9/11 interesting facts and stats
Kanga Jr.
structural dynamics among other things, and when you compare various
"stories" regarding the 9/11 attacks you will see that no official
argument is anywhere near square to the known facts.
I do not know what happened on 9/11, or who did it, but there are some
things I can tell you;
there were deep connections involved. probably political, but big
business could conceivably have achieved it.
The Twin Towers and building 7 were destroyed in a controlled manner,
with precision that would require internal mechanics and significant
planning.
The Twin Towers and building 7 were destroyed in a manner by which
evidence was hard to come by afterwards.
Government agencies, or the Government itself, had been compromised.
evident due to;
-Interception Fighters flying at low speeds
-Air-defence systems were running at less than 5%
-attacks went out-of-their-way to hit illogical targets which,
incidentally, had the least structural impact on the government (i.e.
hitting the section of the Pentagon that was under repair)
No jetliner hit the Pentagon
Flight 93 did not crash.
Ok, so now you're thinking that this is all blind speculation......
whatever. just hear me out on this. its semi-complicated to explain.
This is gonna take me hours to type so please take the time to read.
No steel-structured building had ever collapsed, even partially, due to
fire, (Of any kind) until 9/11, when 3 buildings underwent complete
implosion. One of which, (WTC7) had no fires or aircraft-related
damage.
No structure of any kind had ever been known to spontaneously implode,
while following the path of maximum resistance.
(any matter in any state will always behave in the way that expends the
least energy. the WTCs should have toppled to the side, not imploded)
No structure of concrete had ever spontaneously pulverised upon
collapse without use of high-level explosives in regular intervals. (In
all collapses there are large sections of unbroken concrete. Just look
at an earthquake zone.)
Jet-Fuel CAN burn hot enough to soften steel. Jet Fuel can soften steel
to the extent that its integrity in structures is halved. All
buildings, however, are overengineered to at least 6x their breaking
points. (The WTCs should have still been 3x as strong as they needed to
be. As a generous estimate, the damage from the impact may have
compromised the structure by 50%, but this is still 150% of standing
strength)
Steel has an interesting property of having excellent heat-transfer
properties with long-term heating. Any welder will tell you that if one
end of an iron bar is heated over the period of, say, 20 mins, the
other end will be exactly as hot, minus heat radiation, maybe 20 or 30
degrees celcius. The WTCs had a hell of a lot of steel in them, and
over the period of an hour, the heat energy being put into the
structure will have spread out significantly. This is shown positively
by the fact that no tested pieces of structural iron had ever passed
250 degrees C. This is not enough to even halve the strength of the
steel.
Under no instances would jetfuel burn hot enough to melt steel in an
open environment. It cannot even come close to vaporising it. However,
several outer girders show evidence of vaporisation. With the
aforementioned head dispersion properties, we can see that an
incredible amount of head must have been put into the structure at that
point in a very short time period. Thermite (a mixture of aluminium
powder and Iron (III) oxide) can burn hot enough to have this effect
(it burns half as hot as a nuclear bomb).
Most people who were on the collapsed structure less than, say, 10
minutes, reported that the first thing they noticed was that through
the gaps in the wreckage they saw streams of molten metal. Jet fuel
does not have the chemical potential energy to melt such amounts of
steel, even partially. Thermite, upon burning, not only melts or
vaporises nearby metals, but its products are heat, Aluminium Oxide
(Al2O3) and liquefied Iron. This is a possible explanation for the
excess heat.
Under no normal circumstances can such a high percentage of concrete in
a structure be powdered. Yet a fine layer of concrete silt covered the
entire of Manhattan after the collapses. (Think of this; after a
building is demolished in a conventional way, is it pulverised and
spread on the wind over the entire city? After an earthquake, are the
streets covered in concrete-sand? or just big lumps and slabs?)
If flight 93 "the flight that fought back" really crashed in a field,
then why was it reported and recorded making an early stop due to a
bomb threat? It never was took off again, so how did it crash? The
mayor of the town where flight 93 was postponed was giving a press
announcement about the bomb hoax when the "attacks" commenced. Minutes
later, the same flight 93 that never took off, crashed. No bodies were
ever recovered and none of the flight recorder details were ever
released. Even to investigators.
After the initial press release, the real flight 93 and its passengers
disappeared (???). The council and media stopped reporting the hoax in
favour of covering the attacks, and never made another report on flight
93's bomb hoax.
Several explosive projections were filmed along the WTCs sides during
the 11-second collapse. The projections clearly show powdered concrete.
As ENJOY noted earlier, these are "pressure ejections". The pressure,
however, is at a high explosive order, somewhere around 3000fps,
probably caused by rapid chemical reaction, i.e. explosive device.
Ordinary pneumatic depressurisation could not have powdered the
concrete. The ejections are also lone. if they were pressure related
the windows should have blown out at relatively low pressure, and once
that pressure is relieved, more windows should blow out until the
pressure increase generated by the falling structure is equal to the
pressure of air that is capable of being pushed through the windows.
hence, you could not have one window area blow-out without hundreds
along the structure behaving similarly. We can then determine that the
pressure was either escaping the building at the ground floor, or the
falling structure was pulverised by some unknown force (i.e.
explosives) to the extent that it could not hold pressure.
The North Tower had a large radio array installed onto its core
structure. (WTC 1 and 2 had load-bearing central columns, housing the
elevators and serving as a connection point for floor trusses) In
slow-motion video analysis, it is evident that this column falls at
least a metre before the collapse initiates. This shows that the
central column, not the trusses, was the first to fail. Why? The
central column was capable of standing separate from the building
itself. If the building failed in a veritcal fall, the outer layers
should have fallen around the column, which would have stood for an
indeterminable period, depending on damage sustained by the falling
building. Computer simulations show that the plane could not have
severed the central column, but would have only slightly damaged it. In
theory, this would be only a weak point on the central column after
collapse.
The South Tower also had a column, although it had no rooftop array, so
there is no way of determining if it, too failed first. The plane that
hit the South Tower missed the central column completely. The undamaged
central column should have stayed standing indefinitely after the
collapse, and would have had to be demolished separately later, yet it
collapses as fast, or faster, than the surrounding structure.
The North tower, upon collapse, began to tilt over. the top 17 floors
should have fallen to the ground as a whole, yet it never hit. Within
the 11 seconds it took to fall, it was pulverised. Because they tilted,
the top floors never hit any of the lower floors, so they can't have
been pulverised by kinetic shocks. Explosives must hav been triggered.
