Israeli involvement in 9/11 and spying on the U.S.

[Davyjones]

Its funny Pasquale,I have a basic education and have only scratched around on 9/11 but my FIRST thought about the event was that it was an insurance fraud.The twin towers came down far too quick,either badly constructed or subjected to controlled demolition. The history of skyscraper building in New York is a story of Mafia influenced sub standard concrete supply which meant buildings had to be replaced long before the time they should have.(read that in a book about the history of New York.) The Merchant navy over in the UK had a similar scam where ships were overloaded,primed to sink and the insurance claimed.Lots of sailors died just like many New Yorkers were murdered by 9/11.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Davyjones wrote:Its funny Pasquale,I have a basic education and have only scratched around on 9/11 but my FIRST thought about the event was that it was an insurance fraud.The twin towers came down far too quick,either badly constructed or subjected to controlled demolition. The history of skyscraper building in New York is a story of Mafia influenced sub standard concrete supply which meant buildings had to be replaced long before the time they should have.(read that in a book about the history of New York.) The Merchant navy over in the UK had a similar scam where ships were overloaded,primed to sink and the insurance claimed.Lots of sailors died just like many New Yorkers were murdered by 9/11.Very good observations on your part. If you look at the topic I started on fake planes regarding 9/11, you'll quickly see that a lot of entities were in on this swindle. It's a manufactured event that all sorts of crime networks profited from in different ways. Silverstein got his insurance money, all of the Enron paperwork and other SEC paperwork regarding criminal cases was destroyed with building 7, the defense industry got its wars (money), the defense industry's bankers got rich, Israel's defense industry surged since 9/11, and we're fighting Israel's enemies (the Arab world and Muslims). I would bet money that if the public is not behind a war with Iran, that same criminal network will try and engineer another type of false-flag terrorist event to sway public opinion again.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:In your professional opinion, how many teams were there, who did each and how was piloting done? It seems to me there were four teams:1. Hijack2. Piloting3. Demolition4. Cover-upI first thought planes were flown by autopilot. Hijackers' job was to get into the cockpit and insert a navigation CD containing the building as a waypoint. That hypothesis was dismissed by a friend who was a well-known flight simulator developer. He said the planes were definitely flown manually; an autopilot would have made maneuvers differently. Later I found out the cockpit door never opened on the plane that hit the Pentagon, according to its Flight Data Recorder. Pilots Tor 911 Truth revealed a little known S-band data link that could have been used to fly the plane, and could not be turned off by pilots flipping circuit breakers.Take a look at the topic I started regarding fake planes and media hoax on 9/11. I suspect that the planes we saw hit the towers were fake computer graphic images. The way it looks to me at this point is that NO planes hit those towers and that more likely it was missiles that hit them. I suspect that a missile hit the Pentagon as well. I'm just trying to put the information together. Aluminum wings on planes would not slice through steel and make a plane imprint on the building like on a cartoon. I suspect that explosives were used to create that too. I just posted a part of a documentary called "September Clues" where they talk about a 17 second delay on all four of the major networks that broadcast live that morning.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Take a look at the topic I started regarding fake planes and media hoax on 9/11. I suspect that the planes we saw hit the towers were fake computer graphic images. The way it looks to me at this point is that NO planes hit those towers and that more likely it was missiles that hit them. I suspect that a missile hit the Pentagon as well. I'm just trying to put the information together. Aluminum wings on planes would not slice through steel and make a plane imprint on the building like on a cartoon. I suspect that explosives were used to create that too. Dozens of witnesses in Washington saw a large plane fly overhead and hit the Pentagon. Thousands of witnesses in New York saw a large plane hit WTC #2. Some captured it on video.DNA of passengers and hijackers was recovered from all four crash sites. Identification was done by locals, not FBI. Planes were tracked on radar from beginning to end, without any gap. If planes had been switched mid-air, approach of second plane would have shown on radar.Above happened in reality, out of major media control.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Take a look at the topic I started regarding fake planes and media hoax on 9/11. I suspect that the planes we saw hit the towers were fake computer graphic images. The way it looks to me at this point is that NO planes hit those towers and that more likely it was missiles that hit them. I suspect that a missile hit the Pentagon as well. I'm just trying to put the information together. Aluminum wings on planes would not slice through steel and make a plane imprint on the building like on a cartoon. I suspect that explosives were used to create that too. Dozens of witnesses in Washington saw a large plane fly overhead and hit the Pentagon. Thousands of witnesses in New York saw a large plane hit WTC #2. Some captured it on video.DNA of passengers and hijackers was recovered from all four crash sites. Identification was done by locals, not FBI. Planes were tracked on radar from beginning to end, without any gap. If planes had been switched mid-air, approach of second plane would have shown on radar.Above happened in reality, out of major media control.I understand what you're trying to say. All I can say is this. Look at the information regarding fake planes on 9/11 in the other topic I started. What the media showed us defies reality. They have the second plane coming in different directions, different angles, looking different, and also cutting into the building (steel and concrete) like it was butter. Nothing makes sense about it at all. The authorities like NIST and FEMA also supposedly said that jet fuel and the impacts made those twin towers come down at basically free fall speed. Then they can't explain building 7's collapse since it wasn't even hit by a plane. Commercial planes like those also can't really fly 500+ mph at anywhere close to sea level because the air is too thick. These are the same types of "authorities" who sold us the magic bullet idea and other hoaxes just like it. What air traffic controllers saw were blips on their radar screens. Most of the "first hand" witnesses that were on the air within minutes were media people. Just look at the information in the other topic about the media hoax on 9/11. Here's a great question. Where was the Air Force during all this? They certainly weren't protecting the Pentagon. The "reality" they supposedly sold to us was not what happened.

