BOEING Claims "National Security" On WTC2 Plane, Refuses to Respond to Questions
author: Alexander James
 e-mail: alexjames999@yahoo.com
This article proves scientifically and empirically that the 2nd Boeing was not Flight 175 and that the official Bush/Rumsfled & co. story is a lie in a series of lies.
"The war on terrorism is a preemptive strike on societies which might be inclined to later rebel against a global government. The strategy is to allow today's terrorists to run freely among civilized societies until those societies are sufficiently terrorized into giving up all of their freedoms to get rid of the terrorists. By the time the global government is fully in place, those societies will be unable to rebel and become economically free from the owners of the central banks and their mega-corporations." GENIUS
When the powers that be ran out of rival societies to conquer and exploit and indigenous innocents to conquer and enslave, they devised an ingenious plan to perpetuate their demonic, moneymaking war machine — they invented fictional characters to pursue and annihilate, and recruited impoverished souls to act out these roles. Now, from John Kaminski, author of "America's Autopsy Report" and "The Day America Died," a new collection of essays titled "The Perfect Enemy,"  http://www.johnkaminski.com/.
|
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/index.html
for the article with the photos and illustrations, please see the Word document attached.
The previous research on the four WTC building collapses is very conclusive scientifically and empirically. The official story is a lie just like all the other Bush/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld/mainstream news media lies. Next is a scientific research on the second Boeing which shows that the official story is again a lie. Can't get any truth coming out of Bush! Even his military records showing his incompetence and A-WALL have mysteriously disappeared!
Photo: CARMEN TAYLOR / CNN "has won several photo-journalism awards". Back in June 2003 La Vanguardia in Barcelona, Spain, published an investigative report on the second plane that slammed into the South Tower. The report was a simple affair, it used the photo we see here on the left and wondered what these strange objects attached to the underside of the Flight 175 might be, and whether they were just an optical illusion. After a thorough digital image analysis by a Spanish university, the article came to the conclusion that the objects were three-dimensional in nature and could not have been caused by shadows or reflections.
The Letters to the Editor page in La Vanguardia was soon flooded with readers complaining that the article had not explained what these objects could be, but the journalists refused to comment, they were investigative journalists and it was not for them to speculate on unknowns. Besides, La Vanguardia was a respectable, conservative newspaper with a hundred-year-old tradition to protect and they weren't about to get burnt with this Hot Potato, thank you very much.
Surprisingly, despite all the film taken that day before so many eye witnesses, compared to the evidence we have on the other flights, very little is known about Flight 175. Which is why, here in the Kasbah, we thought it was very important to establish Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo and Xavier Mas de Xaxàs' article as a reliable reference and put it into English as soon as possible. This we did.
The digital analysis done by a Spanish university came to the conclusion that what we see here was no mere play of shadows as the plane banks into the South Tower, but physical objects. Obviously, no known commercial airport would have cleared a plane looking like this for take off. Not so obvious, perhaps, is fact that you don't just bolt on a few objects to the exterior of a plane and happily fly off again--aerodynamic drag alone would shear off any external appendages (even before reaching 500 mph) leaving behind a gaping hole. Commercial airliners are built as light as possible and consist of a structural airframe covered by a "soft" metallic skin. Before attaching anything to the outside of an airliner you would have to reinforce the interior with beams and mountings added to the airframe, producing what are known as "hard points" in military planes, where external munitions, missiles and extra fuel tanks can be safely hung. You don't modify an airliner like this in one morning.
Until a proper investigation has the time to look into these photos, we'll leave you with some graphic work sent us by Mrs Rose Royce from Arkansas, giving a clearer impression of what these strange objects might be. Furthermore, Rose also brings up an interesting point: the stills of Flight 175 also show that left engine has been somehow interfered with. The turbines should be parallel to one another and attached to the wings, below we see the left engine at a slight angle to the right turbine, and looking as if it was about to come away from the wing. According to Rose this would be necessary to counterbalance the large "bump" attached just to the right of the centre of the fuselage and to compensate for the resulting aerodynamic drag.
This is seen exiting the building just after the second plane hit the tower. An engine? Doesn't look like one!
