|
PAINFUL DECEPTIONS -- AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACK -- SCREENPLAY |
|
by Eric Hufschmid
Painful Deceptions -- Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery [Transcribed from the movie by Tara Carreon, American Buddha Online Librarian] [George Bush] Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories. Created 19 April 2003 by Eric Hufschmid, Edited 30 July 2004 PAINFUL DECEPTIONS September 11, 2001 [Eric Hufschmid] A few minutes after an airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11th, television shows were interrupted to provide us with news reports. SPECIAL NEWS REPORT! But these news reports were repeated over and over, day after day: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and on, and on, without interruption. [K-EYE] ... and show it to you again. OSAMA DID IT! We were told that Osama was responsible, and his photo was shown to us over and over. But how could a few men defeat our air defense system? And with four different airplanes? FIRE DID IT! We were told that
fire caused the towers and Building 7 to disintegrate. Well, at least the FBI solved the crime within a few days and released the names and photos of the 19 hijackers. Unfortunately, news reports were soon complaining that some of these hijackers were alive. Has this crime really been solved? BBC NEWS: HIJACK "SUSPECTS" ALIVE AND WELL Video of the plane crashing into the tower was repeated over and over, but we never saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon, because military officials said there were no photos or video of that event. U.S. MILITARY: "NO VIDEO OF FLIGHT 77" Everybody had to guess how the plane hit the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, the early drawings turned out to be incorrect, such as this one, from U.S. News & World Report, in which the airplane is diving towards the helicopter pad. This computer simulation follows the official theory that Flight 77 flew a few inches above the grass, and crashed into the ground floor. INCHES ABOVE THE GRASS! If you've ever tried to land an airplane, you can understand the skill this pilot had in order to fly so close to the ground at 400 miles per hour. INCREDIBLE PILOT! Originally the FBI claimed that the terrorist who flew this plane was an experienced pilot for a Saudi Arabian airline. FBI: "TERRORIST IS A PILOT FOR SAUDI ARABIA" But they switched to an inexperienced pilot after discovering he was still alive in Saudi Arabia. FBI: "OOPS! UH ..." But even if he had experience, how could anybody fly so low that he could knock down many street lights, a couple of which fell onto automobiles? How could anyone fly through this obstacle course? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated. Thousands of people should have heard and seen such a large plane flying close to the ground. Furthermore, only military aircraft are allowed in this area. So where are the thousands of witnesses? And why did none of the military pilots protect the Pentagon? While most Americans were demanding retaliation against Osama, a few people in cyberspace were complaining that something was strange about this attack, and that we should not believe our government. Initially I did not understand what these conspiracy nuts were complaining about. DON'T TRUST THEM; THEY LIE; IT'S A SCAM MUSLIMS SUSPEND LAWS OF PHYSICS, BY J. McMICHAEL But by January, I realized that the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 did not merely fall down. For example, virtually all of the concrete in the towers had been pulverized into dust. I posted documents on the Internet in which I explain that the Towers appear to have been destroyed with explosives. CLOUDS OF CONCRETE, BY ERIC HUFSCHMID, JANUARY 2002 -- TOWERS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED WITH EXPLOSIVES Meanwhile, over in France, a man named Thierry Meyssan was analyzing the odd aspects of the Pentagon attack. For example, why isn't there debris from Flight 77 on the grass? Perhaps a view from a helicopter will help us find pieces of Flight 77? Nothing here but bricks and limestone. What are those round objects? Oh, just spools of cable. Those are not pieces of Flight 77 either. These people appear to be gathering small objects. Where are the large pieces of aircraft? And the passengers? And their luggage? There's lots of rubble inside the Pentagon, but nothing that looks like luggage, airline seats, or airplane parts. This dog was searching for people, but there are no photos of it finding any of the passengers. How could a dog not even find one small piece of 64 passengers? How could so many people vanish? Did this dog even pick up a scent of a human? DOG WITHOUT A CLUE It's possible that somebody has photos that show pieces of Flight 77. And it's possible that photographers avoided the luggage and dead passengers because they thought it would upset us. However, the commonly available photos and news reports do not provide any evidence that Flight 77 even hit the Pentagon. Meyssan's conclusion was that the Military was lying about Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. At the beginning of March, 2002, news had reached American Internet sites that Meyssan wrote a book to explain that he could not find any evidence of Flight 77 in any of the photos or news reports. Meyssan accused the Military of deceiving us about the attack. He believed that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. Rather, a truck bomb had exploded in front of the building. THIERRY MEYSSAN: "THE FRIGHTENING FRAUD" A few days later, the Military released five images from a security camera in front of the Pentagon. These images show an object flying into the Pentagon. This put an end to the accusations that a truck bomb had exploded in front of the building. US MILITARY: "IT'S FLIGHT 77, NOT A TRUCK BOMB" Unfortunately, these images created two new problems. First of all, they proved they lied about not having video of Flight 77. They have video! But we can't see it. MILITARY LIED! THEY HAVE VIDEO! BUT WE CAN'T SEE IT. Second, and more important, nobody can find Flight 77 in these video images. WHERE IS FLIGHT 77? Military officials were correct that releasing those five frames of video would put an end to the accusations of a truck bomb. OK ... NO TRUCK BOMB! But what they did not expect is that within minutes of those frames reaching the Internet, some of us started making accusations that a missile hit the Pentagon. IT WAS A MISSILE!! If the complete video truly shows Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, why doesn't the Military release the entire video and put an end to these accusations that the attack was a scam? Why don't they prove their innocence? Months later, Meyssan released another book, "Le Pentagate," to explain his newest accusation that some type of drone hit the Pentagon. The Military was upset by his books, but not upset enough to prove their innocence by releasing all security camera videos. In September, 2002, I further annoyed our government by releasing my book, "Painful Questions." It provides evidence that both World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives that were placed in the buildings before the attack. I also show that many of the phone calls from the passengers appear to be fake in order to deceive us into believing that the airplanes had been hijacked by Arabs. I show that the terrorists were patsies in this incredible scam. Books like these are ridiculed as idiotic conspiracy theories by the majority of Americans. However, as Dave von Kleist of the Power Hour radio show says, "The real conspiracy theory is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon." The reason is that there is not much evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Let's take a look. Let's begin by taking a look at the five images from the Pentagon security camera. The first image shows Flight 77 leaving a trail of white smoke only slightly above the ground. The second image shows the plane crashing into the building and erupting into a giant, bright fireball. The third image, and the following two images, show the fireball becoming darker and larger while rising upward. About 20 minutes later, while firemen were spraying the fire, that section of the building collapsed. Returning to the first image, if Flight 77 is leaving that trail of white smoke, where is the airplane? WHERE IS THE AIRPLANE? The roof of the Pentagon reached 77 feet, and the edge of the roof was almost 72 feet. Flight 77 was a Boeing 757. It was 155 feet long. It was twice as long as the building is tall. It was 37 feet from the top of the tail to the center of the exhaust. From the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail is more than half the height of the Pentagon. Meyssan, and many others, have tried to figure out where such a large plane could be hiding in this image? The only hiding place is the rectangular post, but the post is not large enough for a 757 to hide behind. Let's zoom in on that upper right corner. These video images are low quality to begin with, so magnifying them will create grainy images. But despite the graininess, can you see anything that resembles a Boeing 757. We could settle this issue if the Military would release all video from all security cameras. So why don't they? Why the secrecy? Also, notice that the time in the video is incorrect. The Military uses IRIG time code to identify events. So they certainly know precisely when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So why provide a false time? The Military announced they don't know why the time is incorrect. But is our Military really unaware of what is going on at their headquarters? Or, are they hiding the time code because it contradicts the official story? What about the witnesses who saw Flight 77? [Man on K-EYE] "There was no doubt about it. It was American Airlines that slammed right into the building." "No doubt about it"?! Who is this guy? And what did he really see? How can anybody be certain about an aircraft flying close by at 400 miles per hour? How did Flight 77 get to the Pentagon? This is another suspicious aspect of the attack. The plane vanished from Air Traffic Controllers near Ohio, as shown by the question mark. FLIGHT 77 VANISHES AT 8:57 A.M. Air traffic controllers immediately called for help. Less than an hour later, an unidentified blip appears on the radar screen near the Pentagon. Supposedly, Flight 77 traveled all the way from Ohio to the Pentagon without any of the air traffic controllers noticing its blip on the radar screen, even though they were looking for it. The Air Force did not notice this plane either, even though the Pentagon is off-limits to aircraft. If an aircraft as large as a 757 can travel hundreds of miles through American airspace without anybody noticing, what good is our air defense system, and our air traffic control system? And consider that three other airplanes were also wandering around. Then consider that the planes entered restricted air space. A group of people without any military force could send commercial airplanes into America without anybody noticing! And then they could drop bombs on us or crash the planes into the Pentagon, office buildings, and military bases. While it is
unrealistic to expect people to pay attention to these boring radar
screens, after they realized that Flight 77 disappeared, they should
