Are these links to clips that are not included in "National Security Alert"? I have watched it before
and thought it was pretty good. Are these more complete with regard to the interviews? I have
a tentative recommendation in mind for Pilots to consider, but I will do more on this before I offer
my suggestion. I am completing a paper this evening, but I should be able to pursue this Friday.

could we please remove fetzer from this board?

i consider him a pot-stirring malefactor.

as do most of you, based on what i have read.

this makes him a troll. unworthy of consideration. a waste of energy to deal with his hijacking.

I second that, albert. But I think just from the thread would suffice.

For what it's worth, I actually think Jim is sincere, however, this thread can now officially be considered "highjacked." It is now all about Jim and his feelings. Regardless, I am sure the professionals here will stay focused on the very important discussion.

Jim,

Please just start a thread elsewhere to continue with those who wish to debate you. That would be the polite and manly thing to do IMHO.

Yes, by all means, stifle and eliminate dissent. Surely a wise move, showing great confidence in one's position. Kinda like the way ol' Dubya handled dissent--ship the fookers a few blocks away from the action and let them dissent to their heart's content.

And really, Jim's is hardly dissent.

We're not all that interested in a rational approach or any questions, we're interested in persons.

Let's get it straight.

Fetzer has:

-promotes bad information
-promoted that the C-130 controlled pentagon attack plane in a BBC television interview
-promotes video fakery/no plane at the towers
-promoted DEW at the towers
-was involved in the dividing of Scholars for 9/11 truth

Now he is here literally re-posting and acting as a conduit for Chandler/cole and Gage and their recent statements, acting as if they haven't been or really need to be addressed. Meanwhile, JONES suppporters and/or other truthers are here saying, "Oh great, here is Fetzer coming to support CIT. Makes sense then if CIT is supposedly promoting bad info." They want sides and division and of course Fetzer being here only helps enflame the situation and piss off the "scholars" and "truth police" who have sided with Chandler, Cole, JONES etc.

Amazed, you can take your wild theories somewhere else. We are talking about our evidence and the Chandler/Cole article.

I don't know why they're doing it, but it very much looks like they are doing it. Look here, but please if you would like to discuss it keep strictly on topic -it is there research section, not a parlor for wild speculations.

Aldo,

Spot on about Fetzer. He's a loose canon and he needs to be isolated from serious discussion. He's little more than a charlatan or a dis info agent. He's on some sort of mission and he's not interested in science or research. He's a poseur and a fraud. Or so delusional and egotistical that he cannot be taken seriously.

This assessment is HIS doing. He is judged by his actions and words. He earned. He owns it. And he IS toxic.

Jim Go Away or be sent away by serious researchers.

Mod edit: off topic posts above, including this one, have been split and moved from the Latest News Section.


Guys... back on topic please. This is not a Jim Fetzer bash thread.

As long as Jim follows the rules of this forum, he is welcome to post. We dont censor or ban, as does Blogger, just because we may disagree with someone, their point of view or their theories.

Again, the topic of this thread is "CIT Publishes Response To Chandler and Cole".

If any mod/admin wishes to split out the off topic posts, please feel free. Move them to the debate forum where they can debate to their hearts content.

Hopefully i'll be able to get to it later today... been busy trying to wrap up our latest presentation. Trailer should be ready hopefully later today.

Jim, if you wish to respond to the above, please start a new thread in the debate forum (DO NOT RESPOND HERE), and post the link to your response thread.... in this thread, then we'll split/merge all the posts to your new thread.

Aldo

I bow and genuflect before your Supreme Knowledge. It is your dogma and pride that makes the world a good place.

Maybe one of these days you will be called to testify before Congress, just to enlighten America with the truth and nothing but the truth. I wait with bated breath.....

truth, right? that's what we are all after, right?

Sometimes I think "That's a question". When I see people like JF, who even when confronted with evidence to the contrary to what he claims, continues with the rants, I'm not sure. Recently I was for example publicly blackmailed by certain D. Khalezov, that if I would wipe my rebuttal of his 150kt (3)nukes WTC demolition terrory from internet, that he would not publish a "counter-rebuttal" (which allegedly was prepared for publication). I think it is important to operate within scientific method. -I would be glad if Mr. Khalezov would publish a rebuttal of my rebuttal - if he would bring real arguments in form of the facts, not erroneous "data" and wild speculations -to finally support his claims, and I clearly told him. Since then he leaves me alone and I still wait for his rebuttal...

