Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

_BoneZ_
I'm a little late to this party. Although I can't endorse the remote-controlled military plane theory presented here, I would like to comment on this statement:

wmd_2008
There is NO cd evidence

There's a word missing from the above statement: "physical". There is no physical CD evidence that we are aware of. But physical evidence is not the only type of evidence.

There's audio evidence, video evidence, witness testimony, all depicting signs of controlled demolition, and none depicting signs of fire-induced collapse.

Just because there's a lack of physical evidence, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.


I'll give an example: Someone is caught on camera and seen by multiple witnesses stabbing another to death. When that someone goes to court, the judge decides to kick the case because the physical murder weapon is missing. Even though this someone was caught on camera and seen by multiple witnesses, he gets set free because there's no physical weapon.

That's just not the way it works in the real world. People have been convicted of murder without the physical murder weapon, or even the physical body for that matter.



The lack of physical demolition parts does not dismiss the demolition theory when all other sources of evidence still point to controlled demolition.

All the video evidence is suspect in the extreme!


All of it!

reply to post by Zaphod58


How then did he managed to get into position to skim the Pentagon lawn and impact the section of the Pentagon that had been upgraded and renovated, and for that matter how did he manage to impact the Pentagon at all? Isn't that a protected facility? Isn't it claimed also that they accomplished their hijacking using nothing but boxcutters? Could Capt. Charles Frank "Chic" Burlingame have allowed that?

The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?

According to the official account of 9/11, American Airlines Flight 77--which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon--was hijacked shortly after 8:51 a.m. on September 11, 2001. This claim is so central to the U.S. government's story that we would reasonably expect it to have been proven. Yet a closer analysis of the evidence shows that, in fact, it appears preposterous.

THE TOUGH PILOT

The first thing to recognize when evaluating the official Flight 77 story is that the plane's pilot was a former military man, and a genuinely tough guy. Captain Charles "Chic" Burlingame had graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1971. He served eight years on active duty as a fighter pilot, and served several tours at the Navy's elite Top Gun school. He then spent 17 years in the Naval Reserve before retiring from the military in 1996. [1] During his military career, he had tours in Vietnam and the 1991 Gulf War. [2] His sister Debra Burlingame described him as "a guy that's been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation." She said, "If there was any chance of saving [Flight 77], this was the kind of guy who would have been able to do that." [3] Admiral Timothy Keating was a good friend of Burlingame's, having been a classmate of his in the Navy and attended flight school with him. He told CNN: "I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chic, and he pounded me. … Chic was really tough." [4] Even up to his death Burlingame enjoyed boating, in-line skating, and weightlifting, and was "in great shape," according to his friend Steve Brooks. [5]
Surely it would take a particularly formidable team of terrorists to wrestle control of a plane from a man like this? Yet here is where the official story falls apart at the first hurdle. The supposed hijackers in fact appear to have been a group of weaklings.

THE FEEBLE HIJACKERS

The five men who allegedly hijacked Flight 77 comprised of a pilot, Hani Hanjour, and four "muscle" hijackers who'd been tasked with storming the cockpit and controlling the passengers: Majed Moqed, Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, and his brother Salem al Hazmi. However, as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, "The so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing," with the majority of them being between 5'5" and 5'7" in height, "and slender in build." [6] As their ID cards have revealed, Salem al Hazmi was just 5'4" tall and Khalid al Mihdhar's was 5'6". [7]

Between September 2 and September 6, 2001, about a week before the attacks, the five alleged hijackers attended Gold's Gym in Greenbelt, Maryland, where, reportedly, they were "awkwardly lifting weights and using resistance machines." [8] Gold's Gym regional manager Spero Courtis has described, "They seemed not to really know what they were doing." [9] According to Gene LaMott, the CEO of Gold's Gym International Inc.: "They weren't on the masculine side. They looked like students from the university." [10]

