 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 18, 2008 at 15:38:17
The Three Irrefutable Facts That Shatter Bush's Official 911 Theory by Len Hart Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
(Source) 
"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."
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.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]...
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
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.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
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]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.
--Arlington National Cemetery
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.
1 | 2
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/
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.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 17 comments |
|
It's pretty clear that Shermer is a shill, plant, whatever y
It's pretty clear that Shermer is a shill, plant, whatever you want to call it. No one who's editor of a "Skeptics" magazine could be so gullible and all believing of the dubious official 9/11 story, unless he did so with purpose. William Colby, CIA Director said all media of any significance in the US is controlled by the CIA. Would they not infiltrate or control "Skeptics" magazine? Of course they would. They wouldn't want a real journalist who is really skeptical running such a magazine. And its obvious from Shermer's feigned naivete when it comes to the official 9/11 myth, that he's doing someone's bidding, not acting as a true skeptic. Soooo, how do we break this corporate media blockade of 9/11 truth issues? We have to be creative. Recently a New York Times best selling author put his career on the line to write a truth telling edu-tainment novel "The Shell Game," which has real 9/11 truth research in it. When he's been on mainstream media he's urged Americans to support 9/11 truth activists. His book's website www.TheShellGame.net has links to major 9/11 truth sites. SPEND THE NEXT TWO MONTHS URGING EVERYONE TO GET "THE SHELL GAME." By driving it to #1, we can ensure a national dialogue on a new 9/11 investigation. by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 8:08:28 PM  (0+)
|
|
You should, at least
be wary of the Pentagon issue. Jim Hoffman www.911research.com and others have made a rational case that an airliner may well have hit the Pentagon. Michael Ruppert called it a 'Honeypot'. regarding the other two... CD is a given. The Hijacker 'remnants' issue I have not thought enough about before... by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 9:23:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE!
I am not interested in rational explanations of uneeded hypotheses! JUST SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE! It will be protested that Bush ordered all the wreckage shipped out somewhere and destroyed! Now why would he have done such a thing if he had been --in any way --interested in the truth????? by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:27:36 AM (0+)
|
|
a public hanging!
Before the 'evidence' was all feloniously disposed of, there was a report that a jet engine compressor rotor had been found. The rotor was probably less than a fifth the size of 757 rotor. Likewise pictures !!! Hundreds, possibly thousands, of photos were taken of whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon. Anyone still subscribing to the official conspiracy theory should simply DEMAND that Bush order the release of all those photos and put the issue to rest! What is so fuckin' hard about that concept??? If the photos show a 757 --FINE. That means we can put this issue behind us. If the photos are images of a Global Hawk, then we can get on with a public hanging! by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:36:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Three Irrefutable Facts
I just want to add one question. Every aircraft that fly's has a black box. we are talking about two aircraft that we think hit the twin towers. (Were are these black boxes. thw other aircraft we think hit the Pentagon (Were is this black box. the other crashed in Phila,. were is its black box? THEY COULD NOT HAVE VANASHED. they dont burn with heat. were are they???? ALSO another thing where were the aircraft that provide aircraft SECURITY for New York downtown? UNIDENTIFIED AIRCRAFT in Manhatten airspace???? WHAT GOING ON HERE??? Dick C heney had the responsibility of contacting N.O.R.A.D. and scramble the aircraft from the air force that protect our air space. (FUNNEY THING IS THERE WERE NO AIRCRAFT. FIGHTER JETS TO ESCORT THE AIRCRAFT FROM BEING OFF THERE FLIGHT PATTERN. this has to be all planned. staged another pearl habor. by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: More evidence that was never examined or investigated...
