by Home home
that someone who couldn't fly a crop duster could
successfully execute an incredible technical feat of aviation,
pushing a jumbo jet beyond it known parameters, perfectly,
at his first attempt. Unless someone can provide some
evidence to prove this incredible event ever actually
happened (a single CCTV video for example,) they see no
reason at all to swallow this blathering insanity.
Those who wholeheartedly accept the amazing number of
aviation firsts, all achieved on a single day, despite
previously being considered impossible, say, whether the
dumb ass conspiracists believe it or not, we all saw what
happened. Clearly the planes were, in fact, capable of
achieving the speeds witnessed, if only temporarily. They add
that the terrorist piloting the planes, like Hanjour, had no
intention of saving the aircraft or the passengers. Pushing it
beyond its limits wasn't their concern.
This argument misses the point entirely, claim the
conspiracy infected pilots and aeronautical engineers.
Regardless of the terrorists disregard for holding the airframe
together, the fact is the planes weren't physically capable of
the feat. They suggest we need to consider the possibility
that the planes, which were seen to crash into the Twin
160
A Dangerous Ideology
Towers, were not the hijacked 767's. They draw attention to
the fact there is only one piece of footage which clearly shows
the impact of AA Flight 11.
This is called the Naudet Film, named after the two French
documentary film makers who caught the plane hitting WTC
1 while filming firefighters in New York. The footage shows
only very grainy, low resolution images of the plane. It is not
possible to positively identify the aircraft from this. Members
of the public and news crews started filming the Twin Towers
after the North Tower had been hit.
Consequently, there are 53 unique pieces of video footage
that show a plane striking WTC 2.[69] The quality of these
videos vary greatly but, once again, allege the conspiracists,
it is not possible to positively identify the plane as UA Flight
175 from any of the film clips.
They say the better quality videos appear to show a large
grey aircraft rather than a commercial Boeing 767 airliner.
Nor did witness statements initially identify the United
Airlines distinctive livery. There are plenty who later attested
to seeing UA175 strike WTC 2. However, they did so after
they were informed of its identity. On the day itself, prior to
the collapse, there were numerous eye witnesses recorded
who claimed the flights were not commercial airliners. They
invariably described large grey planes, no visible markings or
passenger windows, with some claiming they were military
aircraft or drones.[71]
Conspiracy theorist attempts to account for these anomalies
range from the use of military drones to holographic
projections. The majority readily scoff at these suggestions
as the delusions of the irrational. They claim there is no
question to answer. We have already identified the planes
and everyone saw what happened.
Did we? Probably the best way for you to decide is to take a
look at the video footage and make up your own mind.
Many conspiracy theorists find the 'we all saw what
happened' argument extremely hypocritical. If 'seeing' the
planes hit the Towers tells us everything we need to know
about the physics of flight or crash dynamics, then 'seeing'
161
A Dangerous Ideology
the way the towers collapsed should tell us everything we
need to know about structural failure and demolition.
According to NIST, in keeping with everything we saw, both
plane’s light weight, hollow aluminium fuselages, their
hollow wings and flimsy tail sections smashed their way
through the box section steel girders of the Twin Towers.
Nothing fell off, they didn’t decelerate or crumple, they just
cut through the steel frames like a hot knives through
butter. All as a result of nothing more than the force of
impact.
Therefore, although it doesn’t seem remotely credible,
perhaps it is unsurprising there was virtually no wreckage at
all in Shanksville.[72] UA flight 93 weighed approximately
130 tons when it crashed and was heavily laden with jet fuel.
Yet no fuel contaminated soil or water samples were found at
the crash site. Nor were there any large sections of wreckage
or bodies recovered.
The first responders on the scene were led by Assistant Fire
Chief Rick King. He reported what he saw upon arrival:
“....thousands of tiny pieces scattered
around--bits of metal, insulation, wiring--but
no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater
and charred earth.”
Similarly, Pennsylvania State Police Officer Frank Monaco
said there was “...nothing but tiny pieces of debris....It's just
littered with small pieces....It didn't look like a plane crash.”
Scott Spangler, one of the first photographers on the scene,
said , 'I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane,
metal.' But, he recalled, 'There was nothing, just this pit. I
didn't think I was in the right place.'
