News   May 01, 2024
 1.3K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
 362     0 
News   May 01, 2024
 366     0 

New poll says most Canadians blame U.S. for 9/11 attacks

They had it coming? That's such a harsh thing to say. It's like saying They Truly desereved to be the victims of a tragic mass murder. I guess life doesn't mean much!!

Few people actually rejoice at the idea of people being killed. And although there are a few who do with respect to 9/11, keep in mind that there are plenty of Americans who congratulate themselves over the killings of Iraqis, most of whom are as innocent as the victims of 9/11. In addition, while a few thousand perished in 9/11, probably hundreds of thousands have died around the world at the hands of American interference in other countries and governments.

As a friend of mine observed, 9/11 was an opportunity for the US, and in the days following the tragedy, many Americans started to open their eyes for the first time and to ask why people in other coutries hate the US so much. Unfortunately, before most could formulate answers, the cheerleading kicked in: Americans stopped questioning and instead turned to expressing to each other their love of country and their ideals and the belief that they are somehow special. While in psychology this is a well-known reaction to severe trauma and so it is understandable, it was an opportunity lost.

The real tragedy is the same type of chest-beating behaviour seen daily in the media - particularly around the 9/11 anniversary - that the attack on the US was an attack on democracy and freedom (which many Americans seem to believe). There are just too many examples of the US government interfering in other countries to the detriment of those countries, removing democratically-elected leaders, stifling the press, and pressuring both governments and peoples to conform to situations and agreements that benefit only the US and its corporations. This is, I believe, the real reason for the 9/11 attacks, and current world events - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela... the list goes on - confirm it.
 
"Keep in mind that the cororner in pennslyvania has yet to see a drop of blood or body part from that crash site."

Everyone on United Flight 93 clearly faked their deaths together...whether they has assembled on that flight for that purpose or were talked into it after takeoff once all hell broke loose in NY and DC, we may never know.
 
"(uuh, so where exactly did that plane, and all the passengers, disappear to?)."

Good point. Where did the plane go? There was virtually nothing left at the Pentagon... planes don't vapourise that easily. Is there any non-9/11 incidences of planes being vapourised so thoroughly in a crash? I know there were a few scraps, but in every other plane crash I remember seeing, most of the fuselage and large chunks of wing are recovered.
 
Well, if you look at the photos taken that day, you see the tail, and the wings, and various bits of fuselage, and engines and landing gear all over the lawn. How much more do you need to see?

You also need to remember that most plane crashes happen only after the flight crew has done everthing possible to avoid the crash and minimize damage. When a plane is fully loaded with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, then crashed at maximum speed, there will necessarily be much more damage to the plane, and therefore less wreckage.
 
The only things I recall seeing are cable spools and some small pieces of wreckage. No wing sections, no substantial pieces of fuselage....

The boiling point of metals are quite high. I honestly doubt a few thousand gallons of jet fuel (which burns at relatively low temperatures) could vapourise almost all of a 100 tonne jet liner.
 
^But how does that assertion add up to a conspiracy?

Hitting water at 200 kilometes an hour can tear the limbs off a human body, burst vital organs and break bones. An aircraft hitting the ground at 900 kph and then a concrete building will be obliterated.
 
These are just all a bunch of questions where the facts don't add up. The impact, for example, at both the pentagon and the penn farm field - in some experts opinions - don't resemble that to a plane crash. If the plane did crash into the pentagon, it is said that should have created more damage on the lawn, as well as a bigger hole in the wall, plus impact on both sides of the main hole where the engines would have made impact. The penn field, was just a hole in the ground with very little wreckage (not to mention some parts from a different type of plane), and not signs of loss of life - this is very inconsistent with virtually any other plane sight. My own conclusion is that IF something did happen that wasn't the same of the official version, that it was shot down somewhere else, with a cover-up to hide this fact.

Again, with the pentagon, people saw many things that day, including a small plane, a big white plane circling. Etc. etc. There were also hundreds of witnesses that saw the same type of plane in the offical version as well.

There are too many questions about what happened on 9/11.
 
Hitting water at 200 kilometes an hour can tear the limbs off a human body, burst vital organs and break bones. An aircraft hitting the ground at 900 kph and then a concrete building will be obliterated.

Yes, but you still see wreckage floating around, with some body parts. And they are still able to rebuild a lot of the fusaloge.
 
I really don't understand the conspiracy theories. There are plenty of eye witnesses, damage to the path leading to the Pentagon, and damage in the Pentagon itself to suggest a plane smashed into it. I don't care if videos from a gas station haven't been released.
 
"My own conclusion is that IF something did happen that wasn't the same of the official version, that it was shot down somewhere else, with a cover-up to hide this fact."

No disrespect, but this is laughable. On what facts and evidence are you relying on for this conclusion? Or is it just made up like all the other conspiracy theories?
 
Can you honestly say that the damage to the Pentagon is consistant with what you'd expect to happen? That is, a roughly 16 ft hole (and that's it) that extends through several steel reinforced concrete walls, and no damage at all from where the wings and especially the engines would have struck the building?

You say the plane was "obliterated". Does this mean you expect it was mostly pulverised from the force of the impact, or vapourised? Either way, it's rather hard for me to believe.

And this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's just saying that it's rather unlikely, given the evidence presented, that a large jetliner hit the Pentagon.
 
The fact that:

- the coroner in Pensly. St has stated she has yet to see any blood or body part
- the wreckage is not consistent with virtually every other crash, excluding the pentagon crash site, ie., the lack of wreckage/impact. Some of the 'recovered' parts didn't even belong to that type of plane.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen in that farm yard, but I am saying that its very inconsistent, and things don't add up too well, especially considering other plane crashes
 
"And this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's just saying that it's rather unlikely, given the evidence presented, that a large jetliner hit the Pentagon."

I repeat the question: what body of evidence, and subsequent expert analysis, are you relying on to claim that it is unlikely that a jetliner hit the Pentagon? Show me one expert (one!) who has scientific evidence that it was not a jetline.

And in addition, and I am only repeating the question because no one with a theory has ever provided an answer, let alone evidence, of 'what happened to the jetliner if it did not hit the Pentagon'?

Popular Mechanics:

THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.


HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.


HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77’s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
 
I'm going to start a new theory based on no facts. The Pentagon has a very expensive and (usually) unseen protection system. Releasing the full video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon would reveal it's forcefields... err, I mean classified defensive systems.

Yes, according my super-secret sources Pentagon types acquired the technology when the new air traffic control software (that was useless for mananging aircraft) was found to be helpful with building a time machine. They went to the future and retrieved the forcefield and installed it. Alas, they lost the manual.
----


Let us be clear, speculations on how an aircraft crash site should look does not add up to a conspiracy. Period.
 

Back
Top