All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

June 29, 2007 10:25PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6133

New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

.............Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."..........
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

SC44

Wizard 1173June 18, 2007 11:11PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 644June 23, 2007 11:37AM

Re: SC44

Wizard 673June 23, 2007 12:51PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 627June 23, 2007 12:54PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 646June 23, 2007 01:18PM

Re: SC44

mojavegreen 700June 24, 2007 10:36AM

Re: SC44

Wizard 674June 23, 2007 01:49PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 637June 23, 2007 01:53PM

Unexpected Event-the Great Simoon

mojavegreen 780June 24, 2007 10:50AM

Re: SC44

Wizard 749June 25, 2007 02:55PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 633June 29, 2007 10:25PM

Re: SC44

mojavegreen 692July 01, 2007 10:33PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 635June 29, 2007 10:53PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 663June 29, 2007 11:34PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 629June 29, 2007 11:53PM

Re: SC44

mojavegreen 676July 01, 2007 10:58PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 612July 01, 2007 11:13PM

Re: SC44

mojavegreen 765July 03, 2007 10:56AM

Re: SC44

Wizard 624July 01, 2007 11:20PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 847July 02, 2007 09:35PM

Re: SC44

Wizard 1454July 03, 2007 12:29PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login