| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
 |
|
Have any 9/11 truthers read the book or followed the press surrounding the new release on the 'Firefight' book about the Pentagon aftermath?
I don't know why the book has been so fully ignored by the truth movement - I would have thought it would be a priceless resource in terms of uncovering the truth about the aftermath of the plane crash/false flag attack at the Pentagon.
Has anyone looked into it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Think you could be right Alex
Amazon Book reviews
| Quote: | | multiple floors had pancaked down upon each other, and some floors were hanging by unknown forces |
Now where have i heard that phrase before?
| Quote: | | The fire was well over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit |
No molten steel here then.
| Quote: | | they get ordered to evacuate the Pentagon because they are told a second high-jacked plane is within twenty minutes of Washington D.C. |
20 mins hey plenty of time to scramble fighter jets
| Quote: | | "Shoes. Bits of clothing. Wallet-size photographs. A suitcase |
No mention of plane parts. Wonder if the rest of the 463 pages might yield some evidence.
| Quote: | | RICK "SHAQ" GOLDSTEIN SAYS: "THE INSTANT ITS NOSE STRUCK THE OUTER WALL OF THE PENTAGON, FLIGHT 77 CEASED TO BE AN AIRPLANE!", |
Oh thats why no plane parts found
Maybe it ceased being an aeroplane before that.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0891419055/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_i mg?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Have any 9/11 truthers read the book or followed the press surrounding the new release on the 'Firefight' book about the Pentagon aftermath?
I don't know why the book has been so fully ignored by the truth movement - I would have thought it would be a priceless resource in terms of uncovering the truth about the aftermath of the plane crash/false flag attack at the Pentagon.
Has anyone looked into it? |
Why bother when you can read an amazon review and flippantly dismiss all 463 pages?
I mean come on, years of research, 150 interviews, what a ridiculous way to investigate 911. All you have to do is watch a few YouTube videos, the troof is all a mouse click away.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
|
|
No serious responses to this book's launch then. Can anyone tell me why it isn't being mentioned in truther circles? And why there is no clamour to read it or discuss it's evidence?
Why no mention on the 9/11 forum here for example? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | No serious responses to this book's launch then. Can anyone tell me why it isn't being mentioned in truther circles? And why there is no clamour to read it or discuss it's evidence?
Why no mention on the 9/11 forum here for example? |
Never having heard of it before your announcement, it can (from a 911 truth perspective) do one of two things: reinforce the official story, or rip it a new one. Going just by your impatience to raise the topic, guess which one I think it's likely to be.
Instead of huffing and puffing Alex, why not get to the point and give your take on your it like you are so obviously itching to do?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Never having heard of it before your announcement, it can (from a 911 truth perspective) do one of two things: reinforce the official story, or rip it a new one. Going just by your impatience to raise the topic, guess which one I think it's likely to be.
Instead of huffing and puffing Alex, why not get to the point and give your take on your it like you are so obviously itching to do? |
I actually have little idea the extent to which it contradicts conspiracy theories around the Pentagon incident - I do know that it goes into some detail on the initial impact and also describes the debris that the firefighters had to deal with.
I just find it astonishing that the truth movement seem so passionate about proving its cause, but have ignored a book exploring one of its key issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | chek wrote: | Never having heard of it before your announcement, it can (from a 911 truth perspective) do one of two things: reinforce the official story, or rip it a new one. Going just by your impatience to raise the topic, guess which one I think it's likely to be.
Instead of huffing and puffing Alex, why not get to the point and give your take on your it like you are so obviously itching to do? |
I actually have little idea the extent to which it contradicts conspiracy theories around the Pentagon incident - I do know that it goes into some detail on the initial impact and also describes the debris that the firefighters had to deal with.
