does government lie to the sheeple?
VFW
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote:
> When has the government NOT lied to us? And when have they not had various
> shills and trolls in the media and on the internet to reinforce their lies
> and feebly try to discredit those that expose them?
> To be fair, this is more or less true of ALL governments, not just the
> fascists running the USA.
>
> They LIE about their unnecessary WARS.
> They LIE about UFOs and alien life.
> They LIE to conceal their crimes, such as their politically-motivated
> assassinations both domestic and foreign.
> And of course, they LIE to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the
> century - 9/11!
> and they lie about what they do to protect Israel.
> And stupid, apathetic Sheeple just accept it all!
well, the government schools grooved them to wait in line and shut up.
Ya know , the system treats the sheeple like mushrooms.
Keep 'em in the dark and feed them lots of horse-shit.
--
money; what a concept!
VFW
VFW <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
> In article <georgeswk-0F882...@news.toast.net>,
> and this just in;'
>
>
> 1 9/11 Redux: (The Observer's Cut)
> 2
> 3 American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined
> 4
> 5
> 6 http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/redux.html
> 7
> 8
> 9 By David L. Graham
> 10
> 11 Although many questions remain
> 12 unanswered, regarding the suspicious
> 13 circumstances of 9/11, none seems more
> 14 dubious and disturbing, than that of the
> 15 hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11.
> 16 In this case, there appears to be serious
> 17 time-line inconsistencies and conflicting
> 18 testimony between an air-traffic
> 19 controller, and a (purported) flight
> 20 attendant eye witness account, not to
> 21 mention, an inconsistent (but
> 22 nevertheless revealing) FAA memo, and
> 23 probable evidence planting by
> 24 intelligence agencies and FBI
> 25 investigators.
> 26
> 27 On the morning of September 11th,
> 28 American Airlines Flight 11, along with
> 29 10 crew members and 81 passengers,
> 30 departed from Boston�s Logan Airport, at
> 31 7:59 AM, on route to Los Angeles.
> 32 Investigators surmise that the plane was
> 33 hijacked within 15 minutes after
> 34 departure. It then traveled another 10
> 35 minutes and abruptly turned south over
> 36 Albany, NY, where it followed the Hudson
> 37 River down to NYC. During this entire
> 38 flight, as confirmed through interviews
> 39 with an air-traffic controllers, there
> 40 was no (direct) verbal communication from
> 41 the pilot or co-pilot. Although some
> 42 semblance of radio contact was
> 43 (purportedly) initiated by the pilot, it
> 44 consisted of nothing more, than
> 45 surreptitious transmissions from the
> 46 cockpit mike, that (supposedly) revealed
> 47 the voices of the hijackers. To
> 48 reiterate, ground control claims they
> 49 suspected a problem with the plane about
> 50 15 minutes after departure, when they
> 51 repeatedly issued clearances for an
> 52 altitude climb, that went unack-nowledged
> 53 by the pilot. Soon thereafter, the
> 54 plane�s transponder stopped working, and
> 55 the flight abruptly deviated from its
> 56 charted course, turning south (over
> 57 Albany), then traveled another 150 miles
> 58 towards NYC, where it crashed into the
> 59 North Tower of the WTC, at around 8:45
> 60 AM.
> 61
> 62
> 63 http://www.kiat.net/terror/images/hijackpaths.gif
> 64
> 65
> 66
> 67 http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/pls2-68usju.html
> 68
> 69
> 70 Although seemingly straight forward, when
> 71 compared to other pieces of evidence, the
> 72 hijack time-line for this flight
> 73 completely collapses, and establishment
> 74 explanations for it, thrown seriously
> 75 into question.
> 76
> 77 A crew member on that flight, Madeline
> 78 Amy Sweeney, (purportedly) was able to
> 79 place a cell phone call to her ground
> 80 manager during the hijacking. The
> 81 assembled FBI transcript of this
> 82 (recorded) call, was reviewed by the LA
> 83 times and published on September 20th. A
> 84 close examination of this transcript,
> 85 however, proves to be very perplexing for
> 86 a number of reasons: In it, Ms. Sweeney
> 87 claims that the hijackers had stabbed two
> 88 flight attendants and slit the throat of
> 89 a business-class passenger, killing him.