That is another good question. If Bush had really wanted to get the truth out about what happened --the 'black boxes' would have been the first thing released. I have searched but have found no mention of the recovery of the black box --certainly not its release. If you find some info on this --please share it with everyone. I suppose that we are simply expected to conclude that the black boxes simply vanished like all the other hard evidence that has never been investigated. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 1:05:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Why assume ANY planes? (just checking)
What plane hit the whole in the ground in Shanksville? What plane hit the Pentagon? certainly not a Big Boeing. But why assume any plane - Griffin thinks the most likely explanation is a cruise missile from the sea. So where does that leave the story of Cheney allowing this plane [DOT ON A SCREEN] to get nearer and nearer to Washington DC and snap at the young man who kept asking him : 'does the order still stand?' ? Either this was all a charade being played out by Cheney and young man to fool onlookers; or Cheney believed in the dot as a plane. But we don't need to. Remember the man who dobbed Cheney in the sh*t on this one is none other than Norman Mineta, the V-P of the biggest arms comany on earth (by volume). So why do we keep falling for juicy anti-Cheney bait and miss the deeper intention which IMO is to lock us ever more tightly into PLANE assumptions. But surely it is mad not to subscribe to the evidence of our own eyes - we saw the plane smashing into the South tower, after all! I saw dots on a screen, just as I also see lines on the ground in an American football game which aren't there, even though guys dive over them. Video fakery - check out September Clues series, or killtown's archive on video fakery. Seems it wasn't even in real time - there was a 17 second delay on all four 'live feeds', time enough for a quick plane insert, only unfortunately for the perps they made the plane appear to crash four floors adrift of where the simultaneous explosions in the building took place: - which - like bugs bunny crashing through a hedge with his tall ears visible in the outline of the hole, left an imprint of the soft aluminium wings going through the steel pillars and steel and concrete floors ... . But what about the eyewitnesses we saw on TV ? - Planting phoney eye-witness actors is standard operating procedure in false-flag terrorism. It is amazing how many top media executives came down into the studio to relate what they had just 'seen'. But thousands of people saw the planes directly! - Did they?, that is the (open) question. Lots report hearing planes flying unusually low. Already before the South tower 'hit' the people were all hyped up with a hugely strong framing about hijacked planes. Most people can't see what is happening a thousand feet above them because of the high buildings in the way. Less data and strong framing is a perfect recipe for entirely innocent people to come forward with helpful 'memories' ... Actually very few report seeing planes hit the towers, according to Andrew Johnson and a team of researchers who analysed 'witness statements' from the day. (Check out Going in Search of Planes from www.checktheevidence.com ) by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:04:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Good on ya, Keith!
Those videos of planes crashing into the twin towers were "cartoons", to use CB_Brooklyn's phrase. In fact, we could add one to Allen Roland's miracles: The miracle When a plane, which is a fragile aluminium structure that you can destroy with a long-handled lump hammer, hits a wall, or is flown into a building, it smashes to smithereens, regardless of what damage is done to the building. On 9/11, two planes flew into the twin towers. Noses didn't crumple, wings didn't come off, fuselages didn't break, no bits all over the place, and no bursting into flames! Instead, the planes went into the buildings neatly cutting their own shapes into the concrete and steel walls, like Bugs Bunny's ears in the hedge, and, flying at an angle, plowed through horizontal floors, with nothing breaking, nothing smashing, and without losing speed! Certainly one has to consider this some sort of a miracle. Surely the hand of ??? (Thanks, Allen.) Sydney, Australia by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:01:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: At least....
Roland makes an excellent point. Aluminum vs Steel...steel wins! AT THE VERY LEAST, the wings would have broken off on impact at both WTC and Pentagon. At the WTC, the broken wings would have fallen to the street. No wings; no terrorists! One of the oddest things to have happened was the now famous BBC broadcast in which the reporter broadcasts the news that Building 7 has collapsed but still clearly visible behind her. Amazing! by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:14:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What hit the ground at Shaksville....?
"What plane hit the whole in the ground in Shanksville?" As a broadcast news guy, I've covered a few crash sites. My first question when I saw the vid from PA was: "Where's the wreckage?" My second question: "Where's the plane?" If the debris is wreckage, it was NOT from a crash. Rummie inadvertently told the truth when he referred to "....the missile that shot down Flight 93". And, of course, that it was 93 that was shot down is only an assumption in one case, a baseless assertion in another. Just depends on who is talking. On another occassion, he referred to a "....missile that crashed this building!" Being the Pentagon. If an airliner had truly crashed the Pentagon, Bush would have tripped over himself to release the photos! What a PR coup that would have been. Instead, every camera trained on the Pentagon was seized! If Bush wishes to prove this idiotic theory, he need only release the photos. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:07:57 AM (0+)
|
|
rough arguments
Again today we see rough arguments on both sides. Who cares what hit the Pentagon? If explosives were used to blow the plane up before impact you wouldn't expect to see the right marks on the face of the building. So why argue about all this stuff? Surely the thing to do is to study the things which cannot be disputed. For instance it cannot be disputed that hot steel hardens as it distorts. If it hardens, more force must be applied, if the distortion is to continue, or more heat must be applied if the force remains the same. In the case of the three buildings the force had to remain the same so for the collapse to continue the heat supply had to increase. This takes time. If we look at the videos we see no such slow sagging that would occur if it was dependent on additional heat being supplied. We see a sudden drop at near free fall speed. Only explosives can do that. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:23:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the official conspiracy theory.
We argue about stuff like this because it speaks to and refutes the official conspiracy theory. At the same time, the huge holes in the theory proves: 1) The Bush administration has deliberately lied about 911. 2) The Bush administration obstructed an official investigation of 911. 3) The Bush administration ordered the destruction of evidence from the scene of a crime. Obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton was impeached for much, much, much, much less. He was impeached with high sounding rhetoric and bullshit. In fact, he was only formally accused of lying about something that was not even a crime! Show me the federal statutes that prohibited one from getting a blow job in the Oval Office! Is the Oval Office a blow job free zone? Since when? What Bush did was to obstruct justice and destroy evidence of a mass murder. Even if Bushco had not ordered the attacks, willfully destroying evidence of the crime should be enough to get him indicted as an accessory affter the fact. The crime: MASS MURDER. Isn't that a hanging offense? by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:29:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: perfectly correct but still not helpful
Len, of course you are perfectly correct in your points 1, 2 and 3. No doubt about it. Impeachment or prosecution and time in Guantanamo Bay are necessary. However the point I was making is that rushing out with an attack on Bushco where the facts are in dispute, like what hit the Pentagon, is a counterproductive strategy as it produces arguments, as you see above. The constructive thing to say about the Pentagon is that nothing should have hit it given how much money has been spent on setting up a defence system. This leads straight on to the next thing to note, which is that the admin could release videos of what hit the Pentagon but they don't. To my mind this is proof of complicity - they just want to see people like you and me arguing. It works well for them. There are many areas where the facts are clear. Presenting them is productive. For example proof of explosives in the 3 buildings cannot be disputed by anyone who is sane and honest. A good proof is here. This proof is based on the properties of steel itself and cannot be denied. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:22:04 AM (0+)
|
|
May I suggest
that you Youtube 911 Octopus. The video feeds are altered as is shown. 911 flatliner may be seen on Vlogging the apocalypse. The boeing engineer has some revealing facts about the flight capabilities and structural weaknesses of the airliners. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:30:26 AM (0+)
|
|
The burden of proof is on Bush to prove his bullshit theory.
Len, of course you are perfectly correct in your points 1, 2 and 3. No doubt about it. Impeachment or prosecution and time in Guantanamo Bay are necessary. However the point I was making is that rushing out with an attack on Bushco where the facts are in dispute, like what hit the Pentagon, is a counterproductive strategy as it produces arguments, as you see above. The facts you refer to --facts 1,2,3 --completely shoot down the 'cover story' and, in themselves, establish probable cause to begin a Federal Investigation. It is the job of such an investigation to resolve whatever facts remain in dispute. If a case is brought against Bush, it will be the prosecution's job to make it. I am NOT the prosecution here. Respectfully, I don't think you understand my objective here. I am NOT making a case that Bush is guilty, although I suspect that he is and may express that opinion. Even so, I cannot make that case in the space of a short article. What I had aimed to do and what I have, in fact, done is to shoot three fatal holes in the official theory --the three, indisputable facts in the official theory. Until folk get their heads around the fact that Bush lied and that there is not a shred of verifiable evidence in support of Bush's theory --then we can move on. That's why I suggested that a Federal Judge (a courageous one) convene, upon his own motion, a Federal Grand Jury. A Federal Grand Jury is practically unlimited in what it might investigate and how. It has complete subpoena powers and may call as witness anyone it wishes. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Actually, Allen Roland doesn't make the point,
Keith and I do. I've just cast that point in the form of one of Allen's miracles, seeing that he had an article talking about the 9/11 "miracles" in this issue. I'm not sure Allen would agree. A lot of 9/11 truthers don't agree with the no-planes theory, and some don't want to know. They say that it brings the movement into disrepute. But, stripped to its bare bones, as you do, it's aluminium against steel, and at least the wings would have been stripped off and have fallen to the ground. Yes, amazing, that comment by the BBC announcer. On the BBC World News, the BBC had just crossed live to their reporter on the spot at the WTC site. As she was talking, the BBC announcer interrupted her and said that he had just had news to hand that a third building had come down, the Salomon Brothers building. This while the reporter continued to be shown on-screen with the Salomon Brothers Building, building 7, visible behind her! That building wasn't destined to come down until 20 minutes later. Just before that happened, the satellite session was suddenly cut short, because it had developed a mysterious technical fault. by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:05:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry about the misunderstanding
Robert, sorry about the misunderstanding. My take on it is --again --the burden of proof is on Bush. Your position, then, as I understand it, is of the form: "Why hypothesize planes at all?" INDEED! If the events are most logically explained without ASSUMING the existence of airplanes --so much the better. Bush's theory is airplanes themselves plus the islamic hijackers, some of which were interviewed by the BBC AFTER they were supposed to have died in the attacks. Perhaps, the events of 911 are best explained by NOT assuming either planes OR hijackers. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:18:25 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