Flight 175. The Wrong Plane
NEW YORK, 9 A.M. 11 September 2001
A "small plane" is reported to have just crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center [AFPS, 10/23/01]. The news media kick into action: cameras are set up, helicopters and light aircraft take off for a better view.
President Bush later that day claims to have seen the first plane slam into the WTC live on TV [CNN, 12/4/01] but, in reality, not having the power of prescience, the news media were not exactly ready and waiting for the first plane.
The first plane, though, was a ploy. In a carefully orchestrated strategy, it was merely used as bait, drawing our attention to was about to occur, and so guaranteeing a full-blown Hollywoodesque drama with all the ratings and world-wide video sales. Welcome to the 21st Century.
On cue, a few minutes later, the second plane, a United Airlines, Boeing 767-200, comes into view, flying low and heading for the Twin Towers.
Who overrode Flight 175's onboard computers?
Modern planes are complicated creatures that incorporate a whole slew of sophisticated technology. First among them, flight computers that instantly override any accidental brusque manoeuvres; you don't want your business-class customers slopping their Dom Perignon over their immaculate suits, just because the pilot sneezes at the wrong moment.
The banking manoeuvre we see here, just as flight 175 is about to slam into the South Tower, would have been overridden by the onboard flight computer. So somebody must have previously overridden the flight computers themselves.
Now, you don't override the onboard computers by physically switching them off or cutting a wire, as you'd lose control of the hydraulics and plummet like a stone. Hey, this is no lawnmower you're flying. You have to reload the software, which according to Boeing's own documentation takes a good 90 min. just for the Integrated Display Units alone. United Airlines Flight 175 took off from Boston at 8:14 a.m. to hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., meaning that the software for flying the plane at close to Mach speed would have had to have been installed before take off!
Similarly odd behaviour was observed with Flight 77, which slammed into the Pentagon. Danielle O'Brien, air-traffic controller at Dulles airport, in Washington D.C., told ABC News, "At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol". As far as she and her colleagues were concerned, there was no doubt, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [ABC, 10/24/01]
Now I can't remember any records of Mohammad Atta being commended for his exceptional flying skills while at Florida flying schools. If you ask me the most outlandish and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory of them all is the official story: That some nutter in a cave in Afghanistan, on dialysis, masterminded a bunch of loser Saudi playboys to coordinate four attacks by air on mainland US targets, with military precision. With no need of flight manuals, which were thoughtfully left behind in the rented car back at the airport WITH A COPY OF THE KORAN! [Miami Herald, 9/22/01]
Come on, no self respecting muslim fundamentalist goes to heaven without his trusty Koran clasped to the breast! That's as ridiculous as saying that you've just found Mohammad Atta's pristine passport sitting atop one million tons of smouldering rubble!
Pardon my French, but this is not a Boeing 767-200. This is the long-fuselage version of the 767. The 767-200 is a short, stubby-nose plane. I didn't waste my early teenage years sniffing modelling glue and assembling 1/72nd-scale Spitfires for nothing, you know
The 767 is a trusty workhorse used by airlines the world over. It comes in three types, the 200, 300 and 400 series with increasing fuselage length and increasing capacity. The one shown here is the very same N612UA that took off from Logan airport that fateful 11 September. Note its stubby nose, characteristic of the 200 series. The inset shows the plane that crashed into the South Tower later that day. Somehow, to me, the fuselage seems just that little bit longer. Perspective is a tricky thing, so let's have a look at the scale plans for the 767 below.
Plane-spotting is a lot like bird-spotting, identification is a matter of comparing known dimensions. In this case by comparing the length of the central wing structure (B), from where the fore-wing meets the fuselage to the end of the wing tip, with overall fuselage length (A+B+C).
With the 767-200 this gives us a ratio of A:B:C = 190:200:181.
With the 767-300 we get a ratio of A:B:C = 221:200:217.
In other words, both the fore (A) and aft sections (C) of the 200-series fuselage are shorter than the central wing section. Whereas these are longer in the 300 series. Put a ruler up to the screen and measure these yourself.
This picture above is a bit fuzzy but it's the best one there is taken from underneath. Note that there seems to be a bulge just where the fore-wing should meet the fuselage. (Also note that the underside of the fuselage should be unobstructed and give a straight line for a shadow, and not a dark mass at the centre and the nose.)
