Expert Says That Flimsy Aluminum Planes Should Have Harmlessly Bounced Off Of Solid Steel WTC Towers
Ezra O'Donnell Ph. D.
in the Plane Stories*
By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent summary of
evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers" but that about a
third of my article supports "the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers,
the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of
the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01." My article "thus weds the thesis of
controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175,
77, and 93 crashed where reported." Charlie Sheen believes that this is
"unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by
associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and
are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack - especially the
survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights."
Charlie Sheen's critique uses intimidating language-"lack scientific merit,
easily debunked, inherently offensive"-to denounce someone of a contrary mind
about the government story of hi-jacked jetliners. This article constitutes
part II of my reply to him and here is part I. Many 9/11 researchers would be
surprised to learn that the controversy over the reported crashes of Flights
11, 175, 77, and 93 has been scientifically resolved and settled in favor of
the official story. Whatever the state of disputation over crashes may be, the
WTC demolition theory is in no danger of being discredited. Let's make this
statement in bold letters so that Charlie Sheen and others worried about
"unity" within the vaunted 9/11 truth movement cannot fail to understand:
WTC demolition is truth inviolate, entirely separate from airliner crashes,
proven beyond reasonable doubt and newly supported by a BYU physicist who calls
for a serious investigation. It's the linchpin establishing that selected parts
of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, committed the crimes of
9/11.
But that unassailable fact of demolition does not settle all phases of this
complex scam, a commonplace in ongoing criminal investigations. Further, if
controversy over the role of airplanes and hijackers played in the 9/11 hoax is
"inherently offensive," then we are in worse shape than I thought. According to
William Rodriguez, the janitor who was last man out of the WTC and a much-
decorated hero, healing is impossible for survivors because only truth can
bring closure.
Step back from wrangling over planes for a moment and three things stand out:
o 9/11 was a colossal hoax, an egregious example of false-flag terrorism
o Corporate media dutifully sold the scam
o Four reported airliners vanished as if by magic
September 11 was a well-planned psy-op, deceptive at every level, intended to
manipulate public opinion, and wildly successful in the short run. Given this
background, virtually everything the government and its media stenographers
parrot to this day must be construed as deception until proven otherwise.
A primary question is, why investigate the crashes? Some writers object that
pursuing questions surrounding the planes is a sideshow and can only distract
from an uncompromising focus on the WTC demolitions. Yet the contention that
young Arabs hijacked specific flights and crashed them is a vital component of
the official fiction. New, rational understanding about the plane stories would
have great value, and that probably explains the intense resistance to such
scrutiny. Questions and answers about each plane crash matter for at least
three reasons:
o If the perpetrators get away with the plane hoaxes, it encourages more
audacious, blood-soaked scams
o The key to acquiescence in the government's war on terror and global
domination project is public belief in Arab hi-jacked airliners and crashes
o Exposure of airplane lies expands the proof that government committed the
9/11 atrocities
Some readers might object that critical examination of the official airplane
stories is silly because everybody saw a plane hit the WTC south tower that
morning. But that was only one of four events and seeing is not believing in a
world of special effects. Something fantastic shown on TV is not the end of a
criminal investigation but the beginning. Any important proposition delivered
by the media must be established by evidence independent of their sleight-of-
hand. They have been repeatedly exposed as liars, usually on behalf of the
social apparatus of compulsion they must appease daily to continue their high-
revenue businesses over the public airwaves. The media are not so much
"embedded" with the U.S. government and military as "in bed" with them. Even if
you reject this "echo chamber" view, there is no doubt that the technology
exists to insert prepared images into pixels in real time and make the images
prepared in advance look (mostly) real. The first-down stripe inserted in NFL
telecasts is an example. Some analysts argue that the WTC crashes were little
more than Tuesday-morning cartoons. Whether or not such a conclusion is
warranted, any proposed theory of what happened must be consistent with
physical evidence and conform to the principles of physics, the official
conspiracy theory included. We should put aside preconceptions based on pixels
and evaluate the physical evidence anew. Videos are discussed again toward the
end of the article.
It is not my burden to prove what really happened. That burden lies entirely
with apologists for the official plane story like Charlie Sheen. Mr. Charlie
Sheen, not the skeptics, must prove that four Boeing airliners crashed as
government and corporate media say they did. Proof must be verifiable,
corroborated, physical facts and not contradictory reports from witnesses,
including those bought off or pressured into a predetermined result by media
coverage that morning. Evidence offered by so-called plane huggers like Charlie
Sheen should be obvious and powerful. After all, land crashes by big planes in
populated areas are quite easy to identify. Skeptics, by contrast, need only
point to one verified fact contrary to the official theory to send it crashing
into oblivion. We have the facts to destroy the official account of each
reported incident.
Ordinarily it is child's play to confirm the exact identity of a commercial
plane in a crash investigation but, no, not on 9/11. Almost nothing was normal
that morning. Upon careful inspection, proof of the advertised crashes is
extremely hard to locate, especially since no air accident investigations were
conducted. After all, the administration "knew" who to go after immediately, so
why bother? The most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or
near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage at each crash site. Government
could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent
investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane's
maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes.
Charlie Sheen denounces "ideas that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea
that no planes hit the towers." Well, let's be careful here: the idea that
specific jetliners identified by government did not hit the WTC towers has an
initial "basis in evidence" because officials have not produced a single
airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration. Instead, we are
supposed to largely rely on the word of the conspirators themselves who staged
9/11 to pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements.
Four large commercial jets vanished within 80 minutes that morning,
unprecedented events in the northeastern United States. This is so incredible
that it rivals the first collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers on the
same day at the same site, the first ever "caused" by fires in history.
We cannot overlook these facts. Charlie Sheen dismisses critics of the "Big
Boeing Theory" (BBT) as unscientific even though he cannot Show Me Debris. In
scientific controversy, a plausible albeit unfashionable hypothesis cannot be
dismissed until falsified by a verified fact.
A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or
drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers
from outside. I do not have enough evidence yet to say. My present purpose is
not to posit what really happened but demonstrate what did not happen: the
official BBT theory about 767 and 757 crashes is full of holes. Physical facts
at every turn refute the official story about what gashed the towers, Pentagon
and Pennsylvania that morning.
So we have an intellectual contest. May the better scientist win. More
importantly, may the truth come out and justice eventually prevail.
Phantom Flights?
Before examining physical evidence-our principal task-we should note that many
facts about the alleged flights subvert the official account. The Colgan Air
flight 5930 Portland-Logan is riddled with questions and AA Flights 11 and 77
were not scheduled that day. Official BTS data are meticulously kept because of
liability issues. The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question-tail
numbers N334AA and N644AA-were deregistered January 14, 2002, but without
evidence they were involved in the alleged flights. Mohammed Atta supposedly
left a rental car at Portland International and absurdly left a second car full
of incriminating evidence at Logan, in other words, evidence was
planted/fabricated. And was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11?
The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day-tail number
N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93-were deregistered four years
later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be
deregistered within 24 hours.
Further fueling suspicion, all four cross-country flights had improbably light
loads with most seats vacant (approximately 52-86% empty) while the airlines,
government and media never produced credible passenger manifests, a routine
matter, and all inexplicably lacked Arab names. Mainstream media have reported
five to nine alleged hijackers alive while ongoing searches of birth, death and
marriage records suggest some passenger names were fake. Families of air crash
victims remain silent, suspicious behavior while government lies and spins, and
families of ground zero victims are outspoken. Searches thus far fail to show
hull insurance paid on the four jetliners. Then we have missing surveillance
video tapes, an incredible string of airport security/screening failures,
flights disappearing from conventional radar, missing flight data and cockpit
voice recorders, gagged flight controllers and firefighters, physically
impossible cell phone calls with fake dialogue ("I see water and buildings. Oh
my God! Oh my God!" "Hello, mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham"), not to
mention the technical impossibility of the purported Arabs piloting the planes
as advertised. Little if anything checks out in the official account about the
alleged flights. Corporate media steer a wide berth from these problems in
favor of canonizing the official conspiracy theory.
A Boeing 757 Vanishes into the Pentagon
Of the four 9/11 crashes, extensive research and facts most clearly refute the
government's "a-757-went-into-the-Pentagon" whopper. It is surprising that a
9/11 researcher like Jim Charlie Sheen defends this tale after it has been
thoroughly debunked by analysts far and wide, including Thierry Meyssan, David
Ray Griffin (chapter two in The New Pearl Harbor), Eric Hufschmid, A.K.
Dewdney, Ralph Omholt, Gerard Holmgren, and others.
But review the evidence we must. The question is, did AA Flight 77 crash into
the west side of the Pentagon at 9:37:46 on September 11, 2001 (aka Boeing 757
tail #N644AA, FAA-listed as destroyed and deregistered on January 14, 2002,
four months late)? The answer is no beyond a reasonable doubt. We know for sure
that something else blew holes in the Pentagon that morning, not a Boeing 757.
Compelling evidence includes the following:
o After two terrorist attacks on the WTC, a hijacked, unscheduled FL 77
supposedly wandered about the countryside for some 40 minutes undisturbed as
FAA bureaucrats and NORAD warriors went "hmmmm."
o The government released flight control transcripts on October 16, 2001, but
terminated Flight 77's path 20 minutes before allegedly crashing into the
Pentagon and excluded Flight 93 entirely (Thompson, The Terror Timeline, p.
