Posted on 02/13/2005 3:59:00 PM PST by OK
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
You don't understand conspiracies. Anyone who debunks them is just another conspirator who needs to be investigated.
Oh yeah, I understand it only too well. There is a gold forum at kitco.com where people swear by this stuff.
The sad thing about this, is that other incidents that are in need of further investingation get lumped with it.
Let me guess, the loons on this subject have yet to indentify those funny looking missiles that hit the Trade Center towers. Mercy. Get real folks!
You guys with ping lists need to spread this one around!
I may have missed it, but is there a site to access 9/11 photos? One that has a good library of the photos? I'd better start saving them before they are all "sealed" because we are not able to handle these images, pschologically...
RB
Let me know the next time you hear the song "Leaving on a Jet Plane" on the radio. LOL
Looks as though Popular Mechanics did a good job on this one.
Here is a good library of photos, including some of the more painful ones.
http://www.jsonline.com/art/news/attackpix091101/photos091101.asp
Aw heck and all this time I've been under the impression the Quakers did it......
This is great reporting. Now the beacons of American journalism get beat to the punch by Popular Mechanics.
The following is their treatment of the flight 93 "white plane" mystery.
The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."
FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly."
The expert said something like "for an uncontrolled collapse it came down pretty neatly" (meaning how the debris landed, nothing to do with the smoke and ash) and the person got crucified by idiots about how unpatriotic a statement it was, etc.
Has anyone else heard of this incident? I can't find anything on Snopes, Google, et.al. about it.
Can the center fuel tank of TWA 800 be next on Popular Mechanics review schedule?
Most of those "conspiracy theories" are preposterous, but I also believe that there are a number of aspects of 9/11 that haven't been examined closely enough in a public forum. In particular, I've suspected since 9/11 that one of the major factors in the collapse of the Twin Towers was a flawed design.
While it would have been possible to design a building which would have withstood the impact of planes larger than the largest planes manufactured at the time with full loads of fuel directly targeting the buildings to create the most damage possible, there are cost considerations. Also, at the time of construction, terrorism of this type simply wasn't considered as a possibility.
Designing buildings that can withstand any form of terror attack is kind of like trying to design a highway that prevents people from deliberately ramming other cars. I can't think, offhand of any buildings over 50 stories tall that could have withstood a similar attack.
From a practical standpoint, those things probably never should have been built. They had to come up with that kind of creative design just to make the buildings economical -- by maximizing the leasable floor space while minimizing the space lost to structural elements.
Osama bin Laden was a civil engineer by training, and I've always suspected that his knowledge of structural design was a factor in selecting the WTC as a target both in 1993 and in 2001.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.