I'm trying to learn about 9-11, can you help me??

[converted_democrat]

I have been on the board for awhile, but I just recently discovered the "dungeon." I have always questioned the official story that we were fed, and I want to know more. Can you help me by posting what you consider to be the most valuable info? Do not assume that I "know" anything, and explain it to me as you would a 3 year old.. Thank you in advance..

[MercutioATC]

1. Start here for AAL77 (Pentagon crash) info:

It's a report written by engineers who actually examined the crash site in person...no wild assumptions based on blurry photos:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html



After you read a few of our resident CTist posts, try these links:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html



Then, look at posts by professionals on this Forum (pilots, air traffic controllers, civil and aviation engineers, etc). You won't find many disciples of the various conspiracy theories thrown around here.


Most of us non-CT folk agree that the government has lied about various things. We agree that the "official story" is full of errors. We just don't feel that that adds up to this administration creating 9/11. They're certainly responsible...they had advance warnings that they chose not to heed and they managed things terribly, but that doesn't mean they planned it (nor does it mean that they attached "pods" or "fuel sprayers" to planes or used "holograms" to fake the crashes.....)

Welcome to the dungeon. If you need any air traffic control questions answered, I believe that I'm the only civilian ATC on this forum. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Enjoy!

:hi:

[reprehensor]

2. The 9/11 Commission Report is a Whitewash.

Last summer Rep. McKinney gathered testimony from a bunch of Citizens and intel experts who are critical of the Report, some of their testimony has been entered into the Congressional Record.

You can read loads of transcripts from her briefing at my blog;

http://www.gnn.tv/B12001

Recommended Reading;

"The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" both by David Ray Griffin.

"The War on Freedom" and "The War on Truth" both by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed.

I highly recommend this video; "The Great Deception" by Barry Zwicker, you can watch it at Google video (broadband recommended);
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623&q=the+great+conspiracy

Here is a new site with some good articles on it;

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There. That should keep you busy.

[Bushwick Bill]

3. Here is a little background

I tried to put together a little introduction here on a political subdivision of a sports message board.
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1656119&postcount=2

I am big on hitting the put options, Sibel Edmonds, wargames exercises, spiked FBI investigations, ignored intel warnings and WTC 7 issues. Just be wary of the fact that the physical evidence issues can bog you down. I am absolutely on the fence about the Pentagon issue, but don't believe for a minute a guy who couldn't rent a Cessna a month earlier flew that plane. I tend to think the Flight 93 crash location was faked, and I have no opinion whatsoever on alleged demolition of the North and South towers. To me, the most fascinating issue is whether the alleged hijackers flew the planes. Some decent evidence exists that they were patsies (see reprehensor's interview links with Webster Tarpley), but then you also have other reports that the guys may have received military training, so maybe they were super skilled pilots? :shrug:

[Ferry Fey]

5. Zakheim. Raytheon.

"Some bad men flew airplanes into buildings and knocked them down. Lots of people died, and we are all sad and mad about it. But don't worry, Mommy will keep you safe" (fingers crossed behind back at that last one, because so much is out of Mommy's control).

That's for three year olds. Talking to grownups, we won't be able to simplify things that much.

Some things that are worth a great deal more study:

A/ The role Dov Zakheim plays in so many aspects of this
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html#zakheim

B/ The role Raytheon plays in this
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1370

C/ The question of who benefits by the destruction of particular kinds of paperwork at the sites which were destroyed

D/ The issue of the war game exercises being held on September 11

E/ The way that the plane paths may have indicated knowledge of blind spots in radar coverage

F/ The fact that some of the alleged hijackers had training on US military bases

G/ Discrepancies in the airpline passenger lists that are still unexplained

[pauldp]

4. Read Paul Thompson's 911 time line

at cooperativeresearch.org

It is very well sourced. A plethora of underreported MSM stories. It may take you a while to get through it, but it is worth it and
in the end you can draw your own conclusions.

[rman]

6. WTC 7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x68086

[LARED]

7. To learn about the WTC attack see here,

http://wtc.nist.gov/

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemmng from the investigation.

[libertypirate]

9. Lesson one there are mules who never leave....

When you say you always question the official version and yet they hand you the official version you know they are not here to help you answer anything.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libertypirate]

11. Yes mule have you ever tried to move a mule that doesn't want to move? /nt

[LARED]

13. Not a mule exactly

but there are a number of folks that hold to incredibly fanciful stories about 9/11 no matter how much evidence is presented that invalidates their position.