Extrapolating the leading edge of the fore-wing to where it should meet the fuselage gives us the right-hand cross-hair, and the back tips of the wings the left-hand cross hair.
OK, now we have a unit length B. Using the proportions of A:B:C = 190:200:181 found for the 767-200 we get the final assembly of cross-hairs. The back end of the plane is pretty close to our match, but looking at the scale plans again you'll notice that it should meet the ends of the tail-fins, not the fuselage.
The front of the plane, though, is noticeably longer. There's a dark patch on the nose which may prove deceiving, but if you look carefully you'll notice that it protrudes beyond the red arrow.
Therefore: This plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200.
Flight Control Systems
Flight Control Systems
Um... OK. So the planes were switched. Why go to all that trouble? I must admit that I was a bit befuddled myself.
Boeing has been developing some pretty snazzy flight control systems over the years. Maybe something more sophisticated than a 767-200 was required for the job.
The Aviation Safety Network, Accident Description database gives quite a detailed description of all the planes that have suffered some misshap over the years. And there's our old friend N612UA, showing that it entered service in 1983. (It also shows that it was a 767-222, and not a 200ER as is sometimes mistakenly claimed. This is also borne out in the FAA registry.) Cross checking with Jane's shows that the first 767-200 was delivered on 8 September 1982. So poor old N612UA was already getting a bit long in the tooth by 11 September.
Next stop Rockwell (now part of the Boeing group of companies). They produce the FCS-700 flight control system, "currently provided as standard equipment on all versions of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft", so maybe not going back to 1983, and N612UA, the Cinderella of the fleet, would likely be the last in line for updating. However the FCS-700 is just a fancy "fail operational autopilot flight director system", I suppose you could pre-program it but it would fly in a smooth line, not bank crazily into the South Tower as we've seen.
Another cute gadget is the Flight Management Computer System, also Boeing standard equipment. The page for the 757-200 describes this as: "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." And "The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer." Gee whiz. What does the pilot get to do then? Chat up the ladies?
And they're pretty good at this "automatic guidance and control". Another nifty little piece of 50s Sci-Fi is Global Hawk by Northrop Gruman, a 737-size fully unmanned experimental plane. This baby's maiden flight was from Edwards Air Force Base, CA on 28 February 1998 [Federation of American Scientists], making it all the way to Australia on April 24, 2001, by itself [International Television News (defunct)]. "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith [International Television News (Defunct. But, Hey! This is the world-wide web. See mirror copy)].
Mind you, that's a military plane. Commercial airliners are different, aren't they? Well... can't get a date, but NASA's 'Flying Lab' ARIES, a converted Boeing 757-200, is reputed to have also taken off and landed without a pilot at the helm a few times. Apparently the skies are getting crowded and you'd get greater efficiency by having your planes radar controlled. You could also layoff a few more air-traffic controllers too.
It's not the pipe-dream it sounds, either. After 9/11, what with Middle-Eastern gentlemen being able to hijack planes and fly them with military precision, there was a lot of talk of "... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." Needless to say, pilots aren't too happy with the idea of someone off-board taking control of their ship, whoever it is. What if that someone was a "Middle-Eastern gentleman"? [Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots. Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2001] Even Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, got in on the act and "... suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack... " [The Economist, September 20, 2001]
Conclusions so far
This may all a bit seem circumstantial, but let's see what we have here:
a. Comparing the profile of the Boeing that slammed into the South Tower with a 767-200, it seems that this was not the same plane that left Logan airport that fateful morning. It was switched. And if the plane was switched, then the "pilots" were switched too.
b. To judge by the strange manoeuvres before it hit, the flight computers must have been tampered with.
c. The plane banked sharply into the South Tower because it was about to miss it, even the best of pilots would have had a job hitting such a small target at 500 m.p.h.-- even an "eperienced" pilot like Mr Bush needed help landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Forget mucking about on a Cessna for a few hours. Autopilot and a beacon would have done the job, but then it would have gone straight in like a rudimentary guided missile.
Was this more than simple tampering with the flight computers? Could this "unidentified" plane have been controlled remotely from the ground? Is the "taking over of distressed aircraft and landing them" not a distant fantasy?