505), so official lies were still being worked out.
o The Pentagon aircraft supposedly put on a stunt show, suggesting supreme
skill in the cockpit, yet the terrorist-pilot decided to fly into the low-
occupancy west side, bypassing the high-occupancy east where people like
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz might have been killed. Supposedly passing over a supine
White House which failed to launch its SAMs, the Pentagon too remained passive
as the aircraft performed an acrobatic 270 degree (or 330 degree according to
The 9/11 Commission Report) dive from 7,000 feet (an altitude known to the FAA
despite the transponder off), and smashed into outer ring E of the Pentagon
dead center at the first and second floors traveling at an alleged 530 mph
without an engine scraping the front lawn or disturbing construction material,
after downing a few lamp posts on the highway with their associated debris
pointed the wrong way and felling no lamp posts on the service road nearer the
Pentagon. Very neat (physically impossible too). Curiously, no uniformed Air
Force member was killed but the toll on Naval Intelligence and Army was high.
o Confusion has even reigned over the exact time of the Pentagon event. There
was no seismic signal from the alleged Pentagon crash to corroborate the time.
o Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, "may not have had a ticket" (Thompson, The
Terror Timeline, p. 493), was not listed on the passenger manifest and
"couldn't fly" (pp. 193-4). Professional pilots observe that it must have been
"a crack pilot in the left seat" or remote control doing the flying (p. 493).
Crack pilot John Lear doubts that he could have done such flying.
o A gaping hole in the government theory is that the Pentagon gash is too small
both vertically and horizontally. A Boeing 757's tail is 40 feet tall with
landing gear up while the maximum height of the hole in the Pentagon could not
have been 30 feet tall (two stories). The width of the hole was less than 20
feet before the faรงade collapsed, and windows above the impact hole were
intact. The largest width claimed for the hole is 65 feet-more like 52 feet
according to photographic expert Jack White-and that was after the faรงade
collapsed, not upon impact. The 757wingspan is 125 feet, about twice the width
of the post-faรงade-collapse hole. The Puny Pentagon Hole (PPH) falsifies the
government's "a-Boeing-757-hit-the-Pentagon" story. It is not a close call.
o A 757 flying a nearly flat flight profile (no dive) at 500+ mph as alleged
could not hit the Pentagon's ground floor because of an extremely powerful
ground effect cushion beneath it. At high speeds, the highly energized wing-tip
vortices and huge downwash sheet of a 200,000-lb. airliner make it physically
impossible to get closer to the ground than one-half wingspan or about 60' in
this case. The physical forces of the compressible gas called air, in other
words, stirred by a high-speed 757 traveling flat near the ground make it
impossible to land it at high speed. An aeronautical engineer proves this
proposition in an article at www.physics911.net, and he invites other engineers
and pilots to prove him wrong. Very few pilots have experienced the aerodynamic
effects in this rare flight domain because they normally only get this close to
the ground during landing at low speeds. Highly wing-loaded aircraft like the
Global Hawk or B1-B can land at high speed but not lightly wing-loaded aircraft
like the 757. In addition, a ground-hugging 757 spewing a 100,000-lb. thrust
jetblast behind it would have blown trailer trucks and people away, phenomena
absent in the flight path (see the DVD "Loose Change" for an example).
Irrefutable physics falsifies the Pentagon's lies.
o The linear path through rings E, D and C implies vehicle impact at an
approximate 45-degree angle. Geometry dictates that the hole would have to be
1.5 times a 757's wingspan, or 187 feet. Therefore, the hole necessary to
accommodate a 757 on a "non-magical" basis is three times the width of the
post-faรงade-collapse hole.
o While Jim Charlie Sheen maintains that 767s "shredded" in the WTC crashes, he
contends that a smaller 757 penetrated a three-foot thick concrete exterior
wall at the Pentagon and continued on through two more Pentagon rings, a
distance of at least 185 feet, poking a 9-foot diameter hole into C's inside
ring and apparently blowing two additional holes inside ring C. That means
little or no shredding and an amazingly strong fuselage with a 15-foot
diameter. The theories of aircraft crash behavior at the WTC and Pentagon
appear contradictory. According to photographic expert Jack White, photos do
not seem to show penetration into the second ring.
o Some apologists claim that the 757 vaporized on impact and left virtually no
wreckage while penetrating three rings, an amazing proposition and
unprecedented in crash history. Vaporization would require heat intense enough
to melt all the metal, including aluminum, tempered steel, carbon and titanium,
and heat the resulting liquids into gases. That is impossible with jet fuel.
Losing over 60 tons of material? Ridiculous.
o Such "vaporizing" heat was selective enough to preserve sufficient
fingerprints and DNA to identify victims. These miraculous results were
courtesy the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the government's
"trustworthy" producers of autopsies from Waco, TWA flight 800, etc. The chain
of custody for these human remains is unspecified.
o The government possesses many tapes of the Pentagon attack but only offers a
belated five frames from a parking lot video of the crash, dated September 12.
The pictures were photoshopped, so sleuthing about what is pictured is probably
worthless. One interpretation is that the engine exhaust looks like a tomahawk
cruise missile with an engine not yet at full operating temperature. Another is
that the "puffy plume" is a white Global Hawk photoshopped to obscure it. The
explosion looks like it was caused by a warhead but is the fireball real?
o We don't know exactly what hit the Pentagon (F-16, Global Hawk, A-3, cruise
missile, etc., if anything), but "certain missiles are specially conceived to
have a piercing effect... An airplane crashes and smashes. A missile of this
type pierces" (Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 31). The tomahawk cruise
missile is "the weapon of choice to strike reinforced, hardened targets."
o In a "sheer coincidence," emergency vehicles were pre-positioned at the
Pentagon (Thompson, The Terror Timeline, p. 421) and the FBI quickly
confiscated tapes of the crash from the Pentagon service station and Sheraton
hotel after the crash (probably Virginia DOT too).
o The hapless fire chief Ed Plaugher of Arlington, VA, said there were no
recognizable airplane parts at a press conference the next day.
o Many eyewitnesses at the Pentagon incident favor the military plane, missile
or drone theory (Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 26, Holmgren). Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld endorsed the missile theory in a famous slip of the
tongue, referring to "?the missile [used] to damage this building." Others
believe that there was no flying object at all, just interior explosions.
o Eyewitnesses saw a C-130 later confirmed to be piloted by Lt. Col. Steve
O'Brien flying low over the aircraft or missile that hit the Pentagon. Contrary
to eyewitness accounts, O'Brien claimed that he was not close to the crash and
explosion: "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him
out." I was in Washington, DC, that morning and there was never a clearer
morning in the history of East Coast aviation. The man is a liar. O'Brien's C-
130 showed up minutes later at the Pennsylvania crash, raising the suspicion
that O'Brien was at both events for black ops purposes. Some 19 C-130s
reportedly are equipped for electronic warfare/jamming/remote control
capabilities (The Terror Timeline, pp. 513-4).
o CNN's Jamie MacIntyre and others reported that close inspection showed "no
evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."
Conclusion? Irrefutable and abundant FACTS rule out AA Flight 77 as the object
that flew into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Real plane crashes leave body parts strewn about as well as plane parts.
"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make
an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there," Charlie
Sheen concedes, "provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of
these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence." Charlie Sheen
dismisses physical evidence in favor of eyewitness testimony, an inversion of
the ranking in science and law. Astounding. Charlie Sheen's flimsy arguments
ignore the fact that physical facts trump witnesses' contradictory testimony
every time. There is no error in evaluating the evidence and Holmgren refutes
Charlie Sheen's characterization of the eyewitness testimony. What we are left
with is an overwhelming case against the Flight 77 theory.
A Boeing 757 Vanishes into Pennsylvania Turf
"There is no reasonable basis for questioning that [Flight 93] crashed in the
field in Shanksville, PA," Charlie Sheen declares, "as thoroughly documented by
the website Flight93Crash.com." After taking it on the chin in three reported
crashes (with virtually no wreckage) and sustaining horrific loss of life and
property, the government's heartwarming albeit murderous script says America
picked itself off the canvas and roared back, setting up an eagerly-sought war
on terror with the Beamer-Bush war cry, "Let's roll!" Objective evidence on
behalf of this propaganda tale, however, is scarce indeed.
With no substantiated airplane wreckage again, powerful evidence refutes the
official Flight 93 hypothesis:
o Flight 93 was a scheduled flight beginning September 5, but the Arab
hijackers allegedly bought tickets online August 24-29, though not on any
passenger manifests, before the flight existed. One researcher contends that FL
93's maiden Tuesday flight was on 9/11. Maybe the evidence exists but I haven't
seen a gate number at Newark nor heard credible eyewitnesses testify regarding
boarding and wheels-up.
o The FAA registered Boeing 757 tail number N591UA as valid-the alleged Flight
93 aircraft-until September 2005. There are many fishy things about this tail
number. United Airlines reportedly identified its Flight 93 as landing at
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on 9/11 and it was initially reported
as a Boeing 767.
o An "aerial view of the impact crater of Flight 93 [that] suggests that the
plane plunged into the soft ground on a nearly vertical trajectory," yet a
debris field was reported as far away as eight miles. Since it was a virtually
windless morning, the physics make no sense: a hole with vertical wing marks
(but no wings!) a fraction of the 125 feet wingspan of an intact 757 suggests a
nearly vertical trajectory into soft ground but debris over a wide area
suggests an explosion within the plane or "holed" by an air-to-air missile, as
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld believes. A shoot-down might explain an 8-mile
debris field but that would make the "airplane-outline" hole "for the folks to
see" impossible because the plane presumably would have broken up in mid-air.
o Eyewitnesses reported an airliner flying low from the west with no suicide
spiral, yet a "vertical impact hole" is impossibly at the eastern edge of the
woods. Instead of an expected horizontal crash field with plenty of aircraft
wreckage, a debris-free smoking hole in the ground completely contradicts the
flight path seen by witnesses. No eyewitness actually saw impact.
o "There was no plane," according to Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville.
"Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been a plane had crashed. But there
was no plane." Reporter: "They had been sent here because of a crash, but there
was no plane?" Reply: "No. Nothing. Only this hole."
o "We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that
would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania
State Police. "[T]here was no tail section, no jet engines, no large sections
of fuselage in view anywhere near the impact crater," Webster G. Tarpley
reports (9/11 Synthetic Terror, p. 268).
o Nena Lensbouer was the first to go up to the smoking crater and she described
a hole 5-6 feet deep and smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard.