Another first responder, Pennsylvania State Police
Commander Patrick Madigan said:
“I was amazed because it did not, in any
way, shape or form, look like a plane crash”
This was the common experience reported by most at the
crash site. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) took soil and water samples to assess
162
A Dangerous Ideology
contamination from Flight 93 fuel load. The DEP reported
that no contamination was found and spokeswoman Betsy
Mallison said, 'whether it burned away or evaporated, much
of [the plane's fuel] seems to have dissipated.'
Another weird, though gruesome anomaly was the absence
of body parts. Initially, no trace was found of the forty-four
people on board the flight. Wallace Miller, the Somerset
County coroner, speaking shortly after 9/11 said:
“I stopped being coroner after about 20
minutes, because there were no bodies there.”
A year after 9/11, he added:
“This is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this
day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop”
Miller, and many others, made numerous statements about
the lack of physical evidence and remains.[82] However, he,
like the majority of other people first on the scene, later
distanced himself from the remarks.
The 40 passengers were eventually identified through
fingerprints, dental records and DNA samples, and the
remains were returned to their families.[84] While being
attacked as disrespectful scumbags, conspiracists remained
unfazed and asked how, if all initial eyewitnesses reported
no evidence at the scene, limbs and larger skull fragments
<
br /> were subsequently located. Where were they found and who
found them?
Speaking in an interview in 2009, Miller stated that he was
given the evidence of remains. He maintained that he had
not seen a drop of blood at the crash site but also that he
was given severed hands and feet.[89] The search for
remains was conducted by the Coroner’s Office working
closely with the FBI. The DNA analysis was completed by the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville,
Maryland.
Just like Flights 175 and 11 that struck the World Trade
Center buildings, Flight 93 seems to have been completely
enveloped by the object it hit (the Earth, in its case.)
Supporters of the official narrative have suggested the
163
A Dangerous Ideology
ground swallowed the fuselage, wings and tail section whole.
The field in Shanksville covered a former strip mine. It had
essentially been backfilled once mining operations had
ceased. This, some say, meant the soil was so loosely packed
it allowed the 155ft long Boing 757 fuselage, its 125ft
wingspan and 44ft tail section to be completely consumed by
the field. Like driving a pin into jelly.
The head of the Pittsburgh FBI's evidence response team,
Bob Craig, advocated the idea of the ground swallowing the
plane whole, when he said:
“Turn the picture of the second plane hitting
the World Trade Center on its side and, for all
intents and purposes, the face of the building
is the strip mine in Shanksville.”
Writing in the Washington Post in May 2012, reporter Peter
Perl stated:[81]
“The fuselage burrowed straight into the
earth so forcefully that one of the 'black
boxes' was recovered at a depth of 25 feet
under the ground.”
The respected British broadsheet the Independent reported
the following FBI statement:[84]
“Nothing was found that was inconsistent
with the plane going into the ground intact.”
This is the kind of farcical nonsense that gets conspiracy
theorists quite vexed. Just like the Twin Towers, the idea
that a relatively flimsy aircraft can penetrate and
subsequently disappear, in its entirety, inside a much larger,
stronger object, without any large sections falling off, is utter
codswallop.
They draw attention to the fact that traditional bullet proof
vests contain ¼ inch thick steel plate armour. When you fire
a bullet at the plate, it is the bullet, not the plate, which gets
squashed. The bullet does not pierce the steel and there are
thousands of gunshot survivors who can attest to the fact.
164
A Dangerous Ideology
The perimeter columns of WTC 1 and 2 were made from ¼
inch thick box section steel. The leading edge of these box
sections, directly facing the oncoming aircraft, were ¼ inch
wide and 13 ½ inches deep.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion (for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction) dictates that the plane hitting
the steel columns, supposedly at 500 mph, produces exactly
the same effect as hitting a stationary aircraft with solid steel
girders propelled at 500 mph. According to the event we all
'witnessed,' the planes scythed through these girders leaving
almost perfect plane shaped holes.
This is the same as suggesting that whacking the stationary
plane with rocket propelled steel beams would result in the
steel breaking to pieces when it hit the flimsy, paper thin,
aluminium of the aircraft.