> 90 In addition, according to a recently
> 91 released FAA memo produced on 9/11/01,
> 92 one passenger is even mentioned as being
> 93 shot. What�s especially revealing, is
> 94 that according to Sweeney�s highly
> 95 detailed account, (all) of this
> 96 apparently occurred before the cockpit
> 97 was breached by the hijackers. In keeping
> 98 with the reality of a violent (and fatal)
> 99 airline hijacking, one would have to
> 100 reasonably conclude, that the stabbed
> 101 flight attendants, as well as the
> 102 passengers, would�ve been screaming VERY
> 103 LOUDLY. In acknowledging this, a serious
> 104 problem emerges - namely, why didn�t
> 105 (couldn�t) the pilots alert ground
> 106 control, given the fact that they must
> 107 have heard the disturbances, and were
> 108 still free to communicate. Since the
> 109 hijackers had not yet �gained access to
> 110 the cockpit� (according to Sweeney�s
> 111 account), radio communication would�ve
> 112 still been possible. At the very least,
> 113 the pilot or co-pilot should�ve been able
> 114 to send the emergency alert code,
> 115 activated from no less than four places
> 116 in the cockpit of a Boeing 767, including
> 117 the steering yoke.
> 118
> 119
> 120
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092001hijack.story
> 121
> 122
> 123
> 124 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memo.jpg
> 125
> 126
> 127 At this point, it is instructive to
> 128 remember, that apparently none of the
> 129 pilots, on any of the hijacked flights,
> 130 were able to directly verbally
> 131 communicate, with ground control.
> 132 Moreover, according to authorities, the
> 133 retrieved flight data recorders, from the
> 134 equally suspicious crash sites of AA
> 135 Flight 77 (Pentagon crash) and UA Flight
> 136 93 (Pennsylvania crash), are either
> 137 damaged, or completely blank - depending
> 138 on which FBI news brief you read (or
> 139 believe). In addition, despite repeated
> 140 pleas for disclosure from the victims�
> 141 families of Flight 93, federal
> 142 authorities have refused to publicly
> 143 release the contents of the (intact)
> 144 retrieved voice data recorder. This
> 145 evidence would reveal the activity in the
> 146 cockpit during the moments of the
> 147 hijacking, and prior to the crash -
> 148 assuming, of course, it�s not blank as
> 149 well..........or worse, incriminating for
> 150 foul play. For foul play and a cover-up
> 151 are indeed likely possibilities in this
> 152 incident, considering the 911 cell phone
> 153 call made by one of the passengers�
> 154 describing an �explosion and smoke,� not
> 155 to mention, the eye witness accounts
> 156 detailing �burning debris,� raining down
> 157 over an 8 mile area, and a second,
> 158 unidentified (white plane), �circling the
> 159 crash,� immediately after impact.
> 160 Unremarkably, FBI investigators have
> 161 dismissed these eye witness accounts, and
> 162 network news dutifully avoided any
> 163 mention of them.
> 164
> 165
> 166
> http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911paplanep3.asp
> 167
> 168
> 169
> 170
> 171 http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
> 172
> 173
> 174
> 175
> 176 http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_sec
> 177 ondary_debris_field.html
> 178
> 179
> 180 http://www.flight93crash.com/second-
> 181 plane-at-flight93-crash-site.htm
> 182
> 183
> 184 http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/
> 185 961654/detail.html
> 186
> 187 http://www.rense.com/general18/sep.htm
> 188
> 189 Returning back again to AA Flight 11,
> 190 another problem concerns the time-line of
> 191 the cell phone call made by the flight
> 192 attendant. In it, she claims that
> 193 (shortly after) the hijackers gained
> 194 access to the cockpit, the plane quickly
> 195 changed direction and started rapidly
> 196 descending towards the WTC - eliciting
> 197 from her, the chilling statements: �I see
> 198 water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my
> 199 God!� These were the last words of
> 200 communication (supposedly) uttered by Ms.
> 201 Sweeney, and, as the transcript of this
> 202 call clearly demonstrates, these events
> 203 occurred in quick succession. Therefore,
> 204 it is beyond dispute, that (according to
> 205 her account), describing the entry into
> 206 the cockpit by the hijackers, this
> 207 occurred when Flight 11 was somewhere off
> 208 the edge of Manhattan, over the Hudson
> 209 River, within sight of the NY skyline.