have been able to locate it with their radar. This is the cockpit of a 757. How would they know where to fly? Would they use a compass and a map? How would they see below the clouds? None of the hijackers were good pilots according to the flight schools. MOST WANTED TERRORISTS: HANI HANJOUR, PILOT OF FLIGHT 77 The person accused of flying into the Pentagon was failing his courses at the Arizona Flight School, but he continued to pay for training anyway. The New York Times quotes one employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." THE NEW YORK TIMES, MAY 4, 2002: A TRAINEE NOTED FOR INCOMPETENCE, BY JIM YARDLEY And how about this remark? "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." The terrorists received financial support from unknown people. But why would those mystery people not care that the terrorists were failing as pilots? Were the financial supporters really trying to train pilots? Or did they merely want the terrorists to obtain pilot's licenses. Captain Russ Wittenberg was a pilot for the Air Force, Pan Am, and United Airlines. He flew both the 757 and the 767 airplanes that were hijacked on September 11th. So he knows how much practice is needed to fly those planes. He is one of several pilots who doubt that the terrorists could have flown those planes so accurately into small targets. He also doubts that the pilots would give up the cockpit to a couple of guys with razorblades, since that would put everybody in danger, not just a couple of hostages. He would at least expect the pilots to send a distress signal. Our Government makes it appear easy to hijack airplanes and fly them into small targets. But many pilots and flight school instructors find the situation difficult to believe. When faced with such contradictions, shouldn't we at least conduct an investigation into what happened at those flight schools? To make the flight training more suspicious, Daniel Hopsicker shows that the flight school in Venice, Florida, had connections to the CIA, and was operated by a criminal from Holland. Did the CIA help the terrorists learn to fly? Or were the flight lessons merely to fool us into believing that they were capable of flying? To make the situation more ridiculous, a few hijackers are alive in the Middle East. Where did the FBI get these names? BBC NEWS, SUNDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER, 2001: HIJACK 'SUSPECTS' ALIVE AND WELL: WALEED AL SHEHRI LEFT THE U.S. A YEAR AGO, HE SAYS ... And doesn't the FBI verify names before putting them on the Most Wanted List? How can we use such a sloppy investigation to justify a war? Let's now consider the pilot's risky approach to the Pentagon. The Pentagon is surrounded by tall buildings, trees, and highways. It would be foolish for the terrorist to fly only inches above the ground. It would be best to remain a few hundred feet above the ground, and then dive into the Pentagon. However, the terrorist decided to fly along the ground. The orange arrow shows the direction he was flying when he crashed. This photo makes it easier to realize that the safest way to crash into the Pentagon is to dive into it, while aiming at the center of the five rings. However, the terrorist decided to fly along the ground and crash into the building near the helicopter landing pad. The problem with hitting this particular area was that his plane was coming from another direction. So he had to make a 270 degree turn in order to hit that side of the Pentagon. It would have been easier for him to hit Donald Rumsfeld's office. The risky, acrobatic maneuvers of this airplane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I doubt that even the best Air Force Pilot could fly a 757 a few inches above obstacles and at 400 miles per hour. Flight 77 looks tiny in this computer simulation because the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. More than 20,000 people work there. Many cities do not have as many people as this building. The high concentration of people means that crashing an airplane into the Pentagon could kill thousands of people. What a coincidence that the terrorist hit the only portion of the building that was almost completely empty because it was being renovated. CRASHED INTO EMPTY SECTION!! If the terrorist crashed into any other area of the Pentagon, thousands of people may have died. Furthermore, one of the purposes of the renovation was to increase the strength of the windows and walls to make them better able to withstand an attack. To summarize this, the pilot took a tremendous risk by flying only inches above the ground at 400 miles per hour, and then he hit the strongest part of the Pentagon! HIT THE STRONGEST PART!! With the fewest number of people in it! WITH THE FEWEST PEOPLE!! An amazing coincidence! FEBRUARY 1, 2003: SHUTTLE SHATTERED The Shuttle shattered 40 miles above Texas while traveling perhaps 12,000 miles per hour. Pieces of the shuttle and the astronauts were found over hundreds of square miles. By comparison, the passengers and debris from Flight 77 were confined to a very tiny area. But where are the pieces? There were only seven astronauts, but pieces of their bodies were found. There were 64 people on Flight 77, but there is no sign of their bodies, or even their blood. This area is the corridor between rings. There is nothing in this rubble that looks like Flight 77 or pieces of luggage. This hole was supposedly created by Flight 77, but nothing in the rubble would support such a theory. Another photo of building materials and office furniture, not pieces of airplane. Going inside the offices, the only rubble we find is of construction material. There are only a few photos that show scraps that appear to be from an airplane. For example, this is supposedly a piece of the skin of Flight 77. However, this metal seems too thin to belong to such a large airplane. These planes are 155 feet long and 60 tons when empty. The engines are 9 feet in diameter, and they have some heavy steel components. The small figure next to the engines is a six foot tall man. To show how large these engines are, the landing gear also contains massive metal components. Even if this scrap belongs to Flight 77, where is the rest of the airplane? How can 60 tons of metal disappear? Water can easily vaporize and drift away in the breeze, but airplanes do not vaporize. Flight 77 also had several tons of people and luggage. Where are they? This delicate scrap looks like it belongs to a Global Hawk or similar size drone or missile, not a Boeing 757. The circular object behind the firemen is supposedly part of the engine of Flight 77. Only one of these engine-objects was found. But Flight 77 had two large engines, not one small engine. Is it a coincidence that a Global Hawk has just one small engine? This piece of landing gear was found inside the Pentagon. This tire rim was also found inside. Unfortunately, these scraps do not prove that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. A Global Hawk also has tires, and landing gear. Is this a piece of Flight 77? It would be helpful if the Military would release high quality photos of these pieces so that we could see them clearly. So why doesn't the Military provide better photos? Perhaps because a high quality photo of this item would show us that it is so small and delicate that it looks like it belongs to a Global Hawk. Here is another thin piece of metal that would fit better on a Global Hawk than a 757. Furthermore, a 757 would leave a total of 60 tons of scrap, not just a few pieces that were so thin that people could pick them up without effort. THERE SHOULD BE 60 TONS OF SCRAP! These tiny scraps of aircraft would make sense if a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon, because the Global Hawk was designed to be extremely light weight. One reason for its low weight is to allow it to remain in the air for a very long time so it can observe people on the ground for long periods. It can remain in the air for as long as 35 hours. Another reason for its low weight is to reduce the power requirements of the engine, which in turn reduces the noise and heat from the engine. This makes it difficult for people to hear it or pick it up with infrared sensors. A Global Hawk is like an eggshell with an engine. Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press spoke with Steve Riskus who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and took these photos of the fire before the firemen arrived. Steve said the plane flew by his windshield, but he did not hear much noise! This could be used as evidence that a Global Hawk or similar quiet aircraft hit the Pentagon. By comparison, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center was recorded on video, because a cameraman heard the plane before it reached him. The microphone of his video recorder also picked up the sound of its engines. However, that plane never came closer to him than about 1,000 feet, whereas the plane at the Pentagon was only inches above the cars. A video available at Blockbuster Video Stores shows the first airplane hitting the Towers. The film is called "9/11, The Filmmakers Commemorative Edition." Here is a sample of it. That airplane never came closer to the people than about 1,000 feet. But we can clearly hear it. If a Boeing 757 flew 400 miles per hour only inches above the cars, the noise would have been deafening. Also, people would have felt the vibration from the engines, the turbulence from the wings, and the exhaust from the engines. This photo resembles those from other disasters. Specifically, most of the people are dressed to deal with fire, or they have gloves or workboots. There are no secretaries in high-heeled shoes, nor are there any children. However, a few photos show executives wandering around among the firemen. Who are these two guys? Why are they picking up scraps? They do not have gloves on, nor workboots. They are holding the parts away from their body, which is a sign that they are worried about getting their clothes dirty. So why are they walking around in the firefighting foam, water, human body parts, and sharp scraps of airplane? Why are they so concerned about finding scraps of Flight 77 that they will rush out among the firemen to help them pick up a few scraps? The police are supposed to arrest people who pick up evidence. For example, on February 4, 2003, two people were arrested for picking up space shuttle debris. FEB. 4, 2003 TWO PEOPLE ARRESTED WITH SHUTTLE DEBRIS They faced 10 years in prison and an incredible fine. 10 YEARS IN PRISON, $250,000 FINE Why didn't the police arrest these guys? Are these the FBI investigators? If so, why didn't they let the workers with gloves and boots pick the scraps up? A Boeing 757 would leave 60 tons of scrap, in which case these two guys would not be able to contribute anything significant to the clean-up. But if a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon, there would be only 4 tons of scrap. Furthermore, since 50% of a Global Hawk is carbon fiber and resin, rather than aluminum, if most of the non-metallic material burned, there would be less than two tons of scrap. This would explain the mystery of why there are so few scraps. However, a Global Hawk has aluminum in the body. Any large pieces of aluminum would have to be hidden, because they would not look like pieces of a Boeing 757. What a coincidence that some guys carried away a large box hidden behind a tarp. Some of these guys are overweight. There was no shortage of younger guys in better physical shape, many of whom had gloves and boots. Why would these guys carry away this secret item? What is inside this box, and where did they take it? Why the secrecy if the Military has nothing to hide? As if there were not enough strange aspects to the scraps, a news helicopter shows a line of people picking up small items from the grass. Who are these people? They are not firemen or policemen. Why are they picking up evidence at a disaster? This very rapid cleanup also happened at the World Trade Center. At both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the clean-up crews were on the site immediately, and removed the evidence before the investigators could look at it. At the Pentagon, some of the clean-up crew were executives. If a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon, the pieces of carbon fiber would have to be picked up quickly, because if somebody had found a piece of it, he would have announced, "Hey, this ain't no American Airlines 757. We just got hit by some high tech aircraft." Perhaps the reason Flight 77 vanished from radar near Ohio was because it landed at a military base in the area. Then, a Global Hawk may have been sent up to replace it. Since a Global Hawk can fly above 60,000 feet, it could fly from Ohio to the Pentagon above the commercial airplanes. Since it is small, and more than 50% carbon fiber, it is not as noticeable on radar as commercial airplanes. Especially not when flying at 60,000 feet. This would explain why the air traffic controllers never noticed it on their radar as it traveled to the Pentagon. It also flies at 400 miles per hour, which is the speed the Military claims Flight 77 was flying when it hit the Pentagon. Seismic sensors are buried around the world for measuring earthquakes and other events. The sensors are so sensitive that many of them picked up the airplanes as they crashed into the World Trade Center. And they picked up the crash in Pennsylvania. They also