[Andre II]

14. Evidence

As I want to learn about 911 as well:
Do you mind one day to come up with links to your claim that at the crash site of UA 93:


There are numerous accounts of body parts found at the scene. People at the scene believe there was a plane, believe there were body parts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x67776

Just curious.

[LARED]

15. If you read the link you provided in that thread

there are references to finding body parts.

[Andre II]

16. Great, that you've read the link!

So, you don't go with your statement "that people were convinced that there was a plane" anymore??

[LARED]

17. I guess I have to ask

why would you say that?

[Andre II]

18. Well

then links please.

[LARED]

19. Again the link YOU provided indicates plane parts were found

Would you like a link to your link? Did you lose your link? Did you read your own link?

Inquiring minds want to know what in the world you are talking about.

[Andre II]

28. LOL

Show me just a single eyewitness that talks about being convinced that there was a plane that crashed?
We're certainly not talking about a part of an engine that was myseriously discovered two or three days after 911 and we're not talking about a small part of a fuselage that no eyewitness on 911 saw and that was found on an unspecified day.
So, pray, LARED, enlighten us and give us just a SINGLE eyewitness that was so damn convinced that a plane caused the crater.
And let's stress btw the fact that all human remains that were found have been extremely small and can hardly be taken as a convincing proof that UA 93 crashed.
Any idea at what altitude UA 93 started its nosedive?
Any idea at what angle the plane crashed?
Any idea about the size of the crater?
Any idea why the grass around the crater is unburned?
And maybe we should continue the discussion in the thread which I've linked and you're read.

[Rich Hunt]

27. I am not a 'mule'

I am a victim of four years of stalking and attempted murder.

Why don't you PM me, get my address and phone number and give this attempted murder victim your insults to
her face if you're so 'concerned' about 9/11.

Care to hear the REAL story, or would you care to insult the whistleblowers again?

-I- am a whistleblower. You want the truth, you show people like me some
respect.

Do you think attempted murder is funny?

I dare you to come to my house and call me a 'mule' and laugh about my
attempted murder to my face, just like the callous, murder-apologist
asshole moderator who deleted my post and doesn't give a shit if I
live or die. How long before that scientologist asshole deletes -THIS-
post, instead of offering a properly 'liberal' expression of concern.

Lord you terrorist pieces of shit aren't even TRYING to act like
liberal, civic, open-minded Democrats on THIS board.
You MUST be guilty of something. After all, you tried to kill me.

Go ahead, callous asshole. PM me and tell me how much
you don't care when a long-time REAL Democrat and DU-er
nearly dies, along with her father. I really want to hear your
slimy Scientological apologies, just like you whored yourselves
at the World Trade Center, spitting on the victims while
shilling for your murderous cult.

They tried to kill my father too - he works undercover.

My life is in danger - let's see how many of you oh-so-empathic
and 'concerned' assholes really DO something about it.

The board has been fucking hijacked. Don't be a dumb asshole and pretend
it isn't possible.

You liars stop covering for all of the post-9/11 stalking and death threats.

When you acknowledge the REAL bullshit that's been going on,
that's how 'credible' we know you are.

[libertypirate]

31. I think you got me on the wrong side of this issue I think

If there is anything that I have learned about this world it's that I don't trust anyone; and I am sorry for that. As your story is very significant and I can only say that fear is the main mode of business for the freaks that run the show right now. However fear is about both the past and the future and regaurdless it's ment to effect what you do now. I too agree that the callous unfeeling ass wipes who play games with these truths do effect the real world but I would contend that they also don't feel enough to understand the pain they cause others. They say ignorance is bliss, well and self propelled ignorance is the only way to remain free.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5365.html#27

The 'mules' have been doing what they do here a long time. Calling them out is the only way to show their true colors they are cunning and tearing down this country fact by inconvient fact.

Speaking of inconvient how about a little Anthrax.
http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/01/anthrax-hello-anybody-home-hello.html

I wish the whistleblowers would understand one point secrets rarely exist for the greater good; they are generally for the protection of the very few.

[Rich Hunt]

21. no, you're right

Scientists and engineers NEVER have ANY truth to offer anyone.

Especially not those whores who hold down government jobs.

And all engineers are liars. Or at least it sure looks like the terrorists
had that in mind when they took down the WTC - sure looks
like they wanted to 'take down' people's faith in government,
science and professionalism, too.