> 210
> 211
> 212
> 213
> 214 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/am
> 215 ericas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
> 216
> 217
> 218 http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/att
> 219 ack/investigation/1005hijackercar.html
> 220
> 221
> 222
> 223 This again, presents an even more serious
> 224 problem: that is, if the hijackers had
> 225 not breached the cockpit earlier, over
> 226 Albany, (WHY) did the plane deviate from
> 227 its charted course, 150 miles north of
> 228 NYC? Furthermore, how could investigators
> 229 possibly conclude, that the flight was
> 230 commandeered (by hijackers), 15 minutes
> 231 after takeoff from Boston�s Logan
> 232 Airport, (when compared) to the cell
> 233 phone call made by Madeline Sweeney?
> 234 Moreover, why was (the meticulously
> 235 detailed) Ms. Sweeney, (a Massachucettes-
> 236 based flight attendant for 12 years),
> 237 unable to identify Manhattan or the
> 238 Hudson River, above and beyond �buildings
> 239 and water?�
> 240
> 241
> 242
> 243 By (accepting both) pieces of evidence,
> 244 we would somehow have to ridiculously
> 245 conclude, that unbeknownst to the pilots,
> 246 the hijackers conducted a stabbing (and
> 247 quite possibly, a shooting) rampage,
> 248 terrorizing passengers and crew members
> 249 for a full 25 minutes, while
> 250 �telepathically� forcing the pilots to
> 251 perform a turn over Albany, and fly 150
> 252 miles south to Manhattan. Add to this,
> 253 the �surreptitious transmissions� from
> 254 the cockpit radio mike, initiated by the
> 255 pilot for most of the flight, and you
> 256 would have to further assume, that the
> 257 pilots themselves, were impersonating the
> 258 �heavily-accented� voices of the
> 259 hijackers, up until the point when the
> 260 (actual) hijackers �stormed the cockpit,
> 261 which occurred shortly before impact
> 262 (according to Sweeney) - an
> 263 unsatisfactory conclusion, to be sure.
> 264
> 265
> 266
> 267 Even more unsettling, was the network
> 268 news broadcast, aired a few days after
> 269 9/11, that featured the last moments of
> 270 the (recorded) Sweeney phone call. Anyone
> 271 listening to this call, should have
> 272 immediately been struck by one
> 273 thing..............namely, the only voice
> 274 you hear screaming is Madeline Sweeney�s.
> 275 Can it truly be plausible, that in the
> 276 moments before crashing into the North
> 277 Tower of the WTC, one flight attendant
> 278 would, among 9 other crew members and 81
> 279 passengers, be the only one heard
> 280 shrieking in terror?
> 281
> 282
> 283
> 284 Taken together, all of the
> 285 inconsistencies discussed above, and more
> 286 of which that follows, may very well
> 287 indicate that the AA Flight 11, as well
> 288 as the other hijacked flights on 9/11,
> 289 were commandeered by other means. This
> 290 very possibility, has been proffered by a
> 291 number of aviation professionals and
> 292 pilots, who have voiced serious doubts
> 293 that the suspects in question, could�ve
> 294 possessed the requisite level of
> 295 navigational expertise, to expertly guide
> 296 the planes to their targets (having
> 297 trained �unsuccessfully� on propeller-
> 298 driven Cessna�s, and logged-in
> 299 insufficient hours on flight simulators).