picked up the collapse of the Towers and the collapse of Building 7. However, there is no seismic data for the airplane crashing into the Pentagon. The scientists who analyzed the data reported, "Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal." A seismic station near the Pentagon does not show any clear sign of an airplane crash. A different station shows a blip that might be an airplane crash at 9:39, and a third station shows nothing. The blip in the middle graph, which I colored red to make it more visible, appears to be a possible airplane crash. But the scientists who analyzed the data claimed that it occurred at too high a frequency. The question this leads us to is, "Would the frequency be too high for the explosion of a missile?" Six Global Hawks were built as of December 2002, so if one crashed into the Pentagon, there should be one less in the inventory. Christopher Bollyn spoke with the Air Force in December 2002, and they admitted that two Global Hawks were lost "in ongoing operations." Not surprisingly, the Air Force refused to explain what "in ingoing operations" means. As previously mentioned, Flight 77 vanished from air traffic controllers near Ohio. Nearly an hour later it was noticed on radar near Washington, D.C. It was dropping from a high altitude. CBS News described it as, "A downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle." How do we explain the sudden appearance of Flight 77? Perhaps because it was one of the missing Global Hawks, not Flight 77. If a Global Hawk flew from Ohio to the Pentagon above 60,000 feet, it would not be easy to see on radar until it descended to below 10,000 feet. Flight 77 dropped to tree-top level and headed towards the Pentagon. But where are the witnesses who heard the tremendous roar of its jet engines? The lack of noise suggests that Flight 77 was actually one of the missing Global Hawks, which are very quiet. As the Global Hawk passed into Pentagon property, a missile may have been fired at it. Perhaps the Pentagon has missiles in its security system. The missile would have shattered the Global Hawk, and incinerated most of its carbon fiber. But just in case small pieces survived, people would have to check for scraps. The fuselage has an aluminum frame, so if a large piece of it survived, it would have to be quickly hidden also. While a Global Hawk and a missile can explain what happened at the Pentagon, where are the passengers and crew of Flight 77? Before trying to answer that question, consider the bodies of the Pentagon employees who died in the attack were shipped to a morgue in Virginia. FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA And then they were shipped to a morgue in Dover, Delaware. Why the shuffling of dead bodies? Next, consider that dental records, DNA analysis, and other methods were used at Dover, Delaware to identify the body parts. And the investigators claim to have identified body parts of the passengers of Flight 77. How did passengers from Flight 77 end up at Dover when not even a dog could find them at the Pentagon? Perhaps Flight 77 landed in Ohio and everybody was put into a room with a bomb. Their bodies could then be shipped to the morgue in Dover, Delaware at the same time the dead Pentagon employees were being shipped to Dover. The people in Dover would never realize that the bodies were coming from different locations. Part 2: Building 7; The Towers Building 7 was a 47-story building with a steel frame. No airplane crashed into it, nor did the Towers fall onto it. However, this building disintegrated on September 11th. This satellite image shows the World Trade Center about a year before the attack. Building 7 is the tall building at the top. Building 1 is the North Tower. You can distinguish it from the South Tower by its antennae. Buildings 4, 5 and 6 were office buildings. Building 3 was a hotel. The attack on September 11th destroyed all seven of these buildings, and it damaged a few of the surrounding buildings. Here is a view from an airplane of the rubble of Building 7. The pile is very small. How did a 47-story steel building crumble into such a tiny pile of rubble? Our government believes that fire caused it to disintegrate. Fires erupted in Building 7 about 9:00 in the morning a few moments after the plane crashed into the South Tower. The fires burned all day. This photo shows the fires at 3:00 p.m. The fires are not easy to see because they are small and there's lots of dust and smoke in the air. Nearby buildings and reflections make it difficult to figure out where Building 7 is, so I'll fade out the other buildings for a moment so that you can see Building 7 more clearly. There are only a few flames in only a few of the thousands of windows of this large building. Most floors do not have fires, and the floors that do are burning in only a few small areas. Compared to other office fires, these are small. Why didn't the sprinkler system extinguish them? This photograph shows the rear of Building 7. This side of the building doesn't have many fires either. There are no fires anywhere along the base of the building.. Incidentally, in the background of this photograph are Buildings 5 on the left and 6 on the right. Both of those buildings have very serious fires burning inside them. It is interesting to note that our government has never bothered to explain how Building 5 ended up with such serious fires. Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were so small that the sprinkler system should have extinguished them, at about 5:30 in the evening, the building suddenly crumbled into a pile of rubble. How did a few little fires cause Building 7 to crumble? According to Bill Manning, Editor-in-Chief of Fire Engineering, a magazine for fire departments, fire has never destroyed a steel building. So how did a fire do what it had never done before? Perhaps you wonder if incompetent architects designed this building with delicate steel beams? If so, take a look at the beam with the numeral "7" spray-painted on its end. To say the beams in Building 7 were massive would be an understatement. This building was straddling an electrical substation for the City, so it had some of the thickest steel beams of any building on the planet. At the upper left corner is a standard "I" shaped beam. It would be considered massive in most buildings, but it seems delicate next to the biggest beams in Building 7. As is typical in the design of buildings, bridges, and most industrial products, Building 7 was designed with more strength than it actually needed. So how did a building with such a massive steel framework disintegrate into such a tiny pile of rubble from a few tiny fires? (Investigator, Professor Astaneh-Asl) A government agency, FEMA, conducted an investigation into why the buildings in the World Trade Center collapsed. However, the editor of Fire Engineering magazine became so disgusted by the investigation that the January 2002 issue carried an angry article in which he accused the investigation of being "a half-baked farce." Later that month, both Bush and Cheney asked Tom Daschle to "limit the investigation." Apparently, a half-baked farce was more of an investigation than Bush and Cheney wanted. I suppose they would have preferred a quarter-baked farce. In March, 2002, the Committee on Science at the House of Representatives held a meeting to investigate the investigation. There were more insults and accusations at this meeting. For example, Congressman Boehlert complained that the investigation seemed shrouded in "excessive secrecy." Professor Corbet complained that they were trying to run an investigation with part-time engineers and scientists, and on a shoestring budget. There were also accusations that landlords and insurance companies interfered with the investigation. It seems that a lot of people were helping President Bush ruin the investigation. During April, 2002, the final bits of rubble from the World Trade Center were removed. The thick pieces of steel were sold to foreign nations as scrap metal, and at a very low price, while the less valuable pieces were shipped by barge to be buried. By May, 2002, the World Trade Center had been cleaned up and all the rubble destroyed, so nobody could conduct any further investigations into how the buildings collapsed. The editor of Fire Engineering wrote months earlier that this destruction of rubble is illegal. He pointed out that our laws demand that rubble be saved from major disasters so that we can learn what happened, and improve our buildings and fire prevention techniques. Our government violated the law when it destroyed the rubble from the World Trade Center. Here are some of the government officials who tried to impeach President Clinton. Tens of millions of Americans were outraged when Clinton lied to us about what he and Monica were doing. These Americans proudly boasted that they are law-abiding citizens. And they will not tolerate government officials who cheat, lie or deceive. Yet millions of these same Americans either helped our government violate laws during the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse, or those who were not actively helping with the illegal activities were ignoring them. Ken Starr spent $40 million investigating the sexual activities of President Clinton. Why didn't Ken Starr advocate giving money to the investigators of the World Trade Center collapse, so that they didn't have to depend upon part-time scientists and on a shoe-string budget? In May, 2002, FEMA released their report on the collapse of the buildings. Not surprisingly, the report doesn't explain anything. For example, rather than explain how the fires caused Building 7 to collapse, the FEMA report has this: Building 7: "The specifics of the fires in Building 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." Our government spent seven months investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, and at the end they announce they have no idea what happened to Building 7. "Duh ... we don't know ..." If FEMA was a private company, I would demand my money back! Since they are a government agency, their worthless report is evidence that they are involved in covering up a scam. FEMA claims that they cannot understand how Building 7 collapsed, but perhaps you and I can figure it out by watching the videos of it collapsing. Incidentally, this video is lousy because it comes from people who recorded the TV news. As with the security video that shows Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, nobody wants to provide good quality video of Building 7 as it collapses. At the top of Building 7 is a rectangular penthouse that contains air conditioning and other equipment. If you recall, the fires were on the lower floors, not near the roof. However, the penthouse is the first part of the building to collapse. How could the fires cause damage to the penthouse without damaging all the floors in between? Here's a different view of the collapse. And another view. When fire causes steel buildings to crumble, do they normally produce this much dust? Well, since fire has never caused a steel building to crumble before, I guess we'll never know if this much dust is typical. The person who took this next video decided to point his camera at Building 7 at just the right moment. If you've never seen a demolition of an old building, there's a DVD called "What a blast" that shows how buildings are demolished. Notice that the dust comes from the base of the building, just as with Building 7. Also, the building falls down very quickly, because the pieces are free-falling. They often cause the middle of the building to fall first in order to pull the outer walls inward. PBS has a documentary called "America Rebuilds," in which Larry Silverstein, the landlord of Building 7, explains what happened. "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull. And then we watched the building collapse." Which is more believable? FEMA, claiming they have no idea what happened to Building 7, or Silverstein claiming that the Fire Department demolished the building rather than bother putting out the fires? And without giving the tenants the opportunity to remove their documents and equipment! Now that you've seen how the building collapsed, do you think these tiny fires were responsible? If so, how did the fire destroy the entire steel structure? Building 7 collapsed in the same manner that demolition companies destroy old buildings. They use explosives to shatter the joints holding the steel beams together. The explosives are detonated in a sequence that causes the building to fall vertically downward into a tiny pile of rubble. Also, when the building is tall, the explosives are often timed to destroy the interior of the building before the exterior walls are broken, thereby causing the interior section to fall first. As the interior pieces fall, they pull the exterior walls towards the interior. This creates a small pile of rubble, with the exterior walls laying on top of the rubble. Photos of the rubble from Building 7 show exactly that; namely, the exterior walls on top of the interior pieces. Normally, if a 47-story steel building crumbled into a pile of rubble because of a couple of tiny fires, people around the world would be shocked, and want to know what happened! Architects would be interested in understanding what happened, so they could design buildings better. People who work or live in tall buildings would wonder, "Can fire do this to my building?" However, are any architects asking why Building 7 fell down? Are any people in tall buildings wondering whether their building might also fall down? Why does nobody care that a steel building disintegrated for no apparent reason? Part of the problem is that most people simply don't know much about Building 7 due to the incredible secrecy surrounding this building. We were frequently told of the evilness of Osama and Saddam, but how often did you see the collapse of Building 7? How many articles did you find in newspapers or magazines about Building 7? The only explanation for this secrecy that I can think of is that nobody can explain how Osama caused Building 7 to collapse. By keeping this issue a secret, they are hoping that people will forget about the incident rather than ask, "What happened to Building 7?" EXPLOSIVES CAN EXPLAIN THIS! One possible reason for the secrecy about Building 7 is that it may have been The Control Center for demolishing the World Trade Center. The 23rd floor of this floor was given $15 million dollars worth of renovations to make it into an "Emergency Command Center" for Mayor Guiliani. For example, it was given bullet and bomb resistant windows. There is nothing strange about adding reinforcements to a government office to protect them in case of attack. In fact, many retail businesses have bullet resistant windows. However, this particular office had its own air and water supply. And it was designed to withstand winds of 160 miles per hour. To make the situation more suspicious, the reinforcements were only for this one floor. So that meant that most of the building was just an ordinary office building. Why would they protect only one floor? This seems as silly as installing bullet-proof glass in only one window of the President's automobile. Furthermore, why would they need their own air supply? And how about the protection from 160 miles per hour wind? Well, consider that when the Towers fell down, clouds of dust and grit were thrown outward at a very high speed. The only people protected from that blast were in this special Emergency Command Center. Of course, the city government claims the entire building was evacuated at 9:00 in the morning, so nobody was inside this special reinforced bunker when the Towers collapsed. This meant that the City spent $15 million dollars to make this special reinforced bunker, and then everybody abandoned it just when it would have been useful. But did everybody really abandon Building 7? It would have been a great place for people to supervise the attack, because the 23rd floor provided a wonderful view of the area. And the occupants were protected from the dust and debris. To make the situation even more suspicious, as I explain in more detail in the book, the flight paths of the two planes that hit the Towers appear to have been on a course toward Building 7, as if this building was broadcasting a homing signal. The government's explanation for how the Towers collapsed is often referred to as "The Pancake Theory." The Report created by FEMA has only two diagrams to explain this theory. The first diagram shows a fire. And the next diagram shows a floor falling down onto the floor below it. Supposedly, the falling floor breaks the joints holding the floor beneath it, and then both of those floors fall to the floor below that, which breaks that floor, and so on, eventually creating a stack of floors at the base of the building. One problem with this theory is that photographs of the South Tower show the top section broke off and fell to the ground, landing on top of Building No. 4. The pancake theory definitely does not explain the South Tower. However, just as FEMA did not bother to explain what happened to Building 7, FEMA did not both to explain what happened to the South Tower. The Towers did not simply "fall down," or break into pieces. Rather, as jets of dust flew out the windows at extreme velocity, that portion of the building disintegrated. Dust was thrown hundreds of feet. When it was over, it was difficult to find anything resembling office furniture, chunks of concrete, human bodies, or large pieces of the steel frame. The Towers had steel frames. They were not steel reinforced concrete structures. The concrete was used only as a flooring material. Somehow, virtually all of the beams broke apart into short sections. Only a few steel beams that were along the outside of the Tower remained connected together. Such as these. Here are two steel columns that are still connected to each other by steel plates. These columns were along the outside of the Tower. This assembly was also along the outside of the Tower. It shows damage, but the steel parts held together. How could only a few assemblies along the outside be strong enough to survive the collapse? A closer view of the rubble makes it look as if the Towers were put through a giant shredding machine. What happened to all of the office furniture? Where are the elevators? What about the staircases? The concrete, office furniture and people disintegrated into such tiny pieces that the firemen were scooping them up with buckets. Only the thick pieces of steel survived the collapse. Nearby buildings look as if they were decorated with tinsel. The shiny objects are pieces of the aluminum coverings from the outer columns of the Towers. The aluminum coverings were shredded into pieces and blown up to several hundred feet away. In this photo, the sunlight reflects from the pieces of aluminum making them more visible. How can buildings made of massive steel beams and thick steel plates shred themselves into pieces? This is as ridiculous as an automobile crashing into a wall and then shredding itself into pieces. Buildings and cars are made of a low carbon steel. And this type of steel simply does not behave in this manner. This type of steel bends -- it does not shatter into pieces. There should be large, twisted pieces of steel assemblies in this rubble. Perhaps you wonder if the beams in the World Trade Center were thin and delicate, and that the fire destroyed the Towers because the stupid architects did not make the beams strong enough? However, architects always give a building more strength than it needs in order to provide a margin of safety. The Towers withstood storms for decades, and there was never any sign that reinforcements were needed. These two rectangular columns ran up the center of the Towers. They are usually referred to as "Core Columns," because they were in the center of the Towers. Each tower had 47 of these core columns. The thickness in the walls of these columns varied from four inches at the ground, to about 1/4 inch at the very top of the Tower. The columns in this photo are about two inches thick, so they were somewhere near the middle of the Tower. This photo shows both a rectangular core column, and some square exterior columns. There were 236 of these square columns running up the exterior of each Tower. Every floor was a mesh of steel trusses. There were two sets of trusses, criss-crossing each other to form a rectangular grid. This diagram shows only one set of trusses. The missing set would be traveling left to right in this diagram. The purple lines along the right side show the orientation and location of the missing trusses. Corrugated steel pans were attached to the top of the trusses. Concrete was poured into these pans to form strong, flat, and fireproof floors. The exterior columns were spaced every meter along the outside of the Towers. Windows were placed between the columns. The view in this diagram is looking towards the windows from the core columns. The exterior columns were further strengthened with steel plates. The plates were welded to the columns, and then bolted to one another. The plates form straps around the Tower. Since the floors were spaced 12 feet apart, that means this grid of trusses was repeated every 12 feet. The steel straps that wrapped around the Tower were also repeated every 12 feet. As you can imagine, that put a lot of steel in this building. The empty space in the trusses was used for ceiling tiles, electric lights, air conditioning ducts, and other utilities. It is important to realize that the framework of these Towers was 100% steel. By comparison, the building at Oklahoma City that Tim McVeigh was accused of destroying had a concrete framework, with steel reinforcing rods in the concrete. This is a highly simplified cross section of the Tower. It shows one floor of the Tower looking down onto the concrete floor. There were 47 rectangular columns in the center of the Tower, although only four are shown in this simple diagram. There were 236 exterior columns, although only 16 are shown. These exterior columns were literally on the outside of the building. Many people assume that these Towers disintegrated because they were weak, but there is no evidence for such an accusation. Rather, the photos and the descriptions from the people inside the Towers prove that these Towers were so incredibly strong, that when the airplanes crashed into them, each Tower merely swayed a bit in the opposite direction, and then swayed back to their normal position. Both Towers then remained motionless. People inside the Towers felt them tilt, but the movement was so small that neither photos nor video show the tilting. Winter storms cause the Towers to shake more than those airplane crashes. How could the Towers absorb 80 ton airplanes crashing into them at 400 miles per hour without wobbling enough for us to observe it? Obviously, these Towers were incredibly strong. According to the engineering sites that have technical data for these Towers, the wind force that these Towers had to withstand was greater than the force of those airplanes. In other words, a strong wind put more stress on the Towers than those airplanes. So what caused these strong buildings to shatter into pieces? The official explanation is that a fire did it. Since no fire has ever destroyed a steel structure before, how could fire destroy buildings strong enough to handle the crash of an 80 ton airplane? The only difference between the fires in the Towers and conventional office fires is that thousands of gallons of jet fuel had splattered inside the Towers. Is jet fuel capable of creating some type of monster fire that destroys steel buildings? Let's take a look. THE BLACK HOLES This hole was created by Flight 11 when it crashed into the North Tower. This hole is black, not brightly colored with flames from a fire. If a fire destroyed these buildings, why are there so few flames? Why are these holes so black? As I describe more thoroughly in the book, the photos provide evidence that the fires were small. This photo is an example. Let's zoom in for a closer view. There is a woman standing in the hole created by the engine of the airplane, and she is alive. On the floor above her and to her left is a man, although he is more difficult to see. Let's zoom in on that woman. She appears to be wearing white pants and has long hair. There is no sign that her clothes or hair have been burned. It appears that there is another woman lying on the floor and looking over the edge, but the photo does not have enough detail to be certain. These women seem to be looking down at the ground. Some reports say that up to 200 people jumped out of the buildings. These women may be wondering whether they were jumping into a giant net that the firemen had set up for them. On the floor above these women, and to their left, is a man standing in a broken window. The Boeing 767 that hit this Tower was a large airplane with about 80 tons of metal, people and luggage. The plane slammed into the Tower at perhaps 400 miles per hour. Pieces of the aircraft, flooring, and office furnishings would have flown through two or three floors. Anybody in the path of this flying debris would have been killed. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel that sprayed into this area and then caught on fire would certainly kill a lot of people also. The only way anybody could survive this airplane crash was if the flying debris and the fires did not reach them. Since at least one man and woman survived, and since they were on different floors, they prove that the fires and airplane debris did not extend throughout the entire area of the crash zone. Furthermore, these people walked to the hole from wherever they were at the time of the crash. How could this woman walk through burning jet fuel? How could she survive fires that were so intense that they were capable of destroying a steel structure? To put that another way, how could a fire destroy a massive steel structure if it was not capable of destroying human life? Obviously, some areas were not soaked with jet fuel, and the fires were not everywhere. This would explain why the holes were so black, and why there were so few flames. We can see this woman because she was brave enough to walk to the very edge of the hole. But there may be other people farther inside who are staying away from the hole. We can see this man because he is next to a broken window. But we cannot see into the windows because of the glare. So it is possible that there are other people near him but behind the glass. What are the chances that only two people survived the airplane crash and fires, and both of them were coincidentally caught in this photo? I would bet that other people also survived, but we cannot see them. They may be trying to get down the stairs. As I explain in more detail in the book, there is no evidence that the fires in these Towers were extreme. In fact, the fire in the Meridian Plaza office building in Philadelphia, in 1991, was much worse, and that building did not even break into two pieces. The fire in the South Tower was so small that it did not even spread from one side of the floor to the other. The people who jumped out the windows created the illusion that the fire was so intense that they would rather jump than be burned by the fire. However, the photos do not show fire in the area where these people were jumping. Rather, the photos show lots of smoke. The smoke and the lack of flames are evidence that the fires were not getting enough oxygen. This would cause the plastic and rubber to create toxic smoke. This in turn could cause people to jump to avoid a slow, agonizing death from toxic smoke. Even if the fires were intense, fire does not shatter steel structures! Look at the steel grate in a fireplace. The grate is in contact with hot coals for hours. Sometimes natural gas flames burn underneath at the same time. However, the grates never shatter into pieces. Rather, the heat merely causes the iron to oxidize faster than normal. After many years, the grate develops a multi-colored crust of oxide, with particles of ash and soot in the crevices. Pieces of the grate eventually fall off, but only because of the thinning of the metal due to oxidation. No fire has ever caused a fireplace grate, steel building, steel automobile, or any other steel structure to disintegrate. The maximum temperature hydrocarbons can reach in the atmosphere is about 1,800 degrees fahrenheit. However, that maximum temperature can be reached only when the hydrocarbons and the air are mixed in perfect proportions. These perfect proportions are reached only in a few controlled situations, such as a kitchen stove. This produces flames that are clean and a beautiful blue, rather than yellow and leaving trails of soot. Even though stoves reach the maximum possible temperature, they never shatter into pieces. So how could even lower temperatures cause the Towers to disintegrate? Controlled Demolition is a company that demolishes old buildings. They demolished the building in Oklahoma City that Tim McVeigh was accused of blowing up. They were also hired to clean up the mess at the World Trade Center. They developed a special explosive and technique of using it for demolishing steel structures. They are so proud of this technology that they trademarked its abbreviation: DREXS. Their British division describes the technology as: "Our DREXS systems ... segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment." In other words, if your trucks can hold pieces of steel up to 24 feet in length, then this company will cause all steel assemblies to break into sections 24 feet or less. Look at the rubble of the World Trade Center. Is it a coincidence that the entire steel framework of both Towers broke into pieces no longer than the trucks that were hauling them away? Only a few of the thousands of pieces had to be cut with torches. If a fire can do exactly what Controlled Demolition does with their special trademarked explosives, then I'd like to start a new business called Fire Demolition, Incorporated. This company will demolish buildings by setting a few small fires on a few floors. These fires will demolish the building just as thoroughly, but at a much lower cost. I need money to get this business established! Are any of you interested in investing?! NASA, in a U.S. Geological Survey, created this thermal map of the temperature of the rubble. This map was created five days after the Towers were attacked. Obviously, the rubble would be cooler after five days than it was on September 11th. Also, firemen sprayed water on the rubble during those five days. However, one location in the rubble of Building 7 was above the melting point of aluminum. And so was one location in the rubble of the South Tower. Not surprisingly, smoke came out of the rubble for months. Peter Tulley, President of one company hired to remove debris, and Mark Lazo, President of Controlled Demolition, told the American Free Press that steel had melted at the bottom of the basements in the Towers and in Building 7. These incredible temperatures are more evidence that explosives were used. The explosives in the basement had to be powerful to break apart the massive steel beams. Explosives create very high temperatures, and the heat had nowhere to go since it was deep underground. According to the scientists who analyzed the seismic data, the North Tower collapsed in about 8 seconds. The collapse started at about the 94th floor near this woman. This means that 94 floors shattered at an average rate of about 10 floors per second. If this woman had tossed a steel beam off the edge, it would have hit the ground about eight seconds later. The formula to figure this out is very simple if we ignore air resistance: 94 floors at 12 feet per floor is 1,128 feet. Divide that by 16, and take the square root, and we get 8.4 seconds. This means that the North Tower collapsed as fast as objects fall when there is no air resistance. As I explained in my book, explosives were shattering the Towers slightly faster than the rubble was falling. The Towers were built by the government, so taxpayers owned both of them. However, somehow the government was convinced to lease the Towers for 99 years. Larry Silverstein became landlord on July 24, 2001, less than two months before the attack. He then had control of the maintenance and security departments. And he began to replace security personnel. Silverstein brought Frank Lowy into the deal to become landlord of the underground shopping mall. Lowy is a billionaire who owns shopping malls in several nations. After the Towers disintegrated, Silverstein demanded insurance companies pay him twice what the policy stated, on the grounds that each Tower was a separate attack. SILVERSTEIN DEMAND $7 BILLION! What a coincidence that after these guys got control of the World Trade Center, Osama decided to destroy the entire complex. SILVERSTEIN AND LOWY: VICTIMS OF OSAMA? OR, "9-11 CEO'S"? ISRAELI JOURNALIST, BARRY CHAMISH Or is this Israeli journalist correct that a few Israelis were involved in the attack? He believes that the Wedding Hall that collapsed mysteriously in Jerusalem was their test of demolishing a building while people were in it. And is he correct that the mysterious crash of Egypt's Flight 990 was a test of getting control of an airplane? A newspaper in New Hampshire mentioned the amazing coincidence that the air traffic controller watching over Flight 990 also watched over the two planes that hit the Towers. FLIGHT 990, FLIGHT 11, FLIGHT 175 -- SAME CONTROLLER! How could explosives be put inside the Towers while people were working there? The packages of explosives could be placed in the area above the ceiling tiles. Each package would have a battery, and a radio receiver. A computer would be able to detonate the explosives in any sequence by sending the appropriate signals to the packages. A researcher of the Kennedy assassination points out that most people believe in coincidence theories because they explain everything as being due to coincidence. For example, most people believe it was coincidence that all four airplanes were 50% to 80% empty. That Todd Beamer decided to spend his last 13 minutes of life talking on a lousy quality airplane phone to a stranger rather than to his pregnant wife. That fire pulverized three steel buildings even though fire never did such a thing before or after. That terrorists hit the empty section of the Pentagon. How do "Coincidence Theories" make more sense than conspiracy theories? Part 3: The Media; Deception; Oklahoma City Some consider my book to adequately explain that the September 11th attack was a scam. However, some people who know me personally responded by giving me clippings of newspaper and magazine articles to show me that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon. And that Osama did not have any assistance from the U.S. Government. I have also been told that the Discovery Channel thoroughly explains that fire caused the Towers to collapse. Most people are certain that the true source of knowledge comes from large corporations, not individuals such as myself. Therefore, I would like to show evidence that some news reports are attempts to manipulate us, not educate us. For example, James Robbins claims to have seen Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. When Robbins heard of Meyssan's accusation that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon, Robbins wrote an insulting article for The National Review in which he claims ... "Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot ... were just like Meyssan." However, those of us who question our government are not like Hitler, nor are we unpatriotic. Rather, we simply want the Government to provide evidence for their theories. People who doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon are equivalent to people in 1933 who questioned Hitler's explanation of the fire in the Reichstag, the German Government building. Hitler claimed the fire was set by Communists, and he used the fire to justify giving himself more control over Germany. GERMANY, 1933: MYSTERIOUS FIRE IN THE REICHSTAG Robbins tries to create an unpleasant image for those of us who question the U.S. Government. Robbins is behaving like the propaganda writers of Hitler, Lenin and Pol Pot. He is trying to manipulate emotions, not provide us with intelligent information about the September 11th attack. In fact, Robbins admits in his article that he never read Meyssan's book. Why would the National Review publish an article in which the author insults a book he never read? Are the editors really trying to inform their readers of world events? Or are they merely promoting official Government policies? Robbins is described as a National Security Analyst. He is also a Professor of International Relations at the National Defense University, which has this building in Washington, D.C. However, the staff, courses and photos of this university make it appear to be a military agency, not a real university. In this photo, for example, a Vice-Admiral is taking command as President of the University. President Bush must