I just find it astonishing that the truth movement seem so passionate about proving its cause, but have ignored a book exploring one of its key issues. |
That's pretty lame even by your low standards - here's some advice, buy it, read it and then come back here and tell us what you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's pretty lame even by your low standards - here's some advice, buy it, read it and then come back here and tell us what you know. |
I don't think so KP. Remember, you're supposed to be pretending that you want a new investigation, that you are furiously working away investigating 911. Yet when a major new work comes out with 150 interviews and in hundreds of pages of coverage of what happened at the Pentagon, you can't be bothered to read it? Instead you want us to read it and get back to you? What, you want us to read it to you for your bedtime story because you're just too exhausted from all your other 911 investigations?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose the general point here is that in my opinion the truth movement, or many involved in alternative movements on the web or elsewhere, seem to me to be tactically selective about what sources they actually use. I think people on this site and others should be aware that their news is being just as maliciously filtered as those reading any tabloid imo.
Other examples. Where's the recognition of the trial witness admitting creating bombs for use in Heathrow last week?
Where's the coverage of the Touching History book on the air response on 9/11?
I also think that truthers use the mass media as their evidence when it suits them - if a newspaper runs a story criticising Bush they will rally round it, but when the paper contradicts 9/11 truth it is 'disinfo'. I think there's a lot of double standards. Most of what passes for truther 'evidence' is drawn directly from the mass media they accuse of being a fraud!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | I suppose the general point here is that in my opinion the truth movement, or many involved in alternative movements on the web or elsewhere, seem to me to be tactically selective about what sources they actually use. I think people on this site and others should be aware that their news is being just as maliciously filtered as those reading any tabloid imo.
Other examples. Where's the recognition of the trial witness admitting creating bombs for use in Heathrow last week?
Where's the coverage of the Touching History book on the air response on 9/11?
I also think that truthers use the mass media as their evidence when it suits them - if a newspaper runs a story criticising Bush they will rally round it, but when the paper contradicts 9/11 truth it is 'disinfo'. I think there's a lot of double standards. Most of what passes for truther 'evidence' is drawn directly from the mass media they accuse of being a fraud!!! |
Fair points.
What kind of response would you be satisfied with though ?
If you consider the well established tactics of MI5/6 and the anti-terror police then you might be inclined to have some reasonable doubt as to the integrity of certain "witnesses", as you call them.
One could cite many, many examples of the standard mo used in these cases.
I could ask you, for example, to name one "terror" trial when there hasn't been a singing canary or a sudden volte-face after months/years of non co-operation whilst in custody ?
I could also ask you why you do not comment on the various methods used to extract said "confessions".
How do you know that what you are reading in the press is real?
Why have you chosen to categorise as fact this statement:
| Quote: | | Where's the recognition of the trial witness admitting creating bombs for use in Heathrow last week? |
| I wrote: | | I also think that critics use the mass media as their evidence when it suits them. . . |
I've searched the forum for your posts on simulated drowning, torture, detention without charge and state kidnapping and I found nothing.....
What, for example, do you make of these "reported" statements:
| Quote: | The Guardian has spoken to four senior police officers who oppose the extra period of detention without charge. Among their concerns were:
• Damage to relations with Muslim communities from whom intelligence to counter terrorism is needed
• Fears that detectives will face pressure to find, even manufacture evidence, against those held for 42 days |
Am I being selective here ?
Or will your response show that you are ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Fair points.
What kind of response would you be satisfied with though ?
If you consider the well established tactics of MI5/6 and the anti-terror police then you might be inclined to have some reasonable doubt as to the integrity of certain "witnesses", as you call them.
One could cite many, many examples of the standard mo used in these cases.
I could ask you, for example, to name one "terror" trial when there hasn't been a singing canary or a sudden volte-face after months/years of non co-operation whilst in custody ?
I could also ask you why you do not comment on the various methods used to extract said "confessions".
How do you know that what you are reading in the press is real? |
It's a bit of a closed view though isn't it? If you have decided that any statement from any accused terrorist is not worthy of mention because confessions may be extracted, you're living in a state of denial - no terrorism could ever exist, simply because of the failings of those in charge of investigating them.
Was the accused in this case telling the truth about his bomb-making, or telling the court what his torturers told him to say? You seem to have already decided the question answered and this news therefore irrelevant.
