During the attacks on September 11th, 7 World Trade Center was destroyed. But it wasn’t struck by a plane. So what happened?
Also See: 9/11: Were Explosives Used? (iLLuMiNuTTi.com)
NEW YORK—Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone said Monday that his new film World Trade Center unveils “compelling and controversial” new evidence that a single plane was responsible for all four collisions in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.
“Get ready to go through the looking glass here, people,” Stone told reporters at a Manhattan press conference before an advance screening of the movie, which premieres Wednesday. “The film you are about to see is going to blow the lid off the 9/11 Commission’s official report and expose a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government.”
World Trade Center, which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called “the official government line” about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the North Tower of the World Trade Center, maintained a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the South Tower before heading to the Pentagon.
After its collision with the center of American military operations, the so-called “magic plane”—which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as “American Airlines Flight 11,”
“United Airlines Flight 175,” “American Airlines Flight 77″ and “United Airlines Flight 93″—took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret “black-ops” Air Force base in West Virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that Stone described as “shocking.”
Stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, September 12.
In a gripping sequence, undercover agents transmit pre-recorded cell-phone messages intended to fool loved ones and relatives with a false cover story as the aircraft heads to its final, prearranged crash site in the fields of southwestern Pennsylvania.
Viewers of the advance screening agreed that the most striking and pivotal scene was Cage’s character’s discovery of . . .
MORE . . .
By Dave Burton via Burton Systems Software – (burtonsys.com)
Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.
After all, they reason, “only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?”
This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don’t understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.
What the conspiracy theorists apparently don’t understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. (“Static” means “while at rest,” “dynamic” means “while moving.”)
If you don’t think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.
As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.
Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I’m using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)
The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.
Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That’s the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?
The answer is, absolutely not!
Download HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr
You see them in the sky while you’re driving. Trails, left behind by aircraft.
The white streaks have many convinced there’s some sort of government cover-up.
7 Action News has gone all the way to the Pentagon to get answers about the theory that’s taking over the internet.
We’re asking the questions:
We’re taking on the popular conspiracy theory and revealing the truth behind the trails.
[END] Via WXYZ.com
If you missed our first two videos, check them out:
Some say that it wasn’t an airliner that struck the Pentagon on 9/11, but a missile.
Today we’re going to delve once again into the depths of conspiracy theories. We’ll take yet another look at the events of the September 11 attacks, this time focusing on the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington, Virginia. According to the generally accepted account of what was witnessed and recorded on September 11, 2001, the Pentagon was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a hijacked Boeing 757 on its way from Dulles to Los Angeles. 59 people on board the airplane plus 125 workers inside the Pentagon were killed, plus the 5 hijackers. And as pop culture would inevitably have it, alternate claims have arisen: mainly that the Pentagon was not hit by a hijacked plane at all, but by an American cruise missile fired as a false flag operation. Years later, is there sufficient reason to doubt the official story?
First of all, the phrase “official story” has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the “official story” is that the human body has 206 bones. The “official story” is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The “official story” is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the “official story”, it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the “official story”. In this sense, “official story” is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that’s most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it’s only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.
And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that’s all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It’s not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, “consistent with” is not “evidence of”.
Let’s look at the most popular such example:
Myth #1: The security video shows a missile hitting the building.
Of the 85 video tapes seized by the FBI that may have shown the plane strike the building, only one actually shows the impact of an object with the building. This is a Pentagon security camera pointed at a traffic gate along an access driveway. In the background is a white streak, visible in only a single frame, which is far too small and of low quality to make out any useful details. Missile theorists believe the depicted object is too small to be a 757, and is more consistent with a cruise missile.
So far as the object in the video appearing to be too small for a 757, that’s correct, it is. But this is to be expected, since the lens of the security camera is ultra wide angle. The camera was intended to see as much of the vehicle driveway where it was positioned as possible, side to side. Thus it did not produce a rectilinear image with straight lines; the lines on the Pentagon building are clearly curved in the video. Yet, missile theorists have superimposed straight lines of perspective onto this image, in an effort to show that the height of the incoming object was too small for a 757. Because of the lens used, the plane does in fact appear far smaller than it would with a normal lens, consistent with what we’d expect of an ultra wide angle lens and a full-sized airliner.
Myth #2: Donald Rumsfeld‘s office was on the opposite end of the building.
The implication being that Rumsfeld, presumed architect of the false flag attack, was carefully protected by having the plane hit a far-away part of the building.
This is a perfect example of “consistent with” not being “evidence of”. Sure, if Rumsfeld had masterminded the attack, he might well choose to preserve his own office. But by this same logic, you could point to anyone anywhere in the world whose office was not in the immediate vicinity of the crash site. This factoid is so irrelevant that I didn’t even bother to look up where in the Pentagon Rumsfeld’s office was. Whether it’s true or not, it’s useless information.
Now for an example of a claim that’s just simply wrong:
Myth #3: There was no debris from an airplane at the site.
Thus there was no plane, thus it must have been a missile (even though that in itself is fallacious logic). Even after so many years have gone by, I still hear this assertion being made, in blatant defiance of virtually every photograph taken that day. Debris from the plane was everywhere, including easily identified mechanical parts from the landing gear and engines and lots of twisted aluminum painted in Boeing BAC452 Green Epoxy Primer. It’s trivial to do a Google image search for “flight 77 debris” to see exactly what was reported by dozens of Pentagon employees, rescue personnel, and reporters, and observed live worldwide by millions of television viewers.
via The Soap Box
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are probably some of the most thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories out there, with thousands of people devoting hundreds of hours to debunk these theories. Some of these theories have been debunked for so long, and so early on, and have such clear evidence (including photographic evidence) that they can only be best described as lies.