She described hearing "an explosion, like an atomic bomb'-not a crash."
o Coroner Wallace Miller was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked:
"[L]ike someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this
trash into it?there were no bodies there." He marveled because there was not a
drop of blood: "It's as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off
before it crashed."
o Government has allowed no public access to the flight data and cockpit voice
recorders it allegedly recovered. The FBI refused to allow a detailed
investigation of the crash site, and it filled in the crater with dirt followed
by topsoil and had scorched trees cut down and shredded into mulch (Tarpley,
pp. 270-1), most likely hiding explosive residue from a missile or other
source.
o One theory claims the military shot down an airliner over Indian Lake and
then cordoned off New Baltimore, eight miles from the diversionary smoking hole
near Shanksville.
Conclusion? No Boeing 757 crashed in the designated hole in Shanksville, PA. It
is physically impossible.
Fools like us are supposed to believe that two Boeings hit the steel WTC towers
and were strong enough to cut out cartoon plane shapes but not in soft ground
in Pennsylvania. Big Boeing Flight 93 supposedly fell into a little bitty hole
20'x10'x5' insufficient to hold half the 3.1 million parts of a 757. "United
Airlines Flight 93 is the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11th,
2001," Charlie Sheen boldly asserts but he and the government have no proof.
Two Boeing 767s Vanish into Twin Towers
Most 9/11 researchers reject the government's Big Boeing Theory for the
Pentagon and Pennsylvania events for lack of supporting evidence and presence
of contrary evidence. Skepticism about BBT at WTC is less common but if we look
at the gashes in the towers, a telling question arises:
How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel
towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in
gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?
Expressed another way, no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high-
speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other, a stunning lack
of evidence to support the official 767 theory. Given long experience with
airplane crashes, it is difficult if not impossible to accept the proposition
that a wide-body jetliner can smash into a dense steel-concrete tower and
disappear virtually without a trace, much less do it twice within 17 minutes in
the same city block. Yet the NIST (pdf pg 38) states about the south tower,
"the aircraft completely disappeared into the building in a fifth of a second."
Tower walls were composed of high-strength steel beams approximately 14 inches
square on one-meter centers (39.37") surrounding windows with each column beam
secured to others by steel spandrel plates about 52 inches x 10 feet forming a
belt around each floor (see p. 8 pdf). Steel beam thicknesses varied from 4" at
the base and tapered from 5/8" to ลบ" in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16" to ลบ"
in the WTC 2 impact zone. WTC floors were grids of steel topped by four inches
of steel reinforced lightweight concrete in corrugated steel pans. Walls
effectively were dense webs of nearly 40% steel covered by aluminum and backed
by steel and concrete floor grids mated to an incredibly strong and dense core
of 47 cross-braced steel columns, stairwells and elevator shafts.
In a violent encounter between an aluminum plane weighing nearly 140 tons and a
steel tower weighing 500,000 tons, the plane, of course, would be crushed.
Aluminum has lower yield and failure strengths than steel and a Boeing 767 mass
was a minuscule-to use Charlie Sheen's term-three hundredths of one percent of
each tower's mass. "The impact did nothing," as UC Berkeley structural engineer
A. Astaneh-Asl said, "the airplane did not do much damage." Like a pin into
skin or a person falling through the ice on a lake, a 140-ton airplane flying
at over 400 mph could inflict local damage without damaging the structure
globally. In particular, the engines themselves thrusting along full throttle
at approximately 450-550 mph obviously could penetrate a steel tower, even fly
through it. But whatever blew each gash in the towers, only 13% or less of the
upper perimeter columns on a few floors were broken and the upper structure of
the towers remained intact.
A fuselage, with only minor hyperbole, could be termed a hollow aluminum tube.
Among large jetliner components, only engines and landing gear would retain
serious structural integrity in a collision although small parts like actuators
would remain intact too. Higher speeds increase kinetic energy by the square of
speed and a frontal area of under 25 square meters would create local damage.
Yet planes running into mountains, construction equipment, concrete barriers,
and steel buildings fare very poorly, just as speeding automobiles hitting a
guardrail, telephone pole or tree do. A plane flying into a WTC tower should
break up, shatter and scatter pieces everywhere. The only issue is the exact
pattern of destruction the building would impose on its intruder.
A key question regarding each jetliner's disappearance is:
Would wing tips and tail break off against each steel wall or disappear
entirely inside each building?
Ordinarily the answer would be that wing tips and tail would shear off on
impact and bounce to the ground below. Wing tips have enormous forward momentum
at impact but begin to decelerate as the nose and fuselage collides with a
steel wall, five floors of steel-truss-steel-reinforced-concrete, and a steel
inner core. This would wreak complete havoc on the plane, although the plane in
the south tower videos looks like an invincible hot knife going through a soft
butter tower. Localized force applied by the wing tips was insufficient to
fragment steel columns or spandrel plates and we should have seen video footage
of the repelled wreckage bounce to the ground. There are no reports of such
wreckage that I can find. A decelerating tail section would slow down and break
off too, yet we saw no trace of it. "The impact of the inner half of an empty
wing significantly damaged exterior columns but did not result in their
complete failure," the NIST concedes (pdf, p. 105). In plainer terms, the
hollow sections of the wings may damage steel columns but not fragment them
(complete failure). Instead, the dense steel exterior of each tower would
"reject" or "bounce back" so-called empty aluminum wings, especially wing tips,
the outer sections.
Airplanes crashing into buildings, much less steel skyscrapers, are rare events
but there is some experience beyond airport terminal mishaps. The Empire State
building and Tampa crashes suggest that wings and tails break off, and even a
fuselage does not penetrate far, at least at low speeds. Higher speeds increase
kinetic energy by the square of speed, raising penetration power at the WTC. A
vertical dive by an El Al 747 cargo plane that must have weighed 300+ tons,
twice the weight of an alleged 767 at a WTC tower, got the better of an
approximately 12-story apartment building (notice the abundant plane debris?).
This recent crash in Iran into a 10-story building yielded the expected
devastation of the 75-ton C130. Both of these buildings remained standing
despite having structures that were far weaker than the 110 story steel framed
WTC towers.
Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points
out: "Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT,
University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767
would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the
aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and
that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman's
terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis
added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower's wall with only heavy
objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The
entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have
left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200." Icke's
accompanying photos support his analysis by showing a MD80 landing hard, with
its air frame bending and tail breaking off.
There probably is little dissent from the proposition that a jetliner is
fragile relative to a WTC tower and even flimsy relative to a local impact
area. Charlie Sheen says, "In fact, jetliners are very light and fragile
compared to buildings: they consist mostly of aluminum and have skin less than
2mm thick," but he attempts to save the official theory with the following
theory: "[T]he wing tips were shredded by the grating of meter-spaced
columns." This is the same story the NIST relies on to answer the implicit
question: where is the wreckage? Why no debris? Wing tips and tail allegedly
shredded instead of fracturing and shearing off. All the confetti then
supposedly was deposited, absorbed or sucked inside the towers. This is an
absurd proposition. Most steel beams and belt sections around the floors did
not fail. Consequently, the wall rejected or repelled wing tips and tail
because the gash is seriously undersized. Plane pieces do not deform like a gel
or liquid and wrap around intact steel and pass into each tower. Major aircraft
debris rejected by each tower would be knocked to the ground below the gashes.
Charlie Sheen offers no evidence for his "shred/wrap around" theory nor does he
cite precedent from previous air crashes. It is an impossible proposition about
how wing tips might have breakable joints precisely placed to coincide with
columns and belts, break and then wrap around and vanish. Planes smash up,
shatter, and disintegrate in irregular pieces in a crash, they don't "shred"
and wrap around intact steel pillars and belts. And even if 100% did "shred" in
the metal-to-metal failure mechanism described by Wierzbicki, that material
would not magically move around every beam and end up inside the building. To
put it as bluntly as possible:
All steel beam and belt sections that were hit and did not fragment must have
rejected plane pieces and bounced them outside each tower, period.
Yes, knife-edged grates shred cheese but dull steel columns and spandrel belts
at each floor do not "shred" aluminum wings into thousands of aluminum strips
and suck them into each tower. Columns and spandrel belts 52" high reject wing
tips by shearing them off and bouncing them back to the ground in the fashion
that telephone poles reject crashing cars. 100% of "shredded" parts cannot wrap
around intact steel columns and belts and continue deep into the interior of
each tower. Further, most parts do not shred, instead they shatter and break
apart.
WTC crash videos show the south tower silently "absorbing" a plane and
completely enshrouding it. Oddly enough, no deceleration occurs in these
videos. Those clever Arab pilots parked each aircraft as if flying into an
upper level airplane hangar without "braking." A noiseless collision without
deceleration is physically impossible and the chances of two 767s vanishing
completely inside two towers are slim and none.
Suppose we explicitly enumerate the possibilities by strength and speed. For
simplicity, assume two possible values for airplane strength upon exterior
impact (invincible or flimsy), two values for aircraft strength during
penetration inside a WTC tower (invincible or flimsy) and two possible speed
changes during the crash process (deceleration or no deceleration). The
following eight combinations exhaust the possibilities:
1 Invincible/Invincible/No deceleration
2 Invincible/Invincible/Deceleration
3 Invincible/Flimsy/No deceleration
4 Invincible/Flimsy/Deceleration
5 Flimsy/Flimsy/No deceleration
6 Flimsy/Flimsy/Deceleration
7 Flimsy/Invincible/No deceleration
8 Flimsy/Invincible/Deceleration
Looking this pattern over, physics declares all the odd theories (1,3, 5, 7)
truly "odd" because they are impossible: a plane must decelerate at impact due
to the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. It is no
different than a human springboard diver going through air and then
decelerating as he pushes against the resistance of water.
