ignoring the evidence presented by this side other than the witnesses and authorities? You seem intent on focusing on that, yet basic physics is something you won't respond to.

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.