A Grand Unified Theory for 9/11?
Although examining physical evidence is a bit of a trap for 9/11-- in that you will probably never convince anyone of government complicity from the physical evidence that internet researchers have access to-- I find that in the case of the Pentagon, examining the physical evidence is simply irresistible. The fact that so many people have examined the Pentagon hit means two things really:
1) that they find it an irresistible puzzle as well, and
2) that they find something very strange about the Pentagon hit overall.
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, who I linked to a few posts back regarding the Pentagon security camera video, has an interesting take on the Pentagon hit.
He think it is most likely that a Boeing 757, probably flight 77, hit the Pentagon. He thinks the hole in the side of the Pentagon is essentially consistent with a Boeing 757. The catch is that he thinks the plane was loaded with a massive bomb of some sort. This is somewhat similar to Eric Bart's "plane bomb" theory that I discussed a few months back. However, Desmoulins proposes that is a shape charge, a depleted uranium bomb or a bunker busting bomb.
This is for five main reasons:
1) the degree of damage and penetration into the Pentagon is much greater than one would expect from a Boeing 757 impacting that section of building.
2) the plane impact produced a shock wave that in more consistent with a bomb than a plane hitting a stone wall.
3) a few people who worked inside the Pentagon said they "smelled" explosives.
4) the fact that the Pentagon is clearly hiding something since they altered the first several frames of security camera video.
5) the initial explosion shown in the security camera video does not look like a plane fuel explosion-- it is too white. Plane fuel explosions tend to be orange/red.
Personally, I can't judge these pieces of evidence very critically. They make sense, but I can't really say how accurate some of these conclusions are-- particularly #1 and #2.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, Monsieur Desmolins is correct.
This has some interesting implications.
Namely, if flight 77 was loaded with a bomb, it seems just as likely that flights 11 and 175 were loaded with bombs. Then, such bombs could help explain the incredible collpase of the WTC.
A bomb on board flight 93, that was detonated over Shanksville, PA might explain some of the odd features of that plane crash as well.
The government would clearly be covering up the presence of these bombs, if they existed.
Thus, we have something of a 9/11 "grand unified theory". For fun we can call this theory "NEGUT" (Nine Eleven Grand Unified Theory).
Of course, hypothesizing bombs on board the 9/11 hijacked planes means either:
1) the terrorists were much more sophisiticated than we thought and managed to smuggle huge bombs into someone's luggage, or 2) the 9/11 planes were loaded with bombs by some other group-- some covert organization aligned with the terrorists.
In this scenario, 9/11 would fall into line with two other major terrorist bomb attacks on the US: the first World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In each of these two cases, there is compelling evidence that the US government greatly facilitated the placing of bombs-- and in the case of the OK City bombing the government also covered up the presence of extra planted bombs.
It seems to me that there is a pattern here.
1) that they find it an irresistible puzzle as well, and
2) that they find something very strange about the Pentagon hit overall.
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, who I linked to a few posts back regarding the Pentagon security camera video, has an interesting take on the Pentagon hit.
He think it is most likely that a Boeing 757, probably flight 77, hit the Pentagon. He thinks the hole in the side of the Pentagon is essentially consistent with a Boeing 757. The catch is that he thinks the plane was loaded with a massive bomb of some sort. This is somewhat similar to Eric Bart's "plane bomb" theory that I discussed a few months back. However, Desmoulins proposes that is a shape charge, a depleted uranium bomb or a bunker busting bomb.
This is for five main reasons:
1) the degree of damage and penetration into the Pentagon is much greater than one would expect from a Boeing 757 impacting that section of building.
2) the plane impact produced a shock wave that in more consistent with a bomb than a plane hitting a stone wall.
3) a few people who worked inside the Pentagon said they "smelled" explosives.
4) the fact that the Pentagon is clearly hiding something since they altered the first several frames of security camera video.
5) the initial explosion shown in the security camera video does not look like a plane fuel explosion-- it is too white. Plane fuel explosions tend to be orange/red.
Personally, I can't judge these pieces of evidence very critically. They make sense, but I can't really say how accurate some of these conclusions are-- particularly #1 and #2.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, Monsieur Desmolins is correct.
This has some interesting implications.
Namely, if flight 77 was loaded with a bomb, it seems just as likely that flights 11 and 175 were loaded with bombs. Then, such bombs could help explain the incredible collpase of the WTC.
A bomb on board flight 93, that was detonated over Shanksville, PA might explain some of the odd features of that plane crash as well.
The government would clearly be covering up the presence of these bombs, if they existed.
Thus, we have something of a 9/11 "grand unified theory". For fun we can call this theory "NEGUT" (Nine Eleven Grand Unified Theory).
Of course, hypothesizing bombs on board the 9/11 hijacked planes means either:
1) the terrorists were much more sophisiticated than we thought and managed to smuggle huge bombs into someone's luggage, or 2) the 9/11 planes were loaded with bombs by some other group-- some covert organization aligned with the terrorists.
In this scenario, 9/11 would fall into line with two other major terrorist bomb attacks on the US: the first World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In each of these two cases, there is compelling evidence that the US government greatly facilitated the placing of bombs-- and in the case of the OK City bombing the government also covered up the presence of extra planted bombs.
It seems to me that there is a pattern here.
posted by spooked at 7:58 AM
2 Comments:
Some interesting thoughts. Only, to justify the name Grand Unifying Theory, I would expect a theory that not only explains some observations made on the day of 9/11, but many more things as well. For instance: Who were these Arab guys, what about the drug smuggling angle (flight schools, Hopsicker, Sibel Edmonds), what about the terror warnings before 9/11?
Some elements of a big theory has the article of Kupferberg, Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11gandalf
you're rtight Gandalf. I was being a little facetious with the name there, although I suppose it could be a "physical evidence grand unifying theory" more than a grand overall theory for 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home