The towers fell in 11 seconds. Solid objects thrown from the top only
took 11 seconds to hit the ground. Everything physics tells us says
that for the top section to "sledgehammer" its way through the lower
floors it would need to expend significant kinetic energy, converted
from gravitational potential. Therefore, we would expect the collapse
to take at least 17-25 seconds to fall. The only possible explanation
is that the floors were somehow dislodged and set into freefall before
the top layers hit them. We see no obvious evidence of this, except
during the fall, there is an energetic projection ring consistently
ejecting about 3 floors below the dust cloud. This is inconsistent with
pressure exertion, whereby many, but not all windows would fail, but it
is consistent with timed detonation. This also allies with earlier
evidence of explosive squibs (material ejections), and may explain them
as pre-detonated charges.
At least two firefighters made it to the impact zone of the South
Tower. They radioed HQ and requested only 2 crews to assist them,
describing light office fires that would take a predicted 2 hours to
extinguish (for an office fire in a building with such surface area, 2
hours means a very light fire). There was no "raging inferno".
There is a well-known recording of a radio order to "pull it", (common
demolition term for setting off the charges in an implosion)
approximately 3 seconds before the unexplainable and total collapse of
the evacuated, yet completely unscathed, WTC7.
After the aircraft impacts, the smoke was light grey, almost cloudlike.
It quickly became darker and darker, and for the last half an hour or
so, it was pitch black. Darker smoke indicates a cooler fire,
smouldering away inefficiently. It produces smoke with unburnt carbon
in it. The fires were aerated initially, but later, without oxygen, the
fuel (no matter how abundant) didn't have the oxygen required to burn,
and instead underwent near heatless reaction. As the day progressed the
fires became weaker, and could not have weakened the structures.
Many people were in buildings near the flightpath of the planes, many
also saw the second plane approaching. They report that it had no
windows. Show me a passenger plane with no windows and I'll kiss a
donkey.
Video analysis shows that the planes hitting the WTCs had large,
(nonexistent on boeing 737s) bulges on the undercarriage. These
obviously cannot have been installed by onboard terrorists.
While there is insufficient video evidence pertaining to the first
plane, the plane that hit the South Tower clearly was not a Boeing 737.
The fuselage in front of the wings is disproportionate, the tail angle
is different, and the wing angle is signifigantly shallower. This plane
cannot have been a 737 from a civilian airport.
All videotapes that could have captured the plane hitting the Pentagon
were confiscated by the FBI and have since disappeared.
The exception being one (and only one) "leaked" 5-frame shot claiming
to be from the Pentagon. Despite the obvious signs of forgery
(misplaced shadows, inconsistent lighting), noone seems to have noticed
that the camera recorder has tagged it as [Sept. 12] in the lower left
corner. It was also the wrong time of day, filmed about 18 hours after
the attacks.
The damage to the Pentagon indicates that no plane bigger than an F-16
could have hit it. The purported jetliner's wings would have left
impact scrapes on the walls dozens of yards wider than was actually
observed. The tail would have pierced the roof, however the roof
remained unscathed until it collapsed, many minutes later.
There was no jetliner wreckage. There were photographs of a "jet engine
turbofan" that was approximately 50cm in diameter. A 767's turbofan is
6 times that wide. One piece of fuselage (approx. 6ft square) was
photographed. Photos taken straight after the hit indicate that it was
not there until at least 5 minutes later (???). Further photo analysis
of the markings on it indicates that it can only be from the right of
the fuselage, yet the wreckage was 15m to the left of where the plane
should have exploded (???). There was no jetliner wreckage that wasn't
planted.
People who witnessed the hit from the highway report the corkscrew
twist the aircraft made in order to hit the Pentagon. In theory, the
plane should have not been capable of such a manoevre. The "terrorist"
pilot came out of the turn less than 5m above the ground. The same
alledged pilot was denied use of a light plane because he was such a
poor flier, yet the manoevre he pulled has been held in awe by pilots
worldwide, most agreeing no human pilot can do it, even if the plane's
integrity held up. All this trouble was gone through simply to hit the
rear face of the Pentagon, rather than fly straight in a far more
reliable manner and hit the front. Would the "terrorists" have risked
their own martyrdom on such an insane and illogical move?
The section they went so far out-of-their-way to hit was undergoing
renovations at the time and hence had hardly any of the potential
"victims" present. (Almost only renovators, noone who would be
considered "important")
This "pilot" has since stepped forward, demonstrably alive and unaware
the American government had named him as the pilot. The story was
changed immediately. The new "pilot" also stepped forward. In fact, at
least 6 (and probably 7) of the "known hijackers" have been found alive
and usually unaware that they had been confirmed to have "died in the
crashes". None of the hijacker's names were on passenger manifestos. No
confirmable photographic evidence of them in the airports have been
released.
The hijacker's car contained a Quran. They are known to have entered
drinking contests and partied at stripclubs. (With this casual breaking
of their God's Law, they were still extremist enough to murder 3000
people and commit suicide)
Radar stations admitted they assumed the supposed "767" was a fighter
because such a quick manoevre as its corcscrew turn is simply
impossible to any other type of aircraft.
Witnesses report the plane looking like a jetliner but being much
smaller. They also report that it blew up some 10m before it hit the
walls of the Pentagon (???). Several people with explosives experience
said that within seconds they could smell the cordite. Some have
speculated that it was a missile (and hence the lack of wing and tail
penetration), but so many people saw a small plane that it was clearly
the only feasible option.
The fuel that was supposedly burning hot enough to soften the steel in
the WTCs left paper books and wooden chairs unscathed in the Pentagon,
some only 2 metres away from the impact zone.
The Whitehouse was able to claim that they knew it was Osama Bin Ladin
after only hours. This was supposedly proven by a videotape found in
Afghanistan several days earlier. (Noone knows why the marines just
happened to find the unmarked tape in a town of 130,000 and decide it
was important.) The tape clearly is not Osama Bin Ladin. He writes with
his right hand even though Osama is a lefty. He and his aide wear gold
rings, which are forbidden by Islamic culture, and the shape of his
face and colour of his hair is far from that of Bin Ladin. His beard is
even short! Later that week the (real) Osama issued a video claiming he
was not the planner/organiser of 9/11... The Bush Administration
ignored this completely.
The Government set up a commission to investigate what happened with
the Twin Towers. The commission was underfunded, denied the right to
view blueprints of the buildings, denied access to ground zero, and
didn't even get to report on why the buildings collapsed. The report
starts at the moment the building fails and continues for the whole 11
seconds 'till its gone. It fails to even recognise the existence of the
core structure.
The crucial steel girders that could have explained the circumstances
of the crash and collapse were immediately cut up and shipped worldwide
for recycling. This prevented the government commission from getting
any evidence.