Confirmation
According to Andreas von Bülow, the former German Secretary of Defence, it seems that, already back in the nineties, "a major European flag carrier" was so alarmed when it discovered that the flight control systems on its aircraft could be taken over electronically from the ground, that it "completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version". [Tagesspiegel, Berlin, January 13th 2002]. It appears that this "major European flag carrier" was none other than Lufthansa, the German national airline.
Of course, Germans are a bunch of wimps who'd only too happily lick the boots of an invading army of "Middle-Eastern gentlemen". Yet, one fine day in 2002, it just so happens that a group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand Pré, set up an independent inquiry into the events of September 11th, and came to the conclusion that "the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft." (...) An expert witness confirmed that "airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level." Colonel Donn de Grand Pré's inquiry concluded: "They [the pilots] had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft." [September 11 - US Government accused. The News, Portugal's Weekend Newspaper in English, 03/08/2002 (well worth the read)]. The article also goes on to lament the lack of investigative zeal on the subject by mainstream American (and may I add British) news media.
Oh, and by the way, a pilot's ingrained reaction is to "ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground".
Fine ..., but do we have any conclusive visual proof that Flight 175 had been tampered with? I'm glad you asked that...
Our Conclusions
So what can we deduce from these pictures?
The plane that hit the South Tower was not the same one that left Logan airport that morning. It would not have been allowed to take off if it looked anything like what hit the Tower.
It is impossible to tell from the photographs what these odd objects contained, but it is possible to get an idea of how much they weighed.
As we said earlier, not only was the plane switched, but it was switched for a different series of Boeing 767. The 767 Reference Website lists the specifications for the 767. What interests us is the Maximum Takeoff Payload, this is given by subtracting the Operating Empty figure from the Maximum Takeoff Weight. For the flight that left Logan, a 767-200, the lightest of the options, we get a Maximum Payload of 55,158kg, some 120,000 lbs. For the 767-300ER, the heaviest of the options, we get a Max Payload 91,355kg, some 200,000 lbs. A difference of 80,000 lbs. Obviously, the 200 was too small for the job.
So, applying the "Is it bigger than a Bread Box?" principle, we get that the odd objects attached to the fuselage weighed more than 120,000 lbs and less than 200,000 lbs.
Now, you don't strap on 120,000 pounds of goodies in one morning. It would have required several weeks of preparation (767s are not equipped with "hard points", the structures on military planes where fuel tanks and armaments may be attached). And Mohammad Atta, et al, were never near this bird. We know because within 24 hours of the attacks the FBI had tracked the hijackers every move and there's no mention of them hanging around abandoned airfields tinkering with old 767s.
No, this would have required a lot of organisation: an extra 767 that the authorities had lost track of; an abandoned airfield that no one was using; and a small fleet of trucks to carry those large tubes, pretty conspicuous rolling down the Interstate. All hidden away from prying eyes, for weeks. A lot of manpower and well beyond the derring-do of our loser Saudi playboy friends.
So, who flew the planes?
Well, certainly not someone who had only flown Cessnas a few hours. These babies were flown with military precision, as we've heard. I know some get sniffy when the possibility of flight by remote control is brought up, but I don't see anyone back at the abandoned airfield volunteering for these flights. We've seen that a great number of sources consider unmanned flight highly feasible. Something which could be easily implemented commercially in the near future to "make our skies safer".
Certainly, hooking up a guidance system to GPS (Global Positioning System) would be a simple affair. The result would be a plane slamming straight into the Towers like a guided missile, a bit like Flight 11 that morning. (and it's true that the wings seem surprisingly short for a commercial airliner.)
Flight 175 with its sharp turn just before it hits the South Tower is another matter. This manoeuvre would have required visual contact, i.e. a TV camera relaying back to an off-board remote pilot. Fanciful? We've seen that the Aries Flying Lab has successfully taken off and landed unmanned. Now, you don't land on a commercial airfield without visual contact -maybe Global Hawk does, but it's a military vehicle. However, the Aries project is being developed for commercial use, so the technology exists (see Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making? [USA Today, 10/02/2001]). Certainly Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, believes it exists.
