{MEK Note: This is an excerpt of a longer article. I have noted in red a number of items that further suggest a military jet flyover! There was a very fast & low flight path, plane does acrobatic roll-over stunts along with creating noise to get witness attention (an airline with a struggle in cockpit can do this?), this was a regular frequent military flight path near Shanksville, a crash site hidden from witness views, lack of significant plane parts & bodies, clothes and small debris scattered on ground & hanging in trees (exploding hole filled with appropriate junk). FBI state tasks are of sealing off “crash site” first day and then investigative search set for next day. There is no temporary morgue or any search for survivors or bodies taken. Most importantly the immediate task the first day is to seal off “crash” site from public which even extends to nearby airport. Then there is the mention of a five mile trail of debris on way to “crash site” and mention & denial of a possible shoot down of the plane. Was this a secondary cover in case no one was willing to believe the “crash site” story? CIA always has believable back-up stories in case first fails!]
Rescue workers look in vain for signs of life in a crater of United Airlines flight 93 in Somerset County. (Franka Bruns, Post-Gazette)
It was there, just outside the tiny town of Shanksville, that a United Airlines jetliner crashed, killing all 45 people aboard in what appeared to be the fourth and final stroke of a choreographed wave of terrorism that was equated to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200 en route from New Jersey to San Francisco, fell from the sky near Shanksville at 10:06 a.m., about two hours after it took off, leaving a trail of debris five miles long
The participants discussed a possible shoot down of the aircraft, said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a statement denying that United Flight 93 had been shot down by U.S. military aircraft.
minutes before the plane went down Westmoreland County Emergency Operations Center intercepted a frantic cell phone call made to 911 by a passenger aboard the doomed flight. “We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!” Agents seized the 911 dispatch tape from as part of their investigation.
Investigators who swarmed to the scene were sparing no effort to uncover the truth. The FBI is coordinating the investigation… One special evidence response team from Pittsburgh went to the crash three more teams are on their way to the site. Investigators will be around the clock collecting evidence and performing the gruesome task of body identification.
Flight 93 may have gotten as far west as Ohio before turning around. The Cleveland mayor’s office told The Associated Press that an airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland-area airspace “We were in communication with the FBI and the FAA about the jet as to where it was,” Murphy said. “They had the jet coming out of Cleveland and losing it when it came into Pittsburgh airspace, and there was no communication with it, and we were concerned.”
Dennis Fritz, the air traffic manager, got a call from controllers in Cleveland warning the Johnstown airport — which has no radar of its own — that a large aircraft was 20 miles south and had suddenly turned on a heading for Johnstown. “It was an aircraft doing some unusual maneuvers at a low level, which is unusual for an aircraft that size,” Fritz to believe that the plane was flying somewhere in the 2,800 foot high ridges in that part of the Allegheny front.
Eric Peterson, 28, heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low. The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end. Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.
Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township. “There was a crater in the ground that was really burning,” Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning. Peterson said he saw no bodies, but there also was no sign of life. Two curiosity seekers were arrested for trying to get through the perimeter, one of them aboard an all-terrain vehicle.
Jeff Killeen, an FBI spokesman from Pittsburgh, said the main thrust of the agency’s investigation will begin today… Yesterday, the priority of the FBI and state troopers was to protect the scene.
“The FBI will follow every lead to bring this case to a successful conclusion,” Investigators did not locate the plane’s flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder. There were 20 FBI agents on hand yesterday, and another 30 were expected last night. The contingent of 100 state troopers was expected to swell to 150. They planned to spend last night spaced out along the crash perimeter within each other’s eyesight to ward off curiosity seekers and prevent anyone from tampering with evidence.
Also on hand were officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration and United Airlines. A team from the National Transportation Safety Board was en route. Killeen said agents were looking for facilities in the area to use as repositories for evidence and human remains, noting that no morgue had been established.
Last night police and National Guard sealed off the airport to regular traffic, at one point shutting down state Route 219 a four-lane highway that is only 500 yards from airport property. It was later reopened, but access roads to the airport remained sealed.