Ain't that right, my little hired disinfo specialist? Science is bunk.

Funny how these self-styled 'skeptics' (who just turned into 'skeptics'
overnight once the subject of 9/11 came up - way to follow
the infiltrator's playbook and 'co-opt their language') don't
follow the rules of crime investigation.

In other words, conduct yourselves like REAL logicians and SKEPTICS
and come up with a fully fleshed out scenario.

You can start by giving us a motive, preferably one that
hasn't been put in your mouths by some oil company
or drug lord or whoever it is you people work for.

Sorry, I've spent my whole life being a dissident and skeptic -
I won't have you braindead whores suddenly pretending
you're persecuted for your beliefs. I know what that is,
and I know your phony 'skepticism' is just that.

Someone needs to tell you what you are doing and who you really work for.

[MrSammo1]

24. Are mules.......

anything like government shills?

;o)

[killtown]

47. Ha ha ha! Yeah, to learn about 9/11

just get the govt's side of the story!

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

8. Follow the money ...

Hi converted! Thanks for coming down into our cozy and allegedly crazy little dungeon.

The big problem with trying to understand 9/11 is that there really is not a single place with a single coherent counter theory about what happened. There are different "levels" of strangeness that different skeptics are willing to explore.

Some people explore alternative theories that focus on just how incredibly negligent the government would have to have been for 9/11 to be "allowed" to happen. Others focus on the anomalous collapse of the towers. Some people, whose ideas I personally am not comfortable with, believe that there were missiles under the planes that hit the WTC or that no plane hit the Pentagon.

I have recently been convinced that the most fruitful way of examining 9/11 is to focus on the role of money flows and intelligence services rather than physical evidence. So here's a primer on the money/intelligence aspects of 9/11.

Contrary to the official 9/11 story, the hijackers had the support of foreign governments other than the Taliban government in Afghanistan. According to the official 9/11 report, the hijackers were supported only by bin Laden's organization and possibly Afghanistan.

But in the weeks after 9/11, the Wall St. Journal and Times of India published investigative reporting showing that the hijackers were funded by the intelligence service of Pakistan, called the Inter-Service Inteligence agency (ISI). The ISI funded the hijackers through the same structures they used to fund militias in Afghanistan, as part of the ISI's long term strategy of controlling neighboring Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as supporting terrorist groups operating in Kashmir.

The head of the ISI at the time was Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. Gen. Ahmad sent about $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, which Atta used to pay for flight school training for the hijackers. Gen. Ahmad used an ISI operative and known terrorist, Saeed Sheikh as an intermediary. Ahmad ordered Sheikh to send the $100,000 from Dubai.

In other words, Mohammed Atta's paymaster was the head of Pakistan's ISI -- the equivalent of our CIA. But the ISI was deeply connected to the US CIA. The ISI had funneled billions of dollars from the CIA to the mujahedeen, al Qaeda and other anti-communist forces in Afghanistan since the Reagan administration until the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and thereafter.

Gen. Ahmad flew to Washington, DC on September 6, 2001, where he had high level meetings with his counterparts in the Pentagon, National Security Council, and State Department.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, at the very moment that the planes were crashing into the WTC, Gen. Ahmad, paymaster of the 9/11 hijackers, was having breakfast with Sen. Graham, and Rep. Porter Goss, chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. They admitted to the press that the subject matter of their breakfast meeting was "terrorism" emanating from Afghanistan.

Gen. Ahmad stuck around in DC to help the Pentagon plan the invasion of Afghanistan and to negotiate the terms of Pakistan's assistance with the newly launched "war on terror".

A Wall St. Journal reporter began to dig in the area of the money trail from Gen. Ahmad to Mohammed Atta. This reporting was aided by India's intelligence services, which were eager to leak the fact that their enemy's intelligence service was deeply involved in 9/11. The Wall St. Journal reporter confirmed the role of Gen. Ahmad with the FBI, which also became deeply interested in the connection.

The Wall St. Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, eventually flew to Pakistan to trace the money trail, between Gen. Ahmad and Mohammed Atta, but was kidnapped and beheaded by Ahmad's operative Saeed Sheikh.

Several months later, Goss would be appointed head of the CIA.

Well, little bites. This is just one aspect of the anamolous coincidences of 9/11.

[bobbieinok]

26. also to look at/consider

--why the extremely slow response to hijacked planes?