Even though 911blogger may be ran by a pack of morons i still do like some of the articles they publish, not this one
http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-f...ntagon-probable
Now that's just plain stupid, one could think 911 blogger is ran by a pack of shills for publishing this article, any truther who supports this new paper
by Legge is in essence supporting the OCT some people are just really plain stupid.

At the risk of going "off topic", I have given more thought to the
question of differences and would like to elaborate upon them here.

The differences in the modes of destruction of the Twin Towers and
WTC-7 are rather substantial, include the following characteristics:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTC-1 & WTC-2 / WTC-7

. . . Sequence: . . . . . . Top down . / . Bottom up

. . . Floor motion: . . Stationary . / Falling together

. . . Mechanism: . . Pulverization* / Controlled Demolition

. . . Time/Speed: . . About 10 secs. / About 6.5 secs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (~ free fall) . . (~ free fall)

. . . Remnants: . . . . No pancakes . . / . Pancakes
. . . . . . . . . . . . (below ground level) . (5-7 floors)

They display substantial difference even in gross appearance.

On WTC-7, watch YouTube: "This is an Orange"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9ewBt-dw

On the Twin Towers, see: "9/11: Towers of Dust"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPJUP-Ry7d0

Their modes of destruction thus appear to have been different.

. . . Debris motion: . Upward & . / . Remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outward . . . . . Intact

. . . Difference: . . . Explosion . / . Implosion

If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

For a still series, see "New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

The phrase, "controlled demolition" still applies, since they
too were brought down by a demolition that was under control.

* NOTE: One commentator has suggested the "pulverization" conveys
the impression that the process was mechanical, when it might have
been chemical, nuclear, electro-magnetic, or something else indeed.

We still do not know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and other
odd kinds of damage were done to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-
6, not to mention the "toasted cars". It poses a scientific challenge.

If WTC-7 was brought down in a classic controlled demolition--
as virtually all sides agree--then WTC-1 and WTC-2 were not.

WTC 7 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... but there are differences.

WTC 1 and 2 resembles a "classic controlled demolition"... in the upper sections which led to a gravity driven destruction of the lower sections in both cases.

Controlled is a vague term here. All three were planned and engineered.

Imploding the twins would require destroying the core in the bottom of the structures quite low down (similar to WTC7). And to do THAT would require HUGE explosives placed at the core columns where they were massive. It would be hard to explain how a plane strike at the slightest thing to do with it. Classic looking CD was not an option for the planners who need to pin it on the Islamist hijackers.

Hardly anything was controlled about the collapse. It was an engineered destruction.

This is the kind of rubbish to be expected from someone who doesn't know what he is
talking about and trades in rumor and speculation. Nothing does more damage to the
CIT team than to make gross distortions that demonstrate they can't even do research
on the views of those they attack! These guys are in love with themselves and have no
sense of decency or of objectivity. Consider my refutations of Aldo's reckless charges:

Let's get it straight. Fetzer has:

-promotes bad information

About what? Focusing only on my 9/11 research, I have published many articles and one
book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), while organizing the Madison meeting, "The Science
and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", which I then produced as a DVD.

Among my articles are "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", "Is 9/11
research 'anti-Semitic'?", "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", and many more, which
can be found on http://911scholars.org, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, and YouTube.

The fact of the matter is that my contributions to 9/11 are overwhelmingly greater both
in quantity and in quality than those of Ranke and Aldo, who come across as a couple
of punks who think their work is more important and central than it is. Self-infatuation!

I have been dealing with those who are trying to thwart the revelation of truth about 9/11
far longer and more effectively than have they. Check out my appearances on "Hannity &
Colmes" and at the American Scholars Conference, when they were still in their diapers.

-promoted that the C-130 controlled pentagon attack plane in a BBC television interview

The BBC came to my home and taped me for eight (8) hours. They feigned that they were
going to present the findings of Scholars. At one point, they asked me REPEATEDLY about
the Pentagon, where of all that footage, they picked what they thought was least flattering.

I was explaining that, since the pilot of the C-130 reported that he had ACTUALLY SEEN the
plane--presumably, Flight 77--fly toward the building, between the pilot and what we learned
from Mineta, THE PENTAGON HAD TO HAVE KNOWN IT WAS COMING. That's damning!

I also explained that, given the clear, clean, unblemished lawn AFTER THE ALLEGED HIT,
which is featured in "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", the debris that starts showing
up had to have come from somewhere. I suggested it might have come from the C-130.