think highly of this university because he spoke there a few months before the September 11th attack. However, since James Robbins writes reviews of books he never read for the National Review, we ought to wonder if he is also providing his students with equally worthless material. We should also wonder if the National Review is a publication of the CIA. This would explain why the cover of one issue called George Bush a "Conqueror," while another insulted Canadians as "Wimps"! Although you may ignore the National Review, these types of publications do have influence over the public. These journalists alter public opinion. And that in turn affects your life and your nation. An example of their effect can be seen with a guy named Mike Collins. You probably know of Collins, because he had his 15 minutes of fame in November, 2000, with this cartoon about the Florida Presidential ballot. Collins learned of Meyssan's Internet site in August, 2002. Collins looked at the photos of the rubble at the Pentagon and found himself unable to find any evidence of Flight 77. He became concerned that Meyssan might be correct! That the attack was a scam! His concern was brief, however, because he soon found a rebuttal to Meyssan at The Urban Legend's website. This article shows that Meyssan is a fool. Collins was so impressed by this article that he considered it to fully answer Meyssan's questions. For example, Meyssan asked, "Why are there no pieces of Flight 77 in the photographs?" According to the Urban Legend's article, the answer is: "Any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable burned up in the intense fire." However, aluminum and steel do not burn easily. You can prove this to yourself with a gas stove. The flames in the stove are at the maximum temperature possible for hydrocarbons burning in the atmosphere. Therefore, if you cannot catch aluminum on fire in the flames of a stove, then aluminum ain't likely to catch on fire in the flames of an airplane crash. It's possible that the Urban Legends site was created to deceive us after building up a reputation of honesty by dispelling some simple rumors. The CIA -- or whoever! -- could slip in deceptive articles. This would explain why they would post that stupid article about Flight 77 burning up. Although Collins was impressed by the article at the Urban Legends site, the article by James Robbins seems to have had more of an effect on his emotions. Collins has a site on the Internet where he posts his comments on life. His commentary for August 22, 2002 began with the angry sentence, "I'd like to punch Thierry Meyssan in the face -- repeatedly." He ended that day's entry by repeating the paragraph from Robbins which contained the insulting comparison of Meyssan to Hitler and Lenin. Do you consider Mike Collins to be of no importance? Do you think I'm getting carried away with an insignificant topic? Collins is just one example of people who are influenced by deceptive articles. If you do nothing about the manipulation of the public, you are allowing the manipulation to continue. If, instead, you brought this issue to people's attention, more people might demand higher standards from authors, government officials, and political candidates. At the moment, nobody is under pressure to write intelligent articles. For example, Gary Bauer, one of the Republican candidates for President in 2000, tells us that Meyssan's book is "obscene" and "disgusting." He goes on to refer to Meyssan as a "lunatic," and he refers to his research as an "hallucination." If Bauer offered evidence that Meyssan suffered from hallucinations, and if he supported his accusation that Meyssan's book is obscene, then his report would be worth reading. However, his article is nothing but insults. When children behave this way, we tell them to stop it. The world might improve if we discuss issues, but it won't if all we do is insult one another. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia wanted an investigation of the attack, and as a result, she received the same abuse as Meyssan. For example, Jonah Goldberg, an editor at the National Review, informs his readers that: "McKinney is dumber than rock salt and more repugnant than Yasser Arafat's three-week-old underwear." In Florida, Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel writes that McKinney is "Possibly a delusional paranoiac." She also suspects that we tolerate McKinney because she's black, and we're afraid to criticize her because we might be perceived as racist. This is an amusing accusation when it comes from a woman. The reason is we could use this same argument on her. In other words, we could say that the editors of the Orlando Sentinel are tolerating Kathleen Parker because she's a woman, and they are worried about being perceived as sexist. Wouldn't it be better if our media impressed us with intelligent articles rather than provide insults? The Orlando Sentinel published an article by David Porter in which he explained the two reasons he does not believe "conspiracy theories." First, we conspiracy people would be killed if we were correct. Second, some government officials would do something to stop the scams. Porter brings up very important issues: Regarding his first point, millions of people will dismiss what I say on the grounds that if I was correct, the people who conducted the scam wouldn't allow me to expose it to the world. Since nobody cares what I say ... I must be spewing nonsense. In my book, I explain that the Towers were blown up with explosives, and Building 7 was the command center. These are serious accusations! If I am even partially correct, why would they let me sell this book, and talk to you about it? Wouldn't the people who conducted this scam want to kill me?" Most people find it difficult to believe that somebody could expose a scam without the people involved trying to shut him up. Until recently, I had the same attitude. Understanding why they ignore us will help you understand how they get away with these scams. I'll explain this concept by showing you why they ignore the conspiracy people regarding Tim McVeigh, and the bomb that exploded in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. General Benton K. Partin is retired now, but he was one of the Military's experts on explosives. Based on his experience, he did not believe that a mixture of fertilizer and fuel oil exploding in the street could have been responsible for the pulverized concrete at the Murrah Building. He felt that the distance between the truck and the building was too great. Also, the non-symmetrical damage to the building was suspicious. He decided to go to Oklahoma City and investigate for himself. Explosives create incredible pressures that can pulverize concrete and rip apart steel beams. However, the farther away a building is from an explosive, the less intense the pressure will be. Furthermore, McVeigh's bomb was a mixture of fuel oil and fertilizer, and that type of bomb does not create pressures as high as RDX. This means that McVeigh's bomb had to be even closer to the concrete than a bomb of RDX. Was McVeigh's bomb close enough to the building? General Partin calculated the pressure from McVeigh's bomb at various distances. He created this chart to show the pressures. McVeigh's truck bomb is at the bottom of this chart. The columns that supported this building are shown as solid rectangles. The red rectangles are the columns that collapsed. The collapsed columns are in the area shaded with red. The columns in this building were made of concrete with steel reinforcing rods. They did not merely fall over; rather, the concrete was pulverized, exposing bare reinforcing rods. Partin's calculations show that when the blast reached the outside of the building, it was a couple of thousand pounds per square inch. This would have done a lot of damage to the outside of the building and the office furniture. But his calculations show that when the blast reached the columns, the pressure was too low to pulverize the concrete. One of the columns that was pulverized was so far from the bomb that the pressure would have been only 27 pounds per square inch. Partin also points out that the damage to the building was not symmetrical. The red shading shows the non-symmetrical area. The blast of hot gas was in the shape of a sphere, so that non-symmetrical area should not have occurred. The photograph on the left side is looking up at this non-symmetrical area. There is no way to explain how the truck bomb could have carved out this indentation. The only sensible explanation is that explosives had been placed on the column that supported this section of the building. And when those explosives were detonated, the column was shattered, and this section collapsed. Partin's conclusion is that demolition explosives were placed in the building, and McVeigh's truck bomb was merely to fool people into believing that McVeigh was responsible. Unless somebody can show that General Partin's calculations are wrong, the Oklahoma City Bombing was a scam! Unfortunately, many people dismiss Partin on the grounds that if he was correct, the Government wouldn't allow him to expose the scam. Now consider that unless somebody can show that Meyssan, I, and others are wrong, the September 11th attack was a sequel to the Oklahoma City Bombing. The attacks were identical. For example, in Oklahoma, Tim McVeigh was the foolish patsy; a truck bomb grabbed the attention of the public; and demolition explosives that had been placed in the building before the attack were detonated while people were inside. On September 11th, Mohammed Atta was the foolish patsy; airplane crashes grabbed the attention of the public; and demolition explosives that had been placed in the buildings before the attack were detonated while people were inside. Furthermore, some of the same people and companies were used for the investigation and cleanup of both attacks. Such as Gene Corely and Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated. Whoever did the Oklahoma City Bombing scam got away with it. This undoubtedly gave them confidence to expand to something bigger. And since they got away with the September 11th attack, they may be planning something even more spectacular. How did they get away with the Oklahoma City Bombing scam? Partly by ignoring Partin. If Partin were to die in a mysterious manner, many people would suspect that he was killed because he was correct. Thus, the best policy for the people who conducted the Oklahoma Bombing scam is to ignore Partin, which creates the impression that he is a conspiracy nut. And then they use the media to fool people into believing that McVeigh destroyed the Murrah Building with fertilizer and fuel oil. For example, the June 3, 2002 issue of PC Magazine, which is supposed to be about computers, carried an article by John Dvorak called "Crankpots, Cranks, and Conspiracies." Dvorak ridiculed people as "crackpots" for believing "conspiracy theories." One of his remarks about the Oklahoma City Bombing: "According to the Web sites, there were two explosions." No, Dvorak! According to the witnesses there were two explosions! The web sites merely repeat reports from local news reporters. After I published my book, I was told of a video made by Alex Jones called, "911, The Road to Tyranny." This video has lots of local news reports about the Oklahoma City Bombing. Some reports mention that an unexploded bomb was found inside the Murrah Building, and later, a second unexploded bomb was found. I suppose if all explosives had detonated, the damage to the building would have been symmetrical. Here are a few brief samples of news reports from his video: [Reporter] "The Justice Department is reporting that a second explosive device has been found." [Reporter] "A second bomb has been found inside that Federal Building." There are also reports that Tim McVeigh was not alone in that truck. [Reporter] "That they reveal more than one bomber." Other reports explain that it was not McVeigh who set off the truck bomb. [Reporter] "That it may have been John Doe No. 2, not Timothy McVeigh." Security cameras on nearby buildings prove that McVeigh drove the truck and then walked away while someone else in the truck did the work. The FBI even admits the security video exists. [Reporter] "The FBI also confirmed those tapes exist." As you might expect, the FBI will not let us see those security videos. Could it be the same