Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY&NR=1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=00kU7zi_usg
"Freefall speed, freefall speed!" Say it over and over, maybe it will mean something.
Look at the unedited video of the collapses and compare them to a controlled demolition. They did not fall in any way close to "freefall speed". When the North tower collapses, in much of the footage, you can still see the internal structure standing AFTER the mass of the debris hit the ground. See http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm for a much more complete mathematical analysis.
Show me one article in a peer-reviewed engineering or architectural journal that questions the basic facts as reported in the "official story". You will be looking a long time.
Huricane, you bring up lots of things that are either coincidences or misunderstandings. The passport? Paper is light and survived very well as evidenced by the mounds of it all over Lower Manhattan in the aftermath. No luggage at Shanksville? UA93 hit at 500 miles an hour or so. It's not surprised that there was no luggage sitting there. It's amazing there was anything identifiable at all. Only one shot of the Pentagon? As stated by another poster, chances are there is more footage, interdicted by the FBI. The whole in the Pentagon? An airplane is light, very light, compared to stone and cement. The wings disintegrated. In the earliest photos of the scene, there is metal rubble all around the area. Why didn't the windows break? They were reinforced and stronger than the walls they were in.
Bill Owen, there's no sense arguing with you on this. Every assertion you make can be disproved in any number of ways. 300 people to pull it off? Really? Who planted the bombs? How did they do it without attracting attention during the weeks it would have taken to rig them up? The hundreds of people at American and United Airlines who would have known something was up if the planes weren't real? Or, if they used real planes, did the management of the airlines approve of this plan? Why didn't Larry Silverstein buy a policy that explicitly covered the destruction of both towers, instead of fighting the insurer in court for years? Come on.
Your Manhattan Project analogy is especially weak. Yes, it was a huge project kept out of the press. But it was done by people working for the GOOD of their country. Do you think there are that many people willing to murder their countrymen for fuzzy, ill-defined reasons? Plus, of course, the Manhattan Project was only a secret for less than three years. It's been 6.5 since 9/11...
I will concede that it is possible that GWB, Cheney, et al, knew what was coming and choose to let it happen. But even that's a stretch. Why did Bush sit there with that stupid look on his face and listen to the Goat story if he knew what was going to happen? Is he that good of an actor? Please...
So, while it is technically possible that there is more to the story than has been told, the basic facts of that day stand uncontested by anyone with any real evidence: 19 terrorists stole four planes, crashed two of them into the WTC, the fire caused the floor plates to stretch and fail causing a catastrophic collapse of the structures. WTC 7 was hit by debris and burned for 8 hours and collapsed as well, "in its own footprint" if by "its own footprint" you mean hundreds of feet around in all directions (http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg)...
Look, I know I an not going to convince Bill Owens or any of the other truthers. But anyone who is on the fence, please check out debunking911.com.
Yes they were. They were built to withstand raging carbon fires.
They were built to withstand getting hit by the biggest planes known to be in service at the time the buildings were designed. Since then, the planes have got bigger, their fuel capacity has got bigger, and the fuel itself has become more powerful and more explosive.
This is a perfect example of the conspiracy-buffs' transparently selective and inadequate grasp of reality. To say nothing of common sense.
but an intertwined massive set of competing interests, some higher up on the pyramid than others. Often, due to secrecy, even people in Wshington in relatively high stations have difficulty breaking through to other organizations to find out their truth.
Add into this mess disinformation deliberately put out by various groups, misdirection, various elites with their hands in the cookie jar, and you have a vast inscrutible mess.
So it is entirely plausible, and apparently reports seem to indicate, that interests inside the government intended to perform a peaceful coup de etat of the government and managed it on 911, with Bush flying around the country randomly after being informed that whoever was up to this had access to the nuclear codes, which are changed daily. Bush was apparently told to go with the plan or else, funny, since you would have thought that of anyone, he and his family would be the ultimate insiders, but like nested dolls, there are levels of knowledge and access. In other words, whoever knew the codes and caused or enabled 911, they were extreme insiders, likeliest to be people in the military-industrial complex, who sought this coup.
In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.
Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.
To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