When the two planes first hit the towers, for a split second a bright
explosive flash was visible. In a jetliner there is no fuel or other
explosive prior to the wings. How, then did the cockpit explode? There
must have been some foreign objects involved, or there cay have been
explosives in the towers themselves that detonated on impact. Either
way it just doesn't make sense.
Ok I've been typing for 4 hours now so I'll go now.
I've probably forgotten some things. If anyone remembers
something I left out just mention it and I'll explain.
--Kanga Jr.
KANGAROOISTAN
Colin Murphy
> Kanga Jr. wrote:
>
Just another monotonous rehash of all the debunked, half-baked conspiracy myths
conjured up by kooks over the years.
Ho hum. Repeating the lies won't make them any more true.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
SOURCES: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this
article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the
morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling
question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go
to
Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and
you'll
get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have
been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers
associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S.
landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales
are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry
photos,
quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a
slew
of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade
Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a
mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are
increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists,
POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who,
together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that
form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the
military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence
and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on
something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the
byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity
into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable
facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared
into world history.--THE EDITORS
THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four
9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to
forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home.
Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very
different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't
commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or
guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it
proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in
order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM:Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175
hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath
the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and
the
Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing
767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of
equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as
evidence
that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who
planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's
undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York
magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original
photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at
Arizona
State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the
shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects.
After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing
767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo
reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a
pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight
glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a
blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends
to
be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend
to
'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian
aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute
of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really
stretching."
No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within
close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two
squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington
D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job."
"There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of
StandDown.net.
"Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48
states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American
Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic
Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj.
Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's
Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform
NEADS
that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that
Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35
minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines
Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS
at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time
the
plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from
Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth,
Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va.
None
of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the
planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search
4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air
corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking
outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There
was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States
were
not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM:On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee
Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash
into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane,"
Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."
Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to
show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced
9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a
military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.
FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time,
tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when
he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the
plane
strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.
While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the
collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A
licensed
structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting
firm
based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the
roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger
windows.
"It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states
flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able
to
track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the
landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower,
exited
from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
PLAIN VIEW: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. PHOTOGRPAH
BY
WILLIAM F. BAKER/FEMA
Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM:"It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately
intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air
traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force
'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in
question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over
North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers
and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but
remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1
hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and
on
9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other
NORAD
interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).
"Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM.
After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines
between
ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies.
NORAD
has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor
airspace over the continent.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few
hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have
shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well
as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed
conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with
explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
CLAIM:The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of
the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the
78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing
fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both
buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY
the
impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a
posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site
(sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES
(... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels
of
tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its
lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility
shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and
fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where
the
fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but
if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the
elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard
first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground
floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and
people
died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of
Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French
documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the
North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on
fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The
first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of
structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The
posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames
didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural
strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen
melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief
Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To
Fireground
Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What
happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no
longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer
Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at
1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great
deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel
beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more
vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor
of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven
structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the
jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was
intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs,
curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe
10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest
of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that
eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM:As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were
ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times
for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made
this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible
from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy
theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the
Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero
said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the
collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor.
Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the
forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through
the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and
it
does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural
engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As
they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris
pulverized
by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have
a
significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete
dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those
clouds
of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but
it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal
became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I
thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only
said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the
collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22,
2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But
emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research
institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to
bear,
forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy
theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest
thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three
years."
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and
smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS
Seismic Spikes
CLAIM:Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The
strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well
before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site
WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex
Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable
proof
that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its
findings
are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur
Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was
consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
FACT:"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought
down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is
categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic
readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the
later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display
only
one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair
of
sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives
a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red
for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to
the ground. Translation: no bombs.
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM:Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed.
According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse
subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet
investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said
there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the
benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working
hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA
report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in
fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM.
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10
stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST
also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its
southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural
damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion
requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an
example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a
structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come
down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's
facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after
the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side
of
the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In
an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying
exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor.
"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one
column
on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical
progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation:
First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads
from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently
damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the
building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting
in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of
diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks
throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor
was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says
Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was
supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that
burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual
construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
FINE LINES: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled
the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below).
Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia
University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam
(associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science
writer)/www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers.
Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for
hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to
the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY
NEW
YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade
Center,
the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing
757
hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile
or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the
damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a
75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole
in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes
are
far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide
and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks
reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to
what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose
baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern
media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck
by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This
attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military
personnel
against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring
E,
it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon
Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes
after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the
number
of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer
simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet
doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete
building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural
engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the
other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's
load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of
concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a
state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to
cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made
by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's
Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Intact Windows
CLAIM:Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the
point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an
online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that
photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a
missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But
that's
what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly
higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays,
executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that
designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked
out
of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not
designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to
take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before
the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM:Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.
"In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which
asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT:Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to
arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency
response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer,
CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the
plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the
airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and
I
found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of
plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts
of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn--proof that a
passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD
PHOTOS
FLIGHT 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed
up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in
southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was
destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane.
Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the
passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds
that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the
U.S. government could kill them.
The White Jet
CLAIM:At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over
the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com
theorizes
that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet,
or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have
been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com
weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to
journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with
perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually
observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come
down
to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes
to descend."
FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet
owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets
Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria
airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's
director
of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates
Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to
4000
ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown,"
Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down
within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground
with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued
on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about
ongoing
harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
Roving Engine
CLAIM:One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the
crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene
who
was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on
Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from
the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking
missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was
recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold,
the
National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National
Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin:
just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet
was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the
ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the
crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high
velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft.
per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would
only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash
analysts contacted by PM concur.
Indian Lake
CLAIM:"Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset
County,
reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human
remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001.
"Others
reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6
miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake
residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a
s
trong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly.
Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for
debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the
significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up
before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt,
Flight 93 was shot down."
FACT:Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found
in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly
surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did
land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the
concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator
Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact
crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat
of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9
to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.
F-16 Pilot
CLAIM:In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex
Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was
taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two
missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the
pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and
destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated
charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment.
According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney
flew
an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo,
N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the
New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from
Montana
to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in
the
state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky
for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in
Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that
Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney
was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is
being
misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It
brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims'
families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for
that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
KANGAROOISTAN
Colin Murphy wrote:
> KANGAROOISTAN <theo...@kangarooistan.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Kanga Jr. wrote:
> >
>
>
> Just another monotonous rehash of all the debunked, half-baked conspiracy myths
> conjured up by kooks over the years.
