Previous Update: April 1 - 7

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
April 11, 2014

No Passenger Planes Hit the Trade Towers

If you start reading this update, but feel you don't wish to finish, don't miss the last part, where I happened upon indisputable evidence that no planes flew into the New York Trade towers. This is new material as far as I'm concerned, though I'm waiting to hear back from certain people I've emailed as to whether anyone has ever noticed this before. I'm going to keep this update short so that everyone who starts is more likely to finish.

In the last update, my thoughts turned to the no-plane theory of the 9-11 disaster. It's a position I've held for some years, convinced by nobody else but the visual evidence, and the understanding I have of things structural. I tried to explain (in the last update) why no plane could hit either trade tower. In short, a plane could not enter through the steel columns. What I didn't touch upon was the reason that the planes needed to enter the buildings.

But first, let me say that 9-11 has everything to do with our preparation for the coming skincode system of purchasing. The 9-11 event reveals the beasts in government. If the government today were angelic, we would be far from the tribulation period. We as Christians would have little to fear. But 9-11 shows the lack of human respect from, and the ability to murder its own citizens of, the current governmental system in the United States. Why might it be far different in Britain, Canada, or other Western nations?

The twin towers were prepared by idiots, make no mistake about it. They made many gross errors in their schemes. Basically, only fools, or the naive (there is a difference) who have not yet read up on the evidence, are the ones who still support the government storyline. There is no end of foolish arguments by those who support the storyline. It's time for Christians to wizen up. It's not wise to reject the truther movement's arguments just because it has many liberals and anti-God peoples. It's not necessary that we join any truther movement; it is important that we recognize their claims to wicked governments posing as angelic. But we knew of government wickedness anyway, before 9-11.

The idiots who plotted 9-11 simply paid demolition teams to cause a collapse of three buildings. If they were not idiots, they would not have done it. That's number one. Don't think for a minute that they didn't get God's attention.

They knew that, to explain the collapse of the building, they could resort only to the jet fuel, for no other buildings, ever, set on fire under the combustion of their own materials has ever collapsed. The idiots called up their engineers, and asked whether jet fuel could soften steel beams in a skyscraper sufficient to bend the steel. The engineers responded, not likely. But the idiots still went ahead with their trick.

They decided on a scenario wherein the planes would not only enter the initial cage of the outer columns of the buildings, but would then knock out a few interior columns too, and, in this way, the heat combined with the lack of full column support could be blamed for the collapse. Anyone who denied this claim could be ridiculed as a conspiracy nut.

This trick is the importance of proving that the wings could not enter into the building. With wings merely crashing but not entering, much of the fuel would splash onto the face of the building, and fall to the street, while the rest would go through the windows but not very deeply into the interior, or, where some did reach deeply, it would be spread out across the floors, unable to make any one area very hot...aside from the entry point, where most of the fuel is predicted to ignite and explode before it had a chance to get very far.

So, in a real scenario, the heat of the jet fuel would be restricted to the one side of the building alone, where all the columns were already compromised, anyway, by the entry of the plane. But they needed the fuel to heat up columns deeper into the building, which is why we saw two huge explosions coming out the far side of the south tower, the side opposite the entry point. They arranged some form of combustive / explosive material there to feign a massive jet-fuel explosion.

If you're not understanding me: the idiots wish for the world to believe that, after the plane entered the outer cage of vertical columns and horizontal beamwork, it, or at least the fuel tanks, slid through or past interior columns to the opposite side of the if the fuel tanks in the wings could remain intact until then.

The idiots thus had to come up with a way to "prove" that planes slammed into the buildings while not actually doing so, and they had to make it appear as though the planes ENTERED. If you're wondering why they would do something so ridiculous as to have planes entering like a hot knife through butter, that's why. They had decided beforehand that these buildings had to come down for an insurance claim, regardless of the horrible fate of people inside. Money was more important to them. In the mean time, they plotted to make this event the basis for razing Afghanistan and Iraq, and from there controlling, hopefully, not just the Middle East, but America and Britain.