Heading this group of supposed mass murderers was Hani Hanjour, the alleged suicide pilot said to have crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon. This 29-year-old from Saudi Arabia was "barely over 5 feet tall, skinny and boyish," according to the Washington Post. [11] Not only was he physically unimposing, he was also quite a nice man, according to several people who met him. In spring 1996, he'd stayed for a month in Miramar, Florida, in the home of Adnan Khalil, a Saudi professor at a local college, and his wife Susan. The Khalils have recalled Hanjour being "mousey and gentle, with a weak personality." Susan Khalil has commented, "I didn't get the feeling that he hated me or hated Americans." [12] He also liked children. Susan Khalil recalled, "He was very kind and gentle to my son, who was 3 years old." [13] Early in 2001, Hanjour attended the JetTech flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. [14] According to Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the school: "The staff thought he was a very nice guy. … There was no suspicion as far as evildoing." [15] After 9/11, Abulrahman Hanjour, Hani's older brother, described the family's feelings: "We thought that he liked the USA. … I would think he would give his life to save lives, not to do this." [16]

THE IMPOSSIBLE HIJACKING

Yet this apparently sweet and gentle little man, along with his four physically unimposing colleagues, are meant to have become a gang of killers on 9/11. Here, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, is what they are alleged to have done: "Between 8:51 a.m. and 8:54 a.m., the hijackers began their takeover of the aircraft. They initiated and sustained their command of the aircraft using knives and box cutters (reported by one passenger) and moved all of the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger)." However, "Neither of the firsthand accounts to come from Flight 77, from a flight attendant and from a passenger, mentioned any actual use of violence (e.g., stabbings) or the threat or use of either a bomb or Mace." [17] I guess we are supposed to believe the passengers and crew were so terrified by these puny little men that they just submitted to them without a fight.

Charles Burlingame and his co-pilot David Charlebois appear to have lost control of Flight 77 within the space of just a few minutes. At 8:54, three minutes after its last routine radio communication, the plane veered off its assigned course. Two minutes later, its transponder--a small radio transmitter that sends information about a plane to controllers--was switched off. [18] In other words, five short, weak men were supposedly able to seize control from Burlingame--a highly trained former military man who enjoyed weightlifting and was described as "really tough"--in about three minutes.

Although neither of the two alleged callers from Flight 77 mentioned any violence having occurred, Burlingame's younger brother Mark has commented: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that [the hijackers] would have had to incapacitate [Charles Burlingame] or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." [19] Burlingame's friend Timothy Keating remarked that "the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you." [20] And indeed, according to Virginia Senator John Warner, "the examination of his remains … indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." [21] Former Senator George Allen said the FBI had determined that Burlingame was bludgeoned to death.

edit on 2-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Cont'd

[22]This story is ridiculous. There is no way five weaklings could have seized control of Flight 77, in the process beating Charles Burlingame to death, all within a few minutes. The most crucial questions therefore remain uninvestigated and unanswered: Who really killed Charles Burlingame? And what actually happened that day?