SO THE WHITE CHRISTIAN CAPITALISTS ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH
www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
REMEMBER W M D MATE
AND ALL THE CRAP LIES ABOUT MUSLIMS AND EVERY OTHER VICTIM THEY EVER
ATTACKED RAPED MURDERED PILLAGED AND PLUNDERED FOR CENTURIES
GOLLY IF THEY TOLD US THE TRUTH JUST OCCASIONALLY WE MIGHT BELIEVE THE
YANKS
BUT THEY PACKAGE AND SELL NOTHING BUT LIES AND TILL THEY LEARN TO TELL
THE TRUTH WE SHOULD SIMPLY CONSIDER EVERYTHING THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS ARE
LIES
THE TRUTH IS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE TO ANYTHING BUSH
SAYS
AND E WESTERN MEDIA SEEMS DOOMED AS WELL SO CHECK OUT WHAT MUSLIMS
THINK IN MUSLIM MEDIA
birdfluisbullshit
"Colin Murphy" <cmur...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ed999651...@free.teranews.com...
> KANGAROOISTAN <theo...@kangarooistan.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Kanga Jr. wrote:
> >
>
>
> Just another monotonous rehash of all the debunked, half-baked conspiracy
myths
> conjured up by kooks over the years.
>
> Ho hum. Repeating the lies won't make them any more true.
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
That Website is another kooky government paid conspiracy theory web.
Ho Hum, yes Bush and his death cult can repeat the lies over and over, but
it all adds to Zippo, as the public will keep on asking for the real truth
and not the tin foil hat kind that this website claims as truth....lies and
lies and lies, that's it all it is....
Bush is not Jesus, as he thinks he is, he only a madman and puppet who like
Hitler will kill children to satisfy his lust for them
jmcc...@hotmail.com
>damage.
A couple of isolated fires can be seen in some of the footage. There is
no explanation for why these fires would be there and why the automatic
fire systems wouldn't have extinguished them. Plus, you ever heard of a
pot-belly stove collapsing because of fire?
"A steel-framed building constructed in 1983, with all the most modern
internal fire fighting equipment and building computer controlled
defences, with a foundation and underground structure totally separate
from the Twin Towers, a building that was called upon to house high
security offices such as the FBI, DOD, CIA and OEM....just up and
collapses in seven seconds at 5:20, September 11."
It FREE FALLS like a stone in mid air. How does that work people?
I hope that the 911 truth will be a blessing in disguise and wake the
people of the west up to start paying more attention and stop taking
ANYTHING the party-line publishes as the 'truth'. The truth never
changes. I hope that people stop buying newspapers and watching
television. These media have betrayed us beyond anything that would
normally be called betrayal. It is rather treason. And I hope to see
alot of executions and imprisonments.
"What we're talking about here, is late night, early morning, low
clouds." www.iamthewitness.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is Science and Reality still important or has it taken
a backseat to the fictional tales told by western politicians?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Kwyjibo.
news:1148173334.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Hey everyone, just mentioning that I am quite knowledgeable about
> structural dynamics among other things,
Fuck off, lying cunt.
--
Kwyj
jmcc...@hotmail.com
I notice you make no mention of WTC7. How convenient. Talk about
selective bias! Too hard to handle that one mate?
Heres a mention of that by a professor of physics:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
You can see the molten metal in the rubble of all three building sites,
still dripping six weeks later - only thermite demolition can explain
that mate.
That's alot of coincidences and slight chances in one day you refer to
mate! ALOT OF COINCIDENCES IN ONE DAY!!!!! Ever heard "Once, Twice,
Three times a conspiracy"? So even after a hundred coincidences you're
still blowing the same Bin Ladin trumpet? You obviously an dis-agent
Tell me mate, given that it is well known that NORAD will intercept
hijacked planes, why would have the 19 Arabs planned such an attack
given that the likelihood was that they would fail? Did Allah tell them
that they would be protected? That the pentagon wouldn't shoot them
down? That none of their planes would be intercepted by NORAD?
How did the terrorists know that the pentagon wouldn't shoot them down
with their auto-defence battery that shoots down any plane that is not
US military? Its a no-fly zone mate. Planes that enter it have to have
a friendly-beacon which is only held by US Military planes. Shouldn't
they have targeted the Nuclear Power facility that they actually flew
over on their way to the pentagon? Why would they say "hey lets hit the
pentagon and not the nuclear facility because that will be too well
guarded"
And why did they hit the West wing? Everyone knows that all the brass
are in the east wing.
That's Building 7 WTC - mate, you might want to mention that one. The
911 Commission Report also neglected to mention it. I wonder why?
Have you got the debunk for that one mate? I doubt it. Let me guess -
Diesel Fuel in the basement? If Diesel fuel can melt steel and cause a
perfect demolition like that mate how come demolition companies don't
use it? its cheaper than thermite and C4.
Hey, how come everyone in WTC7 were warned to evacuate because they
building was going to collapse? or would they know that the diesel fuel
was going to do this and yet they didn't know that the diesel fuel in
the basement would do this when they originally installed it and when
the system has to be all checked and made sure its a safe system for
back-up power? Which is what the diesel fuel in the basement was for -
the back-up generators.
And what about the dripping molten metal found in all three building
sites even six weeks after? The only time you see that is after
thermite demolition jobs. Not hydrocarbon fire mate! Have you ever
found molten metal in your pot-belly stove? Ever had metal dripping
onto the floor when you open your pot-belly to poke more coals in it?
there is footage of this molten metal dripping from the south tower.
AboveTopSecret is a DoD sponsored website. And popular mechanics has
been ridiculed abd debunked for that story of theirs. Its full of
omissions an obfuscation of fact. BOUGHT_AND_PAID_FOR by the zionists.
I have also looked at that Pentagon proof and it is very convincing.
The reason it is convincing is because of its omissions. Notice how
little evidence there is of 757? I know that it shows SOME evidence of
a 757 but we are expected to believe that those poles that were ripped
out of the ground and bent by the wings, didn't rip the wing off so
that it was left strewn across the lawn? And we are expected to believe
the wing just evaporated on both sides of the hole? Or that the wings
bent and were sucked into the pentagon? Where does all the fuel come
from mate? the Wings! So where are the burnt bits of wings all over the
lawn?
Look mate, hydrocarbon open fires can't evaporate aluminium o.k.