Their 2,000 deadline for a global government had passed, you see, and so they applied tough measures even in the West to subdue their enemies. Many murders took place to hush truthers and other problematic persons. More murders will take place yet. And that's why they are idiots. Have no fear of those who can only harm the body but after that can do nothing. It's a tall order from Jesus, but, with the help of the Holy Spirit, it's do-able.

They chose to go with "indisputable" eye-witness accounts of the plane's crashing. It is as easy to net a false witness for such a statement as it is to reach out the hand with a large sum of money. The U.S. military knows who to ask, not someone who goes to church every Sunday and Wednesday night, and not anyone who already has much money. They didn't need to tell these "witnesses" that the government was involved with the scam. They only needed to convince them to give "testimony" because those pesky conspiracy theorists were convincing too many people that it wasn't the terrorists.

Therefore, while there were only a few people at first who recorded the plane on their cameras, over the years the number grew to a few dozen. People just kept popping up who suddenly had one or another plane on camera. It exposes how desperate the idiots had become. Had they not been desperate, the few pictures that came out initially would have been enough.

The skeptics had this one thing in their favor: the perpetrators were complete idiots. I mean, if you just do a short study on the plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, you will not only realize that they are complete fools, but that the military at the Pentagon was, and is still, involved. The military leadership under either Bush or Obama knows that it was involved. This is like a gross growth on the American body, and the horror is that a vast number of Americans are nurturing it, to their own demise.

The no-planes theory is largely the result of the poor job that the idiots conducted at both the Pentagon and in a south-west-Pennsylvania field. In neither location was there sufficient evidence of a plane. People expect a plane at a plane crash, but the idiots -- truly, they were idiots -- had a laughable, faked debris field at each location. I didn't know how laughable at first because I didn't bother to investigate these matters in that I was aware of nutty conspiracy theorists, but, eventually, I realized that some conspiracy theorists are more than sane: they're also intelligent and correct. It was a wake-up call.

Take as an example the following quote from the page of a conspiracy theorist, and yet the argument is sound, logical, and from a reputable engineer (or quasi-engineer, anyway):

...even a supporter of the official story, Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering at MIT, says that the impact of the planes would NOT have been sufficient to bring down the Towers because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to the remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."

This is not too high for any common graduate to understand. If you take half of the 2 x 4 walls out of the front of the house, but not at the corners, the house will yet stand forever (or until the 2 x 4 rot). The article goes on: "I also learned that airplane fuel burns at only 800 degrees F, not nearly hot enough to seriously stress steel, which melts at 2700 degrees F in optimum conditions." That's 800 degrees at the flames. In order to make the temperature rise higher, the fire needs to be in an enclosed space for a prolonged duration. But as we saw, the explosion in the south tower blew the windows out at the north-east corner, and there was a gaping hole on the other side where the plane supposedly entered. The interior was not, therefore, an enclosed space.

So, the idiots were content with, or decided upon, fooling the common man on the street, but did not have a scheme sufficient to convince the learned engineers. It took time for the message of the learned to get out to the man on the street, but by that time, Bush was already in Iraq, raping it as best he could. And Christians, including myself, were standing behind him for fear of another Clinton type coming to power over America. The people got Obama, a rapist far worse that Bush, a rapist who rapes his people more than he rapes the peoples of other nations.

You have these very nasty people who, instead of listening to the arguments of the learned, are more interested in turning this into an enjoyable sport, like shooting down conspiracy theorists because they are just so ridiculous. Once people have sported against the conspiracy theorists to a feverish / passionate degree, it is very hard for them to accept their errors even if they stare them in the face. I've been good enough to admit my erroneous views, and so now I get to be a conspiracy nut. At least I know I'm right.