Now I don't quite get this CIT "brain trust" that thinks its so smart, but what is CIT's own
explanation for all of this debris? I certainly cannot have been taken out onto the lawn by
enlisted men. Coming down from the sky seems to me a far more plausible explanation.

-promotes video fakery/no plane at the towers

Well, they want everyone to swoon over their interviews, which are nice but hardly carry
the weight of the absence of debris at the hit site on the ground floor or the violations of
the laws of aerodynamics and physics involved in the official account of what happened.

In the case of the videos in New York, we have an impossible speed (which Pilots itself
has confirmed), an impossible entry into the building, the plane passing through its own
length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air, and so on.

These are stunning indications that something is terribly wrong, but perhaps Craig and
Aldo are simply not smart enough to understand these things. I laid it out in "New Proof
of Video Fakery on 9/11" and recently in "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?" at ATS.

I don't understand what these two are doing in the 9/11 truth movement if they are not
interested in the truth. As with the Twin Towers, the problem is figuring out how it was
done. If they had any brains, they would study the case before shooting off their mouths.

-promoted DEW at the towers

Well, yes, I have PROMOTED THE STUDY of unconventional alternatives to explain what
we do not yet understand, namely, how the destruction of the Twin Towers was done. I
am skeptical that thermite combined with conventional explosives could have done it.

Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, which means that, to become explosive, it
has to be combined with explosives, where the same thing could be said of toothpaste!
Nanothermite burns faster but still becomes explosive only if combined with explosives.

I doubt that Craig or Aldo have any idea what I am talking about or the nature of the
issues involved. They seem to have no grasp of science or of the nature of scientific
research, even though they like to think that they are intellectual wonders of the world.

In elaborating on a question that appeared earlier on the thread, I explained certain of
the differences between the classic controlled demolition of WTC-7 and the demolition
under control of the Twin Towers, but this involves issues far beyond their competence.

-was involved in the dividing of Scholars for 9/11 truth

Well, since I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, when Steve and his buddies attempted to
take over the society, I had to cope with a phony poll, impersonation of my membership
administrator, and was even frozen out of st911.org, which I had made world famous.

Every single item that ever appeared there was determined by me. I had the assistance
of some excellent people in setting it up and making the posts, but it was my work. They
were nasty, unprofessional and even unethical about it, so of course CIT is on their side!

I have explained these things many places, including the history of the society archives
under "Founder's Corner" on 911scholars.org, "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op",
and "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan", none of which they appear to have ever read.

So they have expressed their outrage that Chandler and Cole DID NOT CONSULT WITH
THEM before they published their critique. But CIT DID NOT CONSULT WITH ME when it
began going after me, hammer and tong, on the basis their own FALSE IMPRESSIONS.

Where do things stand?

So which of us has committed the greater offenses? Me, who came here to extend my
support to their for their efforts, or CIT, who has been trashing me without having any
idea what they are talking about, as I have demonstrated in this post? Ask yourself!

Those who are making baseless and unfounded accusations against others who may be
doing better and more important work than are they do untold damage to the movement
and could far more reasonably be charged with allegations like those made against me.

I have done more to expose those who are spreading false information about 9/11 than
they have ever done. My articles about Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley were already
published in early 2006. They were responsible studies based upon logic and evidence.

Their attacks on me disregard both. Yet they find support here from other intellectual
mediocrities like SanderO and other unworthies. I am reminded of an old Marine Corps'
expression: "He wouldn't make a decent pimple on a corporal's butt!" That seems to fit.

From this post, I frankly have no idea what you do or do not understand about events at the WTC. Here are some clues, which reflect the findings of members of Scholars and of previous students of 9/11 who came before us. It may be found archived as "Why doubt 9/11?" on the upper-left hand corner of our home page at http://911scholars.org.

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

<humor>

ah, jim, appearing on hannity & colmes is not a point in your favor. </>

trying humor to set a congenial mood for a group that has become adversarial.
just to be clear, i respect the work of craig, aldo and jim. now can we play nice, please?

back to humor.

a guy walks in to a bar....

SanderO

More of your semantic trivia, thanks so much.

The collapse was caused by humans controlling demolition, right?

It's time to move on. Makes me wonder about the seriousness of your argument.

Jim, did you get a message I sent?

Well, I don't think SanderO has thought this through, but I am glad that he is
considering the issues. And GroundPounder seems to have the appropriate
intention of reconciling the various parties to pursue their mutual objective--
which, I had thought, was exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11,
not committing libel and distorting facts about me as the founder of Scholars,
which, however, has become an extremely popular pastime, both here and
elsewhere. Perhaps he will find the time to watch my appearances (both of
them) on "Hannity & Colmes", where I managed to get Mineta's testimony on
the air twice! (Yes, amazed!, I did and I appreciate your message. Thanks!)