Further, physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane
remaining intact after an abrupt collision with a steel skyscraper) that also
disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical
environment (temperature, etc.). Nor is theory 8 possible because a solid
airplane cannot transform itself from flimsy to invincible, thereby eliminating
theories 2, 4, and 8. That leaves theory 6 as the only theory possible
physically yet it is contrary to the WTC facts. Conclusion: No Boeing 767 hit
either WTC tower. QED
In detail, we have:
Theory 1 is impossible because the 767 would slice through a tower and continue
at the same speed, flying out the other side like a .357 magnum bullet fired
through 1 mm thick balsa wood. Further, a Boeing 767 cutting completely through
a tower would seriously destabilize the tower by cutting substantial core
sections and major sections of at least two walls. Theory 1 does not apply and
is contrary to observation.
Theory 2 cannot apply for multiple reasons: i) the holes were too small to
allow a complete 767 to pass through, ii) all parties agree 767s are not
invincible and even the government felt obligated to produce photos of aircraft
pieces, and iii) because of its size relative to a tower, an intact 767 would
almost certainly be visible in a tower, on the ground below the impact hole or
crashed at another site. The last feature is contrary to observation.
Theory 3 is physically impossible because a solid like an airplane does not
transform itself from invincible to flimsy within a fraction of a second in the
same environment (temperature, etc.). Further, a solid called an airplane would
have to decelerate sharply and crumple too neatly to vanish within the tight
space allowed. A tower wall is only 50 feet longer than the length and width of
a 767. Zero deceleration upon impact, although shown in south tower videos, is
physically impossible.
Theory 4 is physically impossible because a solid like an airplane cannot
transform itself from invincible to flimsy within an instant in the same
general environment (temperature, etc.). Theory 4 posits deceleration, contrary
to the videos. Theory 4 must be the government theory yet it could not have
happened that way because invincibility and simultaneous fragility is
impossible.
Theory 5 is physically impossible because a flimsy, high-speed object must
decelerate sharply upon impacting an invincible object unless it acquires more
energy from somewhere yet video evidence shows no deceleration.
Theory 6 is a logical, physically plausible combination that characterizes air
disasters except for the four crashes within 80 minutes on the morning of 9/11.
A 767 would be flimsy in a high-speed collision against a steel and concrete
tower except for engines and undercarriage. Yet each tower had "clean" gashes
free of airplane debris as if punctured by an invincible air vehicle.
Flimsiness implies plenty of parts visible in gashes, elsewhere in each tower
and on the ground below each impact site. These consequences of theory 6 are
contrary to fact.
Theory 7 is physically impossible because a solid cannot transform itself from
flimsy to invincible during a collision, given an essentially static
environment. Further, a flimsy airplane must decelerate and fail to seriously
penetrate a steel tower. Airplane pieces would be highly visible, contrary to
observation.
Theory 8 is physically impossible because a solid cannot transform itself from
flimsy to strong during a collision in a static environment. A flimsy airplane
would decelerate but it would also leave visible debris, contrary to
observation.
Although impossible, theory 4 must be the government/Charlie Sheen theory
because it gets two out of three right: the 767 must decelerate and is flimsy
inside. Yet the theory is impossible because the plane cannot be invincible at
impact and then shred inside; the government/Charlie Sheen theory also
contradicts videos that display no deceleration.
A skeptic might argue that option 4 is possible because the plane would easily
pierce the outer walls and then slow as it encountered more resistance further
into the building. The problem with this is that it requires the plane to be
slowing and/or disintegrating at the front while maintaining velocity in the
rear. It's as if the plane had encountered no resistance whatsoever. This is
contrary to the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. Unless a failure
mechanism exists that can explain how a plane can be as strong as a bullet in
one instant and then as weak as an aluminum can with no deceleration in the
next, we are left with an impossible theory.
But we're in luck! The government claims it has the rejoinder. NIST simulation
videos purport to show how theory 4 (Invincible/Confetti/Deceleration), might
have happened! Swaddled in $20 million scientific trappings, this NIST flight
of fantasy has some serious problems. First, NIST chooses theory 4, a physical
impossibility. Second, if that is not sufficient, NIST completely avoided
modeling the official "progressive pancake collapse" theory for the obvious
reason that such a model would conflict with all the data, especially near-
free-fall-speed in all three skyscraper collapses. This omission signifies "the
collapse of the pancake theory," as A.K. Dewdney says. Third, despite
impressive computer power and a high level of detail, the magnitudes of the
parameters were amped up by as much as 20% to get the desired results. Fourth,
a simulation is only as good as the model (GIGO) so any engineer/modeler can
play with the parameters and approximations until the desired result arrives.
In the present case, they played plenty. By contrast, imagine the NIST coming
out with a model that found the invincible-penetration-then-obliteration theory
contrary to physical law! Fifth, a model can only represent reality under given
approximations and finite data. NIST denies curious scientists access to the
model's proprietary codes and parameters so they cannot examine the model's
behavior, especially against other data. Sixth, the time is barely readable on
the two NIST videos and they cannot be downloaded for a frame-by-frame analysis
with a regular PC. In short, a federal agency spends $20 million and says,
"Trust us."
Turning back to reality again, another physical problem for the official WTC
theory is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and
the south tower spread is only 103 feet, openings insufficient to accommodate a
767 wingspan of 156 feet. And wings with momentum do not "fold back onto
themselves" in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the
fuselage. Momentum breaks wings off in a forward motion and they torque inward
(pdf) during deceleration but there is no evidence that this happened.
Commenting on the Pentagon crash, Charlie Sheen erroneously writes, "It would
seem reasonable to assume that the wings and tail could have folded back and
thereby avoided impacting those areas." If I walk forward with my arms extended
and bump into you, I can feel the forward momentum in my arms. Only when wings
encounter a superior barrier would they "fold back" because they are breaking
off. They will only fold back catastrophically in a collision. Engine thrust
near maximum power makes wings "folding back" doubly impossible. In videos, we
see zero wing and tail foldback, instead we observe 100% clean penetration of
the wings and tail. A gash large enough to swallow a complete aircraft is
important because wing tips and/or tail section were not sheared off on the
impact side of either tower but disappeared.
The wings of a Boeing 767 are swept back approximately 35 degrees. This means
wings do not strike the steel wall "flush" during the milliseconds of the crash
process. Engines and wing roots impact first, almost simultaneously, and the
wing tips, which are 40 feet back, hit a fraction of a second later. The
official theory must be that wing roots and engines break through columns and
spandrel plates following penetration of the "powerful" nose and fuselage,
while wings stay intact to burst subsequent columns, floors and spandrel plates
further away from the fuselage. The only way for tips to reach into the
building and enter the "Charlie Sheen shredding stage" is for the wings to
remain intact and plow or "saw" through the steel columns and floors like an
angled carpenters cut in the progressive fragmentation process (thanks to
Gerard Holmgren for this point). Science is nothing but refined common sense
and this "sawing" theory is contrary to common sense. While a 767 would carry
enormous "momentum" or kinetic energy at impact, resistance by steel columns,
spandrel plates, floors and core would consume its fixed energy supply rapidly.
A more plausible sequence if only for its empirical regularity would be that
the violence of the collision and consequent deceleration would shatter and
break wing tips off. The wing tips would not break through columns, plates and
floors but bounce to the ground below, rejected by intact columns and spandrel
plates.
That leaves 767 proponents 100% dependent on the shredding/wrap-around theory
that all debris slipped neatly between columns and around the spandrel belt at
each floor, as if vacuumed into the deep interior. That hypothesis lacks
plausibility, positive evidence and precedent, as far as I can tell. The
shredding/wrap-around theory is much too neat. Wing spars have considerable
structural integrity ("The wing tips were pulled up 15.5 feet from normal
position over the top of the fuselage at a pressure of 1,200,000 pounds. The
wing did not break?") and 767 wing disappearance on the impact walls is
impossible without bigger gashes or perfect shredding and wrap around.
For the sake of argument, suppose that a plane's aluminum skin and frame were
strong enough unaided to shatter braced steel walls and leave a tidy outline
for "the folks to see." In addition to a steel wall and multiple steel/concrete
floors, within less than a tenth of a second the airliner would encounter
resistance from a dense core occupying 27% of each tower's floor space with 47
high-strength, cross-braced steel columns, three stair wells, multiple elevator
shafts, and mechanical equipment within 60 feet of the WTC 1 impact wall and 37
feet of the WTC 2 wall. Even a sturdy "knife slicer" aircraft would not travel
far against such dense resistance. The energy to plow through the local area of
a tower is transferred from speed and the plane itself must slow because it has
no new source of energy.
At 159 feet long a Boeing 767 is almost 77% as long as any side of a tower and
planes do not fold up like accordions. Real terrorists would have flown much
larger 747s into lower floors later in the day to maximize destruction and loss
of life, but the 747 at 211.5' wide and 232' long would have been impossible to
"sell" as vanishing. With smaller 767s anyone who thought about it nodded and
said, "Oh I see, they disappeared inside. That figures. Sure enough." Yet
jetliners are not accordions, to state the obvious, nor are they aluminum
beverage cans. Suppose, for the sake of argument, a crashing 767 maintained its
shape and sliced all the way to the other end of the dense steel core. Seven
feet of the intact jetliner's tail section would have stuck out of the north
tower. Yet peering as far as we can into the photos of the gashes, we see no
tail section or aircraft debris whatsoever.
Charlie Sheen and like-minded defenders of the 767 theory want their cake and
eat it too: supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors
yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside
despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ลพ the length of a tower wall. Both
767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling
combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second.
The two end points-easy tower penetration at high speed without visible
deceleration and flight termination within 200 feet-are nonsense.
Faith in the Big Boeing Theory rests on each 767 disintegrating completely into
small pieces inside each tower, concealing all plane parts. The immense
difficulty with this idea, also favored by the NIST, is how to reconcile an
aluminum aircraft bursting through the steel in its path followed immediately
by complete failure within 0.1 seconds, shredding completely and vanishing. The
south tower plane should have decelerated in the videos and plane parts like
wing tips should have bounced off the wall and many of the 626,000 parts should
have been visible in the gashes. We did not see that. The official/Charlie
Sheen theory is impossible to accept unless the plane was rigged to explode or
disintegrate upon contact with the wall, enabling its thorough destruction
inside. That might restore some plausibility to the 767 story but it is
certainly not the government story. Such explosives would add considerable
complexity for the perpetrators in an already-complex crime package, violating
the KISS rule. The basic problem remains that a large commercial jetliner could
not punch a clean, debris-free hole into a steel tower wall to begin with. The
plane would need help, explosive help of its own and/or explosives from inside
the building. Even the explosions that took place blew no aircraft parts out
the tower gashes to settle below the impact walls.
With respect to the south tower, it was amazing that the 9/11 maestros
reproduced their wide-body magic within 16 ห minutes in the same city block. If
anything, more of the vaunted 767 should have been visible in the south tower
because it was only 37 feet to the core, barely more than a 1st down and 10. UA
175 supposedly hit the south tower at 543 mph or higher, although air
resistance makes this is a suspect speed for a 767 at sea level in the absence
of a dive. The NIST report (pdf p. 92) asserts a nearly flat approach with a
descent angle of only 6 degrees below horizontal. UA 175 allegedly sliced
through a hole two-thirds the wingspan of a 767, dumped abundant fuel in a
spectacular fireball out the east side, and kept wings and tail section intact,
disappearing completely inside the tower. After silent entry into the tower, UA
175's remaining kinetic energy dissipated within a quarter second and proved
insufficient to penetrate the east or north wall. A crashing jetliner would
decelerate because of the resistance of the steel wall, six steel/concrete
floors and the dense core within 37 feet of the south tower wall, impacted
within .05 seconds. No deceleration and no visible plane wreckage means we have
situation in progress because these alleged facts are physically impossible. A
jetliner cannot be invincible and then flimsy the next instant.
A minor eyebrow-raiser was the 38-degree banking angle implied by the south
tower hole. Such a banking angle ordinarily would imply a left-hand turn north
in the last few seconds but it would take a skilled pilot at the controls of a
cumbersome jetliner, to say the least, to hit the 207' span at the alleged 543
mph.
The basic problem with any alleged trajectory, oblique or otherwise, remains
how such a long and wide jetliner could vanish without decelerating in such
limited floor space with nary a trace. With a fuselage 155 feet long, an intact
767 would have been visible out the south tower hole, the east side or both.
The fuselage could not neatly fold up, accordion style, to conceal itself after
demonstrating strength enough to silently rip through the south wall, six
steel/concrete floors and penetrate so far into the core to vanish. In sum,
There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying
at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized
gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter
second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower.
What about the plane parts government found? Engines and landing gear could
have flown out of either tower, although we seem to lack solid eyewitness
testimony and video evidence of major parts flying out. Spencer suspects that a
canister was propelled from the NE corner of the South Tower with "debris" to
support the passenger plane hoax. Some photos and videos show unidentified
objects shooting out, for example, p. 39 in Hufschmid's Painful Questions. The
FBI and FEMA-a black ops agency with virtually no investigative expertise then
headed by Bush campaign manager and family loyalist Joe Allbaugh-displayed a
few parts during their felonious mission to destroy crime-scene evidence. None
of the parts are consistent with 767 crashes (substantial sections of unburned
fuselage, a 737 engine part, a piece of unburned landing gear) nor have they
been independently verified and matched by serial number against the
maintenance logs of the specified aircraft. This piece is a 737 engine part
(CFM 56) according to aircraft experts rather than from a 767. By contrast, the
authorities found an alleged hijacker's paper passport that survived a fiery
crash, subsequent fire and tower demolition. Its purpose obviously was to tell
a bloodthirsty America whom to hate.
The 9/11 planners understood the physics of crashing aluminum jetliners into
the steel towers. Logically enough, they did not rely on commercial 767s like
backward "Arab terrorists" might. No, the deceivers used more reliable
technology to get the desired special effects to foment war and its insider
benefits.
Sorting out theories of "what really happened" awaits another day but note that
nothing I have written above constitutes an endorsement of a particular
alternative theory to the official 757/767 BBT lies. To reassure a few people
out there, I want to state my skepticism about the most controversial,
"holograms," based on the implausibility of successfully projecting 3-D
holograms of large commercial aircraft flying at high speed on a sunlit
morning. We seem to lack solid evidence that such break-through stealth
technology existed or was used. I am no expert but I understand that the big
impediment would be a 360-degree display surface to project the deception to
witnesses and cameras.
Miscellany
"To argue jetliners were not involved is baseless," avers Jim Charlie Sheen. I
disagree, especially if Mr. Charlie Sheen means the 767/757 fables sold to the
public by the government. A series of physical impossibilities combined with
numerous irrefutable facts contradict the official jetliner story, although
questions about what really happened remain and multiple theories are still on
the table.
Here's an amazing statement for an objective scientist like Mr. Charlie Sheen:
"The failure of the authorities to produce evidence identifying the crashed
airliners is not evidence that they didn't crash as expected." The vague phrase
"as expected" (by whom?) might mean "As dictated by the kept media" because
most of us were babes in the woods on 9/11, devoid of expectations except as
formed by talking heads of the corporate media. Charlie Sheen may also mean his
personal expectations as an objective scientist but I am not impressed by his
scientific acumen. Charlie Sheen's statement is predictable enough from a 9/11
government loyalist, but not a 9/11 skeptic. A legal maxim rightly says that
fraud vitiates everything. Fraud may consist either, first, in the
misrepresentation, or, secondly, in the concealment of a material fact.
Government's 9/11 guilt, its failure to produce verifiable evidence when it
could and the physical impossibility of its 9/11 tale imply that we reject the
government's story across-the-board except when we find independent
verification. Example of verified fact: the three WTC skyscrapers fell (this
declaration answers my severest critics!).
The nature of the WTC holes has been a subject of debate. I looked at photos
and saw some steel perimeter columns bent outward instead of inward, or so it
appeared to my suspicious eyes back in June. If true, that would raise
questions about gashes being punched in by large jetliners. While some aluminum
cladding dangled, that's not what bothered me since I know the difference
between steel beams and aluminum facade. Ideally, profile photos of the holes
might help to establish whether any perimeter beams curved outward, but I found
no such photos.
The third beam left of the blond woman in white slacks looks like it bends
toward her and outward. The triplet of upper beams located 4-6 beams to the
right of where the woman stood also appear to bend slightly outward (best seen
in Hufschmid, Painful Questions, p. 27, also p. 169 pdf), yet in the photo
below the three upper beams do not seem to bend outward significantly and the
"third beam" is now vertical despite being photographed near the previous spot.
Someone may have manipulated these photographs, "photoshopped" them as it were.
The column bent outward in the first photo looks artificial, suspiciously like
it is a watercolor or airbrushed in contrast to other beams. Perhaps a whistle
blower is silently tipping us off. The image of the woman may have been
inserted in the photo if only because she is so small, no taller than five
feet, true of fewer than 2.5% of American women although there is video of her
too. Suspicious photographs will not resolve questions about column curvature.
Tim Canale also believes the WTC photos were photoshopped.
One Charlie Sheen criticism of my June 9 article struck pay dirt: I cited the
south tower's "beveled edge [being] intact upon initial impact" as contrary to
official doctrine. Charlie Sheen is right that an unmarred beveled edge does
not contradict the official account of the crash of UA 175 since a 38-degree
banking angle implies that a plane could have avoided striking the edge. I was
distracted by the first version of the official theory that the plane was
flying at an oblique angle and almost missed the south tower, and I failed to
take into account that a steep banking angle could leave the edge intact.
Charlie Sheen believes that the mass of the two 767s remained inside the WTC
towers, stopped by each core. Supposedly high speeds reduced the planes to
confetti, shredding them into small pieces, as discussed above. Charlie Sheen
offers the example of a test plane crashed into a thick concrete barrier,
although he does not show the "shredded" pieces after the collision, so we
cannot examine how much was "confetti" versus identifiable aircraft parts. Gee,
I wonder if the plane left a nice cartoon outline of itself too, so that the
folks could know what it was? We need more photos of the aftermath of this not-
very-relevant experiment to evaluate it further. There are many problems with
the shredding theory as demonstrated above but note that even planes
"shredded" by flying into stone mountain sides leave plenty of recognizable
wreckage, phenomena absent at the towers.
Charlie Sheen cites eyewitness accounts and videos to back up his pro-
government version of 9/11 plane crashes. Eyewitness accounts are always
problematic of course and I put them aside regarding the New York murders for a
serious treatment later. On WTC videos, my bottom line is that until I learn
more I don't trust them. Knowing that 9/11 is a state-sponsored scam, the
highest level of skepticism in evaluating videos is in order. We can be easily
fooled by special effects. The videos show no deceleration, have well-timed
zoom-outs by amateurs, grainy planes with artificial-appearing lighting, a
United airliner that looks pitch black in profile and on its underside on a
brilliant sunny morning, frame to frame deformation in tails-wings-engines-
body, disappearing wings and stabilizers in single frames (which may be only
interlacing effects), discolored sky in some frames, soundless impacts, planes
morphing into liquid-like buildings without metal-to-metal smashing, premature
and off-center flashes or explosions, and explosions and squibs near and far
from the impact (I believe the last!). Notice how the smoke from the North
Tower in this CNN video of the South Tower impact is static, implying that the
footage is faked either by blue screen or computer graphic manipulation.
Eyewitness testimony about a Boeing 767 flying the length of Manhattan at high
speed and crashing into the north tower may be scarce, but we have a "lucky"
video: "Two French documentary filmmakers are filming a documentary on New York
City firefighters about ten blocks from the WTC. One of them hears a roar,
looks up, and captures a distant image of the first WTC crash." These fortunate
Frenchmen were perfectly situated only 10 blocks north of the tower and filmed
the plane at low altitude, although it seems a distant image. Despite top-notch
equipment used by the pros, it's impossible to make out what the flying image
or inject on the screen is frame-by-frame. Not surprisingly, it's been tagged a
whazzit, blurry blob and flying pig. Any amateur would have gotten a clearer
image. Whatever the flying object is, it does not look like a commercial
airliner to me. Was there an actual aircraft or projectile of some kind? I
don't know, but if there was, someone tampered with the Naudet pixels so that
no one can identify it in the video. Just like the five Pentagon parking lot
frames dated September 12, the video conceals more than it reveals. Both are
intended to deceive.