I've read on how a blacksmith can put metal into the kiln and get the metal bright and soft. But these arguments do not give an accurate picture. The blacksmith's furnace door is not left wide open while heating to a bright red. Plus, the blacksmith knows that his metal won't brighten the instant he places into the furnace. It takes time. The fuel fire (I'm assuming that they used a trick to mimic jet fuel) did not last very long, and, to show how not-hot it was up there, a woman was caught on camera coming to look out the hole (north tower, I think). Poor woman, I feel like weeping for her, murdered needlessly by demons in human form. The building didn't collapse until after she looked out. Take a moment to reflect on what passed through her heart minutes later as the rumbling of the falling building was heard. Just take a moment to imagine her heart as she saw the ceiling falling down upon her. Doesn't it make you want to weep an ocean? Multiply that one soul by thousands of common workers.

The blacksmith and his story has a problem, for the fuel wasn't hot enough to heat the environment sufficient to burn her shoes. The idiots didn't figure on that woman coming to the hole and looking out.

Let me tell you, that this fire was hot enough to burn God, and the day is coming, woe to these demons in human form, when their souls will be hundreds of times more unbearable than unspeakable pain.

Let's go on:

Thomas Eager [the fool mentioned above] asserts that the steel in the Towers could have collapsed if it had lost only 80% of its strength. Eager believes this happened since the fires reached 1300 F [his number]. But Griffin argues that for this amount of heat, the fires would have to very big and it would have to be applied to a steel beam for a considerable amount of time...The photos show that not even one floor in the South Tower was above the ignition temperature of plastic and paper!" The fire was not even powerful enough to crack glass windows! (NPH, p. 211, fn. 52)

In other words, the idiots provided some impression of heat and prolonged smoke, but without the necessities of convincing the experts, unless they were on-side with the idiots. Yes, the idiots did pre-arrange their own scientific experts, but the battle between they and non-insider experts got too large to control. The non-insiders formed groups and, together, hammered away at the official storyline.

We are not to expect the last days until the leaders of this planet are wicked. If the leaders are yet angels, why are you reading books on prophecy in expectation of that Day soon? 9-11 and it's aftermath is the evidence that Armageddon is justified already. May I propose to you that anyone who supports the government storyline is in danger of sharing God's wrath against the government. I'm not saying that it's automatic, but that being a pro-government pawn into too-late a period could have us Judged as one like Lot's wife. God is not asking us to rebel against the government, but to reject it if it rejects Him. The Father knows better than to have us go against the government like squirrels against a lion, but God is offended if our hearts are one with a wicked government. In no way does "pray for the king" mean to have the same heart.

Had it not been for 9-11, we may not as a large group of "theorists" have known how wicked the leadership has become. People would still be serving the United States with the hope of a change for the better, completely unaware of how deep into demonism it has come. Yes, we got the first clues of its demonism when the powers took prayer out of school, and as they took the side of feminism and the abortionists, and, yes, we also witnessed their demonic forms when they promoted faggotry, etc., etc., but to have thousands of people killed in cold blood in a few seconds merely to have the excuse of invading parts of the Middle East is something that I think God wants us to see, for a reason: to reject it as one rejects satan himself, and to be suspicious of what it might soon do, in brutality, to Christianity as a whole.

If they had succeeded hands down, they would have done it again.

I would not urge any of you to use "idiot" against these people in your writings, public or otherwise. These people are dangerous, and you don't want to become their next target, whoever you are. Let me be the one to use that term here because it's a very correct term, and because I feel like taking my chances with God as my Protector. I'm not so influential that they should come after with priority.

There is other evidence yet that idiots conducted this scheme, and in the meantime this evidence supports the no-planes theory:

Among other things, Holmgren wonders how credible it can be that the FBI so quickly identified 19 Arab hijackers within only a few days. He also cites their difficult to believe allegation that some of hijackers' passports and suicide notes were found at the crash scenes. "In another miraculous stroke of good luck," Holmgren writes, "the luggage of the supposed ringleader, Mohammad Atta, was "fortuitously left behind at Logan airport" with instructions to his fellow conspirators.