NOTES

[1] "Arlington's Burial Regulations Anger Family of Hijacked Pilot." New York Times, December 5, 2001; "Arlington Plot Sought for Slain Pilot." Associated Press, December 6, 2001.
[2] Marcia C. Smith, "Man Will Toss out the First Pitch in His Brother's--and the Nation's--Honor." Orange County Register, March 29, 2002.
[3] Shawn Cohen, "Pilot's Death Leads to Sister's Crusade." Westchester Journal News, December 30, 2003.
[4] "Tony Snow's First Day as Press Secretary; Video Released of September 11 Plane Crashing into Pentagon." CNN, May 16, 2006.
[5] Megan O'Matz and Kathy Bushouse, "Reactions Across S. Florida: Agonizing Wait in Weston; Radio and Music Offer Comfort." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 14, 2001.
[6] "Staff Statement No. 16: Outline of the 9/11 Plot." 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004.
[7] 9/11 Commission, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: A Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Franklin, TN: Hillsboro Press, 2004, pp. 191-192.
[8] Bradley Olson, "Md. Was Among Last Stops for Hijackers." Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2006.
[9] Thomas Frank, "Tracing Trail of Hijackers." Newsday, September 23, 2001.
[10] "The Banality of Evil." U.S. News & World Report, September 23, 2001.
[11] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox." Washington Post, October 15, 2001.
[12] Wes Allison, "The Terrorists Next Door." St. Petersburg Times, October 2, 2001.
[13] David Crary, "Baseball, Pizza and Porn: Hijackers Saw American Daily Life up Close." Associated Press, September 21, 2001.
[14] "FAA Was Alerted to Sept. 11 Hijacker." CBS News, May 10, 2002.
[15] Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence." New York Times, May 4, 2002.
[16] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox."
[17] "Staff Report, August 26, 2004." 9/11 Commission, August 26, 2004, p. 29.
[18] Ibid.
[19] "Remembering the Pentagon Victims: Charles Burlingame." Washington Post, undated.
[20] "Tony Snow's First Day as Press Secretary; Video Released of September 11 Plane Crashing Into Pentagon."
[21] Josh White, "An About-Face on Pilot's Burial." Washington Post, December 8, 2001.
[22] Josh White, "Lawmakers Seek Full Burial for Pilot." Washington Post, December 6, 2001.

shoestring911.blogspot.ca...

reply to post by OneFreeMan


This is not a no planer (NRPT) thread, I'm sorry. Please offer your hypothesis were it's permitted, in the regular "legitimate" 9/11 Conspiracies Forum. Thanks. No hard feelings though. NAM

NewAgeMan

NewAgeMan
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

This is not a no planer (NRPT) thread, I'm sorry. Please offer your hypothesis were it's permitted, in the regular "legitimate" 9/11 Conspiracies Forum. Thanks. No hard feelings though. NAM

NewAgeMan

edit on 2-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

If the footage you analyse is fabricated animation, how can that be
self evident proof of anything real?
As I said in my earlier comment, 9/11 truth is to be found in the things that you
cannot talk about.
And this is the hoax forum. If you are saying 9/11 media fakery discussion
doesn't belong here, I quite agree.

Cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears to 9/11 media fakery all you
like, it don't make it less so!

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

How then did he managed to get into position to skim the Pentagon lawn and impact the section of the Pentagon that had been upgraded and renovated, and for that matter how did he manage to impact the Pentagon at all?

Because an uncoordinated turn is still a turn, it's just an ugly turn. As for where he hit, that side is the only truly open side of the Pentagon. The other sides all have obstacles around them.

Isn't that a protected facility?

Now it is. At the time there weren't any defenses around it, or just about any other military installation on the US Mainland.

Isn't it claimed also that they accomplished their hijacking using nothing but boxcutters? Could Capt. Charles Frank "Chic" Burlingame have allowed that?

You've never been in a cockpit have you. There's barely enough room to get into the seats, especially if they're not moved all the way back. They were still harnessed into the seats when the cockpit was breached, there was no way for them to fight back, without asking for a time out to motor the seats back, take their harnesses off, stand up, and then start fighting.

NewAgeMan
how did he manage to impact the Pentagon at all? Isn't that a protected facility?

No, what makes you think it was protected? It is just a office building, and look how near to a major airport it actually is...

Dumb question. Why is this a hoax? Why is there so many posts? Basically.... wtf?

Zaphod58
reply to post by steaming

 

It was a static discharge. Aircraft build up impressive static charges as they fly. They're usually not seen because the plane grounds when it lands.

In this case the aircraft had nowhere to ground, and was close enough to the building for it to jump from the nose to the building just prior to impact.

Why do you think the "static discharge" emitted from that point along the lower right fuselage, to the right of and well back from, the nose of the aircraft? Would it not jump from the closest point, which would be the nose itself?