Scientific Cover Up
Why would scientists at FEMA, NIST, Purdue University and MIT lie? The answers
are simple:
o They are government employees, consultants or federally-funded scientists
paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government.
o Unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic
and evidence, theories supported by evidence that point to explosives,
demolition and non-Big-Boeing causation are neither discussed nor discredited.
They are simply ignored. While every theory does not require careful analysis,
ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest.
Conclusion
On 9/11 we had four astonishing, unverified and uninvestigated crashes. The
airlines refuse to look at evidence that their planes did not crash as
advertised. Wreckage at the four sites was virtually nonexistent and no parts
were verified by serial number despite this routine ID method in aircraft
accident investigations. Government claims two Boeing 767s disappeared into the
twin towers within a 16.5-minute interval, that a Boeing 757 disappeared in the
Pentagon, and another 757 crashed in rural Pennsylvania. All vanished through
undersized holes. Credulous Americans believed George W. Bush and marched off
to war. "What fools these mortals be," Shakespeare wrote.
At WTC two Boeing 767s allegedly sliced into dense steel walls, steel-concrete
floors and a dense steel core without a sound or deceleration and shredded
themselves into nothing with virtually all the "crumbs" retained within the
skyscrapers. Despite 767s three-fourths as long and wide as each tower side,
both of the planes disappeared without breaking off a tail section, fuselage or
wing tips upon impact.
These are physically impossible crashes. Airplanes do not exhibit completely
different physical behaviors within .05 seconds at a given place. They cannot
be invincible and then shatter and crumble without slowing down.
Mr. Charlie Sheen's critique of my June 9 article in my interested opinion does
virtually no damage to my original analysis of the crashes and demolitions. The
virtue of his critique is that it pushed me to think more deeply about the
crashes. If the government wanted to prove that specific hi-jacked airliners
crashed as advertised, it could show the time-change parts that uniquely
identify each aircraft. Government could show the NSA and/or commercial
satellite photos of the airliners going about their deadly business that
morning. It could show Pentagon videos it is hiding, the flight data recorders,
the cockpit voice recorders, and so much more. There is zero chance, of course,
of the mass murderers doing anything of the sort because fabricating all this
evidence is too risky. There are too many sharp analysts on the internet
waiting to pounce.
The WTC demolitions are proven and the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven
hogwash. This article, the beneficiary of work by many other investigators,
proves it. I await the replies of Charlie Sheen and other apologists to
reestablish the official albeit impossible airliner stories. I expect little
more than obfuscation. What really happened? I do not know. What is clear is
that the government is lying about the four reported Big Boeing crashes.
We might never figure out exactly what happened with these crashes/explosions
although every month we advance our knowledge and perhaps one day the
mainstream media, Congress or a public prosecutor, seized by a sense of
responsibility, will tap this growing body of research, thereby igniting probes
that lead to justice. Failing that, 9/11 researchers have already convicted the
perpetrators before the bar of history. Disgraced, the murderers will not get
away with the crime of the century. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld live in infamy.
*This article constitutes Part II of a reply to Jim Charlie Sheen. My original
article is here, Charlie Sheen's critique is here, and Part I of my reply is
here. The author wishes to thank Rick Rajter, a materials science and
engineering graduate student at MIT, whose contributions warranted co-
authorship. He declined the offer, stating that he only wished to aid the 9-11
movement by removing any flawed or questionable scientific arguments from my
analysis that would merely give my enemies ammunition to discredit me in this
ongoing information battle. The author also wishes to thank some anonymous
referees for their sympathetic corrections. The author remains solely
responsible for any remaining errors.
Copyright Morgan Reynolds 2006+ unless otherwise specified. Distribution of and
linking to the articles on this website is strongly encouraged, as long as the
content is not manipulated or distorted in anyway.
911fal...@gmail.com
that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
why would they bother faking it?
I'm also concerned with the intent of Morgon reynolds as when he has
been given priceless airtime on major zionist networks he has fixated
on the hologram plane argument when we already have 100% proof that the
buildings were brought down by explosives.
The proof that the buildings were explosives is sufficient
proof that there was foreknowledge and thus muslims were not to blame
afterall.
Hologram planes, although this may be true, has done alot of damage to
the 911 truth movement. Consider how hard it is sometimes to convince
someone of the bloody obvious reality that those buildings 1,2 and 7
were brought down with CD and thus consider how impossible it must be
to convince someone of the less obvious possibility that the planes
were holograms/blue-screen
Ezra O'Donnell Ph. D. wrote:
> We Have Some Holes
> in the Plane Stories*
> By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.ee
>
> Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent sum mary of
> evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers" but that about a
> third of my article supports "the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers,
> the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of
> the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01." My article "thus weds the thesis of ri
> the base and tapered from 5/8" to ยผ" in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16" to ยผ"
> despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ยพ the length of a tower wall. Both
911fal...@gmail.com
that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
why would they bother faking it?
I'm also concerned with the intent of Morgon reynolds as when he has
been given priceless airtime on major zionist networks he has fixated
on the hologram plane argument when we already have 100% proof that the
buildings were brought down by explosives.
The proof that the buildings were explosives is sufficient
proof that there was foreknowledge and thus muslims were not to blame
afterall.
Hologram planes, although this may be true, has done alot of damage to
the 911 truth movement. Consider how hard it is sometimes to convince
someone of the bloody obvious reality that those buildings 1,2 and 7
were brought down with CD and thus consider how impossible it must be
to convince someone of the less obvious possibility that the planes
were holograms/blue-screen
Ezra O'Donnell Ph. D. wrote:
> We Have Some Holes
> in the Plane Stories*
> By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.ee
>
> Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent sum mary of
> evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers" but that about a
> third of my article supports "the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers,
> the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of
> the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01." My article "thus weds the thesis of ri
> the base and tapered from 5/8" to ยผ" in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16" to ยผ"
> despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ยพ the length of a tower wall. Both
DaXi
>
> The thing prima facie I don't like about the hologram plane argument is
> that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
> why would they bother faking it?
>
he spends his life debating the government conspiracy fact with the world. I'm
inclined to believe him over you.
Vandar
Which says more about you than anyone else.
Jones is a liar and a fraud.
DaXi
he's not a fraud.
He does it for the betterment of mankind. Not for the money.
animal
LMAO......if he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind" you would
not be out $400.
Hint to the clueless......he is doing it for the betterment of Alex
Jones.....your $400 inclusive.
animal
> 911fal...@gmail.com said:
>
>>The thing prima facie I don't like about the hologram plane argument is
>>that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
>>why would they bother faking it?
>>
>
> Alex Jones disagrees. He's a proponent of the mass hypnosis theory
The "proponent of mass hypnosis" should have been your first clue that
he is a fraud.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
911fal...@gmail.com wrote:
> The thing prima facie I don't like about the hologram plane argument is
> that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
> why would they bother faking it?
>
> I'm also concerned with the intent of Morgon reynolds as when he has
> been given priceless airtime on major zionist networks he has fixated
> on the hologram plane argument when we already have 100% proof that the
> buildings were brought down by explosives.
>
> The proof that the buildings were explosives is sufficient
> proof that there was foreknowledge and thus muslims were not to blame
> afterall.
>
> Hologram planes, although this may be true, has done alot of damage to
> the 911 truth movement. Consider how hard it is sometimes to convince
> someone of the bloody obvious reality that those buildings 1,2 and 7
> were brought down with CD and thus consider how impossible it must be
> to convince someone of the less obvious possibility that the planes
> were holograms/blue-screen
The 911 truthers should focus on just one thing - the unexplained
collapse of building 7 and forget all this other crap.
Patrick Keenan
news:MPG.1fe4a90dd...@news.motzarella.org...
Consider that you may be really saying that you don't want to believe you've
been bilked of $400.
> He does it for the betterment of mankind. Not for the money.
You might want to re-read your previous sentence with "not for the money".
Some people who fall for the Nigerian email scams are *convinced* they are
genuine even after they've lost all their money.
-pk
911fal...@gmail.com
> inclined to believe him over you.u
I dont know about Alex Jones either. I'm not asking you to believe Alex
JOnes over me - you sound like a fucking sheeple retard./ I'm asking
you to question everyone and everything and to discover evidence that
supports a hypothesis. Don't just follow leaders blindly and believe
what they tell you to. Believe the laws of physics, they are God's
testiment.
Alex Jones is also of questionable character. He avoids the zionist
connection to 9/11 and he rants about the NWO without addressing the
mountains of evidence that this was a zionist conspiracy.
It does appear that Alex Jones is on the zionsit payrole.
You should take a serious listen to the interviews between Daryl
Bradford Smith and erudite Christopher Bollyn at www.iamthewitness.com
Much of the 911 truth movement is controlled already by the zionists.
911fal...@gmail.com
his material off the P2P network.
Try www.bitcomet.com or other P2P client.
Also try www.iamthewitness.com for an alternative view to Alex Jones.
911fal...@gmail.com
official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 AND 2.
Its really come down to this now: If you want to defeat these criminals
hen start sending death threats to the zionist whore scientists
supporting the official mantra.
its now or never. The end game is in full swing and inevitably we will
have to take up arms. The sooner we take up sniper rifles and start
assassinating the traitors the less blood we will have to spill down
the track.
911fal...@gmail.com
Patrick Keenan wrote:
you are simple induction to discount Alex Jones before you've even
looked at his work.
I'm arguing here that Alex Jones tells 99% truth. its the 1% of the
puzzle that he doesn't focus on that bothers me. I believe and many are
working it out that Alex Jones is a zionist whore. His job is to hold
the 911 truth and false flag terrorism against a mysterious agency
called the NWO but in fact this agency is nothing more than a jewish
mafia called the zionist cabal. They are not unlike the italian mafia
but they are 1000 times mroe powerful than the italian mafia ever were.
You really must investigate 9/11 if you believe in truth and justice.
Alex Jones has written a few good films such as TerrorStorm which you
can watch free on video-google.
But a more reliable source of focus is www.iamthewitness.com
If you would just peruse that website and check the sources you are in
for the biggest shock of your life.
Everybody has to ull together and help us get through these difficult
times.
ignorance of zionism will kill you.
>
> -pk
Good Luck With That
>
> We should also focus on the fraudulent scientists who support the
> official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 AND 2.
>
They refuse to accept the fact that special exploding Israeli thermite was used
to detonate the buildings and that there were Jews dancing in the streets of
NYC celebrating as the towers fell. The 9/11 scholars on the other hand are
eminently qualified experts in these matters with most holding advanced degrees
in Economics, History, Philosophy, Music and French Literature.
911fal...@gmail.com
Patrick Keenan wrote:
you are simple induction to discount Alex Jones before you've even
Shill #312
Ahahahahahahahaha... You just blew my Irony Meter to bits! Dud, there's bits of
plastic all over and the little needle is imbedded in the wall.
Shill #312
--
Reality-ometer: [\........] Humph! Thought so...
Vandar
You'd be very hard pressed to find 1% truth in his work.
> its the 1% of the
> puzzle that he doesn't focus on that bothers me. I believe and many are
> working it out that Alex Jones is a zionist whore. His job is to hold
> the 911 truth and false flag terrorism against a mysterious agency
> called the NWO but in fact this agency is nothing more than a jewish
> mafia called the zionist cabal. They are not unlike the italian mafia
> but they are 1000 times mroe powerful than the italian mafia ever were.
>
> You really must investigate 9/11 if you believe in truth and justice.
> Alex Jones has written a few good films such as TerrorStorm which you
> can watch free on video-google.
We're well aware of Jones' work. It's how we know he's a lying fraud.
> But a more reliable source of focus is www.iamthewitness.com
> If you would just peruse that website and check the sources you are in
> for the biggest shock of your life.
Bollyn is as much a liar as Jones, Hufschmid, and Szymanski.
Vandar
> We should also focus on the fraudulent scientists who support the
> official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 AND 2.
Yeah... it's much wiser to take the word of those who aren't scientists
at all.
You are aware that you're calling 99% of all relevant scientists on the
planet "fraudulent", aren't you?
> Its really come down to this now: If you want to defeat these criminals
> hen start sending death threats to the zionist whore scientists
> supporting the official mantra.
>
> its now or never. The end game is in full swing and inevitably we will
> have to take up arms. The sooner we take up sniper rifles and start
> assassinating the traitors the less blood we will have to spill down
> the track.
You sound like Hal Turner: "Hey everybody! I don't agree with these
people so you should shoot them for me! And don't forget to send me money!"
Vandar
> erudite Christopher Bollyn
There goes any hope you ever had of being considered anything but a joke.
faeychild
> The thing prima facie I don't like about the hologram plane argument is
> that it would have been easier to fly real 767 into the builidngs. So
> why would they bother faking it?
>
> I'm also concerned with the intent of Morgon reynolds as when he has
> been given priceless airtime on major zionist networks he has fixated
> on the hologram plane argument when we already have 100% proof that the
> buildings were brought down by explosives.
>
> The proof that the buildings were explosives is sufficient
> proof that there was foreknowledge and thus muslims were not to blame
> afterall.
>
> Hologram planes, although this may be true, has done alot of damage to
> the 911 truth movement. Consider how hard it is sometimes to convince
> someone of the bloody obvious reality that those buildings 1,2 and 7
> were brought down with CD and thus consider how impossible it must be
> to convince someone of the less obvious possibility that the planes
> were holograms/blue-screen
>
> Ezra O'Donnell Ph. D. wrote:
>
>> We Have Some Holes
>> in the Plane Stories*
>> By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.ee
>>
>> Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent sum
>> mary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers"
Did you really have to quote the *ENTIRE* post.
--
regards faeychild
(Registered GNU/Linux user #374302)
John P.
> If you spent $400 on his books and movies like most of us...
> He does it for the betterment of mankind. Not for the money.
One of these things doesn't belong here
One of this things just isn't the same
Can you tell me which thing doesn't belong here
Now it's time to play our game
It's time to play out game
In a conversation with the friend of a friend, discussing chiropractors, I
made the claim they were quacks who made you come in every couple of weeks.
Here response was that she disagreed as she had been seeing a chiropractor
for over three years, every couple of weeks.
One of these things doesn't belong here
One of this things just isn't the same
Can you tell me which thing doesn't belong here
Now it's time to play our game
It's time to play out game
John P.
> If you spent $400 on his books and movies like most of us, you'll find out
> why
> he's not a fraud.
I'll pop $400 for Alex Jones fictional stories. It's chump change to me. I
just got a thing in the mail saying I'm one of the top finalist for the
Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes and I'm definitely going to win a
prize. All I need to do is send back my magazine order.
I'm getting so close! Every one of the first 49 magazine orders I sent in
got me that much closer. Now, I'm one of the top finalists!
I have to go... I have a shitload of magazines to read!
After that, I have to add my name to the bottom of a list and send $5 to
everyone on the current list. Once I've done that, I'll make a million
dollars in just 6 weeks!
Not only that, but I just got the notification via email, that I've won $2.5
million in the Irish Lottery! That is so cool, considering I never even
entered or bought a lottery ticket. I had to send them a money order for
$1,500 to cover the taxes and claim my prize. That check should be here any
day now.
With all this luck I've had and all the money I have coming in, even if
Jones stuff is a rip-off, the $400 is really an insignificant sum to me.
Vandar
Don't forget the $30 million you have coming for letting the son of the
assassinated President of Umpapamaomao use your bank account to transfer
the funds out of his country.
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
Um, what??
>
> I'm arguing here that Alex Jones tells 99% truth. its the 1% of the
> puzzle that he doesn't focus on that bothers me. I believe and many are
> working it out that Alex Jones is a zionist whore. His job is to hold
> the 911 truth and false flag terrorism against a mysterious agency
> called the NWO but in fact this agency is nothing more than a jewish
> mafia called the zionist cabal. They are not unlike the italian mafia
> but they are 1000 times mroe powerful than the italian mafia ever were.
LOL, some of you kooks have joos on the brain.
>
> You really must investigate 9/11 if you believe in truth and justice.
So when will you start yours?
> Alex Jones has written a few good films such as TerrorStorm which you
> can watch free on video-google.
It's good for some laughs.
> But a more reliable source of focus is www.iamthewitness.com
A more accurate claim would be a bigger source of bullshit.
> If you would just peruse that website and check the sources you are in
> for the biggest shock of your life.
No, but there are some good laughs there.
>
> Everybody has to ull together and help us get through these difficult
> times.
I kind of think it's going to get very difficult for you, but then you
will be placed someplace where they can monitor your medication and make
you legally sane again.
>
> ignorance of zionism will kill you.
Ignorance of science, logic, and common sense seems to be your problem.
Worry about the "zionists" after you gain a little sanity.
BDK
>
>
> >
> > -pk
>
>
BDK
Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com says...
Hey send it to me! I've got some special colloidal silver stuff that
cures anything, including Aids and Alzheimer's.
Really.
BDK
Patrick Keenan
news:1165692573.0...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
What is that supposed to mean?
> Alex Jones before you've even
> looked at his work.
And what makes you think I haven't already seen his work?
> I'm arguing here that Alex Jones tells 99% truth. its the 1% of the
> puzzle that he doesn't focus on that bothers me. I believe and many are
> working it out that Alex Jones is a zionist whore. His job is to hold
> the 911 truth and false flag terrorism against a mysterious agency
> called the NWO but in fact this agency is nothing more than a jewish
> mafia called the zionist cabal. They are not unlike the italian mafia
> but they are 1000 times mroe powerful than the italian mafia ever were.
>
> You really must investigate 9/11 if you believe in truth and justice.
If you were interested in either of those, you wouldn't be writing as you
do.
> Alex Jones has written a few good films such as TerrorStorm which you
> can watch free on video-google.
> But a more reliable source of focus is www.iamthewitness.com
> If you would just peruse that website and check the sources you are in
> for the biggest shock of your life.
>
> Everybody has to ull together and help us get through these difficult
> times.
>
> ignorance of zionism will kill you.
I suspect you're never going to get it.
But you are going to keep smiling as you pay Mr. Jones's bills, aren't you?
-pk
>>
>> -pk
>
John P.
>> With all this luck I've had and all the money I have coming in, even if
>> Jones stuff is a rip-off, the $400 is really an insignificant sum to me.
> Don't forget the $30 million you have coming for letting the son of the
> assassinated President of Umpapamaomao use your bank account to transfer
> the funds out of his country.
I am so going to rip that loser off. He said he wants to transfer $130
million into my account, then I am supposed to give him $100 million, and I
get to keep $30 million. Yeah.... Like hell! Once I have the $130 million in
*my* account, it's mine. I'll transfer it to another account and his dumb
ass will be stuck in Umpapamaomao.
People are so gullible!
I have some more money coming my way, though, not as much as the millions
I'm already getting. I sold a car on eBay for $25,000. The winner said he
just has a bank check for $100,000. He's sending it to me. I'm supposed to
keep my $25,000 and send him the other $75,000. LOL! I don't think so!
Sucker just paid $100,000 for a $25,000 car!
Dumbass.
John P.
>> With all this luck I've had and all the money I have coming in, even if
>> Jones stuff is a rip-off, the $400 is really an insignificant sum to me.
> Hey send it to me! I've got some special colloidal silver stuff that
> cures anything, including Aids and Alzheimer's.
>
> Really.
I already had some. I was losing my hair. ... well, just in my armpits. I
took some and it cured my armpit baldness.
BDK
Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com says...
I wish I had that problem. The only place there's a hair shortage is my
head. It's going like gangbusters everywhere else.