reason the Military refuses to let us see the security video at the Pentagon? IT'S A SCAM! Why do these news reporters provide evidence that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a scam? Are they "crackpots"? "Conspiracy Nuts"? No! The Bombing was simply a sloppy scam. Witnesses heard two or three explosions. Security cameras saw that Tim McVeigh was a patsy. And some explosives failed to detonate. It was a messy scam! And the people involved had a lot of work to do to cover up the mess. During that time, some of the local reporters were giving honest news reports. However, the National news reporters provided us with the official government lies. The professionals who make millions of dollars per year never let the truth slip out. Pat Shannon provides more evidence that the bombing was a scam. His video has lots of interviews, such as witnesses at the bombing, and General Partin. This brings me to the reason I brought up the Oklahoma City Bombing. Since 1995, lots of people have been providing evidence that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a scam. However, David Porter, and millions of other people, dismiss these "conspiracy theories" on the grounds that, "Nobody would be allowed to expose a scam!" The truth can be put in front of people's faces, but most people will dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory" if only a minority of people believe it. People, and most animals, follow each other, rather than wander through life alone. This is most obvious with our hair and clothing styles. If we had good leadership our desire to follow each other would unify us and keep us working for useful causes. For example, our Government could lead the people into building nice cities with nice train systems. We could make a wonderful world for ourselves. Unfortunately, when we have leaders that run scams and start wars, the people follow each other on a path to self-destruction. We must bring better governments into power. We also have a craving for praise, which is why awards ceremonies are so popular. By comparison, we become defensive when criticized. The people who conduct these scams take advantage of these aspects of human behavior. They have taken the role of a Pied Piper. They fill their news reports with praise and entertainment. They titillate us with compliments such as: "Americans are the greatest people in the world." "Americans have a free press!" And are the most educated people. And "Americans are heroes who fight the forces of evil!" By comparison, people such as myself cause angry reactions when we tell the people they are ignorant and conceited fools who are letting themselves and their nation be raped repeatedly. The Pied Pipers lead the majority of people away from General Partin's report, my book, and anybody else who has evidence of these scams. Therefore, most people will never know what we say. So what difference does it make if we expose the scams? This concept especially applies to me. I don't have secret sources of information. I simply looked at the news reports and photographs and figured it out. Why would they worry about those of us who figure out these attacks are scams? There are thousands of us. Thierry Meyssan And we are scattered around the world. How could they kill so many of us without attracting attention? They would need to send a death squad around the world that could kill several people each day. It makes more sense for them to leave us alone and convince the public to ignore us "conspiracy nuts." Millions of people might read my book if I died mysteriously. But murder is risky. So they kill only the people they regard as serious enemies. For example, Senator Paul Wellstone was resisting the war in Iraq. Not surprisingly, his airplane had an unfortunate accident. After David Kelly of England said there were no weapons of mass destruction, he committed suicide. However, every suspicious accident or suicide creates problems. Therefore, the people who conduct these scams will prefer to control people through deception. And use murder only when necessary. And manipulating people is very easy. Just read the article on Flight 77 at the Urban Legends site. Or read others by these suspicious journalists. People are born trusting authority. So unless we discover that authorities often lie, we will believe the official sources of information. Therefore, whoever controls the official reports can control most people. So why should they kill the conspiracy people and take the risk of bringing more attention to us? Porter's second argument is that many government officials would do something if the attack was a scam. He assumes that these officials would put on their shining armor, jump on their horses, and rush off to fight the people who did this. But how can our government fight a scam unless it investigates the attack and determines that it was indeed a scam? The first action our government should have taken was to investigate the attack. Congresswoman McKinney was looking into it. And lots of citizens were also investigating. The American Free Press, for example, published numerous articles on the suspicious aspects of the attack. And several radio talk shows were also investigating. But David Porter and most other citizens ignored or insulted these people while giving full support to Bush and Cheney who wanted to "limit the investigation." [George Bush] "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th." Not surprisingly, our government never found any evidence that the attack was a scam. Our government never even found a reason why Building 7 collapsed. Porter is correct that some government officials would not tolerate a scam. Partin and McKinney are examples. However, most Americans ignored or ridiculed both of them, while encouraging blind obedience to our Government and Military. As they used the attack as an excuse to bomb "The Axis of Evil." Porter and other Americans inadvertently assist these scams by suppressing investigation. Government officials cannot help the Nation if the Citizens ridicule them as "conspiracy nuts." Hundreds of citizens have tried to help Americans realize that their Nation has problems: THE ELITE SERIAL KILLERS OF LINCOLN, JFK, RFK & MLK, BY ROBERT GAYLON ROSS, SR. THE MEDUSA FILE, BY CRAIG ROBERTS RUSH TO JUDGMENT, BY MARK LANE HIGH TREASON, THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FINAL JUDGMENT, BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER But none of their books have improved the Nation, because most people refuse to consider that they might be correct. Millions of people will ignore what I say because I am alive, not because they find mistakes with my accusations. Most people will also follow the majority of people. And they believe almost everything they see on television. In fact, a slogan in some advertisements is: "As seen on TV!!!" The first priority of people who conduct scams is the control of the media. As long as they can manipulate the millions of sheep, it makes no difference what the rest of us are saying. DECEPTION IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD Since 1945, lots of people have worried that the next world war will be horrible because it will involve nuclear weapons. I think we're having the next world war right now. PACIFIC ISLANDS, 1958 But the primary weapon in this war is deception. Mainly through television, but also through newspapers and magazines. It's easier for journalists to deceive people than it is for a Military to conquer them. An Associated Press article from May 13, 1996, provides an example. After Tim McVeigh's bomb exploded, one of the first policemen to run into the building was Sargeant Terrence Yeakey. He helped people out of the building, then fell through two floors, injuring his back. The City decided to give him a medal of honor at a ceremony about a year after the bombing. Unfortunately, he committed suicide three days before the ceremony! His suicide was described in one sentence: "He had apparently tried to slit his wrists, then shot himself to death." It ain't easy to get away with a murder of a policeman, but one journalist can deceive millions of people into thinking the murder was suicide. How obvious do the scams have to be before the American people realize that they are being manipulated? For example, what if Paul Queary had written this? "He tried to slit his wrists and then ... he tried to rape himself, and then he ran over himself with his car." Would that be obvious enough? If a Military attacked us, many people would proudly fight back. But most people are easily controlled with deceptive news reports. By the way, why would they kill Sargeant Yeakey? According to Pat Shannon, Yeakey had evidence that the attack was a scam. And he was planning to expose it. But, as with Partin and McKinney, most Americans ignored him. It ain't difficult to understand that the McVeigh bomb and 9/11 were scams. So how can people get away with such obvious scams? Because America is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams. There are lots of Americans willing to join these scams. And Bush's buddy is also. The FBI violates so many laws that they should put themselves on their Most Wanted List. Americans often boast about our Bill of Rights and our freedom of speech. And they often ridicule the government-controlled media of Communist nations. However, the American media is being used like a weapon to manipulate the public and keep them ignorant, often in obvious ways. Such as when Congresswoman McKinney was described as "more repugnant than Yasser Arafat's three-week-old underwear". How is that worthless and insulting propaganda any better than the Communist propaganda? The American people are being deceived, not educated or encouraged to discuss issues. Furthermore, neither the U.S. Government nor the American people put pressure on the news reporters to stop this manipulation and provide intelligent articles. The only pressure news reporters feel is to provide news that is more entertaining than their competition. The reason is simply because most Americans want entertainment, not serious reports. This is why American news reports are dominated by sexual titillation, Hollywood gossip and weird crimes. As long as most people behave like these guys, America will continue to suffer from extreme corruption and disgusting news reports. Only a small percentage of the population created America in 1776, and only a small number would be needed to change the nation today. The question I wonder about is: "Does America have enough respectable citizens to turn this nation into something we can be proud of?" Part 4: Technical Information; Flight 77 The engines of commercial jets are referred to as turbofans. A turbofan is similar to the electric fans that cool computers. These type of fans have a shroud to control the flow of air. The two main components of an electric fan are the fan blades and the electric motor. Electric fans do not produce white exhaust trails, even if they are on fire. The smoke is likely to be dark, not white. A turbofan is similar to an electric fan except that the fan is driven by a gas turbine engine instead of an electric motor. A small amount of air from the fan is used by the turbine, but most of it flows around the turbine. Fuel is sprayed in a combustion chamber and the hot, high pressure gas rotates the turbine as it shoots out the rear. This is the rear of a turbofan. The cool air flows around the engine. The turbine exhaust flows from the smaller, tapered section. Most of the exhaust is pure, cool air. Only a small amount of air passes through the combustion chamber, so only the center of the exhaust could have a different visual appearance from the outside air. The most likely color of the exhaust is a light brown due to soot and pollutants. Even if you look directly into the rear of the engines, you cannot see any white exhaust. During takeoff, the engines are burning a lot of fuel. But even then, the exhaust of a properly maintained turbofan is difficult to see. Rocket exhaust is so hot it glows white as it leaves the engine. It cools into white clouds, sometimes with a brownish tint. What are these white clouds made of? And why do rockets produce these white clouds but not airplanes? The exhaust is white because one-third of it is steam. This extreme concentration of steam rapidly condenses into tiny droplets of hot water, which appears to our eyes as white