it was an incredibly tragic event, more than 3000 people lost their lives. looking at the photos from the ground zero museum, i can see why there is so much emotional attachment to this event. but we still can't tell what aircraft it came from. i would not consider that a "time-change" part. If I was an american, I probably would be one of those guys laughing at the absurdity of a conspiracy. Viewing the event from an Australian perspective allows us to look at this event alot more critically.
i recorded september 11 on my VCR when it happened, so it was definitely planes that hit the Twin Towers.
we differ on how the buildings came down. I'm not really qualified to answer questions scientifically. Just when I saw Building 7 coming down with my own eyes... it made me question the official account, you know?
So I'll rather let the experts explain it.
Quotes from patriotsquestion911.com -
Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen's analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.
Graeme MacQueen, PhD - Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University (ret).
Interview 11/19/06: "... there's no way those 3 towers were brought down by planes, jet fuel and fire. One tower, maybe. A structural flaw in the tower, a set of coincidences. Two towers - we're getting into a highly unlikely situation, even though their construction was similar, because the planes hit in different ways. Three towers (including WTC 7 now, which wasn't hit by a plane), the odds against this are astronomical."
What do commercial airline pilots say about Pentagon?
Rob Balsamo - Commercial airline pilot. Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. 4,000+ total hours flown.
"woke up back in May [2006] due to a video that I saw on mainstream media telling me that I could see a 757 in ten seconds flat going across the Pentagon lawn. And from there I did my research and here I am now ... with Pilotsfor911Truth.org."
"The flight data recorder raw file that we have just decoded ... it's still showing too high for the Pentagon. ... It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet."
John Lear - Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA
Regarding the Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon -
John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.
John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...
John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...
What do some of the 1400+ engineers & architects say?
Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA (Fellow, American Institute of Architects.) -
"I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them."
David Paul Helpern, M.Arch, FAIA - "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the damage. A new investigation is needed."
Eason Cross, M.Arch, FAIA -
"The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard to comprehend."
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP - Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner -
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. ... So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.
But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water.
