- "It's really been fascinating in a wayWe've been
able to watch the birth of the completely out-of-control allegations
that could not be true for so many reasons."
--Brent Blanchard, 911 Conspiracy Debunker
-
- Let us examine a few scientific facts that disprove the
official government and mainstream media version of the 911 attack. Let
us objectively compare whose version is most "completely out-of-control
(and) could not be true for so many reasons."
-
- Consider: A heavy yet fragile object traveling 500+ mph
strikes a soft earth surface. What happens? The object, a Boeing jet in
this case, penetrates the surface. "Augers in," according to
military test pilots quoted in the excellent book, The Right Stuff.
-
- In soft earth, the airplane disappears almost completely.
Logical, right? In 1996, ValuJet Flight 592 plunged into the Everglades
and the NTSB scarcely found a fraction of the plane and little of the human
remains. Allegedly, Flight 93 also crashed into soft, reclaimed earth-a
strip mine-and mostly disappeared.
-
- Indeed, the coroner in Shanksville reported little to
see at the crash site, little wreckage and no bodies. The Flight 93 crash
site looked compact indeed, almost as if the earth swallowed the plane
completely.
-
- However, those who believe the US government conspiracy
theory, the "completely out-of-control version" of events, claim
Flight 93 burrowed into the soft earth, yet somehow also BOUNCED, spreading
debris over several square miles near Shanksville.
-
- Brian Cabell, CNN correspondent in Shanksville said:
"FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned
off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where
plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a
number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified
it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located
6 miles away? Could it have blown that far away? It seems highly
unlikely. But what we do know is that there's a site about half mile behind
me, where the plane went down, where most of the debris is, and then about
six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that's been cordoned
off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is debris
from the plane located there."
-
- You cannot have it both ways. Logically and scientifically,
a fast moving object must either penetrate or scatter debris, depending
on the hardness or softness of a surface and the angle of entry. A bullet
striking a pine board penetrates the wood, while the same bullet striking
a harder surface at an oblique angle may fracture and ricochet, sending
fragments everywhere. According to the "official" version, Flight
93 penetrated soft earth (and disappeared) but also scattered debris over
a wide area from the air prior to impact.
-
- Unless the plane was shot down or was a bomb went off
in midair-all scenarios the US government denies---the theory is highly
improbable.
-
- Logically, a crashing airplane does not scatter debris
from the air, unless struck by another airborne object or an onboard bomb.
Thus, the mythical story (legend) of heroic passengers on Flight 93 struggling
with hijackers carries LESS likelihood of happening than, say, Noah fitting
all the animals of the world into a wooden ark. A beautiful story but hardly
fact-based.
-
- "Eyewitness testimonies have generally been excluded
from the official version of 9-11," wrote Christopher Bollyn of AFP
from Shanksville. "I think it was shot down," said Dennis
Mock of Flight 93. Mock lived closest to the crash site on the west side
and also spoke to investigator Devy Kidd. "That's what people around
here think."
-
- Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, another illogical penetration
had occurred. Allegedly, a fast moving yet fragile Boeing 757 weighing
more than 100 tons had crashed against the recently reinforced walls of
the Pentagon. Colliding at an angle (diagram), which logically would have
sheared the wings completely off the plane and thrown the left wing against
or even away from the building, the plane somehow disappeared. Surprisingly,
little discernable debris remained outside.
-
- But, once again, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Either a plane penetrated the side of the building and left a sizeable
imprint of the impact, or chunks of debris would have ricocheted off the
hard surface of the building. You cannot have it both ways.
-
- Veteran airline pilot Russ Wittenberg said: "It's
roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons
all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and
parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757
at the Pentagon. The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.
We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
-
- Proponents claimed the plane penetrated the building
wholly and thus would not have scattered debris. But long before the Pentagon
collapsed completely, viewers saw one hole in the side of the burning building.
Rather than a wide area of smashed masonry and wrecked plane---after all,
the walls were reinforced many feet thick and not the soft earth of a reclaimed
strip mine---government officials claimed the fragile nose of the Boeing
penetrated through six strong walls to the C ring! However, the jets
engines, far heavier and stronger and weighing 4-5 tons, did not appear
to have made similar holes. Imagine a Chevy Silverado traveling 500+
mph. Now imagine a hole such a fast moving object would make in the side
of a building. Logically, the imprint of the penetration should have
looked somewhat like this. The imprint of a pair of engines with
a fuselage in the center.
-
- ---o--O--o-
-
-
- Once again, we hear apologists for the unscientific version
of the Pentagon strike claim the Boeing entered deep within the building.
At 500+ mph, the wings and tail, incredibly, followed like a wasp disappearing
through a knothole, thus no sizeable debris outside the building. Disingenuously,
Jim Hoffman offers footage of an F-4 military fighter plane slamming headfirst
into a reinforced concrete wall and bursting into a huge fireball. Understandably,
nothing remained of the fighter in the videotape (which should offer proof
to advocates of a single engine plane-either commuter or military type-hitting
the Pentagon). But the big Boeing that allegedly struck the Pentagon collided
at an oblique angle and thus nullifies Hoffman's fiery fighter video example.
-
- Most importantly, how to explain the lack of engine holes
or an outline or imprint of the plane on the building? A Boeing 757
carries two underslung engines weighing 4-5 tons each, heavier and larger
than a Chevy Silverado. The engines should have punched sizeable holes
and penetrated just as far---or FARTHER-into the building than the fuselage
since they were made of stronger components. Yet no imprint appears on
the Pentagon façade anywhere, as one appears visibly on the façade
of the WTC North Tower (see photo). Either an imprint or holes would have
to appear, to either side of the hole allegedly from the weaker fuselage-or
a smaller aircraft struck the building.
-
- Perhaps there never were TWO engines weighing 4-5 tons
each on that smaller plane that struck the building. Without some sort
of significant imprint, the government version remains a "completely
out-of-control allegation that could not be true for so many reasons."
-
- In other words, a fraudulent conspiracy theory rather
than a fact.
-
- USAF veteran and debunker of junk science, Douglas Herman
writes for Rense regularly. In 1973, he observed a USAF crash site high
in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona (See link below). The wreckage
of the jet scattered and burned but remained completely recognizable as
aircraft debris even after hitting a mountainside.
-
- Killtown's: Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon ...
-
- Response to snopes pentagon "rumor" urban legend 9/11
-
- Pentanium
Cable Spools!
-
- Geocaching In Thousand Oaks, CA - Events - Superstition Mountains ...
-
- CENSORED: THE MILITARY PLANES & FLIGHT 93 *PIC*
|