--why did W stay at grade school and subject kids to possible attack on the 'president'?

--why weren't the stock market finagles prior to 9-11 investigated?

--the adm attempted to stop congressional investigation of the attacks

--why did NO ONE lose his/her job b/c of 9-11 attack?

--why did W and adm ignore the many warnings from many different govts that 'something' was going to happen?

and then

--W's approval was extremely low before 9-11; afterward it was extrememly high

--govt had patriot act (very long) ready to go immediately

--9-11 'nicely' fits the necessity for a Pearl Harbor incident called for in the PNAC document

[stickdog]

12. Short & Sweet

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

[Rich Hunt]

20. also read...

You have to get the Commission Report too, if you're going to critique it.

Also get the 9/11 book by the staff of Der Spiegel : Inside 9/11.

The PBS special was good, also the Time-Life DVD.

Your local public library should have them, if they don't ask them to get them.

[jschurchin]

22. Here's a tip........

what ever you do pay NO attention to this acid dropping paranoid
http://www.democraticunderground.com.php?az=view_all&address=125x68395

[jschurchin]

30. Yeah, Yeah I know, learn how.......

to enter a proper link. Sorry, one to many blunt's when I was a kid. Here, try this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x68395

[MrSammo1]

23. Don't read any of these links.......

They were created by the government to validate their lies.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.h...


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_pl...

[MercutioATC]

25. Yeah, and they contain FACTS, too....

Stay awaaaaay from them. You might learn something.

:eyes:

[MrSammo1]

29. Yeah........

You'll learn how to lie using printed text and exclude physical facts.

[MercutioATC]

32. What "lies" are in the ASCE report? Name one.

I can show you misrepresentations and cherry-picked evidence in most (if not all) of the CT sites and flash videos.

Just gimme ONE lie in the ASCE report.

[MrSammo1]

33. There's no mention.......

of the missing vertical stabilizer mark on the wall.

Or the lack of "JET!"

[MercutioATC]

34. That's completely untrue. Have you READ the ASCE report?

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

and

"By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage. The design team charged with reconstructing the Pentagon was assessing the building and preparations were being made to demolish the area for reconstruction. Consequently, the BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire."


http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html


Geez, it's in plain English. Care to retract your last post?

[MrSammo1]

37. Why isn't there any damage to the upper floors?

Explaining 25 feet (at best) doesn't address the rest of the missing mark.

Just as they don't address the missing 170 feet or so feet of impact mark that a jet hitting on an angle would create on the wall.

[MercutioATC]

38. Again, have you READ it? They DO explain the wing damage.

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

You're simply wrong. There's not "170 feet or so" of impact mark "missing". The damage was not confined to the first floor. Please read the report before you ask me any more silly questions about it.

[MrSammo1]

45. You're simply wrong. There's not "170 feet or so" of impact mark "missing"

Again........there's no vertical stabilizer mark on the upper floors.

>>>no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.<<<

So why no mark?

I hope they pay you well?

[RayUbinger]

35. Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start

The famous video of the 1st Hit, at 8:46, shows directly that Tower 1 was struck by something that wasn't a large passenger jet:

http://missilegate.com

Even a 3-year-old should be able to tell a Cessna-sized blob from a big ol' jet airliner at only 7/10ths of a mile.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[MercutioATC]

36. Ooooh! With sub-links like these, how could I resist?

The Nazi Plan to Bomb New York
Meet Blob(s)11
Hitler's Flying Saucers
Reich of the Black Sun


Obviously a great source of unbiased information. :eyes:


converted_democrat, are you beginning to see what I mean?

[RayUbinger]

39. Why resist looking at the 1st Hit frames?

So you can insinuate that presenting VIDEO frames straight from the Naudet DVD is somehow BIASED?

This is NOT a 767:


The full sequence again is at
http://missilegate.com


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[MercutioATC]

40. I like this quote from the page you link to:

"Each of those thumbnails opens to a page with the original image, an image enhanced with Focus Magic photo restoration software, (which these thumbnails are made from) results from a Virtualdub "Find Edges" filter, and those results blended with the original image."

When you open the thumbnail, you get a page of 12 unlabeled blurry photos. Which are originals and which did the author alter (not that it would really matter, the pictures are too blurry to make much out anyway)?

The pic you posted in the message immediately preceding this post...is that an original image or an altered photo?