Anyway, I tend to not focus on the Pentagon. There is little physical
evidence supporting that a 757 hit it o.k. If 757 did actually hit it
then why isn't there HEAPS of evidence. Not just "Hey look at that
small bit of green paint in the rubble - that's the colour of the
undercoat of a 757" Well it may be, but where is the rest of the plane
mate? Where are the engines. Not one single engine and a tyre rim mate
- they could have put them in the building before the stunt.
You know that plane flew over the a nuclear power-station on its way to
the pentagon. Do you think they might have flown into that if they
wanted to cause damaged to the American economy?
And do you realise that the pentagon is under video surveillance?
Where's all the footage then? How come there is not footage of the
plane hitting the pentagon?
jmcc...@hotmail.com
DAY!!!!!!! HE"S A DIS_AGENT FUCK OFF MURPHY YOU TRAITOR> WE WILL CUT
YOUR HEAD OFF MATE WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES. PRISON FOR YOU OR DEATH
BY HANGING.
>From Google Profile:
cmurph...@sympatico.ca
This person's profile is currently unavailable, please try again later.
Name:
Nickname:
Location:
Title:
Industry:
Email address:
cmurph...@sympatico.ca
Website or Blog:
Quote:
Recent Posts:
Posts in
911 and the government paid conspiracy theory can.politics moments
ago
911 and the government paid conspiracy theory can.politics moments
ago
9/11 interesting facts and stats aus.politics moments ago
THESE ARE THE ONLY POSTS - 3 POSTS and look he's targeting the 911
issue.
Trying to maintain the bullshit eh, who ever you are you piece of shit
traitor - you're dead mate - and a rotten painful death will come to
you and all your kronies.
Semper Liber
>
> > Kanga Jr. wrote:
> >
>
>
> Just another monotonous rehash of all the debunked, half-baked conspiracy
myths
> conjured up by kooks over the years.
>
> Ho hum. Repeating the lies won't make them any more true.
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
ROTFL!!!!!
Here is a direct quote from the above URL......
"Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area
fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the
building."
Not only is the entrance hole a maximum of 16 feet (more than 100 feet SHORT
of the wingspan of a 757), it fails to consider the fact that the 757 is a
twin engined aircraft that houses the engines ON THE WINGS, rather than
inline with the cabin (the part they tell us made the 16 foot hole)
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
>
> SOURCES: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this
> article:
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y
Popular Mechanics propaganda piece penned by relative of Homeland Security
Chief.
Chistopher Bollyn for American Free Press | March 7 2005
Dictators like Saddam Hussein have always used nepotism to protect their
secrets and maintain control. Like a dictatorship, the inner cabal that
directs the actions of the Bush administration uses the same tactics to
confuse the public and conceal the truth of 9/11.
Dictators have always employed nepotism, the placing of family members in
key positions, for one simple reason: only loyal family members can be
trusted with the secrets that keep them in power. For this reason the
shameless nepotism of the Bush administration should alarm Americans because
it indicates that a dictatorship is encroaching upon the United States.
The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are
in the same chain-of-command.
An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W.
Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of
Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In
2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way.
With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of
senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives
that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the
ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former
Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.
But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of
nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about
9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a
propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to
discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version
of events.
"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads.
"After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But
the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't
answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and
the 47-story World Trade Center 7?
The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16
"myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable
facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.
But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics
who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none
other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security.
This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting
the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent
investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the
massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly
the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like
that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond
to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the
magazine's "senior researcher," directly.
Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he
was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly
uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all
questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who
never answers the phone.
Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk.
Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security,
Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm
SDGreen
"KANGAROOISTAN" <theo...@kangarooistan.com.au> wrote in message
news:1148177815.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Bull Crap!
Kanga Jr.
You do have some very valid points; however as you mentioned, some of
the claim are CONSPIRACIST and unverifiable. I have made careful note
to only include arguments I feel are verifiable or probable, using
videographic and photographic evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts.
Where I have used eyewitness accounts I have discounted arguments that
conflicted with the majority.
Read and consider my original post, as it disproves some of your
statements. If you disapprove of my interpretation, feel free to find
video and view it yourself; as aforementioned it is all verifiable or
suggested by existing evidence.
By the way, if only one of the many, many evidences I gave is true, and
I believe either all or most of them to be, then the official 9/11
story is incorrect.
Either way, I believe further scrutiny is required to actually find
what happened.
P.S. thanks for finding real arguments. most of these people simply
call me Hitler because they can't be bothered look it up. its
refreshing to have an intelligent debate.
--Kanga Jr.
jmcc...@hotmail.com
March 9, 2005
Popular Mechanics
810 Seventh Ave., 6th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Re: 9/11 Debunking the Myths
March, 2005 Magazine Issue
Dear Editor:
Even now as the puffy white smoke clouds begin to clear, exposing
fraudulent
missile pods and faked aerial photographs, many mysteries still persist
regarding NORAD?s passive role in the chain of command, structural
anomalies
within the towers, liquefied or missing aircraft parts, misplaced
landing gear,
and strangely resilient Pentagon window panes. Perhaps a future
generation of
Americans will learn that this sort of dialogue is not always healthy,
wise, or
in the best interest of the country. But for those of our generation
who still
thrive on disaster scenarios and conspiracy theories we have no choice
but to
carry on in typical point and counterpoint fashion until all our energy
runs
out or a more commanding crisis captivates our attention. We're hooked
and we
can't help ourselves. And so in that sad spirit, I dutifully offer
counterpoint
to your recent article, 9/11 Debunking the Myths, as published in the
March
issue of your magazine.
According to the article, "Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 F, not hot
enough
to melt steel (2750 F). However, experts agree that for the towers to
collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose
some
of their structural strength--." But how much warping, bending, or
sagging
could be expected, given the size, construction, and heat tolerances of
the
steel beams and the fact that the maximum achievable temperature was
admittedly
about 1000 F; beneath the melting point? No attempt is made in the
article to
quantify any tolerances, but Forman Williams, a structural engineer and
professor of engineering at the University of California, is quoted as
saying
"that while jet fuel was a catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting
inferno
was intensified by other combustible material inside the buildings,
including
rugs, curtains, furniture and paper." According to Williams, "The jet
fuel was
the ignition source. It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers]
were
still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning
afterward
that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them
down."
This is a bit much to swallow. How could rugs, curtains, or the odd
sandwich
left in someone's desk drawer have burned hotter than jet fuel? Even if
there
was no cooling off, how could yet higher temperatures have been
achieved or
maintained once the jet fuel was no longer a factor? And even if
structural
warping did occur at or above the fire levels, how could the healthy
massive
steel structures below the fires have lent themselves so completely and
uniformly to rapid vertical collapse? Instead of answering these
questions, the
article offers Mr. Williams' opinion, which turns out to be less
substantiated
than conspiracy theories that the buildings were brought down by
controlled
demolitions.
