But you talk about 9/11 and everyone immediately gets all on about the tragedy and whatnot, and while I�m not saying it wasn�t a tragedy, (it was,) what a lot of people seem to be overlooking is the scariest part of the whole thing; namely who was really behind it.
I know, we�ve all been carefully instructed to believe it was terrorists. That Osama bin Laden and his merry band of jihad-happy wackos planned and carried the attack out. This is what our government wants us to believe. Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence simply doesn�t support the story we�ve been told. And this same government isn�t stepping up to answer any of the questions that have arisen from this shameful act.
First, we�re gonna look at the Pentagon, and the alleged plane that struck that building. They told us it was a Boeing 757 that slammed into the Pentagon, but quite simply, there is no way that could be the truth. Not without completely re-writing the laws of physics. And possessing a suspension of disbelief that any filmmaker would LOVE for his or her audience to have.
First, the most obvious question � WHERE IS THE MOTHERFUCKING PLANE?!? There is absolutely NO evidence of an airplane anywhere NEAR the Pentagon, and they were showing video footage of the site only minutes after the incident occurred. But not a single piece of a 757 could be seen anywhere. Show me any other plane crash where there is absolutely no wreckage from the plane. I dare you.
The damage to the building is inconsistent with being struck by a plane. This thing hit at approximately 530 miles per hour, so why were the windows only a few feet away from the hole still intact? The wingspan of a 757 is almost 125 feet, yet the hole was only 16 feet wide. Where did the wings go? The tail is 42 feet high, so once again, how did it fit into a 16 foot hole? If the wings or tail fin struck the building, there would be damage at the very least. The windows would be broken surrounding the hole. If the wings struck the building and snapped off, like they should, then where the fuck are they? They do not bend around the plane and get sucked into the hole, as one person I have been having an ongoing discussion about this with suggested. The are designed to snap off if they impact a hardened surface. In Texas, a plane hit a telephone pole and the wing snapped off, yet when they hit a reinforced wall, that didn�t happen? The wings should have been laying in the lawn of the Pentagon.
In fact, the lawn should have been littered with debris, but it wasn�t. There was one small piece of debris that could be identified as being from a plane, but it was NOT a part of a 757, and it had no evidence of being in a fire at all. No burns or scorch marks or anything on it, like it was planted there or something. There was also one turbine engine, but it was HALF the size of the ones used on a 757, and simply couldn�t be from the plane that they want us to believe hit the Pentagon.
And speaking of the lawn, why was there no damage to it? You�ve all seen pictures and video of other plane crashes. There is always a trail of debris, and the ground where the plane hits is torn up pretty badly. This didn�t happen to the Pentagon lawn, which was almost completely intact. In fact, large wire spools that were mere feet away from the point of impact were untouched. A highly experienced pilot would have a difficult time with the approach that had to have been used, and to hit the target the way they did, without any collateral damage. In fact, it�s impossible to do without any collateral damage. A plane would have had to pass over the highway running alongside the Pentagon only a few feet in the air, yet none of the vehicles on the highway were disturbed by the wake of turbulence that would have followed behind the plane. A vehicle as large as a 757, moving at over 500 miles per hour would leave a wake behind it that would have flipped the vehicles on the highway, yet none of them were damaged even slightly.
And then there are the conflicting reports from the people in those vehicles, which range from some people saying they saw a large jet, while others saw a small plane, like a Cessna, and still others saw a military helicopter. None of those things really looks all that similar, so who�s lying? Well, the one thing that DEFINITELY could have made that hole, exactly the way it was made without bending any laws of physics or anything, is a cruise missile. And yes, several people have said they saw something that looked like one of those as well. Also, the type of flash when the impact occurred indicates an explosive rather than a fuel fire. A fuel explosion is more orange, while an explosive produces a silvery explosion, like the one at the Pentagon.
The whole story simply doesn�t make any sense at all, and doesn�t fit the evidence at all. Some people, including the fellow I have been debating this with, have tried saying that the fire was hot enough to simply melt or disintegrate the plane. What I wonder is how this is the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF AVIATION that this have EVER happened. Never in history has a plane simply vanished upon impact. Hell, even at the Twin Towers they found plane wreckage in the rubble, so why didn�t they find any at the Pentagon? Simple, there never was any plane.