Yet in the real world this is evidence for many that terrorists were planning some sort of mischief at Heathrow. And your movement, at least the people on this website, may not even know the case they are arguing against. Because it was dismissed before it was even reported.
| Quote: | Why have you chosen to categorise as fact this statement:
| Quote: | | Where's the recognition of the trial witness admitting creating bombs for use in Heathrow last week? |
| I wrote: | | I also think that critics use the mass media as their evidence when it suits them. . . |
I've searched the forum for your posts on simulated drowning, torture, detention without charge and state kidnapping and I found nothing..... |
I wouldn't expect the 9/11 truth movement to lack reference to criticism of the techniques of the security services in this country. Nor do I consider it my job to highlight them. I am more interested in what I think is rather unbalanced debate that is had on this site and in the truth movement in general.
Do you wish to have a debate that considers all opinions? Or would you rather have a debate stimulated only by the filtered information that supports your already-entrenched view?
| Quote: | What, for example, do you make of these "reported" statements:
| Quote: | The Guardian has spoken to four senior police officers who oppose the extra period of detention without charge. Among their concerns were:
• Damage to relations with Muslim communities from whom intelligence to counter terrorism is needed
• Fears that detectives will face pressure to find, even manufacture evidence, against those held for 42 days |
Am I being selective here ?
Or will your response show that you are ? |
Well, we know for example that some senior police officers support the 42 day suggestion - Ian Blair and others. I don't think you're being selective as such, but it would be disappointing to form an opinion on the subject based only on one side of the argument.
Certainly, if the response of the British media is anything to go by, there is extreme cynicism about the worth of these new measures, so you have nothing to complain about in terms of media bias, which is totally biased towards your side in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, for the record I haven't decided that this or any other reported statements are true or false.
That, Alex is my point.
How are we supposed to know ?
How are we supposed to know which plots are real and which are not ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Well, for the record I haven't decided that this or any other reported statements are true or false.
That, Alex is my point.
How are we supposed to know ?
How are we supposed to know which plots are real and which are not ? |
That's a pretty big question, isn't it? I'm pretty sure it's not a question for which you are expecting an absolute answer.
I think it's more important to avoid the traps of forming hasty conclusions without sufficient evidence, and of trying to fit existing evidence into our existing ideologies.
Healthy scepticism is required I think. Of all explanations.
Would you not agree with me though that it is better to acknowledge all evidence? Should this evidence on the stand not be acknowledged in the 7/7 conspiracy section of this forum? Is it that the forum simply isn't very well updated, or that people on that forum simply do not want to acknowledge evidence that may run counter to their theories?
The same with the Firefight book. Is it simply that the truth movement do not have time or inclination to notice or consider new evidence - it's not much use as a movement then is it? Or is it that they don't want to consider counter-evidence to their claims - indicating they are in an even worse state, that of denial?!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | That's a pretty big question, isn't it? I'm pretty sure it's not a question for which you are expecting an absolute answer. |
Agreed. It's a huge and fundamental question, that has no absolute answer. One either trusts our police, security services and judicial processes or one doesn't. I do not. Plots can be hatched, patsies put in the frame and outcomes assured. History teaches us that.
| Alex_V wrote: | | I think it's more important to avoid the traps of forming hasty conclusions without sufficient evidence, and of trying to fit existing evidence into our existing ideologies. |
Agreed. Supporters and opponents alike should always strive to avoid fitting intelligence around our policies. If only governments and their agents would do the same then perhaps several hundred thousand Iraqi and Afghan human beings would still be breathing air . . .
| Alex_V wrote: | | Healthy scepticism is required I think. Of all explanations. |
Absolutely.
| Alex_V wrote: | | Would you not agree with me though that it is better to acknowledge all evidence? |
Well, that depends on what one's own consideration of that which is being presented as evidence. If you were a juror and you had reason to doubt a defendant's "evidence" or a prosecutor's "evidence" then you would weigh it accordingly. Acknowledgement of what you might consider to be false or misleading evidence would tend to strengthen your scepticism of that witness, whichever side they were on.
| Alex_V wrote: | Should this evidence on the stand not be acknowledged in the 7/7 conspiracy section of this forum?
