As I’ve said many, many times before, I don’t know what actually happened on 11 September 2001, but I do know what didn’t happen.
Here is a collection of video stuff from youtube.com that, while still not telling you what did happen, will give you cause to realize that there are just too many unanswered questions for any reasonable thinking person to blindly accept the government’s story of the events of 9/11.
Here’s Rumsfeld making a classic Freudian slip about Flight 93 that was supposed to have come down over Pennsylvania after those brave all-American heroes took over from the bad guys and deliberately crashed it harmlessly in a field thus saving the President from almost certain death. It’s just the sort stuff Hollywood could make a film of! Waddayamean they did!!?? This piece of video shows that there is virtually no wreckage from Flight 93, an aircraft that weighs in at around 115 tonnes, yet, despite its mass and impact velocity, only manages to create a hole in the ground that is about 20 feet long and 10 feet wide!
This one ponders the reasons for the WTC buildings collapse – all three of them. It also tells of some rather suspicious building evacuations and power-downs prior to the attacks.
And talking of buildings falling down, there is the classic bit of tape showing Larry Silverstein, the WTC owner, saying the building should be ‘pulled’, and, contrary to what the loony right-wing says, he wasn’t talking about the fire-fighters that were in the building – there weren’t any – he is talking about ‘pulling’ the building as in demolition jargon for demolishing it. The question here is; how come it was already wired up ready to ‘pull’? It takes days, if not weeks, to wire a building like that ready to ‘pull’. Not hours. This footage shows exactly how WTC7 fell – straight down at free fall speed. Then there is the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and the questions that are raised by both experts and firefighters that were on the scene as shown in this footage.
Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, this well known piece of footage slowed right down reveals a rather interesting sight. Stop the film at 1 min. and 26 secs. and you’ll see an object that appears from the right hand edge of the screen in line with what becomes the impact point just an instant before the actual impact. A jet airliner? I think not.
All food for thought, though the loony right, who really want to believe that the government story is the real McCoy, will be tearing their hair out in despair and will be putting in blog overtime in order to try and debunk the footage and push the original government conspiracy theory.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
6 comments:
The second video (on Flight 93 crash site) opens by announcing the debris is spread over a "three or four mile" area.
Three or four miles??!! But didn't the government tell us that the aircraft impacted the ground in one piece? Wreakage strewn over three or four miles would indicate that the aircraft broke up in mid-air - and at a fairly high altitude. That's definitely not what the government told us.
Even more unanswered questions. See how the plot thickens as the governments story falls to bits - in this case literally.
Would a three or four mile debris radius be more in line with what you imagine a jet coming down like that would provoke?
Are you now saying that the aircraft impacted vertically then exploded on impact hurling debris over a three mile radius? Do you not think an aircraft weighing some 115 tonnes would leave a bigger hole in that scenario?
Sorry if my comment was confusing - I was not "saying" anything. I was asking a question.
"Would a three or four mile debris radius be more in line with what you imagine a jet coming down like that would provoke?"
Perhaps if I phrased the question like this:
Would debris being spread over a large area be more what one would expect from an airliner coming down than a small hole?
Anonymous, you ask: "Would a three or four mile debris radius be more in line with what you imagine a jet coming down like that would provoke?" You say '...like that', like what?
The government said that the aircraft was in one piece when it impacted the ground. I would expect to see a very big hole in the ground. I would not expect to find debris over a three mile radius.
All the evidence points toward the aircraft having broken up in mid-air which is contrary to the governments story.
Post a Comment