New Essay at 911-strike
Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley have a new essay on the Pentagon hit.
I really like the way these two researchers present their arguments-- they are always very clear-eyed and logical.
The bottom line is that they seem to endorse the idea that the Pentagon was actually bombed by planted explosives and not by a plane. Barbara Honegger actually said somewhere that she believed the Pentagon was bombed, and said she had proof (I can't find the site now).
Reading the Russel and Stanley piece, I had an idea that I hadn't seen spelled out before-- perhaps the Pentagon was FIRST hit by some sort of explosive device, then a little later by a plane. This could potentially explain how the plane was able to penetrate into the Pentagon so deeply as well as the odd pattern of damage to the Pentagon facade. This may not be very likely, but it is hard to completely rule out, since there is a great deal of eyewitness testimony for a plane hitting. I have trouble believing so many people are lying about this. I also have a problem with the idea that the few pieces of plane debris that were found were planted.
Moreover, I am not clear how Russel and Stanley explain the downed lightpoles near the Pentagon. Is this from the blast shockwave arising from the Pentagon?
But overall, their analysis is worth a read.
And while this physical analysis IS "fun"-- it is also a bit of a distraction.
I really like the way these two researchers present their arguments-- they are always very clear-eyed and logical.
The bottom line is that they seem to endorse the idea that the Pentagon was actually bombed by planted explosives and not by a plane. Barbara Honegger actually said somewhere that she believed the Pentagon was bombed, and said she had proof (I can't find the site now).
Reading the Russel and Stanley piece, I had an idea that I hadn't seen spelled out before-- perhaps the Pentagon was FIRST hit by some sort of explosive device, then a little later by a plane. This could potentially explain how the plane was able to penetrate into the Pentagon so deeply as well as the odd pattern of damage to the Pentagon facade. This may not be very likely, but it is hard to completely rule out, since there is a great deal of eyewitness testimony for a plane hitting. I have trouble believing so many people are lying about this. I also have a problem with the idea that the few pieces of plane debris that were found were planted.
Moreover, I am not clear how Russel and Stanley explain the downed lightpoles near the Pentagon. Is this from the blast shockwave arising from the Pentagon?
But overall, their analysis is worth a read.
And while this physical analysis IS "fun"-- it is also a bit of a distraction.
posted by spooked at 1:02 PM
3 Comments:
silverstein strikes again
yes-- "isn't that special"?
911-strike.com has also praised Holocaust Denial people.
Perhaps their slogan could be "No Planes and No Gas Chambers."
In other words, YUCK!
911-strike has also endorsed the bogus idea of the "pod" that was supposedly dangling from Flight 175 (really just the "fairing" between the wing and fuselage - see http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html http://www.911review.com and http://www.questionsquestions.net)
Hundreds (if not more) of people saw the plane at the Pentagon. Were all those people on the highways secret government agents? That's ridiculous.
The real issues are how the plane was guided to hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon and why the Air Force did not defend its headquarters.
It's not "physical analysis" if it's promoting claims in blatant contradiction to the evidence that makes 9/11 skepticism seem like lunacy. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home