All of this, say the conspiracists, must have come as
something of a surprise to the WTC design engineers who
had wrongly assumed Newton knew what he was talking
about. They should have checked with NIST first, because
they apparently knew better, according to their statement:
[74]
“The massive damage was caused by the
large mass of the aircraft, their high speed
and momentum, which severed the
relatively light steel of the exterior columns
on the impact floors. The results of the NIST
impact analyses matched well with
observations (from photos and videos and
analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior
damage and of the amount and location of
debris exiting from the buildings. This
agreement supports the premise that the
structural damage to the towers was due to
the aircraft impact and not to any
alternative forces.”
So were NIST suggesting their 'models' were designed to
match the videos of the plane strikes, regardless of their
improbable contravention of the laws of physics, ask the
conspiracists. Why do they refer to exterior columns as
165
A Dangerous Ideology
“relatively light steel?” Relative to what? Certainly not the
insubstantial aircraft, which get severely damaged if they hit
a bird.
Combined with the airspeed conundrum is it reasonable for
conspiracists to doubt if UA Flight 175 or AA Flight 11
actually hit the towers at all?
Most accept something struck the Twin Towers. They just
doubt they were the commercial flights that were hijacked
and, if they were, that they could have possibly 'pierced' the
steel frame of the building without assistance (presumably
explosives.) Some people have responded to this with video
footage of phantom jets being propelled into a reinforced
concrete block at 480 mph.[75] Conducted by Sandia
National Laboratories, this test showed the plane atomized
upon impact. It looked just like the WTC impacts everyone
witnessed, say the believers in the official story.
Indeed so, say the conspiracists, but it isn't consistent with
NIST's claims. According to the official line, the planes didn't
break apart upon impact but rather smashed their way
'through' the steel beams they hit. Precisely the opposite of
the test outcomes.
The conspiracy theorists are so pissed off about all this
claimed stupidity that one of their most deluded idiots filed
an affidavit at the United States Southern District Court of
New York.
John Lear, son of the inventor of the Lear Jet (Bill Lear), a
former airline captain and CIA pilot with more than
19,000hrs of flying experience and holder of 17 world
aviation records, presented the following in 2008:[85]
“No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers
as fraudulently alleged by the government,
media, NIST and its contractors. Such
crashes did not occur because they are
physically impossible as depicted, for the
following reasons:
In the case of UAL 175 going into the south
tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun
166
A Dangerous Ideology
‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch
steel columns which are 39 inches on center.
The vertical and horizontal tail would hav
e
instantaneously separated from the aircraft,
hit the steel box columns and fallen to the
ground. The engines when impacting the
steel columns would have maintained their
general shape and either fallen to the
ground or been recovered in the debris of the
collapsed building.
No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540
mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite
drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite
power’ cubes with velocity. The fan portion
of the engine is not designed to accept the
volume of dense air at that altitude and
speed.
The piece of alleged external fuselage
containing 3 or 4 window cut-outs is
inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14
inch steel box columns, placed at over 500
mph. It would have crumpled.
No significant part of the Boeing 767 or
engine could have penetrated the 14 inch
steel columns and 37 feet beyond the
massive core of the tower without part of it
falling to the ground.
The debris of the collapse should have
contained massive sections of the Boeing
767, including 3 engine cores weighing
approximately 9000 pounds apiece which
could not have been hidden. Yet there is no
evidence of any of these massive structural
components from either 767 at the WTC.
Such complete disappearance of 767s is
impossible.”
Those who believe NIST have largely responded to this by
167
A Dangerous Ideology
personally attacking Lear, calling him a 'tin foil hat wearing
conspiracy theorist.'
He may well be. However, an affidavit is a powerful legal
instrument if it isn't rebutted, especially if offered by an
undoubted expert in their field, like Lear. His possible
failings as a human being, in the irreproachable eyes of
those who don't agree with him, are irrelevant. In legal terms
it is 'prima facie evidence.'
Unless evidence is offered which rebuts it, it stands as 'truth
in law.'[86] To date (2019) no one has rebutted Lear's
affidavit. Legally speaking, it is the 'truth.' Of course, most
conspiracy theorists would be the first to say that 'truth in
law' rarely amounts to objective reality.
************************
168
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 9
No One Could Have Believed.
Earlier, we discussed some training exercises which