> 300 This opinion is even further bolstered,
> 301 by a review of some the descriptions and
> 302 assessments offered by some of the flight
> 303 instructors, describing the relative
> 304 talents and capabilities of the terrorist
> 305 students they instructed. In the words of
> 306 one flight instructor, two of the
> 307 suspects were described as �dumb and
> 308 dumber,� and another two were dropped
> 309 from instruction due to �incompetence at
> 310 the controls.� One instructor, in fact,
> 311 expressed even more serious doubts, when
> 312 he stated: �It was like they had hardly
> 313 even ever driven a car.......�
> 314
> 315
> 316
> 317
> 318 http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/enemygates
> 319 .html
> 320
> 321
> 322 http://www.abbc.com/nj/e2001/politics/911
> 323 nosuicide.htm
> 324
> 325
> 326 http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/arch
> 327 ives/2001/oct/21/bottomguns21.htm
> 328
> 329
> 330
> 331 Some have even gone as far to suggest,
> 332 that the flights in question, may very
> 333 well have been electronically hijacked by
> 334 existing US military technology, that is
> 335 capable of commandeering an aircraft
> 336 through computer-driven, remote recovery,
> 337 rend-ering cockpit controls and
> 338 communication, useless. More
> 339 specifically, it would make hostages of
> 340 pilots, passengers, and �hijackers,�
> 341 alike, and guarantee that certain targets
> 342 would be reached, above and beyond the
> 343 unpredictable dispositions and limited
> 344 skill levels of �fanatical, 20-something
> 345 terrorists.� Still others have suggested,
> 346 that there were various other, assembled,
> 347 undercover individuals on those flights,
> 348 possessing diametrically opposed, yet
> 349 equally fanatical persuasions (and far
> 350 superior flight training), that were
> 351 involved in �using� the Middle Eastern
> 352 occupants as a ruse, to covertly assume
> 353 control of the flights beyond detection -
> 354 and hence blame. Their efforts were
> 355 further assisted, it is claimed, by the
> 356 cooperation (if not collaboration), with
> 357 US intelligence agencies, the US
> 358 military, and certain elements within the
> 359 political establishment. If recent
> 360 events, and the consideration of certain
> 361 relevant news releases (i.e. the Israeli
> 362 spy scandal), any indication, this
> 363 interpretation may yet prove to hold much
> 364 credence.
> 365
> 366
> 367
> 368
> 369 http://educate-
> 370 yourself.org/gerministerinterviewrewtc20j
> 371 an02.html
> 372
> 373
> 374 http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp?cp1=
> 375 1
> 376
> 377
> 378 http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/home_run
> 379 .htm
> 380
> 381 spyring.html
> 382
> 383
> 384 http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQS1FAGYC
> 385 .html
> 386
> 387
> 388 http://www.ummahnews.com/viewarticle.phd?
> 389 sid=3026
> 390
> 391
> 392
> 393 Equally disturbing and additionally
> 394 doubtful, was the �terrorist luggage� the
> 395 FBI managed to conveniently discover back
> 396 at Logan Airport, stuffed with a
> 397 veritable laundry list of (suspiciously)
> 398 incriminating evidence. What they
> 399 seemingly couldn�t do, however, was
> 400 correctly identify the number of
> 401 hijackers on that flight, as well as
> 402 their corresponding seat numbers. When
> 403 placing the cell phone call to her ground
> 404 manager, Sweeney claimed there were (only
> 405 four) hijackers on flight 11, and
> 406 confirmed that their seat numbers were in
> 407 rows 9 and 10. Recalling the now
> 408 �dismissed as mistaken,� FAA memo, it too
> 409 identified a passenger in seat 10B who,
> 410 it was claimed, shot another passenger in
> 411 seat 9B. The FBI, however, �identified� a
> 412 total of (five) hijackers, and claimed
> 413 they were all assigned to seats in row 8.
> 414 The FBI version is cast even further into
> 415 doubt, when considering the LA Times
> 416 Sweeney article, when it states: �She
> 417 displayed remarkable calm as she related
> 418 numerous details about the events
> 419 unfolding.� And, as one AA official
> 420 familiar with the Sweeney phone call
> 421 stated: �She was very, very composed,
> 422 very detailed. It was impressive that she
> 423 could do that.� Add to this, the
> 424 troubling fact, that none of the names of
> 425 the hijackers originally appeared on any
> 426 of the publicly released passenger
> 427 manifests, and consider that to this day,
> 428 there have been no forthcoming
> 429 explanations for any of these disturbing
> 430 discrepancies.
> 431
> 432
> 433
> 434
> 435 http://latimes.com/news.nationworld/natio
> 436 n/la-100601probe.story
> 437
> 438
> 439 http://www.madison.com/attack/loganair.ph
> 440 p
> 441
> 442 lindex2.html
> 443
> 444
> 445
> 446 Sadly, even the NYC Police Dept. jumped
> 447 on the �evidence bandwagon,� by claiming
> 448 to have found a passport from one of the
> 449 hijacker�s, 8 blocks away from WTC. In
> 450 the now familiar manner, the NYC Police
> 451 Dept. would have us believe, that the
> 452 passport somehow managed to miraculously
> 453 survive the raging infernos of the WTC
> 454 towers, and float to the ground,
> 455 unscathed. This minor miracle, was again
> 456 repeated in Pennsylvania, whereupon a
> 457 terrorist suicide note was discovered by
> 458 FBI investigators, near the smoldering
> 459 crater of the crash site.........despite
> 460 Flight 93 (in the words of the FBI) being
> 461 �vaporized� on impact.