BDK
The Ghost In The Machine
<Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:47:35 -0600
<67KdnexrFYkYMObY...@comcast.com>:
There's probably a foundation for that somewhere.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/brain: Permission denied
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John P.
>> I already had some. I was losing my hair. ... well, just in my armpits. I
>> took some and it cured my armpit baldness.
> There's probably a foundation for that somewhere.
Wow! That would be great. Until now, I've been just trying to deal with this
on my own. I thought I was the only one. It's not too terrible... you know,
some days are better than others. It's still tough to go outside some times
though. I can see the neighbors whispering and pointing. Whenever it gets
really tough, I just remind myself that I still have hair on my ass, and one
of these days, it will start growing out of my ears.
It'd be cool to hook up with some type of support group. Maybe they even
have some singles functions, dances and stuff where men & women suffering
the loss of armpit hair can meet and mingle with others like them.
John P.
>> I already had some. I was losing my hair. ... well, just in my armpits. I
>> took some and it cured my armpit baldness.
> I wish I had that problem. The only place there's a hair shortage is my
> head. It's going like gangbusters everywhere else.
I think I was attacked by the barber on the grassy knoll, or maybe 'Da Jooz'
came and stole it from me in the middle of the night. Some people say a
plane flew into it, but, I've seen the videos, and I don't see any plane,
and there is no wreckage of a plane in either armpit.
One time I met President Bush. He said "Pleased to meet ya son. ... Say, you
wouldn't happen to have any armpit hair, would ya?" ... and then he laughed
the most evil laugh, while a bunch of Jooz patted him on the back.
eri...@gmail.com
I think I'm stupider solely from reading that.
On Dec 9, 6:57 am, Ezra O'Donnell Ph. D. <e...@aol.com> wrote:
> We Have Some Holes
> in the Plane Stories*
> By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
>
> Charlie Sheen contends that my June 9 article "provides an excellent summary of
> evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers" but that about a
> third of my article supports "the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers,
> the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of
> the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01." My article "thus weds the thesis of
> controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175,
> 77, and 93 crashed where reported." Charlie Sheen believes that this is
> "unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by
> associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and
> are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack - especially the
> survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights."
> Charlie Sheen's critique uses intimidating language-"lack scientific merit,
> easily debunked, inherently offensive"-to denounce someone of a contrary mind
> about the government story of hi-jacked jetliners. This article constitutes
> part II of my reply to him and here is part I. Many 9/11 researchers would be
> surprised to learn that the controversy over the reported crashes of Flights
> 11, 175, 77, and 93 has been scientifically resolved and settled in favor of
> the official story. Whatever the state of disputation over crashes may be, the
> WTC demolition theory is in no danger of being discredited. Let's make this
> statement in bold letters so that Charlie Sheen and others worried about
> "unity" within the vaunted 9/11 truth movement cannot fail to understand:
> WTC demolition is truth inviolate, entirely separate from airliner crashes,
> proven beyond reasonable doubt and newly supported by a BYU physicist who calls
> for a serious investigation. It's the linchpin establishing that selected parts
> of the U.S. government, aided by certain outsiders, committed the crimes of
> 9/11.
> But that unassailable fact of demolition does not settle all phases of this
> complex scam, a commonplace in ongoing criminal investigations. Further, if
> controversy over the role of airplanes and hijackers played in the 9/11 hoax is
> "inherently offensive," then we are in worse shape than I thought. According to
> William Rodriguez, the janitor who was last man out of the WTC and a much-
> decorated hero, healing is impossible for survivors because only truth can
> bring closure.
> Step back from wrangling over planes for a moment and three things stand out:
> o 9/11 was a colossal hoax, an egregious example of false-flag terrorism
> o Corporate media dutifully sold the scam
> o Four reported airliners vanished as if by magic
> September 11 was a well-planned psy-op, deceptive at every level, intended to
> manipulate public opinion, and wildly successful in the short run. Given this
> background, virtually everything the government and its media stenographers
> parrot to this day must be construed as deception until proven otherwise.
> A primary question is, why investigate the crashes? Some writers object that
> pursuing questions surrounding the planes is a sideshow and can only distract
> from an uncompromising focus on the WTC demolitions. Yet the contention that
> young Arabs hijacked specific flights and crashed them is a vital component of
> the official fiction. New, rational understanding about the plane stories would
> have great value, and that probably explains the intense resistance to such
> scrutiny. Questions and answers about each plane crash matter for at least
> three reasons:
> o If the perpetrators get away with the plane hoaxes, it encourages more
> audacious, blood-soaked scams
> o The key to acquiescence in the government's war on terror and global
> domination project is public belief in Arab hi-jacked airliners and crashes
> o Exposure of airplane lies expands the proof that government committed the
> 9/11 atrocities
> Some readers might object that critical examination of the official airplane
> stories is silly because everybody saw a plane hit the WTC south tower that
> morning. But that was only one of four events and seeing is not believing in a
> world of special effects. Something fantastic shown on TV is not the end of a
> criminal investigation but the beginning. Any important proposition delivered
> by the media must be established by evidence independent of their sleight-of-
> hand. They have been repeatedly exposed as liars, usually on behalf of the
> social apparatus of compulsion they must appease daily to continue their high-
> revenue businesses over the public airwaves. The media are not so much
> "embedded" with the U.S. government and military as "in bed" with them. Even if
> you reject this "echo chamber" view, there is no doubt that the technology
> exists to insert prepared images into pixels in real time and make the images
> prepared in advance look (mostly) real. The first-down stripe inserted in NFL
> telecasts is an example. Some analysts argue that the WTC crashes were little
> more than Tuesday-morning cartoons. Whether or not such a conclusion is
> warranted, any proposed theory of what happened must be consistent with
> physical evidence and conform to the principles of physics, the official
> conspiracy theory included. We should put aside preconceptions based on pixels
> and evaluate the physical evidence anew. Videos are discussed again toward the
> end of the article.
> It is not my burden to prove what really happened. That burden lies entirely
> with apologists for the official plane story like Charlie Sheen. Mr. Charlie
> Sheen, not the skeptics, must prove that four Boeing airliners crashed as
> government and corporate media say they did. Proof must be verifiable,
> corroborated, physical facts and not contradictory reports from witnesses,
> including those bought off or pressured into a predetermined result by media
> coverage that morning. Evidence offered by so-called plane huggers like Charlie
> Sheen should be obvious and powerful. After all, land crashes by big planes in
> populated areas are quite easy to identify. Skeptics, by contrast, need only
> point to one verified fact contrary to the official theory to send it crashing
> into oblivion. We have the facts to destroy the official account of each
> reported incident.
> Ordinarily it is child's play to confirm the exact identity of a commercial
> plane in a crash investigation but, no, not on 9/11. Almost nothing was normal
> that morning. Upon careful inspection, proof of the advertised crashes is
> extremely hard to locate, especially since no air accident investigations were
> conducted. After all, the administration "knew" who to go after immediately, so
> why bother? The most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or
> near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage at each crash site. Government
> could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent
> investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane's
> maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes.
> Charlie Sheen denounces "ideas that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea
> that no planes hit the towers." Well, let's be careful here: the idea that
> specific jetliners identified by government did not hit the WTC towers has an
> initial "basis in evidence" because officials have not produced a single
> airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration. Instead, we are
> supposed to largely rely on the word of the conspirators themselves who staged
> 9/11 to pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements.
> Four large commercial jets vanished within 80 minutes that morning,
> unprecedented events in the northeastern United States. This is so incredible
> that it rivals the first collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers on the
> same day at the same site, the first ever "caused" by fires in history.
> We cannot overlook these facts. Charlie Sheen dismisses critics of the "Big
> Boeing Theory" (BBT) as unscientific even though he cannot Show Me Debris. In
> scientific controversy, a plausible albeit unfashionable hypothesis cannot be
> dismissed until falsified by a verified fact.
> A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or
> drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers
> from outside. I do not have enough evidence yet to say. My present purpose is
> not to posit what really happened but demonstrate what did not happen: the
> official BBT theory about 767 and 757 crashes is full of holes. Physical facts
> at every turn refute the official story about what gashed the towers, Pentagon
> and Pennsylvania that morning.
> So we have an intellectual contest. May the better scientist win. More
> importantly, may the truth come out and justice eventually prevail.
> Phantom Flights?
> Before examining physical evidence-our principal task-we should note that many
> facts about the alleged flights subvert the official account. The Colgan Air
> flight 5930 Portland-Logan is riddled with questions and AA Flights 11 and 77
> were not scheduled that day. Official BTS data are meticulously kept because of
> liability issues. The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question-tail
> numbers N334AA and N644AA-were deregistered January 14, 2002, but without
> evidence they were involved in the alleged flights. Mohammed Atta supposedly
> left a rental car at Portland International and absurdly left a second car full
> of incriminating evidence at Logan, in other words, evidence was
> planted/fabricated. And was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11?
> The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day-tail number
> N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93-were deregistered four years
> later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be
> deregistered within 24 hours.
> Further fueling suspicion, all four cross-country flights had improbably light
> loads with most seats vacant (approximately 52-86% empty) ...
>
> read more ยป
BDK
Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com says...
Proof that Boosh is a tool of the joos! They are obviously controlling
him by switches controlling his micro cephalic microprocessor.
BDK
trop...@gmail.com
911fal...@gmail.com wrote:
> We should also focus on the fraudulent scientists who support the
> official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 AND 2.
>
> Its really come down to this now: If you want to defeat these criminals
> hen start sending death threats to the zionist whore scientists
> supporting the official mantra.
>
> its now or never. The end game is in full swing and inevitably we will
> have to take up arms. The sooner we take up sniper rifles and start
> assassinating the traitors the less blood we will have to spill down
> the track.
Sure Jake. You said you'd lead an armed revolution on Sep 11. Then you
said you'd set off bombs in Mebourne and the ASIO cafeteria.
So, you've managed to carry out exactly 0% of your threats.