[menschmaam]

41. MercutioATC "thinks" Anything Blurry is Unreal??

Little carsize drones from blocks away are not going to appear "clear."
If they did, that would mean they were phoney and pasted in.

You cannot get "clear" images of something that small from such a distance.

The images are from the Naudet DVD.
The frames have been separated into fields.
Each DVD frame is made of two images made 1/60th of a second apart.
They have been separated out, as suggested by the Salters in one of their Webfairy debunkery efforts.
Their results can be checked against the Webfairy version of the Missilegate frames, but are one number off.
http://missilegate.com/indexx.htm
This is the Salter version, from a .mov file they published on their site.
I learned a lot from that round of debunkery.

The proof that the images have not been tampered with is that they reanimate smoothly back into video.
http://missilegate.com/video.htm

[MercutioATC]

43. No, I just think it's too blurry to discern what it is.

If I take a blurry picture of my thumb (so blurry that nobody can tell what it is), it's still my thumb. Presenting it as evidence of the characteristics of my thumb is silly, though...

[RayUbinger]

44. What it clearly ISN'T

It is much smaller than a 767. A 767's wings would span 3/4 of the Tower width.

It is shaped noticeably differently from a 767. A 767 is like a
+
or a
T
not a 45-degree-tilted
U.

Obviously, therefore, it isn't a 767.


Yes a picture of your thumb might be so blurry that nobody can tell what it is. But no picture of your THUMB could exhibit size and shape compatible with guessing it's a BENT ARM.


Just when we thought we were scared enough, now we have air traffic controllers who can't tell a Cessna-sized blob from a 767 at 7/10ths of a mile in broad daylight.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

[menschmaam]

46. People can't tell big from little

We've reached a point where physics professors only believe in gravity
if it's convenient and doesn't rock any boats.
People can't tell big from little.
They think the plane shape hole is made by plane cos it's the right size
for a Roadrunner style hole in the building.

Always, every instant of their lives, except when buried in saturday
morning cartoons, close things look bigger than the same thing farther away.
The same way things are seen by everybody else.
Thumb by your nose is huge, bigger than a doorway across the room.
It looks this way to everybody and always, no exceptions, through
mirrors or telescopes or cameras, always, always always closer stuff
looks bigger than the same stuff far away.
This is perspective, our common sense, used for measurment and mapmaking
because it remains consistant.

If there was a plane in the first hit footage big enough to fit that
plane shape hole, it would have looked even bigger when it was closer to
the camera.
It would have dominated the scene as it flew over the camera long and
low on it's relentless quest for destiny.

Nada.

Yet full grown adults don't care it's not there.
The newsbunnies say it's there in their newsbunny voices, and that makes
it be there.
This is absolutely no different that 11 year olds thinking heavier
things of the same size displace more.
At least they're not physics professors running around with tenure.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/missilegate

[RayUbinger]

42. Missilegate renderings explained

MercutioATC writes:

> When you open the thumbnail, you get a page of 12 unlabeled blurry photos.

They are enlargements (cropped closeups of the flying object) from the famous Naudet DVD (Region 1 (USA) Commemorative Edition, released 11SEP2002). Closeups are naturally blurry.

For labeling, click once more, which yields a QUAD of photos for EACH dvd frame: Original, Focus Master, Find Edges, and Find Edges Blended With Original.

On the first frame (Frame 0), for instance, this clicking yields the page
http://missilegate.com/000.htm
Those FOUR pix are all of the SAME frame. Once untouched, plus three more rendered different ways.

All four types of rendering can be reanimated back into video, as well:
http://missilegate.com/video.htm


> Which are originals and which did the author alter (not that it would really matter, the pictures are too blurry to make much out anyway)?

The blurriness in the internal details of the thing is irrelevant. Its SIZE and overall SHAPE are CRISPLY-CLEARLY *incompatible* with the hypothesis of it being a 767. A 767 is ENORMOUS, with wingspan about 3/4 of the Tower width, and MUCH more distinctly shaped than the striking object, which I call AMERICAN AIRFORCE BLOB 11.

> The pic you posted in the message immediately preceding this post...is that an original image or an altered photo?

It is the Focus Magic version of Frame 51 aka the Flash Frame. It is enhanced, but not tampered. The original looks quite similar:



As an actual Air Traffic Controller you of all people should be able to tell a Cessna-sized blob from a 767 at only 7/10ths of a mile.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com