Holmgren opines that it must have been embarrassing for the FBI when some of the hijackers began turning up alive and protesting their innocence. "And even more embarrassing when the passenger lists provided by the airlines did not contain a single Arabic name," and he details other related impossibilities, improbabilities and coincidences, including an admission by the FBI (later apparently effectively recanted) that "they actually had no idea who hijackers were." To this day, the FBI list of the 19 hijackers remains unchanged.

So, you see, other methods of pre-planning evidence of plane flights were arranged, and even the FBI joined their cause at that time. Just think about that for even a few seconds, that the people paid to capture criminals are now protecting the criminals who created an event tens of thousands of times more law-breaking than the common murderer who gets life in prison or worse.

But how possibly could the FBI leadership allow itself to become the protectors of these idiots? It's plain: they were from the same cloth, the same family, the same brood. They wiggled their way to positions of authority with the express purposes of breaking the laws and seizing the wealth. It's little different than a Mafia's desire to have the police chief be an uncle or nephew.

We are supposed to believe that the Arab hijackers got on plane's with non-Arab names without drawing attention to themselves. Do you think that Arab hijackers would attempt to board planes using non-Arab names, thus risking their plot even before it began? To make matters worse, the media did not focus on the fact that the lists of passengers did not include Arab names. Had the media done so, the idiot plot would have been suspect immediately. You need to understand that, when they take us Christians to court with trumped charges, there will be few powers left to take our sides, and even the biggest media houses will not respect us, as an entire lot, at that time.

And so, if you want God's help at that time, you need to reject these powers now, for if you take their side, you may find it going well in regards to persecution against you, and yet, in the end, you'll be nothing but a pillar of salt. If you love your family members, tell them the truth on what is happening. The time for a normal life is no more. The time for seeking the American dream is no more.

The south-tower plane:

Holmgren finds that the plane shown on TV is not real because it "shows impossible physical characteristics and behavior." The argument that I find most convincing and easiest to understand is his claim that one can see in a frame-by-frame analysis that the alleged plane "passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts." Holmgren concludes that the plane is "simply a cartoon, which has been animated into the footage."

What this means is that the plane entry itself doesn't appear to cause the damage that DOES occur as it enters. Therefore, the damage caused at the entry point was caused by something else. The idiots simply pasted a plane into the scene as the building was exploding from within the walls. It's very easy to do. It doesn't make them gods or in any way intelligent. It means that they are murderers who need to continue to murder to keep from going to jail.

According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building "giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face," an effect easily achieved "with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem... to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later"(article above).

Still, hours later suggests that the videos were prepared in advance. They may have been tweaked after the event, but, by and large, these videos were prepared in advance. It would have been on the easy side to prepare this part of the hoax.

Our Fantasy Come True

I trust the person that I'm quoting from here, but the following on his/her page seems wrong: "Another problem says [Morgan] Reynolds is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower is only 103 feet, opening insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet." I investigated the size of one of the holes (north tower), and counted about 42 columns, known to be about 40 inches apart (center-to-center), from tip to tip, a span of significantly more than 140 feet long. The tip-to-tip span in the south tower hole is roughly as long, wherefore I do not understand the 103-foot figure used by Mr. Reynolds. It could be an honest mistake or from disinformation, though that seems doubtful.

Another possibility is that Reynolds (or whomever he might have quoted) is speaking only to the large gap while ignoring the thinner strips (partially / slightly broken through) reaching to the tips on both sides. However, the quote from him shared below seems to deny this explanation.

The wing span is 156 feet for both planes (Boeing 767-200 models) said to crash into the towers. Here is the flat part only of a wing spar for a 767 (Boeing), and then see the entire spar (with top and bottom flanges) for a 777-300ER model (Boeing) in the image below:

If either spar image above disappears, see them from my files:

Here's from Morgan Reynolds:

By the way, NIST never gave the dimensions of the cut-outs [holes] in the towers; couldn't because they were undersized, well short of the 155' wingspan of a 767, especially the WTC2 hole. Measure the holes yourself, recalling that the 14" columns were on one meter centers. Like the Pentagon and Shanksville, every hole that day was too small to accommodate passage of the claimed Boeing aircraft.