> 462
> 463
> 464
> 465
> 466 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.amer
> 467 ica.under.attack/
> 468
> 469
> 470 http://www.commondreams.org/view01/0929-0
> 471 7.htm
> 472
> 473
> 474
> 475 Even more incredible, is the fact that of
> 476 the five passengers the FBI originally
> 477 identified as the hijackers of AA Flight
> 478 11, three are alive, and living in the
> 479 Middle East. To date, a total of seven
> 480 Middle Eastern individuals, originally
> 481 implicated in the hijackings of 9/11,
> 482 have proven to be alive. Since the FBI
> 483 has publicly stated that the hijackers
> 484 could�ve used (did use) false I.D.�s, how
> 485 could they possibly have known who the
> 486 real hijackers were? Upon notification of
> 487 the errors, the FBI allegedly apologized
> 488 for the mistakes, yet they immediately
> 489 substituted seven new (Middle Eastern-
> 490 named) suspects, with a new list on
> 491 9/28/01. This, of course, leads to
> 492 another troubling question: If seven of
> 493 the original names, thus far, have proven
> 494 to be incorrect ( based on false I.D.�s),
> 495 what evidence could they possibly have
> 496 had, to immediately implicate seven new
> 497 suspects? Even more importantly, how can
> 498 we now possibly assume, that the other
> 499 twelve original �identifications� were
> 500 correct, and that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda
> 501 was ultimately responsible?
> 502
> 503
> 504
> 505 http://worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
> 506
> 507
> 508 http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc
> 509 -hijackers.htm
> 510
> 511
> 512 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/mi
> 513 ddle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm
> 514
> 515
> 516
> 517 These troubling facts have been
> 518 conspicuously absent in the major US
> 519 media. Moreover, to this day, well over
> 520 five months after the �corrections� to
> 521 the original FBI list were made, network
> 522 news continues to (fraudulently) air the
> 523 original hijacker list, including
> 524 photographs of the seven misidentified
> 525 Middle Eastern suspects.
> 526
> 527
> 528
> 529 Adding even further, to the already thick
> 530 stew of intrigue, is recently released
> 531 evidence linking the Venice, Florida-
> 532 based Huffman Aviation flight school
> 533 (responsible for training the hijackers
> 534 on AA Flight 11) to the CIA, as well as
> 535 certain �Christian charities.� In fact,
> 536 the very same Middle Eastern hijackers,
> 537 that allegedly took control of AA Flight
> 538 11, attended classes at flight schools in
> 539 both Venice and Sarasota, Florida, and
> 540 were trained by the very same instructors
> 541 who have routinely flown world-wide
> 542 missions for various Christian
> 543 fundamentalist missionary services, from
> 544 those very same airports and the flight
> 545 schools therein. These missions have
> 546 included Pat Robertson�s �Operation
> 547 Blessing� and Jerry Falwell�s �World
> 548 Help�. Considering the eager
> 549 anticipation, for certain �biblical
> 550 events� to transpire, from Evangelical
> 551 figures such as these, this connection,
> 552 indeed, proves to be a troubling one.
> 553
> 554
> 555
> 556
> 557 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Repo
> 558 rts/Hopsicker030202/hopsicker030202.html
> 559
> 560
> 561 http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/
> 562 Hopsicker100201/hopsicker100201.html
> 563
> 564 http://www.madcowprod.com/
> 565
> 566
> 567
> 568 Casting even further doubt on
> 569 establishment explanations, is the fact,
> 570 that of the 19 Middle Eastern hijack
> 571 suspects implicated in the attacks of
> 572 9/11, (9) were required to undergo
> 573 special security screenings, prior to
> 574 boarding the ill-fated flights, based
> 575 upon questionable I.D. documents. These
> 576 additional security measures purportedly
> 577 included extensive baggage searches by
> 578 the (since discredited) private security
> 579 firms, manning the airport checkpoints.