As for the banking manoeuvre itself, perhaps it was necessary as a last-minute correction, after all it's a tricky job flying at 500 m.p.h. plus. But to me it all smells of detective fiction, in fact I'm surprised by the obvious questions that all the investigative commissions haven't asked (See: Unanswered questions - Demanding answers). It's clear that these people have never read an Agatha Christie in their lives. To me the outrageous banking manoeuvre was like something out of a Fu Man Chu novel. There's a clever hand behind this for sure, but the brain behind the clever hand is too vain to conceal itself, especially with the TV cameras rolling. That's how Fu Man Chu always gets caught out.
Unlike the La Vanguardia articles, of course, this is all speculation. I could be wrong. It would be easy to show that the planes that left Logan airport on the morning of September 11 were the same ones that crashed into the Towers by going back to the radar records of that day. Sure, the transponders were switched off, but they would still show up as an unidentified blip. Run an algorithm to show up only unidentified blips, and voilá, you'd only see four blips, wouldn't you? Unfortunately the FAA seems to have trouble in making these available.
Don't take my word for it. The mainstream media may be docile, but the Net is bursting with questions on 9/11 that would set J. B. Fletcher's head spinning. And until these questions are answered by a properly conducted investigation, many will suspect a cover up. Indeed, wouldn't it be in everbody's interests to get the whole story out in the open? Why hide documents under the guise of "National Security"? Just who is the enemy here? The US citizen? The whole thing looks mighty fishy. A friend just returned from Bhutan and the first question her Sherpa asked was, "Do you think the American Conspiracy will ever come out?" Come on, We the People ain't dumb!
So what's all this got to do with me, here in Timbuktu?
Benito Mussolini:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
The events of 9/11 were the perfect pretext for embarking on the much touted New World Order. Forget about Freedom from Hunger or Universal Peace. This is The New American Century we have before us. This is the emasculation of the nation state in favour of corporate power. This is pre-emptive war under the feeblest of pretexts. This is Might Makes Right. Don't take my word for it, go visit the Project for the New American Century website. Or, in a more palatable form, the report by Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald of September 15, 2002. This is not some document written by an over-eager post-grad student, this was written by George Bush's future cabinet way back in September 2000: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).
And this New World Order is already up and running. We were sold the Iraq war on the basis of WMD, terrorist links and the need to bring democracy to the Middle East. We were sold a false bill of goods. Never mind, the pretext was "irrelevant" in any case.
There is nothing "New" in this New World Order. This is going back to a feudal world of warlords with no rules. Which was fine for the 15th century when you could happily go about whacking people with a cudgel, but in the 21st century, with its "advances" in mechanised warfare, chemical weaponry, biological agents and badly stored nuclear waste, this would be Collective Suicide. (The latest news from Bagdad talks of radioactive levels 2,000 times greater than maximum allowed levels, no doubt due to the generalised use of depleted uranium.)
We've all been here before and the world decided not to go down this path. After World War I, the "Great War" or the "War to End All Wars", it was decided that mechanisation had made war such a threat to human existence that it had become necessary to establish a set of international tools for doing things. First the League of Nations -- defunct --, then the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and with them international treaties: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ABM Treaty, Test Ban Treaties, Kyoto, etc.
Admittedly, these first faltering steps in international law leave much to be desired. Instead of improving on them, though, George Bush is now dismantling a broad range of consensually accepted international precepts. This would take us back to the eve of the Great War of 1914-18, but with weapons that are a million times more deadly.
9/11 was merely Act 1, Scene 1 in a tale of Perpetual War.
These are dangerous times and they affect every man, woman and child on the planet.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292362.shtml
911: BOEING Claims "National Security" On WTC2 Plane, Refuses to Respond to Questions
Or is that just a transparent whitewashing attempt at saying: "I'm taking the 5th amendment" against self-incrimination?
Boycott Boeing! Tell them why. They are involved in mass murder to get Bush's deal of financial FEDERAL TAXPAYER kickbacks they received immediately after 9-11 which kept them from going bankrupt.
Why support piratical corrupt institutions? That are unable to even survive in the market? Why?
Boeing Claims National Security On WTC2 Plane From 911Review.org 7-9-4
It is clear that the flight that struck the second of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was not United Airlines Flight 175, because views from underneath the plane reveal a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. diameter, cylinder that opens just before impact. The pod appears in all photographs that clearly show that aspect of the plane, and can be seen in the frame-by-frame analysis of all videos of the impact, where there is sufficient contrast and resolution.