And speaking of the towers, what happened there was all wrong as well. I�m not talking about on a moral level, which should be pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a bag of dirt. But the physics of it are wrong � the towers never should have collapsed, at least not from the planes hitting them. And no, I�m not going to try and say there were no planes there either. Obviously there were, and they found wreckage of them in the debris from the buildings. No vanishing plane mystery here.
What is a mystery is why the buildings fell, and why they fell the way they did. Buildings don�t fall straight down on themselves; they topple. At least that�s what they do when they fall unplanned. That�s important, because this wasn�t something that was unplanned. There have been countless other buildings in history that have been hit by planes, and NOT ONE of them has fallen. In fact, they are all still standing to this day. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber in 1945, because the plane couldn�t see through fog. A BOMBER; something that is designed to carry explosives, yet the building, which was built what, 40 years before the structurally superior Twin Towers, is still standing. Hmmm.
Every structural engineer except one has gone on record to say that what happened is impossible. Not unlikely, but impossible. The story is that the fire burned so hot that it melted to core of the building, weakening the entire structure and causing the collapse. Well, first of all, 90% of the jet fuel was gone with the impact as part of the initial explosion, so what was burning hot enough to melt the steel? Some desks and papers? I highly doubt that, and so do the experts.
In 1988, a sixty-two story building in Los Angeles burned for three hours, two to three times as long as the towers, yet it didn�t collapse. In 2004 a seventy-two story building in Venezuela burned for over seventeen hours, spreading over 26 floors, and the building still didn�t collapse. How the fuck did these two buildings, which burned for 56 minutes, and one hour and thirty-three minutes, fall to the ground?
Also, why did the buildings fall straight down, the way they do in a controlled demolition? They should have toppled, the way buildings do during earthquakes and such. That would have been more in line with the story they are claiming. But that�s not what happened.
Why were the bomb-sniffing dogs removed from the buildings a week before 9/11? That doesn�t make any sense at all, and if the government�s story held any credence whatsoever, this would seriously damage it. Why do numerous eyewitnesses say the second plane wasn�t a commercial jetliner, but instead looked like a military cargo plane? Why do people inside the building report hearing several explosions after the planes hit? Why, when you watch the video of the towers falling closely, can you see explosions preceding the tumbling buildings down by several floors? Why do the firemen interviewed, who were inside the towers, insist that it was a controlled demolition? All of the questions shed more and more doubt on the veracity of the government�s statements, and on the intelligence of people who believe what they are being told.
Then there�s the alleged crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. The first people on the scene there described it as looking like someone dug a hole in the ground, and dumped a scrap truck in it. There was no plane wreckage there either, and most damning of all, the coroner on the scene stated that there were NO BODIES! So, in the history of aviation, a plane has NEVER disintegrated upon impact, but now it has happened twice in one day? How much sense does THAT make? Absolutely none.
Now, before all of this, why did almost every single member of the government brass suddenly cancel their flights for Sept. 11th at the last minute? The mayor of Washington DC got a phone call from Condoleeza Rice on Sept. 10th warning him not to fly the next morning. Donald Rumsfeld stopped taking commercial flights immediately prior to September 11th, and started chartering planes. Why did WTC 7 collapse eight hours after the initial attacks, when nothing hit it at all? And what did seven house? Government offices, that�s what. Including records of insider trading involving government officials, and linked to the companies affected by the events of 9/11.
You add all these things together, and you start to get a pretty fucking grim picture of what actually happened that day. Two of the planes listed in the attacks are still in use today, which doesn�t really seem possible, does it? Osama bin Laden is left-handed, yet the man in all the tapes where �Osama� is taking credit for the attacks is RIGHT-handed. He is also wearing gold, which is forbidden by the religion he treasures so much. He is an imposter, plain and simple.
These facts are all out in the open, plain as day and there for anyone who wants to know the truth to see. If they really want to. It does paint an ugly picture, but we know our government shouldn�t be trusted, so why is it so hard to believe that they would perpetrate this? It�s not, if you ask me, or 99% of the people I have talked to about it. In fact, I have only talked to TWO people who believe what the government is telling us about this shameful act.
I feel sorry for them.