Fortunately the collapse of WTC Building 7 sheds new light on this
subject.
Situated across Vesey Street and separated from the North Tower by
Building 6,
which did not itself collapse, even after sustaining extensive damage
from fire
and falling debris, WTC 7 showed no significant damage at all in photos
taken
just before it collapsed. There were a few internal fires, but they
weren't
large enough or hot enough to even break out the windows.
Significantly, this
47-story monolith collapsed completely and uniformly straight down in
less than
seven seconds. Totally! The whole thing was sheared to the ground! The
article
states "NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7
was far
more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated."
Working
hypothesis? Is that anything like a conspiracy theory? What evidence is
offered
to support this? The unavoidable facts are that an airplane did not
strike WTC
7, the discreet distance separating it from the North Tower protected
it from
falling debris, and there was absolutely no evidence of structural
damage.
Conspicuous by its absence is any mention in the article about the
stunningly
short time span of the collapse. Quite possibly the under-seven-second
swiftness was too much for even the "working hypothesis" to explain.
Anyone
with basic logic skills now knows that this was, in fact, a controlled
demolition; and happily this reinforces suspicions about the towers
too.
I'll leave it up to others to decide whether the 9/11 disaster
constitutes
another Reichstag Fire or something even more sinister. All I know is
that the
physical evidence of controlled implosions is much too strong to be
debunked by
the arguments offered in your article.
Regards,
Joe Fougerousse
Kanga Jr.
Just reminding people that they needn't always make more arguments, I
have already noted, proved, or debunked all of these arguments.
So thanks for your input, but I must stress that people must read and
carefully think over my exhaustive analysis before trying to debunk
arguments I never made so as to make me look inept, (thankyou Colin
Murphy) or using their valuable time to make a further statement that I
have already made.
Sorry if this comes across rudely (I am definitely not "blaming you"),
but please just read my original post and think on it.
--Kanga Jr
jmcc...@hotmail.com
Christopher Bollyn goes even further now with pointing the finger not
only the Bush regime prmarily but on the zionist regime behind it:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-9-11-Controlling-the-Message.html
9-11: Controlling the Message
Christopher Bollyn
19 May 2006
The mainstream media can no longer avoid the red-hot 9-11 issues,
such as evidence of pre-planted explosives in the World Trade Center.
But rather than presenting all of the facts, the message is being
carefully controlled to suppress the evidence of Israeli involvement in
the attacks and media complicity in the cover-up.
William Rodriguez, the last person to escape from the North Tower just
seconds before it collapsed, is a key 9-11 organizer working on behalf
of the victims and their families. His efforts to find the truth about
the terror attacks were instrumental in pressuring the reluctant Bush
administration to establish the 9-11 Commission.
Rodriguez, a janitor who helped rescue many people from the burning
tower, stayed in the building from the time it was hit until
immediately before it was demolished. His observations of what happened
in the tower make him an important witness about the events at the
World Trade Center. However, when Rodriguez testified before the 9-11
Commission not one word of his testimony was included in its final
report.
Having known Rodriguez for a year and having spent many hours with him,
this reporter has learned a great deal about the 9-11 attack from his
personal observations, most of which he does not speak about publicly.
On a recent trip to Venezuela, Rodriguez told American Free Press that
he has been advised not to talk about critical evidence that he has
personal knowledge of.
"I can't talk about the Israeli involvement because it would offend the
Jewish families," Rodriguez said, referring to the relatives of Jewish
victims. Yet, Rodriguez has important information about the involvement
of Israeli intelligence agents in the attacks.
For example, he has personal knowledge that Israeli Mossad agents,
posing as employees of a moving company in New Jersey, met regularly
with some of the Arab terror suspects at a video store a block from his
home in Jersey City during the year prior to the attacks.
In the afternoon of 9-11, when five Israeli "movers" were arrested in
New Jersey after having been observed videotaping and celebrating the
attacks on the twin towers, the police sergeant was told not to mention
the fact that the men were Israelis, Rodriguez told AFP. Arab clothing
had been found in their vehicle, he said.
After investigating the five Israelis, the FBI concluded that they had
been "conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer,
Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front," wrote Marc
Perelman of The Forward, a leading New York-based Jewish newspaper, in
March 2002, citing an un-named "former high-ranking American
intelligence official."
www.forward.com/articles/4146
The five Israeli agents: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer
Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel were arrested eight hours after the attacks
by the Bergen County police while driving in an Urban Moving Systems
van. The police acted on an FBI alert after the men had been seen
celebrating and videotaping the events from the roof of their warehouse
and van.
Suspicions were compounded when box cutters, multiple passports, and
$4,000 in cash were found in the van, which tested positive for
explosives. The Israelis had taken pictures of themselves smiling with
the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background. In
the weeks and months following 9-11, numerous cells of other Mossad
"moving" agents were arrested across the nation.
In December 2001, Fox News reported that U.S. authorities had detained
60 such "movers" and had arrested or expelled some 120 other Israeli
agents, identified as "art students," which were part of an extensive
Israeli spy ring attempting to penetrate federal buildings and military
facilities.
In March 2002, the French newspaper Le Monde reported that the Israeli
art students had probably been monitoring "Al Qaeda operatives."
www.forward.com/articles/4150
Le Monde added that the Israeli spies appear to have been "trailing Al
Qaeda members in the United States without informing Washington." More
than one-third of the Israelis under investigation lived in Florida,
which was the home base for at least 10 of the 19 "hijackers" in the
September 11 attacks, Le Monde noted.
These facts, Le Monde wrote, support "the thesis according to which
Israel did not share with the U.S. all the elements it had about the
planning of the September 11 attacks."
The French and the Fox News reports were dismissed by Israel and its
supporters and received limited coverage in the American media,
Perelman noted. American Free Press is the only U.S. newspaper which
has reported extensively on these stories.
The Israelis were held for two-and-a-half months and deported at the
end of November 2001, for "visa violations," although the FBI's
counterintelligence investigation had concluded that at least two of
them were, in fact, Mossad operatives, according to the former American
official, who told The Forward that he had been regularly briefed on
the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.
"The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the
Mossad and operatives employed by it," he said. "The conclusion of the
FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs but that they could leave
because they did not know anything about 9/11."
What all of the teams of Israeli "movers" had in common was that their
vans had tested positive for explosives when the tests had been
conducted by the local police authorities. When the Israelis' vehicles
were turned over to the FBI, however, the FBI changed the reports to
say that there was no evidence that the vehicles had carried
explosives.
Rodriguez, who was on the first basement level of the North Tower at
8:45 a.m. on 9-11, has often spoken publicly about feeling and hearing
a "huge explosion" coming from the lower basement levels moments before
the first plane struck the WTC. He recently told AFP that he cannot
talk about "explosions," but only about what he heard.
The first victim that Rodriguez helped, however, was a man who had been
severely burned and injured by what he clearly told Rodriguez were
"explosions" in the basement.
In return for his co-operation in suppressing evidence of Israeli
involvement in 9-11 and the explosions, Rodriguez has apparently been
given vague promises of financial stability - and even political
office - particularly in the event that Hillary Clinton wins the
presidency in 2008. "I will be set for life if Hillary wins," he told
AFP, which suggests that the powers behind Clinton are directly
involved in the cover-up.
On the other hand, countless federal employees, who could provide
essential testimony about the attacks, have been gagged by secret
letters demanding their silence about what they know, did, saw or heard
on 9-11.
Into the heavily-censored media environment, numerous independent
researchers have brought forth a great deal of evidence disproving the
official version and showing that Israeli intelligence agents and their
U.S.-based supporters are prime suspects in the crimes of 9-11. In
order to draw attention away from this growing truth movement, the
controlled media has begun promoting a select group of authors and
their books, videos, and websites.
What this select group has in common is that their works minimize or
completely ignore the evidence of Israeli involvement and point to a
variety of other suspects being behind 9-11, such as senior officials
in the Bush administration, the Neo-Cons, the Vatican, unnamed
Luciferians, or the ever popular "Germanic Death Cult."
Webster G. Tarpley, author of 9-11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, is
one of the authors being promoted by the controlled media. As his title
suggests, Tarpley's thesis revolves around the Bush administration
being behind 9-11 and completely ignores the evidence of Israeli
involvement.
Likewise, without presenting a single piece of evidence, Tarpley wrote
an article claiming that the recent anti-Muslim cartoon scandal
instigated by a Danish newspaper had been a "NATO intelligence
provocation." The "entire affair has been cynically orchestrated by
NATO intelligence agencies to set the stage for a new world war,"
Tarpley wrote.
Rather than embrace the facts and evidence, Hollywood has produced
several propaganda television shows and one movie, United 93, to
support the seriously flawed official version. Meanwhile, a product of
the so-called alternative media, a video about 9-11 called Loose
Change, is now being promoted by the mainstream media. As with the
others in the media's select group, the producers of Loose Change keep
Israeli involvement out of the picture and place the blame for 9-11
squarely on senior officials in the Bush administration.
"We don't want to point fingers at Israel for a number of different
reasons," the producers of Loose Change said in a recent interview on
Air America:
DylanAveryBermasRowe_4_15_2006.mp3 only 166 k bytes
Questioned later by Eric Hufschmid, author of Painful Questions; An
Analysis of the September 11th Attack, about their views on who was
responsible for 9-11, the producers said that the Israeli role was
simply one of trying to warn the U.S. about a potential terror attack.
While they are well aware of the evidence of Israeli involvement, the
producers of Loose Change say it is more important to prosecute members
of the Bush administration and worry about other issues later.
www.EricHufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html
A third edition of Loose Change is being prepared for release in movie
theaters nationwide this fall, according to the video's producers.
Deborah S. Simon received special thanks in the video's credits for
providing footage and other help in producing Loose Change. Simon told
AFP that she even handed out copies of the video in front of the White
House. Who is Deborah Simon, and why is she helping produce and promote
Loose Change?
Deborah Simon (nee Cox) is married into the billionaire Simon family of
Indianapolis. The family owns the Simon Property Group, Inc., which
boasts as being the largest U.S. real estate company. The Simon family
owns, develops, and manages more than 280 shopping malls in the United
States and 50 similar properties in Europe and Japan.
The Simon family, strong supporters of Zionist causes, the Clintons,
and the Democratic Party, also own the Indiana Pacers basketball team.
The campus of the Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis is named
after Max and Mae Simon, the parents of Melvin, Fred, and Herb.
Melvin Simon, the Brooklyn-born founder of the company, also owned a
Hollywood production company and produced more than 20 films. Simon is
remembered for such films as Porky's, Love at First Bite, and Zorro,
the Gay Blade.
As of January 2005, Porky's is still the highest-grossing movie from
Canada.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/trivia
More notably, Simon has had business partnerships with both Larry
Silverstein and the Australian-Israeli billionaire Frank Lowy, the
leaseholders of the destroyed World Trade Center. In the late 1980s,
Silverstein and Simon developed a mall in Manhattan together, and after
9-11, Simon teamed up with Lowy's Westfield America in an attempt to
take over the prestigious retail properties belonging to Taubman
Centers, Inc. of Detroit.
Silverstein and Simon both sit on the advisory board of the Steven L.
Newman Real Estate Institute of Baruch College in downtown Manhattan.
In addition to supporting the Clintons, the Simon family has provided
generous financial support to a number of Indiana senators, governors,
and congressmen. Lee H. Hamilton, for example, the retired congressman
who came out of retirement to serve as vice chairman of the 9-11
Commission, received a great deal of money from the Simons during his
political career.
During his 34-year career in Congress, Hamilton served as chairman of
several key committees, such as the Committee on International
Relations, the Joint Economic Committee, the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms
Transactions with Iran. Although he has retired from Congress, Hamilton
remains a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory
Council and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
As director of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, Hamilton still
receives generous financial support from the Simon family.
Birch Bayh, the former senator from Indiana, has been on the board of
directors of the Simon Property Group since 1993 when his son, Evan,
was governor of the state. The younger Bayh is now a U.S. Senator.
Diane Meyer Simon was director and administrator of the elder Bayh's
senate office with whom she worked from 1968 to 1981. When Bayh was
defeated in 1980, Diane Meyer married the billionaire Herbert Simon in
1981.
(Christopher Bollyn is a journalist who writes for American
Free Press of Washington, D.C.)
To hear the interview with Bollyn about this article:
Daryl Bradford Smith Interviews Bollyn about Simon
Don''t forget to check out Bollyn's previous article about Flight
93:
The Hollywood Fantasy of Flight 93
and interview:
Daryl Bradford Smith Interviews Bollyn about Flight 93
Simon Scott
touche'
:D
Kwyjibo.
news:4470...@quokka.wn.com.au
A response any more cultured than that would have been wasted.
--
Kwyj
Erekose
Christ almighty! Another fuckin moron.
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
Doc
<kwy...@Removeozdebate.com> wrote:
>Fuck off, lying cunt.
