Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
17 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Three Irrefutable Facts That Shatter Bush's Official 911 Theory

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Nothing Bush has ever said about 911 is true --nor is there a shred, a scintilla of verifiable evidence in support of it. Bush put forward a crazy conspiracy theory about a world wide conspiracy of radical Arabs and incompetent pilots. Not a word of it can be believed! Three indisputable, verifiable facts utterly disprove everything said by Bush and apologists about 911.

Bush kicked up a lot of dust and hoped to hide out in the smokescreen. It hasn't worked. Three irrefutable facts lay waste to the official lies.
  1. A 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon!

    The wings and tail are huge surfaces areas --certainly bigger than the tiny hole said by official conspiracy theorists to have been the impact point! The hole would not have accommodated the fuselage, let alone the wings and tail which might have broken off to be found on the lawn. Nor was there any significant damage that might have been attributed to either wings or tail section or both. Neither was there evidence of wings or tail section!

    Even if the plane had 'shredded' --as some have claimed --'80 tons of plane is still 80 tons of debris'.
    "Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building."

    (Source)

    Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.

    ...

    The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003)

    --The Missing Wings, A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004), A. K. Dewdney, G. W. Longspaugh

    We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see left) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

    --A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

  2. Johnny Cochran summed it up. "If it does not fit, you must aquit!" If there is no wreckage, then the Bush cover story utterly falls apart. When all other contingencies -the official theories and cover stories -fail to hold up under scrutiny, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The truth is: Bushco lied about the events of 911. They did so deliberately, knowing that all was false. [See also: The Missing Wings]

  3. Airliners could not and did not bring down the towers of the WTC!
  4. Fires, presumably caused by airliner crashes at the Twin Towers of WTC did not melt the steel core and could not have caused the towers' collapse let alone a symetrical collapse into the building footprint ala a controlled demolition. The fires simply were not hot enough even to have weakened steel.
    The temperatures generated by a hydrocarbon-fuelled office compartment fire are not capable of melting steel. A stoichiometric combustion of kerosene, generally regarded as dodecane, for example...

    C12H26 + 18.5O2 +69.595N2 ===> 12CO2 + 13H2O + 69.595N2 + 7518 kJ

    ...would have at best the above 7,518 kJ locked into 2.712 kg of combustion products to yield an adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) of some 2,398 K or 2,125 C (it is about 130 K less after including the inevitable endothermic dissociation reactions at these temperatures in order to reach an equilibrium state). At standard temperature and pressure, one mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters; at 2,398 K the volume would have expanded by a factor of 2398/273, i.e. nearly 9 times, to 196.8 liters/mol. The 7.518 MJ is spread amongst 94.595 moles or 18.62 cubic meters of hot gaseous products. At some 0.146 kg/m^3, these are much lighter than air at STP. In order to melt a mere 1 kg of steel that would take up a volume of only 0.127 liters, at least 1 MJ would be required. If 1/7.518 of the enthalpy (heat) in the products was directed at the kilogram of steel, the temperature rise would be reduced from 2,105 K to a little above 1,825 K which would result in a temperature of a little over 1,845 C and still potentially hot enough to melt some steel. But in real-world conditions, flame and upper layer hot gas temperatures are well below the AFT, typically barely reaching 1,000 C and certainly well below the melting point of steel.

    --WTC Molten Steel: The 911 Smoking Gun

    Following is a video from a TV program that I used to avoid like the plague --The View. Rose O'Donnel redeems it in the following video.

    Fire has NEVER melted Steel; it is physically impossible

    Also see: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
  5. There were NO Arabs on Flight 77If there were no Arabs on Flight 77, then the official theory must be completely discarded.
  6. At last, some 184 un-identified remains were buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
    A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery - the nation's most prestigious burial ground - holding the unidentified remains. [emphasis mine, LH] --Arlington National Cemetery
    Of the 184, sixty-four were said to have been passengers of Flight 77, the flight which is said to have crashed into the Pentagon.
    A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

    When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons. This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers. On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the "hijackers" of Flight 77.

    Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

High Treason: 'Pentagon Lied to the 911 Commission' ; Bush's Theory Falls Apart

Assassinations, White House Child Prostitution, Cover-ups, and Terrorism

How Progressives Can Take Back America

The Movement to Try George W. Bush et al for War Crimes

How the GOP Turned the US Into a Hideous Police State

Bush Proves Karl Marx Right About 'Capitalism'

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 17 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

It's pretty clear that Shermer is a shill, pla... by Bill Douglas on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 8:08:28 PM
be wary of the Pentagon issue. Jim Hoffmanwww.911r... by richard on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 9:23:51 PM
I am not interested in rational explanations of un... by Len Hart on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:27:36 AM
Before the 'evidence' was all feloniously ... by Len Hart on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:36:17 AM
I just want to add one question. Every aircraft th... by vincent passiatore on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM
That is another good question. If Bush had really ... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 1:05:27 AM
Asking about why Bush suppressed the flight record... by Keith Mothersson on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:04:51 AM
Those videos of planes crashing into the twin towe... by Robert Hoogenboom on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:01:36 AM
Roland makes an excellent point. Aluminum vs Steel... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:14:02 AM
"What plane hit the whole in the ground in Sh... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:07:57 AM
Again today we see rough arguments on both sides. ... by gravity32 on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:23:55 AM
We argue about stuff like this because it speaks t... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:29:14 AM
Len, of course you are perfectly correct in your ... by gravity32 on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:22:04 AM
that you Youtube  911 Octopus. The video feed... by john riggs on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:30:26 AM
Len, of course you are perfectly correct in your p... by Len Hart on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM
Keith and I do. I've just cast that point in t... by Robert Hoogenboom on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:05:05 PM
Robert, sorry about the misunderstanding. My take ... by Len Hart on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:18:25 AM