_BoneZ_

If you're talking about the flash:

Here's the best slo-mo video I've been able to find showing that

catfishjoe
Dumb question. Why is this a hoax? Why is there so many posts? Basically.... wtf?

It's considered off topic to ask that kind of question. It's not allowed.

NewAgeMan

catfishjoe
Dumb question. Why is this a hoax? Why is there so many posts? Basically.... wtf?

It's considered off topic to ask that kind of question. It's not allowed.

Fudge. My bad.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


In none of the videos have I been able to tell that it came from the fuselage, and not closer to the nose. It's hard to tell in that shot, just as it was hard to tell on the day it happened.

The crew oxygen cylinder for the 767 is located in the nose, outboard of the nose wheel, in the equipment bay. Normal pressure of the bottle is 1850 psi, but it can go as high as 2000 psi. If that bottle were to have failed, the damage would have been further forward, in the nose, under the cockpit, and it would have done a lot of damage to the plane.

The only logical explanation is a static charge.

9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Veterens Today

www.veteranstoday.com...

Audio Interview
chemp3.com...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You realize that they had access to simulators, and at least one of them was training in type on 737s right?

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

In none of the videos have I been able to tell that it came from the fuselage, and not closer to the nose. It's hard to tell in that shot, just as it was hard to tell on the day it happened.

It happened in such a fraction of a split second that I don't think anyone would have been able to tell on the day it happened..

It appears to be emanating from the lower right fuselage area, to the right of and back from the nose itself, surely you can see that.

Here it is again in another slomo vid, but it's probably the same camera shot, can't be sure.
The other vid is a little clearer I think
The CNN photo is I think a still photo that just happened to get lucky and not a frame from a vid



It's not coming from the nose, anyone can see that, but from a location well back from the nose and to the lower right, which certainly doesn't correspond with the location of the crew oxygen cylinder.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


If it was oxygen tank, the chances of it causing enough damage to blow out part of the fuselage, that would show up on the video, would be very high. It's so fast, you can't tell for sure it's from the side of the fuselage or from the nose area.

catfishjoe

Fudge. My bad.

No, not really.

NewAgeMan
It's not coming from the nose anyone can see that, but from a location well back from the nose and to the lower right, which certainly doesn't correspond with the location of the oxygen container.

Two easy explanations, offered long long ago in this silly debate.

1) Static discharge. Aircraft traveling through atmosphere at high speed get a significant static buildup in the fuselage.

2) And even if you don't believe the static discharge explanation… ever notice what happens when you hit two pieces of metal against each other really hard? Sparks.

NewAgeMan
Why do you think the "static discharge" emitted from that point along the lower right fuselage, to the right of and well back from, the nose of the aircraft? Would it not jump from the closest point, which would be the nose itself?

The stills and videos you're using are of such horrendously low quality -- multi-generational digitally compressed YouTube videos -- that no determination of accuracy can be made.

In 2001, it was common for source video to be 15 frames-per second (or less) when converted to digital. A great deal can happen in real-world speed in the 1/15th of a second between those frames.

It's absolute misinformed short-sighted absurd inane madness to rely on these YouTube videos, with no indication of provenance, for anything that resembles proof of anything other than, "yup, that's a YouTube video."

Seriously. Anyone with genuine earnestness on these matters would seek out the original footage.

_BoneZ_
reply to post by leostokes

 

Leo, I'm not sure why people are still trying to peddle that hoax. Anyone who watches the video can clearly see those columns fall straight down and leave the dust that was on them hanging in the air. Dust is lighter than steel columns. Dust takes longer to fall down than the columns do.

Anyone who watches the video can clearly see those columns evaporate and leave dust hanging in the air.

I have already discounted your reply.

I acknowledge that your vision and judgement are sound. Others with sound vision and judgement see steel turning to dust. Do you acknowledge this?