[kenmurray]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... tmlAndrews AFB Web site showed that the base had F-16 fighter jets prior to 9/11. On 9/12 they were removed from the web site!!! Coincidence? I think not!!!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... tmlAndrews AFB Web site showed that the base had F-16 fighter jets prior to 9/11. On 9/12 they were removed from the web site!!! Coincidence? I think not!!!Excellent link, Ken.Here's one of my favorite parts of the article you posted."The US military has spent billions of dollars developing stealth aircraft which are invisible to radar so they can mount surprise attacks on adversaries, but it seems they should have saved their money and bought a fleet of airliners because they appear to be far more effective."Forget all those stealth bombers and other stealth planes that are built with taxpayer money. All you need is some box cutters and a few commercial jets!

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote: Look at the information regarding fake planes on 9/11 in the other topic I started. What the media showed us defies reality. They have the second plane coming in different directions, different angles, looking different, and also cutting into the building (steel and concrete) like it was butter. Nothing makes sense about it at all. The authorities like NIST and FEMA also supposedly said that jet fuel and the impacts made those twin towers come down at basically free fall speed. Then they can't explain building 7's collapse since it wasn't even hit by a plane. Commercial planes like those also can't really fly 500+ mph at anywhere close to sea level because the air is too thick. These are the same types of "authorities" who sold us the magic bullet idea and other hoaxes just like it. What air traffic controllers saw were blips on their radar screens. Most of the "first hand" witnesses that were on the air within minutes were media people. Just look at the information in the other topic about the media hoax on 9/11. Here's a great question. Where was the Air Force during all this? They certainly weren't protecting the Pentagon. The "reality" they supposedly sold to us was not what happened.Fake planes: I saw no evidence of fake planes. I saw many broken links and videos that made the CT side look foolish. Media conspiracy: Turn off your TV; use internet instead. Building collapse: I agree it was done with demolitions. It seems impossible to do that much work secretly, without the building manager finding out. WTC7: The best defense is at http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm I found it unconvincing. 767 speed: The plane was descending 10,000 feet per minute -- a power dive. There is no evidence of 767 max speed. The best Pilots for 911 Truth came up with is RA990 power dive at 22,000 feet, for which they never give speed, only "equivalent dynamic effects." This is hand waving. The speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots (@15C). Two sources give the plane's speed at 510 and 542. That's only .77 to .82 Mach, which is below the conservative Boeing spec of .86 Mach. Actual limit is between .86 and .99 Mach. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_ ... 5.pdfWhere was Air Force: playing bureaucratic ass covering and fumbling, same as FEMA for a week after Katrina. It proves they were inept, not complicit. Reality: is what keeps us honest and defines sanity. We all share a single reality.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote: Fake planes: I saw no evidence of fake planes. I saw many broken links and videos that made the CT side look foolish. No evidence of fake planes? How about explaining what you just said a little more. Just saying that something is foolish doesn't make it so. How do aluminum planes slice into steel and concrete without even slowing down? The tail sections didn't even snap off! LOL See below for what I mean. Robert Wagner wrote: Media conspiracy: Turn off your TV; use internet instead. Yep. A media hoax. Whether they were all getting their information from one source or not is something I can't answer. What I do know is that what they showed was fake. I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but I also posted links right from those major media sources just in case someone like you might question whether the documentaries are showing the actual news footage. Robert Wagner wrote:Building collapse: I agree it was done with demolitions. It seems impossible to do that much work secretly, without the building manager finding out. So, you agree the buildings were collapsed with demolitions and yet it seems impossible to you that they could have done that much work secretly without the building manager finding out? That's what I've been SAYING! LOL The building "management" (whoever that is) was IN on it. Um...Silverstein? Robert Wagner wrote:WTC7: The best defense is at http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm I found it unconvincing. I found it unconvincing too. They still can't explain rationally how that 47-story tall building came down in 6.5 seconds. Robert Wagner wrote:767 speed: The plane was descending 10,000 feet per minute -- a power dive. There is no evidence of 767 max speed. The best Pilots for 911 Truth came up with is RA990 power dive at 22,000 feet, for which they never give speed, only "equivalent dynamic effects." This is hand waving. The speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots (@15C). Two sources give the plane's speed at 510 and 542. That's only .77 to .82 Mach, which is below the conservative Boeing spec of .86 Mach. Actual limit is between .86 and .99 Mach. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_ ... 75.pdfWhat power dive? Why do some of the supposed authentic videos show the plane coming straight in horizontally or at a slight angle? (See the short video below.). There was no power dive, at least no power dive involving commercial jets. The plane that hit the south tower, for example, comes in basically horizontally.THIS is a power dive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLKYr5hA6s8Also, I'm sorry, but those Boeing 767 cannot fly horizontally at basically sea level at 500+ mph. They just can't. I don't care what the speed of sound is at sea level. Robert Wagner wrote:The speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots (@15C). Two sources give the plane's speed at 510 and 542.I don't care what the speed of sound is at sea level. Boeing 767s cannot fly at sea level at the speed of sound. They'd fall apart. The air is too thick. Also, whatever "sources" your talking about are lying to you. The air is too thick, and the engines would need something like six times the thrust. There was no power dive as evidenced by the news coverage. Robert Wagner wrote:Where was Air Force: playing bureaucratic ass covering and fumbling, same as FEMA for a week after Katrina. It proves they were inept, not complicit. You can believe what you want if it makes you feel better. I don't buy it, and, by the way, FEMA was there the night before.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzUgHmFngIkRobert Wagner wrote:Reality: is what keeps us honest and defines sanity. We all share a single reality.We certainly do share a single reality. It's how we perceive reality that counts. For example, for some people, the magic bullet theory is reality. For others, it's ten pounds of bulls**t stuffed into a five pound bag, just bursting at the seams. It's the same with 9/11 for me. I can't accept that the Air Force, for example, was just inept. It doesn't make sense.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote: Fake planes: I saw no evidence of fake planes. I saw many broken links and videos that made the CT side look foolish. No evidence of fake planes? How about explaining what you just said a little more. Just saying that something is foolish doesn't make it so. How do aluminum planes slice into steel and concrete without even slowing down? The tail sections didn't even snap off! LOL See below for what I mean. You are thinking of the relative hardness (scratch resistance) of steel and aluminum, which would be an issue if the plane were used as a cutting tool. You should be thinking of tensile strength of steel pipes, because the plane was used as a hammer or projectile. Here is an example, which is pretty close to what happened. Suppose you build a table whose legs are four wooden dowels half an inch in diameter. You put a thousand pounds of stuff on the table top and the legs hold. That's because wood has high compression strength, or what engineers call bulk modulus. Now hit one of the table legs in the middle with a hammer. It breaks and the table tips over. Note that it breaks as easily with a hardened steel hammer as with a rubber hammer. In both cases, the breaking is a function of the hammer's mass times velocity squared, not its hardness. You're not cutting the dowel, you're stretching it until it breaks. Wood has low tensile strength, which engineers call Young's modulus. If you wanted to make table legs resistant to a blow from the side, you would have used thin steel I-beams. You didn't because the engineering spec talked about supporting weight, not resisting blows from the side. Notice the hammer's velocity is squared. If you could increase the hammer's speed from 20 mph to 600 mph, it wouldn't be 30 times stronger, it would be 900 times stronger. If you could move a two pound hammer at 1,000 feet per second, it would be equivalent to swinging a one ton hammer. Do you imagine a one ton hammer could break a 30 foot steel pipe? Consider that a Boeing 767 is a 400,000 pound hammer. Weren't the WTC buildings built to withstand an airplane crash? Yes, but that tensile strength is in the central core, not the peripheral frame. The spec didn't say the plane would bounce off, it said the building wouldn't topple nor collapse on itself. It didn't .. not from the plane crash. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote: Media conspiracy: Turn off your TV; use internet instead. Yep. A media hoax. Whether they were all getting their information from one source or not is something I can't answer. What I do know is that what they showed was fake. I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but I also posted links right from those major media sources just in case someone like you might question whether the documentaries are showing the actual news footage. There is a foolproof way to coordinate media -- make it happen in reality. It has the additional benefit of agreement between media reports and eyewitnesses, plus they don't have to kill snitches. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:Building collapse: I agree it was done with demolitions. It seems impossible to do that much work secretly, without the building manager finding out. So, you agree the buildings were collapsed with demolitions and yet it seems impossible to you that they could have done that much work secretly without the building manager finding out? That's what I've been SAYING! LOL The building "management" (whoever that is) was IN on it. Um...Silverstein? Here is evidence: scientists find active nano-thermite in WTC dust gathered from multiple sites.http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/artic ... .pdfTurner Construction had offices in the basement of WTC 1, did extensive refurbishing on structural beams in elevator shafts and also fireproofing sprayed on beams. It was one of the contractors who hauled away wreckage. It has extensive experience with demolition, often works with Controlled Demolitions Inc (CDI), does classified work for DoD, and is the only source for nano-thermite in NYC. Its CEO in 2001 was Tom Lepper, who went on to become mayor of Dallas and was named to President's Commission on White House Fellows by George Bush.Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:767 speed: The plane was descending 10,000 feet per minute -- a power dive. There is no evidence of 767 max speed. The best Pilots for 911 Truth came up with is RA990 power dive at 22,000 feet, for which they never give speed, only "equivalent dynamic effects." This is hand waving. The speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots (@15C). Two sources give the plane's speed at 510 and 542. That's only .77 to .82 Mach, which is below the conservative Boeing spec of .86 Mach. Actual limit is between .86 and .99 Mach. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_ ... 75.pdfWhat power dive? Why do some of the supposed authentic videos show the plane coming straight in horizontally or at a slight angle? (See the short video below.). There was no power dive, at least no power dive involving commercial jets. The plane that hit the south tower, for example, comes in basically horizontally.THIS is a power dive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLKYr5hA6s8Also, I'm sorry, but those Boeing 767 cannot fly horizontally at basically sea level at 500+ mph. They just can't. I don't care what the speed of sound is at sea level.You are seeing the tail end of a power dive, after it leveled off. A bicycle can't go faster than 30 mph on level ground (without drafting), but it can easily hit 60 mph coasting down a steep hill. After it hits level ground at the bottom of the hill, it will continue going 60 mph for awhile. Descending 10,000 feet per minute is a 20% grade. One of the steepest LONG roads in the US descends 5,000 feet in 10 miles, from Cloudcroft to Alamogordo NM. That's only 10%. (I've done it several times.) The steepest roads in San Francisco are less than 20%. Pittsburgh and Los Angeles have a few short roads over 20%. They have stairways instead of sidewalks.The plane was in a steep dive expressly to build up speed greater than it could achieve in level flight. Remember, the speed of the hammer is squared. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:The speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots (@15C). Two sources give the plane's speed at 510 and 542.I don't care what the speed of sound is at sea level. Boeing 767s cannot fly at sea level at the speed of sound. They'd fall apart. The air is too thick. Also, whatever "sources" your talking about are lying to you. The air is too thick, and the engines would need something like six times the thrust. There was no power dive as evidenced by the news coverage.Thrust came from gravity. They were only going .8 Mach. In the real world, they didn't fall apart. My lying reference was NTSB, who got it from radar data.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_ ... 175.pdfYou just said we can't believe news coverage. Those were cartoon planes, remember?Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:Where was Air Force: playing bureaucratic ass covering and fumbling, same as FEMA for a week after Katrina. It proves they were inept, not complicit. You can believe what you want if it makes you feel better. I don't buy it, FAA knew AA11 was hijacked at 8:20, because a flight attendant told them. They notified NORAD at 8:38, 18 minutes later. Fighters were scrambled from Otis at 8:46, same time WTC 1 was hit, airborne at 8:53.FAA suspected UAL175 was hijacked at 8:47, because it changed transponder code and flight path. They notified NORAD at 9:03, 16 minutes later, same time the plane hit WTC 2. FAA knew AA77 was hijacked at 8:47. They notified NORAD/NEADS at 9:34, 38 minutes later, when NEADS called THEM to ask whether they had missing planes. The plane hit the Pentagon at 9:37 or 9:32, depending on whom you believe. FAA suspected UAL93 was hijacked at 9:28. They called NORAD at 10:07, 39 minutes later, 4 minutes after the plane had already crashed in Shanksville. Fighters were launched from Langley at 9:30, but no one told them where to go nor what to look for. So they flew their training route over the Atlantic Ocean until someone told them what to do at 10:00. With government like this, diversionary exercises and stand-downs proved to be superfluous.