See: http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml
The Barcelona daily La Vanguardia, which has run a series of articles based on a technical report on this pod, asked Boeing about these features, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national security!
Comment From Paul Higginbotham 7-9-4
Hello Jeff - This concerns the article about the anomaly on the 767 (sic) that struck the tower. I have worked on Boeing 767s as a licensed aircraft mechanic for fifteen years and I can tell you there is nothing that even remotely resembles what I see in the photographs on "normal" aircraft.
I know the 767 literally inside-out as I have overhauled them hundreds of times and that "pod" or device is NOT normal. But what strikes me the most - and sends chills up my spine - is the frame that shows the plane JUST hitting the building. Where in the HELL do the flames come from?? The fuel is stored in the WINGS!! The is NO fuel, not a DROP near the nose of the aircraft. It is held in the wings and pumped to the engines. That's it. The nose contains NOTHING that could cause a fire on impact.
I believe this was a deliberate act by our government.
Also, when I saw it live on TV my first thoughts when the buildings collapsed was "Hey! that looks EXACTLY like a professional demolition" to keep the debris in the same "footprint" as the building. It was too neat of a job.
If this is true, what kind of country are we living in now?
http://www.rense.com/general54/boe.htm
There has never been an independent inquiry in the events of 9/11. Despite two years of repeated attempts by the families of the victims of 9/11, there has never been an independent investigation of What Really Happened that day. Is there an OngoingCoverup?
• Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took extraordinary steps to limit any investigation into the events of 9/11.
• The NTSB never held inquiries into any of the 4 plane crashes, as required by law, and the FBI is withholding the data from the airliner's flight recorders.
• All of the steel from the Twin Towers was shipped out of the country before any investigation was held.
The media says that bin Laden carried out the 9/11 massacre from the caves of Afghanistan, yet after a supposedly "thorough" investigation, the FBI says they have not uncovered a single piece of paper that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. Some are starting to ask: OsamaBinAsset?
• 7 of the supposed "hijackers" turned out to be alive and not even in the US on 9/11.
• 3 of the "hijackers" listed a US Navy base as their address on their drivers licences.
The Twin Towers didn't collapse, they exploded outwards; parts of the buildings were ejected as far as 70 m. before they began to fall, and the buildings' concrete was reduced to fine dust. What really brought down the TwinTowers?
• No steel structured skyscraper in history has collapsed due to fire.
• The steel support columns in the sub-basement of the Twin Towers were melted, and five weeks later, were still pools of molten steel.
They say an airliner crashed into the Pentagon, but if so, why isn't there the debris of an airliner crash at the scene of the PentagonAttack?
• There's no airliner debris at the Pentagon, and the deep and focused damage to the building could not be from an airliner crash.
• The FBI is withholding 2 videos that may show what really hit the Pentagon, and the photos from the DoD Pentagon security camera have been falsified.
The 47 story World Trade Center Building Number 7 was levelled in 8 seconds, seven hours the after the Twin Towers came down. As it hadn't been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of Twin Towers earlier two buildings away, why did Building7Collapse?
• The photographs show that there was no any major fire in the building at the time.
• The videos clearly show that it was a controlled demolition.
The source of the anthrax was the US Military biological weapons program. The anthrax was identified as a strain used by the US government, and the anthrax used was weaponized according to the American process. Are American terrorists behind the AnthraxAttacks?
• The anthrax terrorist(s) worked for the US Military or their contractors, and the attacks were planned before 9/11.
• The targets of the anthrax attacks were the Senators who opposed the USA Patriot [sic] Act, which was then passed by Congress without it being printed or read.
They won't tell you about this on the Box of Lies:
• Visit these Sept11WebSites for reliable information about 9/11 and the War on Freedom.
• Visit these TrustedNewsSites for reliable information about What Is Really Happening.
• Help break the Conspiracy Of Silence: put up 911ReviewPosters everywhere.
• Keep up to date with our summary of the LatestHeadlines.
• If they get away with this one, imagine WhatsNext...
Sign Up for our announcements mailing list to be notified when new pages are added to the web site (about once a week).
Translations: English French Spanish German
|
homepage: http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288505.shtml