|
Aviation
records from the FAA show that although UA 175 existed as a flight, unlike AA 77
or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned - N612UA - is still registered and
valid. In other words, it never crashed. So we don't know where it went, but we
do know that it didn't hit the WTC. And finally
UA 93 - alleged to have crashed in PA. Like UA 175, this was a bona fide flight,
but the plane - N591UA - is also still registered as valid.
FAA records
do show the planes to which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned - N334AA and N644AA as destroyed - but
not until Jan 14 2002, when the FAA regulations state that the deregistration
must be reported on the day that a plane is totally destroyed. So most likely
these planes were ready for retirement and were taken away somewhere to be
scrapped. Now to the
question of the collapse of the WTC towers. The official story that they
collapsed from fire and/or impact damage is a physical impossibility. Video of
the event shows that the towers did not collapse - they exploded in mid air, and
one can see clear evidence of explosive charges running down the buildings, and
neatly chopped storey length pieces of steel girder being ejected as far as 70
metres from the building. There are numerous scientific studies which
demonstrate that its impossible for them to have collapsed in the pancaking
manner cited in the official story. Firstly, all
of the concrete in the towers was totally pulverized into fine dust. The amount
of energy needed to achieve this task is quantifiable, and so is the amount of
potential energy available in a gravitational collapse. Its insufficient to
achieve this pulverization, which means that only an added input of energy (such
as explosives) can balance the energy equation. Secondly, a
simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrate that the towers collapsed
in a time which was impossible had the top floors been smashing through the
lower floors. Excluding air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq,
regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit
the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers
supposedly collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower
floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling
rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But
the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too
many variables to calculate the
exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be
more than 20 seconds. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is impossible under the
law of gravity. This proves
that the entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously converted into a free
falling collection of disconnected rubble, something only achievable through the
co-ordinated use of demolition explosives. There are also witness reports from
fire-fighters who say that they heard bombs going off in the buildings.
The media
likes to gloss over the similarly neat, vertical, and lightening quick collapse
of WTC building 7, a 47 storey building which was not hit by anything but also
disappeared in a manner identical to that of a classic controlled demolition.
Apart from Sept 11, no steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from
fire - and there were allegedly 3 in one day. The steel debris from the towers
was rushed away for recycling with indecent haste, before any investigation
could be conducted into the remains. On Sept 14, a
demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the
collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero
later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why
and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't
prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it
anymore. The early
spin from the media was that the ferocious heat of the burning jet fuel melted
the structural steel of the skyscraper. Unfortunately, jet fuel, which is
basically kerosene, typically burns at about 450 degrees C, and steel melts at
about 1550C. Calculations
of the maximum amount of heat which could have been even theoretically generated
by the maximum amount of fuel that the mythical planes could have carrying show
that it could not have contributed more than 280C to the temperature - even if
all the fuel was confined to one floor. Each floor of the WTC was about 4,000 sq
metres. The maximum amount of fuel which the plane could have carried was about
8000 gallons. So even claiming that all of this fuel burnt within one floor,
that's about 2 gallons per sq metre - supposedly melting steel construction
beams. Neither does
the myth of a ferocious fire in the WTC stand up to the scrutiny of witness or
video evidence. Fire-fighter tapes describe some "isolated pockets of fire"
which they could "knock out" with two hoses. And the black smoke drifting from
the building indicates an oxygen starved fire. Even if the
mythical inferno were true, far more ferocious fires have been experienced in
other skyscrapers - sometimes burning out of control for as long as 20 hours,
and never has one of these buildings collapsed. Why would
they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. Its the most
valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a
disaster. Under tenanted and beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port
Authority had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial
time bomb. And of course, they couldn't be demolished because of all the
asbestos dust that would go into the air of NY. The NYPA had been trying to sell
the buildings for years, and understandably, nobody was interested. In early
2001, the NYPA went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance
company to pay for asbestos renovations. The case was thrown out. This should
have made the buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this,
Manhattan property developer Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of
Westfield America, stepped in with a consortium worth $US3.2 billion for a 99
year lease on the site. Westfield Australia directly contributed $A840 million
for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein insured himself for $US3.5
billion per terrorist attack, and Westfield insured itself against terrorism and
loss of rental income. Not long
after, when the WTC conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack - along with
building 7 of the complex - it solved the asbestos problem, leaving Silverstein
with a clean building site on the best real estate in the world, and Westfield
with a rental income which probably would have been unsustainable in a real
trading environment, and no law suits over all the asbestos dust released into
the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's
insurer has agreed to the $3.5 billion pay out, but Silverstein is claiming that
it was two terrorist attacks and wants $ 7 billion, which is currently the
subject of a court case. Very early
media reports had the two fictitious AA flights as the planes to hit the WTC. AA
77 was only switched to being the Pentagon plane hours later. UA 175 was the
last plane to be "confirmed" as involved. At 9.17, the FAA started diverting all
flights. Early reports show wild discrepancies in terms of which allegedly
hijacked plane went where. The fictitious AA77 is particularly volatile from one
report to another, at one stage saying that it hit the WTC, then that it didn't
even take off for a half hour after the Sth Tower strike ,then that after taking
off at 9.33, it somehow flew 700
miles out to Ohio and back, in just 5 minutes, to hit the Pentagon. One
report had UA 93 landing at Cleveland due to a bomb scare.
What is clear
is that they were making it up as they went along, and the final cover story
about which planes crashed where didn't settle down for
hours. In summary,
this is most likely how the morning of Sept 11 really played out. There was no
need to issue an order for the air force to stand down routine intercept
procedures, because it appears that there actually weren't any
hijackings. Two
unconventional objects were fired into the WTC. The impacts were blamed on the
two fictitious AA flights. At this time UA 93 and 175 were flying normally. Then
the FAA begins diverting flights - including the two UA flights. The BT database
tells us of any flights which are diverted, but doesn't tell us where they are
diverted to. So we don't have an official record of where the two UA flights
landed , although there is some evidence that UA 93 actually landed at
Cleveland. Later, AA 77 became the
pentagon plane, and UA 175 became the Sth tower plane as the official cover
story started to settle down. Thus of the
four allegedly hijacked planes , two didn't exist, and the other two were
diverted to safe landings. Most likely
the PA crash was a drone craft of some kind, and there is evidence that the
substitute craft was shot down. This is only
a brief summary of the evidence. Much material had to be left out due to space
constraints. I encourage all readers not to uncritically accept this at face
value , but to avail themselves of the full documentation for this summary. |