Is it that the forum simply isn't very well updated, or that people on that forum simply do not want to acknowledge evidence that may run counter to their theories? |
The 7/7 section of this forum is not well used imo. I would direct you to a far better resource that is J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. There, you will find a much more diligent approach to documenting the UK domestic war on terror trials and tribulations.
| Alex_V wrote: | | The same with the Firefight book. Is it simply that the truth movement do not have time or inclination to notice or consider new evidence - it's not much use as a movement then is it? Or is it that they don't want to consider counter-evidence to their claims - indicating they are in an even worse state, that of denial?!! |
I was not even aware of this book. I'm not sure there is an absolute answer to that question as you would have to ask each and every poster for their opinion to get anywhere near an informed understanding of why certain issues are worthy of a post or not.
IMO this board is not so well visited these days, fewer people post here and therefore many things do not get covered.
I would also suggest that perhaps some folk have actually made up their minds about 9/11 and related issues and see little point in continuing to investigate further. Maybe after almost 7 years some of those that were first interested have moved on.
I think you have a point though about some folk not wishing to give equal consideration to every piece of this jigsaw.
I also think that your point applies to supporters of the OCT and sceptics alike.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thx for the link. Would someone like me be allowed to comment on the J7 forum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not entirely sure about the context of your self description Alex_V.
I'm sure you could register there and post.
I'm also sure you would not get much discussion.
It's a very erudite model of a forum imo.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: Book on fires at the Pentagon... |
|
|
Just to pull the thread back to the OP, does anyone have any evidence of the truth movement even acknowledging that this book exists?
The book apparently describes the approach of the plane according to witnesses, also the stench of jet fuel, body parts, shredded aluminium etc.
Can a book like this be legitimately ignored by those who wish to prove that the plane didn't even crash at the Pentagon? Surely not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you have made some excellent points Alex_V.
I was curious, since you obviously have the book in question.
Could you quote me the full context of the following passage please:
| Quote: | | the firefighters standing on the lawn who nearly got hit by the plane as it was coming in . . . |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | I think you have made some excellent points Alex_V.
I was curious, since you obviously have the book in question.
Could you quote me the full context of the following passage please:
| Quote: | | the firefighters standing on the lawn who nearly got hit by the plane as it was coming in . . . |
|
Sorry Mark, I don't have the book yet. Apologies if I gave a false impression there - my second hand info was taken from a blogger who is reading it (James Butler at ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com).
The other book I am considering buying is David Rockefeller's memoirs - a short quote from that lengthy biog is used to justify the belief in an NWO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that admission.
Odd that you are questioning why truthers have not read, what you consider to be an important book on 9/11, that you have not even read.
Is it not?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Thanks for that admission.
Odd that you are questioning why truthers have not read, what you consider to be an important book on 9/11, that you have not even read.
Is it not? |
Well I don't know if the book is important or not. I certainly don't consider it my personal duty to keep up to date with all information about 9/11. Maybe that is a weakness in me, I don't know.
I would CERTAINLY consider it a weakness if a movement that generally considers it has uncovered the truth of 9/11 would ignore an in-depth book on the very subject. Hence my criticism here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One response from a debunker who has read the Firefight book...
| Quote: | Earlier I discussed how, while reading Firefight, I was trying to look at it from an historical viewpoint, and not a conspiracy theorists viewpoint. While I have tried to it is still impossible not to notice things.
On this note, I have come to the conclusion that we need to change the way we view the truthers. Earlier I have stated that the people who don't believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon were almost as stupid as those who believe that no plane crashed into the Twin Towers, the infamous "no-planers". I take that back. I was wrong.
It is now my belief that those who do not believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon are even more idiotic than the original no-planers, because there is actually more evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, if only because the less extensive, albeit still horrific damage at the Pentagon, allowed for more witnesses and an easier collection of evidence.
The evidence is in fact overwhelming, and beyond question. Dozens, if not hundreds of people who saw the plane crash, witnesses to the wreckage, pieces of shredded aluminum that covered the lawn, firefights who smelled, and fought the jet fuel fires, pictures of the fuselage, engines, landing gear, and black box. Not to mention the bodies of the passengers. |
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/firefight-and-no-planers. html
He is actually making the same point I made on a thread in November (http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12091) - it is utter hypocrisy to criticise the so-called 'no-planers' at the twin towers, while being a 'no-planer' at the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Direct quotes from the book...
| Quote: | Whitworth had positioned himself at the edge of the punch-out hole to eyeball everything searchers were hauling out. Hill walked by with square object, blackened with soot, headed for the bin, when he stopped her. "Hey, gimmee that," he said, pulling the burnt object out of her hands.
The device was roughly the size of a shoe box, melted on one end. It was ashen-colored and looked nothing like the pictures of the black boxes- which were orange- but Whitworth could tell that it wasn't part of the building. "We need to let the NTSB look at this," he declared.
Whitworth found one of the NTSB analysts. "Oh *," she groaned when she looked at the mangled device. She identified it as the airplane's cockpit voice recorder, which captured sounds in the cockpit. It looked to be nearly demolished- there was a marginal chance they'd be able to get any information from it.
Still it was a breakthrough. Whitworth returned to the punch-out hole a moment later, empty-handed. "Hey, that was a great find," he told Hill. "That was one of the black boxes. Where'd you find it?"
"Right over here," she said, pointing to a stack of jumbled rubble. Searchers formed a circle around the pile and started digging, since the black boxes on 757s were both in the same section of the airplane.
About half an hour later another NTSB expert uncovered a device that looked like it could be the other black box. It turned out to be the flight data recorder, which collected electronic information about the operation of the jet. Both of the black boxes had finally been found, pulled like two broken shells from an ocean of debris. |
| Quote: | The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.
FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift. |
| Quote: | For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.
Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane. |
| Quote: | Special Agent Tara Bloesch was assigned to set up the morgue. She had all the right experience- before joining the FBI, she'd worked as a forensic investigator near Philadelphia and as a parole officer in the city itself. With the FBI, Bloesch had helped run morgue operations in Kosovo and Serbia, documenting war crimes and mass graves, after NATO troops intervened in the war there in 1999. Her colleagues knew her as an articulate, tough Philly girl who didn't blanch at difficult jobs. She would keep the morgue under tight control.
O'Connor needed other people to work with her. He gathered several dozen agents on the lawn, near the helipad, to sort out who would deal with remains, evidence, and other aspects of the huge job. "Obviously we'll be doing a lot of human remains and body recovery," he announced to the crowd. "If you're comfortable doing that step over here. If you're not, that's okay, because I need people doing other things too." More than half the group moved to the spot he had indicated. Then he added, "This is not a normal event. If anybody needs to talk to someone, nobody's going to think any less of you." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds a good book. Cheers for the heads up.
_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are some glowing reports on the book from the Pilots For Truth forum...
"nothing but propaganda..." - Craig Ranke
"I don't really care what any of those people believe about what happened. That is irrelevant to what people actually saw." - Aldo Marquis
"Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?" - Rob Balsamo
And of course none of these people have read the book either DESPITE IT COVERING IN DETAIL THE KEY EVENT OF THEIR CAMPAIGN.
Is there evidence that anybody from the truth movement has read this book? Will anyone pledge to read it from this forum? Why is the truth movement sweeping this evidence under the carpet? What do they have to hide? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Alex_V"]
"Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?" - Rob Balsamo
[quote]
From the man who is selling DVDs of his dodgy FDR analysis for $14.99. What planet is he on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | There are some glowing reports on the book from the Pilots For Truth forum...
"nothing but propaganda..." - Craig Ranke
"I don't really care what any of those people believe about what happened. That is irrelevant to what people actually saw." - Aldo Marquis
"Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?" - Rob Balsamo
And of course none of these people have read the book either DESPITE IT COVERING IN DETAIL THE KEY EVENT OF THEIR CAMPAIGN.
Is there evidence that anybody from the truth movement has read this book? Will anyone pledge to read it from this forum? Why is the truth movement sweeping this evidence under the carpet? What do they have to hide? |
Have you read the book yet Alex? Or are you just happy to tour the online world promoting it?
| The Book wrote: | Whitworth had positioned himself at the edge of the punch-out hole to eyeball everything searchers were hauling out. Hill walked by with square object, blackened with soot, headed for the bin, when he stopped her. "Hey, gimmee that," he said, pulling the burnt object out of her hands.
The device was roughly the size of a shoe box, melted on one end. It was ashen-colored and looked nothing like the pictures of the black boxes- which were orange- but Whitworth could tell that it wasn't part of the building. "We need to let the NTSB look at this," he declared.
Whitworth found one of the NTSB analysts. "Oh *," she groaned when she looked at the mangled device. She identified it as the airplane's cockpit voice recorder, which captured sounds in the cockpit. It looked to be nearly demolished- there was a marginal chance they'd be able to get any information from it.
Still it was a breakthrough. Whitworth returned to the punch-out hole a moment later, empty-handed. "Hey, that was a great find," he told Hill. "That was one of the black boxes. Where'd you find it?"
"Right over here," she said, pointing to a stack of jumbled rubble. Searchers formed a circle around the pile and started digging, since the black boxes on 757s were both in the same section of the airplane.
About half an hour later another NTSB expert uncovered a device that looked like it could be the other black box. It turned out to be the flight data recorder, which collected electronic information about the operation of the jet. Both of the black boxes had finally been found, pulled like two broken shells from an ocean of debris. |
Now if you search the internet you can find (http://web.archive.org/web/20040526034459/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/306 9699/)
| Quote: | | Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says. |
Or maybe you can find (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html? page=6)
| Quote: | | Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" |
So which one do you propose we believe as the "Truth"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Have you read the book yet Alex? Or are you just happy to tour the online world promoting it? |
I probably won't ever read the book. It is simply a very useful stick to beat the truth movement with. All of this 'research', the 'search for the truth' and not a mention or even much interest in a book that directly covers the scene of one of these events that you think were faked. I'm embarrassed for your movement, and I think omissions like this are pathetic.
| Quote: | | So which one do you propose we believe as the "Truth"? |
You assume they are mutually exclusive. You also infer that they are not false alarms or simple mistakes or hazy recollections. I wish you luck with trying to prove that there is some deeper significance to the anomaly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Have you read the book yet Alex? Or are you just happy to tour the online world promoting it? |
I probably won't ever read the book. It is simply a very useful stick to beat the truth movement with. All of this 'research', the 'search for the truth' and not a mention or even much interest in a book that directly covers the scene of one of these events that you think were faked. I'm embarrassed for your movement, and I think omissions like this are pathetic. |
Embarrassed for my movement? That must be so painful for you.
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | So which one do you propose we believe as the "Truth"? |
You assume they are mutually exclusive. You also infer that they are not false alarms or simple mistakes or hazy recollections. I wish you luck with trying to prove that there is some deeper significance to the anomaly. |
Please don't assume for me - you are the one pushing this book and quoting from it - yet the first para I research I find anomalies. Now you want me to "prove" there is deeper significance to the anomaly. So what do you propose I do? Research each and every paragraph in the book and produce a detailed response? Would you be less embarrassed then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Embarrassed for my movement? That must be so painful for you. |
The hypocrisy is quite painful to watch, I must admit. So much for a quest for truth.
| Quote: | | Please don't assume for me - you are the one pushing this book and quoting from it - yet the first para I research I find anomalies. Now you want me to "prove" there is deeper significance to the anomaly. |
You brought up an anomaly, and now you seem to want to disown it. Is it my anomaly now? I don't want it - it has little or no relevance in my view. If you think it has significance, then that is up to you.
| Quote: | | So what do you propose I do? Research each and every paragraph in the book and produce a detailed response? Would you be less embarrassed then? |
I would be less critical of the truth movement if it took actual notice of published accounts of witnesses to the damage, fire and debris yes. Or is the truth movement suggesting (as some at PfT do) that this book is irrelevant to their argument without even looking at it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