It's clear that any attempt at logical argument is wasted on the likes
of kwyjibo.
Doc
<simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
>touche'
It's clear that any attempt at logical argument is wasted on the likes
of kwyjibo and Simon.
Doc
It's clear that any attempt at logical argument is wasted on the likes
of Erekose.
Paul Keating
> Hey everyone, just mentioning that I am quite knowledgeable about
> structural dynamics among other things, and when you compare various
> "stories" regarding the 9/11 attacks you will see that no official
> argument is anywhere near square to the known facts.
>
> I do not know what happened on 9/11, or who did it, but there are some
> things I can tell you;
> there were deep connections involved. probably political, but big
> business could conceivably have achieved it.
> The Twin Towers and building 7 were destroyed in a controlled manner,
> with precision that would require internal mechanics and significant
> planning.
> The Twin Towers and building 7 were destroyed in a manner by which
> evidence was hard to come by afterwards.
> Government agencies, or the Government itself, had been compromised.
> evident due to;
> -Interception Fighters flying at low speeds
> -Air-defence systems were running at less than 5%
> -attacks went out-of-their-way to hit illogical targets which,
> incidentally, had the least structural impact on the government (i.e.
> hitting the section of the Pentagon that was under repair)
> No jetliner hit the Pentagon
> Flight 93 did not crash.
Yeah, so the 16 hours of VCR footage from news I recorded over the days it
happened showing landing gear behind reporters at the Pentagon have been
edited by govco agents, grow up and visit reality sometime.
Why didn't you just Cut n Paste from the other sockpuppet trolls?
Kwyjibo.
news:b6o172l5q8n0im234...@4ax.com
You can fuck off too, wankstain.
--
Kwyj
Not an ASIO Plant (Honest)
from the fun.
I still believe that I am the foremost authority in this newsgroup on
911.
I am a paid up member of the 911 club. My wife is an accredited
official. I have been following 911 History since 1976 (when i was 16)
If anyone can beat that or prove Im wrong then speak now otherwise shut
your traps.
Paul Keating
"Not an ASIO Plant (Honest)" <leg...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:1148297599.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Not an ASIO Plant (Honest)
for a spin. A bit of outrageousness at a very affordable price. What
other 40 year old design generates such passion and excitement. And
when they sway too much from the original, the punters complain. Check
how the 997 looks more like a 911 than the 996.
And no conspiracies about who drove what where.
Sorry I disagree, Its a true affordable classic.
KANGAROOISTAN
NOTHING BUSH SAYS ABOUT ANYTHING CAN BE BELIEVED SINCE W M D LIES ARE A
CLEAR WARNING TO ALL OF HOW WELL THE MEDIA CAN SELL ANY THING TO
WESTERN PUBLIC BETWEEN FOOTBALL MATCHES
Orval Fairbairn
"KANGAROOISTAN" <theo...@kangarooistan.com.au> wet his bed, barfed
into a bucket, howled at the moon and pecked out:
> jmcc...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >One of which, (WTC7) had no fires or aircraft-related
> > >damage.
> >
> > A couple of isolated fires can be seen in some of the footage. There is
> > no explanation for why these fires would be there and why the automatic
> > fire systems wouldn't have extinguished them. Plus, you ever heard of a
> > pot-belly stove collapsing because of fire?
> >
> > "A steel-framed building constructed in 1983, with all the most modern
> > internal fire fighting equipment and building computer controlled
> > defences, with a foundation and underground structure totally separate
> > from the Twin Towers, a building that was called upon to house high
> > security offices such as the FBI, DOD, CIA and OEM....just up and
> > collapses in seven seconds at 5:20, September 11."
> >
> > It FREE FALLS like a stone in mid air. How does that work people?
It free falls when the entire lower structure collapses from the shock
overload caused by the upper stories falling onto it. The upper stories
weigh several million tons!
Structures take load throughout, rather than one floor at a time. Once
the process started (one floor collapsing) the rest was inevitable (and
fast).
> >
> > I hope that the 911 truth will be a blessing in disguise and wake the
> > people of the west up to start paying more attention and stop taking
> > ANYTHING the party-line publishes as the 'truth'. The truth never
> > changes. I hope that people stop buying newspapers and watching
> > television. These media have betrayed us beyond anything that would
> > normally be called betrayal. It is rather treason. And I hope to see
> > alot of executions and imprisonments.
> >
> > "What we're talking about here, is late night, early morning, low
> > clouds." www.iamthewitness.com
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Is Science and Reality still important or has it taken
> > a backseat to the fictional tales told by western politicians?
> > http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> NOTHING BUSH SAYS ABOUT ANYTHING CAN BE BELIEVED SINCE W M D LIES ARE A
> CLEAR WARNING TO ALL OF HOW WELL THE MEDIA CAN SELL ANY THING TO
> WESTERN PUBLIC BETWEEN FOOTBALL MATCHES
It's not about Bush, but about ignoramuses creating imaginary plots and
scenarios, using information that they don't comprehend.
KANGAROOISTAN
Kanga Jr.
and then compare them to media footage, from around 15-30 minutes
later. I put it to you that there was "wreckage" either moving in or
out of that area. easily lost in the confusion of government officials,
FBI, fireighting foam and fire crews i might add...
Analysis of certain "wreckage" photos show that whatever they are, they
weren't from a jetliner.
A piece of fuselage sitting on the lawns clearly shows (from its
position) that it was planted or inexplicably moved. This "wreckage"
isn't there in the witnesses' first photos.
The early photos also show that there were reams of cable (the wing was
being renovated) that should have been smashed to pieces if a jet flew
into the building, but instead the cavity lay directly above them...
how does a jet fly straight through reams of wire to hit a building?
Only a smaller plane could have done it...
Paul Keating
> Have a look at photographs taken by witnesses who were there instantly,
> and then compare them to media footage, from around 15-30 minutes
> later. I put it to you that there was "wreckage" either moving in or
> out of that area. easily lost in the confusion of government officials,
> FBI, fireighting foam and fire crews i might add...
>
> Analysis of certain "wreckage" photos show that whatever they are, they
> weren't from a jetliner.
>
> A piece of fuselage sitting on the lawns clearly shows (from its
> position) that it was planted or inexplicably moved. This "wreckage"
> isn't there in the witnesses' first photos.
Yeah and people standing around watching these movements were all rounded
up, gasses and dropped into the Pacific ocean.
Doc
wrote:
>Yeah and people standing around watching these movements were all rounded
>up, gasses and dropped into the Pacific ocean.
More likely they were ignored by government officials and their media
mouthpieces, then further ridiculed by the likes of
P...@clocksgalore.com