Penetrating 911 - Separating
Fact From Fraud

By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to

"It's really been fascinating in a wayWe've been able to watch the birth of the completely out-of-control allegations that could not be true for so many reasons."
  --Brent Blanchard, 911 Conspiracy Debunker
Let us examine a few scientific facts that disprove the official government and mainstream media version of the 911 attack. Let us objectively compare whose version is most "completely out-of-control (and) could not be true for so many reasons."
Consider: A heavy yet fragile object traveling 500+ mph strikes a soft earth surface. What happens? The object, a Boeing jet in this case, penetrates the surface. "Augers in," according to military test pilots quoted in the excellent book, The Right Stuff.
In soft earth, the airplane disappears almost completely. Logical, right? In 1996, ValuJet Flight 592 plunged into the Everglades and the NTSB scarcely found a fraction of the plane and little of the human remains. Allegedly, Flight 93 also crashed into soft, reclaimed earth-a strip mine-and mostly disappeared.
Indeed, the coroner in Shanksville reported little to see at the crash site, little wreckage and no bodies. The Flight 93 crash site looked compact indeed, almost as if the earth swallowed the plane completely.
However, those who believe the US government conspiracy theory, the "completely out-of-control version" of events, claim Flight 93 burrowed into the soft earth, yet somehow also BOUNCED, spreading debris over several square miles near Shanksville.
Brian Cabell, CNN correspondent in Shanksville said:  "FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away? Could it have blown that far away?  It seems highly unlikely. But what we do know is that there's a site about half mile behind me, where the plane went down, where most of the debris is, and then about six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that's been cordoned off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is debris from the plane located there."
You cannot have it both ways. Logically and scientifically, a fast moving object must either penetrate or scatter debris, depending on the hardness or softness of a surface and the angle of entry. A bullet striking a pine board penetrates the wood, while the same bullet striking a harder surface at an oblique angle may fracture and ricochet, sending fragments everywhere. According to the "official" version, Flight 93 penetrated soft earth (and disappeared) but also scattered debris over a wide area from the air prior to impact.
Unless the plane was shot down or was a bomb went off in midair-all scenarios the US government denies---the theory is highly improbable.
Logically, a crashing airplane does not scatter debris from the air, unless struck by another airborne object or an onboard bomb. Thus, the mythical story (legend) of heroic passengers on Flight 93 struggling with hijackers carries LESS likelihood of happening than, say, Noah fitting all the animals of the world into a wooden ark. A beautiful story but hardly fact-based.
"Eyewitness testimonies have generally been excluded from the official version of 9-11," wrote Christopher Bollyn of AFP from Shanksville.  "I think it was shot down," said Dennis Mock of Flight 93. Mock lived closest to the crash site on the west side and also spoke to investigator Devy Kidd. "That's what people around here think."
Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, another illogical penetration had occurred. Allegedly, a fast moving yet fragile Boeing 757 weighing more than 100 tons had crashed against the recently reinforced walls of the Pentagon. Colliding at an angle (diagram), which logically would have sheared the wings completely off the plane and thrown the left wing against or even away from the building, the plane somehow disappeared. Surprisingly, little discernable debris remained outside.
But, once again, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  Either a plane penetrated the side of the building and left a sizeable imprint of the impact, or chunks of debris would have ricocheted off the hard surface of the building.  You cannot have it both ways.
Veteran airline pilot Russ Wittenberg said: "It's roughly a 100 ton airplane.  And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.  There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.  We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." 
Proponents claimed the plane penetrated the building wholly and thus would not have scattered debris. But long before the Pentagon collapsed completely, viewers saw one hole in the side of the burning building. Rather than a wide area of smashed masonry and wrecked plane---after all, the walls were reinforced many feet thick and not the soft earth of a reclaimed strip mine---government officials claimed the fragile nose of the Boeing penetrated through six strong walls to the C ring!  However, the jets engines, far heavier and stronger and weighing 4-5 tons, did not appear to have made similar holes.  Imagine a Chevy Silverado traveling 500+ mph. Now imagine a hole such a fast moving object would make in the side of a building.  Logically, the imprint of the penetration should have looked somewhat like this. The imprint of a  pair of engines with a fuselage in the center.
Once again, we hear apologists for the unscientific version of the Pentagon strike claim the Boeing entered deep within the building. At 500+ mph, the wings and tail, incredibly, followed like a wasp disappearing through a knothole, thus no sizeable debris outside the building. Disingenuously, Jim Hoffman offers footage of an F-4 military fighter plane slamming headfirst into a reinforced concrete wall and bursting into a huge fireball. Understandably, nothing remained of the fighter in the videotape (which should offer proof to advocates of a single engine plane-either commuter or military type-hitting the Pentagon). But the big Boeing that allegedly struck the Pentagon collided at an oblique angle and thus nullifies Hoffman's fiery fighter video example.
Most importantly, how to explain the lack of engine holes or an outline or imprint of the plane on the building?  A Boeing 757 carries two underslung engines weighing 4-5 tons each, heavier and larger than a Chevy Silverado. The engines should have punched sizeable holes and penetrated just as far---or FARTHER-into the building than the fuselage since they were made of stronger components. Yet no imprint appears on the Pentagon façade anywhere, as one appears visibly on the façade of the WTC North Tower (see photo). Either an imprint or holes would have to appear, to either side of the hole allegedly from the weaker fuselage-or a smaller aircraft struck the building.
Perhaps there never were TWO engines weighing 4-5 tons each on that smaller plane that struck the building. Without some sort of significant imprint, the government version remains a "completely out-of-control allegation that could not be true for so many reasons."
In other words, a fraudulent conspiracy theory rather than a fact.
USAF veteran and debunker of junk science, Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly. In 1973, he observed a USAF crash site high in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona (See link below). The wreckage of the jet scattered and burned but remained completely recognizable as aircraft debris even after hitting a mountainside.
Killtown's: Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon ...
Response to snopes pentagon "rumor" urban legend 9/11
Pentanium Cable Spools!
Geocaching In Thousand Oaks, CA - Events - Superstition Mountains ...



This Site Served by TheHostPros