clouds. You can see this effect with a tea kettle. The white plume that comes from a tea kettle is steam. Forest fires also produce extremely visible smoke. This is partly due to steam, but these fires also create a lot of ash and partially burned hydrocarbons. The ash consists of small particles of non-flammable materials. Volcanoes also produce extremely visible smoke, mainly because of steam and ash. However, in this case the ash is powdered rock. Why do missiles produce so much steam? Because they carry their own oxygen, rather than use the air. The air is mostly nitrogen, and the nitrogen dilutes the steam. By not having atmospheric nitrogen in the exhaust, the exhaust has a much higher concentration of steam. A turbofan produces steam, just like missiles. So why doesn't the exhaust from a turbofan appear white? Because the nitrogen from the air dilutes the steam so much that droplets don't form. Actually, under certain conditions, the exhaust of a turbofan is white. At high elevations, the air is below freezing, and it's often saturated with water vapor. Any additional water vapor will form ice crystals. This causes the engines to leave trails of ice crystals. Since these trails form only under special conditions, a plane flying at a slightly different elevation or location may not leave a trail. However, turbofans don't leave trails on warm days, such as that morning of September 11th. Only missiles have enough steam in their exhaust to leave a trail of water droplets at ground level and in hot weather. So, how could this trail be from Flight 77? The white trail in the Pentagon security video is certainly the exhaust of a missile, not a passenger airplane. Only conspiracy nuts, and people who do not know much about turbofans would insist that Flight 77 created that white trail. The only sensible issue to debate is who fired the missile? The CIA? The U.S. Military? And was the missile fired from a drone, such as a global hawk? Or was it fired from a truck on the Pentagon property? Or was it a shoulder mounted missile? Do you still believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? If so, take a look at the frame of video that shows the fireball from the airplane crash. The Pentagon is 77 feet tall, so this fireball is perhaps 150 feet tall. Some important aspects of this fireball are: It is gigantic To understand the significance of this fireball, you need an understanding of the difference between the burning of a hydrocarbon fuel and the detonation of an explosive. Candle wax is a hydrocarbon, just like gasoline, but candle wax consists of larger molecules. In the center of the flame is vaporized wax. At the edge of the flame, the hydrocarbons combine with oxygen in the air. This is the area of the flame that is bright and hot. An important aspect of candle flames and all other hydrocarbons that burn in air, is that the flame does not expand. It constantly changes shape due to the breeze and the air currents created by its heat, but it remains the same size. The only way that the flame could become larger is if more fuel starts to burn. Another characteristic of hydrocarbons that burn in air, is that the flame is always less than 1,800 degrees fahrenheit. The significance of this will become more apparent when I discuss the collapse of the buildings in the World Trade Center. Now let's look at how a fireball develops from an airplane crash. When an airplane crashes, some of the fuel splatters into the air and quickly vaporizes. This creates an explosive mixture of fuel and air. When this mixture ignites, the flame rapidly travels through it. This creates a blast that resembles a low-power explosive. However, the oxygen in this mixture is quickly consumed so this initial blast is very brief. Once the oxygen is gone, the fireball resembles a candle flame, because the fuel is burning only along the outside. As with candle flames, the fireball changes its shape and rises upward, but it does not expand. The size of the fireball is determined by the distance the fuel splattered, and the initial blast. The fireball at the South Tower was enormous because a lot of fuel splattered into a large area. However, once it formed, it did not expand by much. Rather, it rose upward while being pushed southeast by the breeze. Also, it was orange and full of soot. Candle flames are normally clean by comparison because they are small and indoors, so nothing interferes with the mixing of oxygen and fuel. However, large candle flames can produce enough heat to create their own turbulence, thereby causing soot. This is a controlled fire for a training exercise. As with real fires that develop from airplane crashes, the flames are orange and they drift aimlessly rather than expand. The fireball that developed at the Pentagon should resemble the fireballs at the World Trade Center and other airplane crashes. The upper image is from the Pentagon Security camera. In the lower image, I superimposed the fireball from the South Tower. The Pentagon camera shows a fireball that is almost white and free of soot. Whereas photos of all airplane and automobile accidents show orange flames and lots of soot. It's possible that the camera overexposed the image causing it to appear white; however, we should not dismiss the possibility that the brightness of this fireball is because there is oxygen within it. A bright fireball is characteristic of explosives. Explosives are a mixture of fuel and oxygen. Thousands of years ago, the Chinese discovered that a mixture of charcoal, sulphur and potassium nitrate burns at a rapid rate. Sulphur and charcoal are the fuel and potassium nitrate provides the oxygen. The Chinese used this mixture for fireworks. Eventually, it was also used as gunpowder and bombs. Potassium nitrate is a fertilizer. Our ancestors found it in caves. It's produced by bacteria as they decompose organic material. Sulphur can be found near volcanoes. This mixture is still used in fuses and fireworks. But the military has switched to a more destructive explosive in which oxygen is attached directly to the hydrocarbon molecule. Nitroglycerin and TNT are examples. A slightly more powerful explosive that is wide used today is RDX. Three carbon atoms are held together by three nitrogen atoms. Two hydrogen atoms are attached to each carbon. Attached to that molecule, are three more nitrogens, each of which has two oxygens. Nitrogen does not hold carbon or oxygen very tightly. Rather, the nitrogen is analogous to rubber bands that are on the verge of breaking. When RDX ignites, the nitrogen loses its grip on the carbon and oxygen and the molecule shatters. The oxygen, carbon and hydrogen then combine producing heat and high pressure gas in the process. The molecule next to it then shatters, starting a chain reaction that travels through the material at about 18,000 miles per hour. RDX detonates so quickly that it explodes even without being confined to a container. The military takes advantage of this by mixing powdered RDX with about 10% of a rubbery material to create a plastic explosive known as C4. The rubber allows RDX to be molded easily and it makes it safer to handle because RDX is poisonous. However, the rubber reduces the explosive power. In a candle flame, the hydrocarbons must get oxygen from the air, and that process takes time. But adding oxygen to the hydrocarbons allows the material to burn at a rapid rate. It is this addition of oxygen to the hydrocarbons, that transforms hydrocarbons into an explosive. The most important characteristic of explosives, is that they create an incredibly high pressure gas. Calculations show the pressures are as high as millions of pounds per square inch. This pressure causes the gas to expand outward at supersonic speed. The gas is mainly steam, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Temperatures exceed 3,000 degrees fahrenheit, which is above the melting point of steel. This extreme pressure and expansion is what makes explosives so dangerous. A small candle has more energy than a grenade, but a grenade is very destructive. The reason is that the energy in a grenade is released within a fraction of a second rather than several hours thereby causing such phenomenal pressures that the steel housing is shattered and pieces are sent flying. To summarize two important differences between explosives and fireballs, first, explosives reach temperatures beyond 3,000 degrees fahrenheit. But it's impossible for hydrocarbons burning in the atmosphere to exceed about 1,800 degrees. Second, and most important, explosives create extreme pressures that cause the gas to expand at a supersonic rate. Nothing can withstand a supersonic blast of 3,000 degree gas at 5 million pounds per square inch. This allows explosives to tear apart steel beams, pulverize concrete, and shatter solid rock. As the blast of gas expands, it rapidly drops in pressure. In order to rip through steel, the explosive must be very close to it. This is why the soldier is laying chunks of C4 directly on the bombs he wants to destroy. Fireballs, on the other hand, have no significant pressure. Another way to understand the difference between explosives and fireballs, is to consider that if a fireball would remain on the ground rather than rise in the air, you could get your clothes wet, hold your breath, and run into it. As soon as you passed through the boundary of flames, you would find yourself in a chamber of hydrocarbon vapor. There are no flames inside a fireball, so the temperature is low. More importantly, there is no high pressure inside. Of course, you would be roasted by the infrared radiation coming from the outside flames; however, my point is you could run into a fireball but you could not run into an explosive. If you think I'm exaggerating about running into a fireball, just watch as I pass my fingers through flames that are hot enough to melt aluminum. Now that you know about explosives, you can understand one possible reason why the Military is hiding this video. If a missile exploded, the fireball would have started out as a bright, white light, and within one frame of video, it would have grown to the size of the Pentagon. This rapid expansion would prove that it was an explosive. If this video truly shows Flight 77, our military officials should be fired for keeping it a secret, because they are allowing accusations of corruption to run wild throughout the world. Our military is supposed to protect us, but the evidence and secrecy suggests that they have joined some mysterious crime syndicate. Another suspicious aspect of this attack is that military officials refuse to state that these scraps are definitely from Flight 77. For example, this photo is at a military website, and the caption given to it by the military states that this item is "believed to be a piece of the aircraft" that crashed into the Pentagon. Military officials are not saying that it is a piece of the aircraft, rather they "believe" it is a piece. Also, they say it is a piece of the "aircraft," that hit the building, not a piece of Flight 77. Was this just a meaningless choice of words, or are military officials deliberately refusing to put their name on documents that clearly state that they found pieces of Flight 77? Could it be that military officials deliberately make vague statements so that they can fake innocence at a trial? The particular words in this caption make it easy to fake innocence. If the person who wrote that caption was taken to court, he could say, "I never said those scraps were from Flight 77, I said it was believed to be from whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon." A more significant example is that military officials claim they have no idea who released these five images from the Pentagon security camera. Is our military really this incompetent or is everybody afraid to have their name associated with those images? Consider what would happen if this scam were exposed and a trial were conducted? Everybody who saw that security video saw something similar to a global hawk and a missile. They did not see Flight 77; therefore, everybody who saw that video could be accused of being an accessory to this scam since they helped to deceive the world about it. This would explain why nobody in the military is willing to admit to having seen that video. If there is ever a trial for this scam, everybody in the military will pretend they never had access to this video. THE END.
|