Numerous eyewitnesses see and hear Flight 93 just before it crashes in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
[MEK Note: It doesn’t seem like anyone actually saw plane crash as the stated crash site was hidden by a ridge and trees (similar blind crash site as at Pentagon). Plane flying fast and low in military flight path. Was this Air Force jet purposely getting witness attention and then flying directly over “crash” site for effect while site is simultaneously blown with various planted plane parts and flight recorder boxes ( or were they placed later to find)! Sure explains the lack of plane parts and bodies! Looks like “Let’s roll” passenger revolt was only staged (on phone and cockpit recordings) for that “Patriotic rally Americans around the flag” effect. Although I have no doubt those passengers and the other plane passengers would have done this heroic act if they had ever really had the chance!”]
Terry Butler, in Stoystown, sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. He will later recall: “It was moving like you wouldn’t believe. Next thing I knew, it makes a heck of a sharp right-hand turn.” The plane then appears to be trying to climb to clear a ridge, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 9/12/2001]
Witnesses Hear the Plane’s Engines – Laura Temyer of Hooversville will recall: “I didn’t see the plane but I heard the plane’s engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane’s engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn’t hear the plane’s engine any more after that.” [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 11/15/2001] Charles Sturtz, who lives a half-mile from the crash site, will recall seeing the plane heading southeast with its engines running. No smoke can be seen. “It was really roaring, you know, like it was trying to go someplace, I guess,” he will say. [WPXI 11 (PITTSBURGH), 9/13/2001] Michael Merringer, who is two miles from the crash site, will describe, “I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/12/2001] Tim Lensbouer, who is 300 yards away from the crash site, will recall, “I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore.” [PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 9/12/2001]
Witnesses See the Plane Flying Upside Down – Rob Kimmel, who is several miles from the crash site, sees Flight 93 flying overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. “I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom,” he will say. [LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 210-211] Eric Peterson of Lambertsville sees the plane flying overhead unusually low. It seems to be turning end-over-end as it drops out of sight behind a tree line. [PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 9/12/2001] Bob Blair of Stoystown sees the plane spiraling and flying upside down, not much higher than the treetops, before crashing. [DAILY AMERICAN, 9/12/2001] Plane Is Heard Making Strange Sounds – An unnamed witness hears two loud bangs before he sees the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. [NEWS CHANNEL 5 (CLEVELAND), 9/11/2001] Tom Fritz, who is about a quarter-mile from the crash site, hears a sound that “wasn’t quite right,” he will recall, and looks up into the sky. The plane “dropped all of a sudden, like a stone,” going “so fast that you couldn’t even make out what color it was,” he will say. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 9/12/2001] Lee Purbaugh, who works at a scrapyard overlooking the crash site, will describe seeing the plane crashing, saying: “There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head—maybe 50 feet up.… I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived.” [INDEPENDENT, 8/13/2002] Plane Is Seen Making a Sudden Plunge – Linda Shepley hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. [ABC NEWS, 9/11/2001] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down and the plane plunges into the earth. She will say she has an unobstructed view of Flight 93’s final two minutes. [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 11/15/2001] Kelly Leverknight in Stonycreek Township will recall: “There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane.” The plane is heading east and sounds like it is flying low. [DAILY AMERICAN, 9/12/2001; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 9/12/2001] Tim Thornsberg, who is working in a strip mine near the crash site, will recall: “It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds… and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees.” [WPXI 11 (PITTSBURGH), 9/13/2001]
Some people will claim that these witness accounts support the idea that Flight 93 was hit by a missile. [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 11/15/2001]
Leverknight, whose home is a couple of miles from the Flight 93 crash site, will note that planes flying over Shanksville are nothing unusual because the area is a “military flight corridor.” [DAILY AMERICAN, 9/12/2001]
Smoke rising, minutes after Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania. [Source: CNN]Exactly when Flight 93 crashes is unclear. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03 a.m. [NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND, 9/18/2001] The 9/11 Commission gives an exact time of 11 seconds after 10:03 a.m. It will claim this “time is supported by evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analysis, and infrared satellite data.”