> 580 This of course, raises a number of
> 581 serious and uncomfortable questions
> 582 regarding the relative thoroughness of
> 583 security measures, as well as, the likely
> 584 possibility that weapons were planted on
> 585 the flights, prior to the suspects�
> 586 boarding. Who might of planted them, and
> 587 how they were planted, has apparently
> 588 elicited very little interest from
> 589 investigators, given the fact that no
> 590 additional arrests have been made,
> 591 involving airport personnel, since the
> 592 security breeches of 9/11. In typical
> 593 fashion, authorities have refused to
> 594 disclose which suspects were the subject
> 595 of additional security screenings, as
> 596 well as identify, the flights they were
> 597 associated with.
> 598
> 599
> 600
> 601
> 602 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
> 603 dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=
> 604
> 605 A26149-2002Mar1¬Found=true
> 606
> 607
> 608
> 609 Without question, the most incredible
> 610 revelation to recently emerge, pertains
> 611 to the identity and background of the
> 612 murdered (stabbed/shot?) victim of AA
> 613 Flight 11. Sitting, literally right next
> 614 to some of the �hijack suspects,� was
> 615 Daniel C. Lewin, an American citizen with
> 616 dual Israeli citizenship, who was a
> 617 former elite Israeli commando officer in
> 618 a secret unit of the Israeli Defense
> 619 Force called �Sayeret Mat�Kal.� Adding
> 620 still further to the �coincidence and
> 621 irony,� is the fact that while a member
> 622 of the IDF, Mr. Lewin apparently had
> 623 received extensive �anti-terrorism�
> 624 training. Sayeret Mat�Kal was formed in
> 625 1957, and explicitly created to
> 626 infiltrate enemy territories for the
> 627 purpose of conducting top secret
> 628 intelligence gathering missions. Members
> 629 of this unit are trained on the finer
> 630 points of �looking and thinking like an
> 631 Arab,� and have been credited with
> 632 conducting numerous death-squad killings,
> 633 disguised as civilians. Mr. Lewin was
> 634 also the co-founder of the internet
> 635 company Akamai Technologies, Inc.. As
> 636 indicated in the online, Hoover�s
> 637 Business capsule of Akamai, the name of
> 638 the company is derived from a Hawaiian
> 639 term meaning �clever and intelligent....�
> 640
> 641
> 642
> 643
> 644 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article
> 645 .asp?ARTICLE_ID=26676
> 646
> 647
> 648 http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/pol
> 649 itics/articles/pol_0051.htm
> 650
> 651
> 652 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article
> 653 .asp?ARTICLE_ID=26626
> 654
> 655
> 656 http://www.specwarnet.com/world/matkal.ht
> 657 m
> 658
> 659
> 660 http://www.hoovers.com/co/capsule/6/0,216
> 661 3,59556,00.html
> 662
> 663
> 664
> 665 Recollections of the �questions�
> 666 surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor,
> 667 and its disturbing similarity to 9/11,
> 668 seems to embody a special significance,
> 669 when considering this timely detail.
> 670
> 671
> 672
> 673
> 674 http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pe
> 675 arl.html
> 676
> 677
> 678 http://www.liberty-
> 679 tree.org/ltn/dayofdeceit.html
> 680
> 681
> 682 http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06
> 683 -04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm
> 684
> 685
> 686
> 687 What Really Happened
> 688
> 689 Email This Page To A Friend
> 690
> 691
> 692 ----------------------------------------------\\\\<
and ;
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people.
Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours
after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained
relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September
11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that
day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and
the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred
to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane
crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate
everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence
was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel
core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they
didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to
do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that
incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a
simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to
perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of
gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a
large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight)
upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per
second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago,
heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be
falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is
falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged
16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has
fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in
any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =
1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144
feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,
using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely
changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy
in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is
converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough
to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water
stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever
is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic
energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x
H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object
has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x
144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared =
1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.
Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an
independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of
energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact,
you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped
out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as
will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in
order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational
potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate
of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity
reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet
per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall
equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase
without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.
At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the
air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration
upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is
maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the
person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to
precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it
would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air
resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's
start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds,
the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just
over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able
to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach
the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they
could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the
air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance
thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central
steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30
years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air
would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the
upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more
than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could
not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to
be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better
word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total
amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in
close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and
glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to
have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So
WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance
to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions
can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official
myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane
impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather
they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to
you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it
this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.
html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !