March 31, 2006
Doug Thompson says the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" don't pass the "smell test." I would agree with him if he was talking about the official "conspiracy theories" but sadly, he is not.
Doug Thompson writes: "I was at the Pentagon the day the plane hit, taking pictures and interviewing witnesses. I talked to the cab driver who saw the plane swoop low over Columbia Pike, knocking down a light pole that fell on his cab. I talked to the driver of the car behind him, an Arlington businessman still haunted by the nightmares of what he saw. I interviewed dozens of others who saw the plane hit. I smelled the burning jet fuel."
Joe Plummer responds: How about this: A Global Hawk equipped with a missile - is this so hard to figure out? (Especially for someone presumably familiar with the Northwoods Document?) According to this: A 757 traveling at 500 MPH could not have gotten low enough to impact the Pentagon where it did. Also, it seems physically impossible for a plane that size to disappear into a hole less than 20 feet across. It also seems impossible for the engines (upwards of 10,000 lbs each) to have "vaporized" without leaving so much as a scratch on the façade of the building.
There are other aspects that undermine the official account of what happened at the Pentagon, not the least of which is: How exactly is it that the STRATEGIC MILITARY COMMAND CENTER of the United States of America was unable to defend itself against a 757? ...the most heavily defended building on this planet was unable to stop a huge (150,000 pound) airplane traveling at just 500 Miles per hour, even after it had already been established (for more than an hour) that planes were being hijacked, slammed into buildings, and one was heading that way???
But I digress; we needn't go any further into addressing the many reasonable questions surrounding the "official account" of what really happened at the Pentagon. -Simply release the video that shows the approach and impact of the plane. If all is as we've been told it is, we can then put this piece of the 9/11 puzzle in it's proper place and move on to the other problematic issues.
DT writes: "Months later, I stood in a lab at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland as an engineer I've known for 25 years ran the computer simulation that shows how the unique construction of the World Trade Center towers contributed to the inevitable collapse after the planes hit."
JP responds: Wow, a computer simulation. I guess that wraps it up. Unless of course it's possible to create a computer simulation that proves the official theory is impossible. -then what do we do? I suppose we'd have to simulate the "raging fires" theory in the real world. -better yet, lets pretend the Windsor building in Madrid was a real world simulation; too bad it's a simulation the "official theory" failed miserably. Maybe more real-world simulations are necessary. If that is the case, we can go back through all of recorded history and find plenty more evidence to validate the absurdity of the official account.
DT writes: "I talked to firemen, police officers and first responders in New York City and then with friends who have worked in the American and foreign intelligence communities for many, many years. Everything that I've learned from these folks - those who were there and those whose judgment I trust - support the facts that Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks."
JP responds: It is difficult to imagine how Police and Firefighters could ascertain "Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks." However, I know a great many Police and Firefighters who'll tell you (from first hand experience) they heard bombs going off as they tried to rescue people from the buildings. Did you ever talk to them? Don't you think they would know the difference between the initial "impact explosion" and explosions that took place long after; explosions that took place as they were climbing stairs to rescue victims? As for the people in "American and foreign intelligence" that were asked; enough said. We've all heard what they have to say and it doesn't hold up.
DT writes: "Some say there are no way novice pilots with only a few hours of simulator training could have guided three modern jetliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I'm a pilot and have flown Boeing 757, 767 and 777 simulators as part of research on stories. The maneuvers made by the hijackers on September 11 were relatively simple course corrections that are not that difficult in planes equipped with modern navigational computers."
JP responds: Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot. He destroys the "novice pilots" theory in this piece. You should read it - everyone should read it.
DT writes: "Others base their beliefs of a conspiracy on the collapse of Building 7 in New York, which did not appear to be seriously damaged. They say video of the collapse suggests it was imploded by an internal explosion. I asked demolition experts and structural engineers to watch video footage from several angles. They concluded the collapse was not consistent with a detonated implosion. First responders at the scene also reported large chunks of steel and concrete striking the building. The NIST study, conducted by a Democratic member of their staff, concluded the building was damaged internally."
JP responds: Who are these "demolition experts" and "structural engineers?" I'd like to see how they stack up against the many experts who've concluded the exact opposite. Regarding damage to the building, could the alleged damage come anywhere near the damage sustained by building 6? The North tower (WTC 1) fell DIRECTLY ON building 6, and it didn't collapse - No, even with huge sections torn from it, WTC 6 had to be brought down with explosives. And while we're talking about "pulling buildings" (using explosives to bring them down) isn't it odd that the owner of building 7 comes right out and says this: Listen Here.
DT writes: "The 9/11 attacks succeeded because of the incredible improbability that such a ragtag group could pull it off and our lackluster intelligence agencies failed to act on credible reports of terrorist activity. I know my government. They're just not good enough to pull off something like this."
JP responds: Well, it wasn't "your government" Doug, it was criminals acting inside the government. People who clearly have no loyalty whatsoever to the founding principles (or the people) of this country. There is a big difference.
-As an aside: Perhaps this is behind Doug's sudden certainty in the limits of government evil? (A visit, a threat perhaps?)