It does note that “[t]he precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 6/17/2004] However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army and drafted by scientists Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum to determine when the plane crashed will conclude that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m. [KIM AND BAUM, 2002 ; SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 12/9/2002] The discrepancy is so puzzling that the Philadelphia Daily News will publish an article on the issue, titled “Three-Minute Discrepancy in Tape.” This notes that leading seismologists agree on the 10:06 a.m. time, give or take a couple of seconds. [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 9/16/2002]
The New York Observer will note that, in addition to the seismology study, “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as [former Inspector General of the Transportation Department] Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’” [NEW YORK OBSERVER, 2/15/2004]
The Flight 93 crash site. [Source: Associated Press]Numerous individuals who see the Flight 93 crash site notice a lack of plane wreckage there: Jon Meyer, a reporter with WJAC-TV, will later describe: “I was able to get right up to the edge of the crater.… All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane.… There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts. The crater was about 30 to 35 feet deep.” [NEWSEUM ET AL., 2002, PP. 148] According to Mark Stahl, who goes to the crash scene: “There’s a crater gouged in the earth, the plane is pretty much disintegrated. There’s nothing left but scorched trees.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/11/2001] Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police will comment: “If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap. There’s nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It’s just littered with small pieces.” [PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 9/12/2001] Scott Spangler, a photographer with a local newspaper, will recall: “I didn’t think I was in the right place. I was looking for a wing or a tail. There was nothing, just this pit.… I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing.” [NEWSEUM ET AL., 2002, PP. 149] Paula Pluta, a local resident who headed to the site promptly after the crash occurred, will describe seeing “[j]ust a big crater that looked… like something had gone into it, and it rolled the dirt up around and buried itself.” “I’m looking around for plane wreckage and there’s nothing,” she will recall, adding: “I just stood there in amazement. Where did this thing go?” [MCMILLAN, 2014, PP. 107] Dave Berkebile, another local resident, arrives at the site shortly after Pluta does. However, he cannot see any large airplane parts there. “The biggest chunk of debris he identified,” according to journalist and author Tom McMillan, “was a cooling unit that was maybe eight inches by 12 inches.” [MCMILLAN, 2014, PP. 107] According to Ron Delano, a local who rushes to the scene after hearing about the crash: “If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated.” [PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, 9/12/2001] Gabrielle DeRose, a news anchor with KDKA-TV, views the crash site from a hill overlooking it. She will comment: “It was very disturbing to think all the remains just disintegrated…. There were no large pieces of airplane, no human remains, no baggage.” [SYLVESTER AND HUFFMAN, 2002, PP. 160-161] Local assistant volunteer fire chief Rick King, who sees the crater at the crash site, will say, “Never in my wildest dreams did I think half the plane was down there.” King sends his men into the woods to search for the plane’s fuselage, but they keep coming back and telling him: “Rick. There’s nothing.” [LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 216] Bob Craig of the FBI’s evidence-gathering team will explain what is supposed to have happened when Flight 93 hit the ground. “Turn the picture of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on its side, and, for all intents and purposes, the face of the building is the strip mine in Shanksville [where Flight 93 crashed],” he will say. [LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 260] When the plane’s two black boxes are later discovered (see September 13-14, 2001), they are reportedly found 15 and 25 feet inside the crater. [LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 217; WASHINGTON POST, 5/12/2002]
[MEK Note: Once you know that WTC buildings were all brought down by demolition (proven beyond any doubt), then logically the planes crashing into towers could hardly be the airlines AA11 and UA175 of 9/11. First there is no way terrorists had anything to do with demolitions! A Government Team (GT) whoever they were had access to plant the sophisticated demolition explosives. GT would not be praying that 19 hijackers would be able to seize the airlines and fly them avoiding U.S. air force security defense and actually hit towers. That is not how a “CIA” GT would operate. Everything was set for planes to hit Towers on that morning. The Towers could not be brought down without plane crashes! Planes hitting Towers had to be guaranteed to happen! Many known facts prove this logical thinking is true! Thus, there were no hijackings and no actual hijackers. Drones would be the secure method to have planes actually strike the towers and reach the Pentagon! Witnesses and all the evidence demonstrate no plane hit the Pentagon!]
[MEK Note: I believe Comments below in RED disprove the theory that the planes had to be made from computer graphics. Planes hit the Towers but they weren’t the airlines. Traveling too fast for sea level flying and with inexperienced first time pilots of large planes. These were large drones made to simulate airlines probably with hardened nose]
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago““a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY
8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY
9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY
12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY
9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY
9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply
8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY
9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY
12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY
12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY
CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY
9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY
9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY
9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY
9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY
9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY
9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY
A romantic drama centered on two new lovers: Tyler, whose parents have split in the wake of his brother’s suicide, and Ally, who lives each day to the fullest since witnessing her mother’s murder.
R | 111 min | Action, Drama, History 7.6 Rate 90 Metascore
A real-time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on September 11th, 2001 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.
R | 122 min | Documentary, Drama, War 7.5 Rate 67 Metascore
Michael Moore’s view on what happened to the United States after September 11 and how the Bush Administration allegedly used the tragic event to push forward its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Into the Fire follows the story of Walter Hartwig, a lieutenant in the New York City Harbor Unit, who finally comes to terms with what is really important about this life.
Not Rated | 89 min | Documentary 6.5 Rate 65 Metascore
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, Paul McCartney travels through the streets of New York and organizes a benefit concert.
A man who lost his family in the September 11 attack on New York City runs into his old college roommate. Rekindling the friendship is the one thing that appears able to help the man recover from his grief.
R | 157 min | Drama, History, Thriller 7.4 Rate 95 Metascore
A chronicle of the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy S.E.A.L.s Team 6 in May 2011.
Pre takes place four days after 9/11 in New York City. A theatre ensemble struggles to decide whether or not to be the first play to go back up after the attack.
On September 11th, 2001, 38 planes headed to New York City were diverted to Gander, Newfoundland, Canada. A town of 9,000 took in 7,000 passengers for 4 days until American airspace reopened.
After placing an ad on September 10th, a young man living in SoHo struggles to find a new roommate and keep his emotional balance in the weeks following 9/11.
Gabriel and five friends are stranded on his family farm on a day of national tragedy that forces them to confront their fears and ideals. Meanwhile the ghosts of Gabriel’s great … See full summary »
Robert and Alison Logan were married less than a year when Alison boarded American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Later that morning, Robert watched in horror as… See full summary »
An investigation of the 9/11 events by a Russian-American journalist and a father of a 9/11 victim implicates the US government in the attacks. Alex Prokop, a successful journalist, … See full summary »
A New York mayor tries to cut back the city’s crime and social problems, all in the face of his own battle with cancer, the tragedy of the September 11th Attacks and his troubled marriage.
The story of a fire captain who lost eight men in the collapse of the World Trade Center and the editor who helps him prepare the eulogies he must deliver.
The morning of September 11, 2001 is shown through multiple video cameras in New York City, from the moment the first WTC tower is hit until after both towers collapse.
A real life documentary following the events of September 11 from an insider’s view, through the lens of James Hanlon and two French filmmakers who were in Manhattan that one day.
The Falling Man is a documentary that examines one of the many images that were circulated by the press immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. The … See full summary »
TV-14 | 120 min | Family, Fantasy, History 7.6 Rate
On 9/11 2001 two planes American 11 united 175 hit the World Trade Center and many people died and jumped to their deaths some survived until the tower fell.
Inside 9/11 provides insight into the events that led up to 9/11 by tracing the timeline from al Qaeda’s earliest origins through the aftermath of 9/11 and the ongoing investigation.
A nine-year-old amateur inventor, Francophile, and pacifist searches New York City for the lock that matches a mysterious key left behind by his father, who died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
A cynical, alcoholic flight attendant and a Pakistani-American child prodigy find themselves both thrown together in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks.
Terry Butler, in Stoystown, sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. He will later recall: “It was moving like you wouldn’t believe. Next thing I knew, it makes a heck of a sharp right-hand turn.” The plane then appears to be trying to climb to clear a ridge, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. [
Smoke rising, minutes after Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania. [Source: CNN]Exactly when Flight 93 crashes is unclear. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03 a.m. [
The Flight 93 crash site. [Source: Associated Press]Numerous individuals who see the Flight 93 crash site notice a lack of plane wreckage there:
