While many people question the government's conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government's answer to the following questions is correct:
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?
It is not very reassuring when the professional whitewashers tasked with defending the government's version of what happened on 9/11 themselves willing to swear to that version.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
There is more than the physics and the building 7 ...
smoking gun. There is "the dancing Israelies", the PNAC statement, and plenty more outside of the actual crime itself. There is also the general organized crime character of the Bush administration and the Republican party. Nixon and Kissinger killed 20,000 Americans when they sabotaged the 68 peace talks. Right-wing America has sponsored subversion and treason for generations.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 550 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM
I'd encourage you to provide proof of your Atta claim, such as a link to one of those news stories. Hint: It needs to be somewhat older than a few days or a week after 9/11.
And I'd encourage you to respectfully present your theories about flying airliners at either this or this forum. I think they may have a different view.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM
Go back to reread all my comments on 911 then get back to me.
I did go to the sites you recommended and could not see a discussion, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, to convince me that two novices could hit two 200' buildings first try for each of them.
I think the comments directed at Rorck(?) will concisely explain my feelings about the odds of this happening.
Don't try the polite mealy mouth s**t with me either. Good day sir.
by
tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 160 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 4:51:04 PM
we all have small voices, but in this matter there is a terrible importance and mr williams needs to be answered.
The mathmatics of freefall , in a truely just society, would have had this case 'on the stand' right now. wxman, thank you for the clear rebuttal of williams awful notions of 'free-fall/collapse' . It is FOG to suggest these structures collapsed upon themselves. F O G
My readings would have aTTA as a mercenary asset pilot playing the role whether on a plane that day or not. Read 'welcome to terrorland' by daniel Hopsicker. Also Indira Singh testimony regarding PTECH within cyberspace and Christopher Bollyn regarding the computer crime network/aspect of PTECHs reach that day.
Pilots for 9/11 truth have flight 77 300ft higher than the commission report one second out from pentagon using the same data. WHAT? Mr. Minetas testimony at the hearings of cheneys 'order still stands' is such a direct touch on the dreadfull lie of that day that the bells are ringing so loud we've all gone deaf.
by
remo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 5:10:58 PM
"....to convince me that two novices could hit two 200' buildings first try for each of them.
I think the comments directed at Rorck(?) will concisely explain my feelings about the odds of this happening. " --- tjb
I don't think your "feelings" on this matter are a very relevant gauge. And obviously you have no personal experience in the cockpit, or you wouldn't be talking about feelings. You need some kind of proof.
One would expect, if your feelings were justified, that there would have been at least a small rumble coming from within the airline/aviation community. (and no, I'm not talking about the politically motivated agenda driven characters from "pilots for truth") But there hasn't been.
And if your feelings were justified, it doesn't seem possible for the guy in this documentary (starting at the 27:39 mark) to have flown successfully into the Pentagon repeatedly, even after executing maneuvers more complex than were required for the towers.
You've gotta have more than feelings to go on. Otherwise, it's simply not fair to the victims of 9/11.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 6:47:09 PM
Explain how you determine your documentary is the truth and the pilots for truth a lie? There is only one truth about 911 weather we have uncovered it or not yet.
And if the country can be led to war on the presidents gut "feelings" why is my common sense feelings suspect?
by
tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 160 comments)
on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:32:04 AM
"The military intercepts jets gone off course, or gone silent, or had the transponder turned off an average of 80-100 times a year..." --- wxman2001
No, there was only one intercept over North America during the decade prior to 9/11, and that one took an hour and 22 minutes to make contact.
"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 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....."
Do you really think that the 9/11 commission was attempting to do anything but approximate the time the buildings took to fall, to aid in the telling of their story? Was this in any way an engineering or science report?
But the NIST report is a science/engineering report. And they say that the first detached exterior panels took 9 and 11 seconds to hit the ground, and this can be fairly easily observed and measured, because they weren't shrouded by dust like everything else. So how did these objects fall so close to actual free-fall time, and not get slowed down by that fearsome wind resistance? Did they have rockets attached to them, or is their weight perhaps so great that it dwarfs any wind resistance?
The first panels beat the completion of the main collapses by several seconds. There was some slowing, but here again the weight is so great that it dwarfs wind resistance, and easily overcomes floor connections to inner and outer columns. And it only increases with each passing floor.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 7:16:06 PM
"What does it say when government officials THEMSELVES won't swear to the official theory of 9/11?"
That they're intelligent enough not to believe their own propaganda. Like... a drug dealer being intelligent enough not to use his own product... only different.
"They must find it difficult; Those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority." -- Gerald Massey
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Henry Kissinger
"Today the primary threat to the liberties of the American people comes not from communism, foreign tyrants or dictators. It comes from the tendency on our own shores to centralize power, to trust bureaucracies rather than people." -- George H. Allen
by
Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM
"Explain how you determine your documentary is the truth and the pilots for truth a lie? There is only one truth about 911 weather we have uncovered it or not yet.
And if the country can be led to war on the presidents gut "feelings" why is my common sense feelings suspect?" -- tjb
That documentary simply "documented" how a pilot with similar expertise could quite easily guide a 757 into a specific target, in this case even after performing a circular diving maneuver. Now that's solid evidence that what the terrorists did on 9/11 was well within the realm of the possible, and mountains of other evidence backs it up. The Pilots for "truth" have made no effort to perform similar experiments, which would actually be relevant, they are only interested in raising dust based upon some conflicts between FDR data and what was observed to have happened. They are perfectly willing to ignore the huge mountain of direct evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that it was well within the capability of Hani Hanjour to have piloted it there, and insist on maintaining the implication that it somehow flew over the place, even in the absence of any witnesses thereof.
And we went to war on far more than anyone's feelings. There was the violation of the GWI ceasefire agreements on multiple levels, Saddam's support for terrorism worldwide, his expulsion of weapons inspectors, his attempt on the life of a U.S. president and the games he played with us and the world regarding his possession of WMD. Indeed, Saddam's prison interrogator has recently documented how it was really Saddam that lied about WMD, in a deliberate attempt to make others, including his neighbor enemies, believe that he still had his weapons. Every world intelligence body agreed that he most likely had these weapons. Even so, the Dulfer report after the war concluded that even though huge stockpiles were apparently not still in existence, the desire, capability and infrastructure to resume WMD activities, and logically the willingness to pass them on to terrorist surrogates, definitely still did exist.
All this hardly constitutes going to war merely on "feelings", which of course should never be done, just like we shouldn't scream all over the Internet for the world to hear: "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB", based merely on "feelings".
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 2:34:25 PM
Odd, that nearly eight years after 911, bin Laden has not been charged in connection to the attacks, possibly because FBI director Mueller admits that no such evidence exists, that they, nor any other agency can produce.
The bin Laden "confession tape" has been proven to be faked.
Need I point out that the identities of the accused hijackers was perverted by identity theft? That no less than seven of the "hijackers" are alive? One had been dead since 1999? How does a connection exist between Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda and hijackers whose identities remain undetermined?
Considering two wars, 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed, over 4,078 American military lives lost, and nearly 1 trillion in US treasure squandered - wouldn't this fundamental connection be a priority?
Obviously not, because the institutionalized murder machine marches on, unabated.
And the American public, surrounded by a carefully managed information network, are the ones least informed about stunning realities that make the official 911 story not only absurd - but impossible.
Welcome to more of Alice in America. The American myth remains safe.
by
Michael McCoy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 86 comments)
on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 3:13:12 AM
This thinking thing for myself is really hard. I want to hate the right person/group/government/religion for the right reasons, and I'm confused with making up my own mind about such weighty matters. I shall await the government 'approved for the masses' seal of authenticity.
by
Michael McCoy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 86 comments)
on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 3:17:56 AM
This was the crime of the century and when did the criminal investigation begin and end???
And in that in depth investigation when were Bush and Cheney questioned separably ,which is standard operating procedure in all criminal investigations, except this major act?
Are all Americans entitled now to limit their criminal interrogation to one hour?
by
tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 160 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 6:23:15 PM
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?
They weren't "rag-tag" (Atta had a degree in architectural engineering and a commercial pilot's license) and they didn't "penetrate the military", they were flying around in the civilian airspace of a free country, something any one of us could have done had we: been brainwashed to hate Americans, had commercial pilot licenses, had planned the attack for years, and had low enough temperature blood to carry it out.
Like any number of heinous crimes throughout history, motivation and lack of conscience are 80% of the battle.
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
These buildings were fine under normal conditions, but surely nobody would describe their condition on 9/11 as being normal. They were of an unusual and unconventional design, and did NOT REMOTELY resemble traditional post/beam steel building construction. All buildings are over-engineered, but only to a certain point, which was easlily reached by the damage and instantaneous wide-spread fire caused by the crashes.
Modern high-rises don't collapse because they are fire-proofed, have sprinkler systems, and/or are accessible to fire-fighters. None of this applied on 9/11 in the WTC towers, although perhaps only a portion of steel fire-proofing was knocked off. Also, EVERY OTHER modern high-rise hasn't as yet had airliners crash into them at nearly full speed nearly fully fueled, in a deliberate ramming operation. Duplicate the above, set up a string of WTC towers, hit them all with similar airliners in similar locations, and you would THEN see many, many "modern steel-frame high-rises" collapsing before your eyes, along with your "controlled demolition" theory.
Now if you were to go back in history to WWII, to some of the un-insulated steel frame buildings that were fire-bombed along with the fire department, you'd see plenty of collapses.
The buildings actual fell in between 11 and 13 seconds, enough time for an object truly in free-fall to reach the ground from a height nearly TWICE that of the towers. There's no mystery here, at least not to people who understand progressive collapse and acceleration.
And the collapses actually didn't look like controlled demolitions, excepting the fact that they did indeed fall. They didn't actually fall into their own foot-prints -- they didn't fall neatly around surrounding buildings minimizing damage. Anything but.
Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together
Yeah, well Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn't testify under oath either. I think that has to do with normal presidential protocol, not some kind of smoking gun. Boring, I know. Together? Hmmmm....that's gotta mean something, something horrible. Just not sure what.
The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day, the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military spokespeople about what severley tortured, crazy people supposedly said
Meaningless slivers of truth mixed among out-of-context generalizations. Is this what passes for real and honest "truth-seeking"?
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"
Translating into reality: We explained the mechanism of collapse initiation, and what led up to it, but we don't know just exactly why or even if beam 2154 did a double back-flip ping-zing off of floor section 72B, and we're not sure why you think that's important.
FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only "a low probability of occurring"
FEMA's report was preliminary, and it's stated within that they needed more information on damage extent and diesel generator/fuel line configuration. But why didn't they just lie and make something up? After all, we're repeatedly told that the government has "lied" to us regarding every single solitary aspect of 9/11.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 219 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 9:16:17 PM
Thank God the government has loyal automatons like yourself to assist in the perpetual regurgitation of its story lines! Heavens, where would it be without such citizens/employees? BTW, "Mohammed Atta" is alive, as are several others who were named as 9/11 hijackers; this has been well-documented and reported on widely in the European press. And as a past graduate of flight school, I can assure you that being able to competently handle a Cessna in no way enables one to perform stunt-level piloting of commercial passenger jets.
by
annavanz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM
The military intercepts jets gone off course, or gone silent, or had the transponder turned off an average of 80-100 times a year, mainly within 10-15 minutes. planes that were known to be a possible hijacking were allowed to fly around without intercept over one hour each in the highest traffice corridor of the US on 9-11.
The timing of the buildings coming down (if in a vacuum) at free fall speed is 9.2 seconds:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 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 at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph.
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 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. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. Seeforyourself: QTReal)
But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.
But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.
Air can't do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-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 any fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?
Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.
Not even close!
Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actuallydisintegrated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.
In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
by
wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 94 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 2:03:06 AM
Well Waxman you're wasting your time. We have been brainwashed into thinking that reality, facts and truth are in the eye of the beholder. In most ego maniacal pin heads view, our government wouldn't be involved in anything that would kill thousands of Americans. We and our government are the good guys, remember. Its a hopeless cause to try and get morons to think rationally.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 146 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM
