9/11 questions

Eric5273 · #1 09-12-2007, 07:05 PM

More experts question 9/11 Commission Report:

In the last two months, a world-renowned scientist and three nationally recognized engineers have called for a new investigation of 9/11, yet none of these has been reported in the mainstream media.

Most recently, on Sept. 4th, Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association, called for a new investigation of 9/11. Hirschhorn stated, "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions." For an excellent article on this, click here.

On Aug. 27th, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and world renowned scientist, characterized the official account of 9/11 as "a fraud" and called for a new investigation. "I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken." For more on this, click here.

An Aug. 21st article reported that James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology which was tasked with researching the destruction of the towers on 9/11. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable." For an eye-opening article on this, click here.

On July 16, J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council called for a new investigation of 9/11, mentioning the work of Steven Jones, a former Brigham Young University physics professor. "Steven Jones call[ed] for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges.' [This] must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out." For more on this, click here.

Eric5273 · #2 09-12-2007, 07:19 PM

(something is wrong with the editor and it won't let me add this to the last post, so here is the rest..)

Additionally, this week, Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, questioned the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story." Please click here for more.

Quicksilver · #3 09-12-2007, 07:40 PM

All of this is going no-where. For example,

Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. “How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up."

Everyone knows by now that the two buildings were built by the new York port authority were not inspected and not up to code regarding the structural floors in both buildings. These floors were the only thing holding up the outer walls of both buildings. Had they been built up to code the lower floors would have held the weight of the destroyed upper floors.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

AzX5 · #4 09-12-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

All of this is going no-where. For example,

Everyone knows by now that the two buildings were built by the new York port authority were not inspected and not up to code regarding the structural floors in both buildings. These floors were the only thing holding up the outer walls of both buildings. Had they been built up to code the lower floors would have held the weight of the destroyed upper floors.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Don't go throwing around facts and stuff that don't fit any of the conspiracy theories. Next thing you know, you'll say it's possible for a bridge to collapse due to a fire.

MrLabGuy · #5 09-13-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

All of this is going no-where. For example,

Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. “How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up."

Everyone knows by now that the two buildings were built by the new York port authority were not inspected and not up to code regarding the structural floors in both buildings. These floors were the only thing holding up the outer walls of both buildings. Had they been built up to code the lower floors would have held the weight of the destroyed upper floors.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Not to mention the fact that they were both loaded up with jet fuel and in a dive bomb maneuver. Most aircraft pilots in an emergency situation would not be aiming at the buildings in a full speed head-on.

Now I'm only speculating but I'm assuming that a pilot in an emergency situation would be trying to avoid the tower. The fact that these fanatics were on a mission to destroy the buildings lead to a worst case scenario.

You can hope to design a building to stand up to such a scenario; however, until it actually happens you are relying on computer models.

Michael

Wagner · #6 09-12-2007, 08:03 PM

I use to think there was some 'shred' of truth in the conspiracy theories..but after a lot of other footage from people who were there that has been surfacing on sites such as live leak and YouTube......this was most definitely NOT a US Govt planned event as some like to believe. IMO of course.

Eric5273 · #7 09-12-2007, 08:50 PM

This was the one that intrigued me the most:

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”

He is referring to the 270 degree turn that Flight 77 made while decending in order to hit the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly vacant and under construction.

And as for the pilot who supposedly pulled off this maneuvor that Commander Kolstad says he could not have done? This is from an article in Newsday:

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

AzX5 · #8 09-13-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

This was the one that intrigued me the most:

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”

He is referring to the 270 degree turn that Flight 77 made while decending in order to hit the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly vacant and under construction.

And when exactly did Commander Kolstad practice CRASHING a Boeing 757? Of course he couldn't do it, he'd be dead now if he tried.

rebound · #9 09-13-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzX5

And when exactly did Commander Kolstad practice CRASHING a Boeing 757? Of course he couldn't do it, he'd be dead now if he tried.

You already said it.

Let's not confuse things with facts and such...

drex · #10 09-13-2007, 08:51 AM

Bullshit eric.

Total bullshit.

We have the videos. We've seen it all. Do not besmirch the memory of what happened with a bunch of conspiracy BS on this forum.