Here is what could be considered 10 of the biggest lies people in the 9/11 Truth movement (or Truthers, as they are commonly called) tell:
(Author’s note: these are just the 10 I remembered off of my head. There are actually a lot more than this.)
• 10. There were pools and rivers of molten steel at the WTC site.
No there wasn’t. There are satellite pictures of hot spots where the towers stood, and pictures of steel beams that were red hot, but never any pictures of molten steel, nor has anyone who was actually at the site after the towers fell have ever claimed to have seen pools and rivers of molten steel.
The satellite pictures that show these hot spots show that those areas were actually places where underground fires were, and not molten steel because the temperature of the heat being given off from those areas was not hot enough to cause steel to melt.
• 9. No plane was witnessed hitting the Pentagon.
Actually there are multiple witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon. There is also video taken from a security camera that, while it is very difficult to tell for many people, does show a plane hitting the Pentagon.
• 8. No pieces of American Airlines Flight 77 was ever found at the Penatgon.
Actually much of the plane was recovered, including remains of the passengers on board (including the five hijackers), and the flight recorder (although damaged to the point where nothing usable could be recovered on it). In fact there are actually photos of pieces of the planes that were being recovered from the crash site and removed from the site for further investigation.
• 7. The towers fell at free fall speeds.
No they didn’t. The towers fell at speeds slower then free fall. There are videos that show the towers falling at free fall speeds, but these videos have had their speed altered to make it look like they are falling at free fall speeds.
• 6. The towers imploded.
No they didn’t. If you were to watch any videos of the towers collapsing then you would see that the towers collapsed on top of themselves rather then implode into themselves, the results of which spewed out a lot of debris over the site, heavily damaging many of the other buildings there.
MORE . . .
via The Soap Box
As everyone knows, the 9/11 Truth movement is a loose group of people who believe that the United States government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Now despite the fact that they have never been able to prove that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, they still hold steadfast to the belief that the government did.
It seems to me that most people in that movement have never really sat down and asked themselves some serious, logical questions about the attacks.
Here are eight questions that I feel that people in the 9/11 Truth movement should ask themselves, as well as should be asked by others:
Hitting one building with a plane would have been more then enough for the government to justifiably giving it an excuse to go to war. More then one would be overkill.
The Pentagon is the United States top military headquarters. Hitting it with a plane could have killed our top military leaders and seriously harmed our ability to fight. The government attacking the Pentagon makes no sense both logically and militarily.
There would be no reason for the government to bring down the towers. Not only would flying a couple of planes into the towers would have been more then enough to justify going to war, but bringing down the towers would be another example of overkill. Also, it would have been cheaper to repair the towers then it has been to clean up the rubble and build new buildings at the site.
Wouldn’t intentionally bringing down WTC 7 have been a pointless action? There would have been no reason for the government to ever bring that building down and create a bigger mess. Not to mention many in the 9/11 Truth movement see that building’s collapse as a “smoking gun” for a controlled demolition. If the government did do this, shouldn’t they have had the foresight to see that it might look suspicious to some people?
MORE . . .
via The Soap Box
There are probably more then a dozen or so conspiracy theories involving the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, and I admit, I think every one of those theories are ridiculous and false. But, there is one conspiracy theory that is so ridiculous that most 9/11 conspiracy theorists don’t talk about.
This is the theory that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers.
It is considered the craziest of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and talk about it has been banned from many conspiracy theorist websites. Some people who advocate these theories are even accused of being dis-information agent, and have even been threaten with violence.
There are actually two different versions this theory.
The first one is that what we all saw on TV were not planes, but computer generated images, and that every video that showed the planes hitting the towers are fakes.
Besides the fact that this claim sounds insane, it would also have to mean that every eye witness to the attack, including people who were standing in the street, and people who were actually in the buildings themselves and watched the planes hit, are lying…
One of the many conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks is that the jets that flew into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, were not manned at all, but were actually un-manned drones.
One of the theories is that the planes had all been shot down somewhere in the Atlantic ocean and quickly replaced with the un-manned drones, or that they had been secretly landed somewhere, and that the crews and passengers had simply been made to “disappear”.
The biggest problem with both of these theories are that not only would they require thousands of people who work for the NTSB and various airport air traffic control unions to be in on the conspiracy, it would also have to get perhaps thousands of other people within the military and the government to never talk about it to anybody. This is so improbable and illogical, that many people considered both theories to be theoretical impossible.
Keep Reading: The Soap Box: Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Drones were what really hit the WTC towers and the Pentagon on 9/11.
NOTE: The image above is a fake. Click the image for more information.
One of the 9/11 conspiracy theories that some people believe, is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a Boeing 757.
Most people who do believe this, believe a missile must have hit, because they believe that with not much piloting training, a person could not actually fly a jumbo jet into the side of a building that’s only a few stories high, and that the damage to the building doesn’t appear to them as the type of damage that jumbo jet would do.
This leaked photo shows a cruise missile, painted like an American Airlines passenger jet, being ferried about a military base. Is this the smoking gun truthers have been looking for? Is this proof the Pentagon was struck by a missile on September 11, 2001?
For the answer, put on your critical thinking caps and click here to find the truth.
Would you believe there are still people who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and are still pushing their case 11 years later?
This is the infamous 9/11 debunking report from Popular Mechanics. This is an excellent read to help you battle all those conspiracists in your life.
“We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold.” – Professor Steven I. Dutch, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay