9/11: Possible Versus Impossible
Whenever you read some mainstream article trying to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories (for instance this), it is always important to pay attention the details. Typically, the debunker simplifies the conspiracy case so much that the alternative sounds reasonable if not highly plausible.
Thus, let's go over some common over-simplifications of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
1) Yes, it is possible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo some degree of collapse.
However, it is impossible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo a complete collapse in near free fall time-- as was seen.
Why haven't more engineers spoken out about this?
I've discussed this issue here.
It should also be mentioned that no engineer has fully explained the COMPLETE collapses of the WTC towers, nor has NIST modeled the collapses in anyway. I suspect this is the official "smokesceen" for how engineers supporting the official story can try to be somewhat honest: they think they only need to explain the collapse of the first floor and then they assume the whole thing falls apart from there.
2) Yes, it is possible that a 757 could have crashed into the Pentagon and left the small exterior hole that was seen.
However, if the plane did crash in this manner, much more large pieces of plane wreckage should have been outside. Furthermore, it is impossible that a Boeing 757 going 500 mph could have flown into the Pentagon on an almost level path only inches off the ground. It is also impossible that the engine of the plane would hit a large generator truck at ground level (note where the hole in the fence is) and not break off. Finally, it is impossible for a 757 only inches off the ground to avoid the six foot high cable spools sitting in front of the Pentagon.
Why hasn't the government shown more plane parts from the Pentagon and positively identified the parts as coming from Flight 77? Why has there been so much secrecy about the security camera videos? Why did the US government publish some of the first pictures showing plane debris in the Pentagon at Rense, a UFO site? And so forth, for there are many other quesitons about this incident.
3) Yes it is possible that Flight 93 could have crashed in a field near Shanksville and completely disintegrated, leaving a relatively small hole and few pieces of large debris.
However, it is impossible that the only the front end of the plane disintegrated while the rest of the plane (including the tail section) disappeared into the ground, as the official story would have us believe. Additionally, it is impossible that this crash would leave not leave any large remains of the passengers and crew; the official story holds that small one-inch pieces of skin were the primary human remains found.
Further, if the plane did crash in Shanksville, why has the public been shown only minimal debris from the plane? Why has the government shown only debris that is 1) a tiny fraction of the plane and 2) suspiciously clean and does not look like it came from flaming wreckage (the fuselage parts)? Also, how exactly did one engine end up just a few inches under the ground while another blew 1000 or more feet away from the main crash site? What happened to the rest of the human remains? How come no one at the scene of the crash reported smelling burned flesh? How come there are conflicting times as to when the plane crashed? How come passenger phone calls from flight 93 give conflicting accounts of the hijacking and passenger take-over? How come the picture of the smoke plume of the crash shows gray smoke like an ordinance blast and not black smoke as expected from burning jet fuel? Etc.
Thus, I need not go into how typically conpsiracy debunkers shoot down 9/11 as a pretext for the Iraq war and ignore the idea that 9/11 was a pretext for a wide global war on Islam as well as a MASSIVE financial scam on several different levels.
Finally, I need not even go into the strange aspects of the 1st and 2nd WTC hits, and how normal angled-back plane wings should have broken off upon impact and not slid into past massive steelsupport columns leaving a clear plane silhouette pattern of the plane across the face of the building.
The bottom line: 9/11 conspiracy theories are VERY MUCH ALIVE and alive for a good reason: the government has not presented a plausible official story!
Thus, let's go over some common over-simplifications of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
1) Yes, it is possible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo some degree of collapse.
However, it is impossible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo a complete collapse in near free fall time-- as was seen.
Why haven't more engineers spoken out about this?
I've discussed this issue here.
It should also be mentioned that no engineer has fully explained the COMPLETE collapses of the WTC towers, nor has NIST modeled the collapses in anyway. I suspect this is the official "smokesceen" for how engineers supporting the official story can try to be somewhat honest: they think they only need to explain the collapse of the first floor and then they assume the whole thing falls apart from there.
2) Yes, it is possible that a 757 could have crashed into the Pentagon and left the small exterior hole that was seen.
However, if the plane did crash in this manner, much more large pieces of plane wreckage should have been outside. Furthermore, it is impossible that a Boeing 757 going 500 mph could have flown into the Pentagon on an almost level path only inches off the ground. It is also impossible that the engine of the plane would hit a large generator truck at ground level (note where the hole in the fence is) and not break off. Finally, it is impossible for a 757 only inches off the ground to avoid the six foot high cable spools sitting in front of the Pentagon.
Why hasn't the government shown more plane parts from the Pentagon and positively identified the parts as coming from Flight 77? Why has there been so much secrecy about the security camera videos? Why did the US government publish some of the first pictures showing plane debris in the Pentagon at Rense, a UFO site? And so forth, for there are many other quesitons about this incident.
3) Yes it is possible that Flight 93 could have crashed in a field near Shanksville and completely disintegrated, leaving a relatively small hole and few pieces of large debris.
However, it is impossible that the only the front end of the plane disintegrated while the rest of the plane (including the tail section) disappeared into the ground, as the official story would have us believe. Additionally, it is impossible that this crash would leave not leave any large remains of the passengers and crew; the official story holds that small one-inch pieces of skin were the primary human remains found.
Further, if the plane did crash in Shanksville, why has the public been shown only minimal debris from the plane? Why has the government shown only debris that is 1) a tiny fraction of the plane and 2) suspiciously clean and does not look like it came from flaming wreckage (the fuselage parts)? Also, how exactly did one engine end up just a few inches under the ground while another blew 1000 or more feet away from the main crash site? What happened to the rest of the human remains? How come no one at the scene of the crash reported smelling burned flesh? How come there are conflicting times as to when the plane crashed? How come passenger phone calls from flight 93 give conflicting accounts of the hijacking and passenger take-over? How come the picture of the smoke plume of the crash shows gray smoke like an ordinance blast and not black smoke as expected from burning jet fuel? Etc.
Thus, I need not go into how typically conpsiracy debunkers shoot down 9/11 as a pretext for the Iraq war and ignore the idea that 9/11 was a pretext for a wide global war on Islam as well as a MASSIVE financial scam on several different levels.
Finally, I need not even go into the strange aspects of the 1st and 2nd WTC hits, and how normal angled-back plane wings should have broken off upon impact and not slid into past massive steelsupport columns leaving a clear plane silhouette pattern of the plane across the face of the building.
The bottom line: 9/11 conspiracy theories are VERY MUCH ALIVE and alive for a good reason: the government has not presented a plausible official story!
posted by spooked at 12:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home