Rob,

This is to request the reinstatement of killtown, who is among the leading experts on the plane sites.
My impression is he was banished because Aldo wanted hiim out. Take a good look at the reasons
Aldo and others wanted to banish me. They are not good reasons; in fact, they are not even true!
Aldo and Ranke, I regret to say, are brutal in their efforts to destroy those with whom they disagree.

Here a new study, showing that, while Flight 175 had more fuel, Fight 93 had a bigger smoke cloud,
as he demonstrates: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2011/02/excel...f-serenity.html He is also excellent
on the Pentagon http://killtown.911review.org/flight77.html and at Shanksville, as his studies show:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/Shanksville He has a great deal to contribute here. Thanks.

Jim

while i can appreciate your effort in attempting to use the msm to get the message out,
truth is not their (the msm's) stock in trade. i don't watch television as i believe it really is a mind control device. what a sinister thought that is, huh?

i'm unfamiliar w/ the killtown controversy. killtown's listing of 250+ (smoking guns) anomalies relating to 9/11, was pretty informative.

i'll tell you what i told kt when he brought me nick7261's image.

those trees in shanksville must be as wide as the roofs of the wtc.....

Jim asked:"...what is CIT's own
explanation for all of this debris? I[t] certainly cannot have been taken out onto the lawn by
enlisted men. Coming down from the sky seems to me a far more plausible explanation"

I think it was a ground-based explosion, probably in one of the construction trailers that was parked right in front of the "entry hole". For me, I cannot reconcile debris being thrown hundreds of yards into the Route 27 roadway as a result of an aircraft hit. But I will concede that this roadway debris could have been deposited by a C-130.

Do we know from tracking that the C-130 flew over the Pentagon?

we know from the video and the pilots own words that the c130 never got near it let alone flew over it....

Thank you for that confirmation. Debris couldn't be planted by the C-130.

Hello Jim,

I wonder if you could speak to the physics of debris being thrown great distances opposite the trajectory of the alleged AA77.

Could concrete from the exterior wall be thrown into Route 27 hundreds of feet away? Could in-cabin oxygen bottles?

Thank you.

The hardest possible way to deliver debris to the lawn of the Pentagon would be by airplane.

Who needs to risk throwing plane parts out while doing a high speed maneuver, when you've got a fundie soldier to do the job?

Well with regard to the debris as this thread seems to bounce from CIT, Debris, Killtown, and Towers, I'd like to drop a thought or two on the debris issue. But first, after studying the analysis that members in the 'movement' have done on the video from that day, there are definitely some fishy things that went on with the media that day with regards to video fakery, etc. The fact is if they are willing to pull off a magic show at the Pentagon as they did, then I have no problem with a similar magic show at the WTC complex. In both instances the perps would need to maintain as much control as possible.
So in that respect, Jim, I think I might find some common ground with you.Am I true believer in video fakery, not at this point. However, there are certainly issues that require further examination.
I would like to see further analysis from an unbiased source before making a final conclusion, but nose in/nose out, blackouts across the media outlets, color issues, and planes 'popping' out of nowhere is a bit bizarre. But back the the 'gon and debris...

We are left with really three possibilities.
It was either planted, the result of an explosion from the Pentagon/trailer region, or a combination of people planting and explosions. I would tend to favor the last. Why?

The explosions from within the Pentagon take care of the 'little' debris pieces unintended or not. The plants take care of the photographic evidence pointing to the official story such as the pristine part on the lawn with the rivets pre-removed. That picture is what visually 'sells' the story to the public. You can show Joe Schmo any old trash on the lawn, but when you have the painted letter on the sheet metal clearly showing what airline was involved, then Joe Schmo becomes the fish on the hook.

Just 2 cents...

[/quote]We are left with really three possibilities.
It was either planted, the result of an explosion from the Pentagon/trailer region, or a combination of people planting and explosions. [/quote]

I tend to favor an explosion from construction trailer(s) to explain the exterior evidence. Similar explosion(s) on the interior to effect the structural damage and produce victims. But I am focusing here on the exterior debris.

We had observable debris close in, on the lawn, along the wall. But we also had concrete in the roadway in front of the heliport and north. I just can't reconcile how facade limestone and concrete gets out onto Route 27 as a result of jet fuel that is being forced into a building.

All the plane debris could have been ejected from a trailer as the result of an explosion. The concrete could have been ejected as the result of an exterior or interior explosion. Or the director of this Hollywood extravaganza could have mixed concrete debris and airplane parts in the same trailer. Heck they were renovating in that very area for months. There must have been ample amounts available for the show.

But I cannot see trucks rolling in there, men jumping out and debris being planted on the lawn or elsewhere. Somebody would have noticed or captured this strange behavior on film. We do have photos of men in suits picking up debris, but we cannot tell for sure if they are placing or removing. They just aren't convincingly dresssed, shiny shoes etc. Why haven't these folks been identified and deposed? This is tampering with evidence at a crime scene. Then we have hundreds of FBI agents conveniently standing by to swarm in and vacuum the lawn clean.

There was a report of an electrical contractor's truck having rivets embedded in it's body. Do the rivets normally come loose during a crash? This sounds like more evidence of an explosion from a trailer full of old parts and shredded metal from a jet scrap yard. Stranger still, he was parked south of the impact, opposite the trajectory of the alleged AA77.

Daryl Donley captured a secondary explosion 3-4 minutes after the "impact". The timeline matches both the CBS and NBC video feeds shown on live TV. Reporters from FOX and CBS mention secondary explosions, independently of each other. Do airline crashes normally have secondary explosions?

For me the jury has not yet convened. We're still doing the gumshoe investigating.

I think it was "JackD" who made a very good observation on the shiny aluminium "fuselage" debris.
That all of those pieces had a letter on them at all...what are the odds that just the lettered parts would be on the lawn?



The area was subject to multiple evacuations but one line I found in Pentagon official storyteller Goldberg's book was this.



(Rimrodt's images have never been shown - along with thousands of others)

The oppurtunity was definitely there. "Stay there and take photos of another 'crazy Jihad controlled plane'"

It's also on record that "three fake firefighters" were arrested (a dead end report) and somebody posing as military was identified on multiple sites, including the temporary morgue.

The FBI was in sole control of identifying "Flight 77 passengers" and were alleged to have recovered "more" DNA after the massive "sifting operation" when "70% of body parts" were allegedly recovered had ended and they had "taken over".





(Sorry for going off on another tangent regarding the DNA but it's the same concept as the planted debris - a government controlled crime scene within a government controlled crime scene).

I also personally believe that the generator trailer had a major role in either the facade breach and/or debris dispersal (but that's just my 2cents).

Let's not forget that there is a utility tunnel behind the helipad too.

http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefin...70C-008.jpg.JPG

When you see the images of the "debris" being collected, they are up against the wall of the heliport (particularly the "C" debris)

It doesn't require an entire team of FBI agents to be "in on it". Just a few evacuations, an out of view area and a few soulless bastards. (Another 2cents)

I think it would be interesting to find all of the debris field photographs and try to establish a time frame of those photographs. I started to examine those on the web, but it was very difficult to determine 'which pic came first' etc.

I would think through very careful examination of the photographs, media video/pictures etc. one could find simple evidence showing no debris picture and then all of the sudden in the same spot, the debris suddenly there.

For example if that shiny painted piece was planted there should be a before/after photo that can't be explained as being laid out for a photo op.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 'shiny' piece first show up laying along the ATC tower and then on the front lawn or was that timing reversed?

I think it would be interesting to find all of the debris field photographs and try to establish a time frame of those photographs. I started to examine those on the web, but it was very difficult to determine 'which pic came first' etc.

I would think through very careful examination of the photographs, media video/pictures etc. one could find simple evidence showing no debris picture and then all of the sudden in the same spot, the debris suddenly there.

For example if that shiny painted piece was planted there should be a before/after photo that can't be explained as being laid out for a photo op.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 'shiny' piece first show up laying along the ATC tower and then on the front lawn or was that timing reversed?

SD, I actually had a huge collection of images, screenshots from newsreels and alleged times when various photographers got to the lawn and had them wiped out by a computer breakdown. I lost the heart to start again (cut off my nose to spite my face )

I think that would be a worthwhile exercise. I had a scour through the recently released "home video" footage some of which were precollapse but it's too grainy to make out. The helicopter news footage. The same.

But (random shots)..

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010015.JPG

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010017.JPG

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010017.JPG

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/0...on_Lawn_001.png

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/Pentagon_lawn.JPG

http://www.grupo.org/pentagon/pentagonlawn.jpg

mg123.imageshack.us/f/27cj.jpg/

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/u...-Photos-015.jpg