Reynolds is perhaps not arguing very well, in this regard, because a hole with less width than the plane is fully expected (as the outer section of both wings bends back). I think that Reynolds should be happy about a hole being some 42 columns in width, for a hole exactly as wide as the wing tips is an excellent way to prove that it was made by frauds. In the north tower, not all 42/43 columns suffering contact are cut through cleanly.

The Reynolds page has a video (that I can't see due to computer limitations) claiming to show the wing of a plane disconnecting in a mild crash as compared to the trade-tower-crash scenario. Reynolds is suggesting what others have said, that wing spars could never keep integrity when crashing into the columns of the twin towers, not even a chance. I agree. Reynolds' mindset seems to be that, while he acknowledges the weaknesses in the spars, he yet expects the spars to make damage on the building's face for the entire span of the wings. Is this possible?

I say yes. I'll give you a play by play. After the nose enters the building (ignore the aluminum fuselage), the engines are the next thing in, for the engines are to the front of the wings. Once the engines are inside (let's play along with the claim), the spar nearest the center of the plane rams into a column, followed by the ramming of the neighboring column, and so on while the spar toward the wing tips is bent forward by the momentum of the engines. Yes, the spars will bend between the engines and the center of the plane as the engines force the spars forward. The only question is how great the bending will be. It could result in the entire length of the spar smacking the face of the building, or the bending will only go as far as making some of the wing smack the building, but not the wing tips.

The way the design of the hole is cut out, one on either side of the controversy must argue that the wing tips did in fact contact the building. There are two ways for this to happen, one being the wing-bending / smacking scenario above, and the other with the spars remaining rigid while making contact at the final entry point of the wings.

I say the smack method is by far the expected one. If we continue to play along, we can predict what takes place after the smack. First, the plane's kinetic energy is predicted to decrease enormously as many columns share that energy simultaneously at the smack. Immediately after the smack, in a scenario where the plane continues to enter the building, the wings must bend in the other direction when they no longer have the energy to pierce or separate the columns. The hole into the building must therefore be of less width than the wing span.

This is why it's important: 1) to ask the engineers to tell us when exactly the wings will bend forward to smack the building's face; 2) to be shown exactly how many columns are cut cleanly through or separated at their joints.

Suddenly, I'm having trouble finding a photo of the gaping hole in the south tower. In the Google page below, showing 20 photo's of the south tower, not one of them shows the hole where one may count the columns. That's "funny." Is there a conspiracy to hide the photo's with the columns count-able? I can understand why that would be, as people spread the news of how ridiculous it is to have the wing tips slice through the columns.

I've done a lot of Google searching over the past 15 years, but right now, after nearly an hour of searching, I can't find a decent picture of the south-tower hole. I'm shocked and even angry. I'm even having a problem finding the north-tower hole where the columns are count-able. Isn't it expected that the perpetrators would do their best to remove the most-damaging evidence, if possible? Doesn't that argue in the favor of the conspiracy nuts?

Down this page below is a bad-quality photo (easily found online at this time) that's not too bad for counting the columns of the south-tower hole. It's obvious that the columns were not cut with a missile. The columns may have been prepared / cut with torches beforehand, with explosive materials applied to some.

If the image above disappears, see it here:

In the blogger page above, one can count at least 37 struck columns (123 feet in the horizontal direction) in the south tower, though the smoke may be obscuring a few. The hole in the south tower is on a significant angle, almost at 45 degrees, so that the tip-to-tip distance of the hole is about 1/5th (or more) longer than 123 feet...for as much as 148 feet or more, that is.

Below is a clear look at part of the north-tower hole. You can see the slice supposedly made by the right wing tip. You know a missile didn't do that...nor a wing tip if the slice went through the columns. That's the problem, we can't see whether the wing tip supposedly sliced through the columns, but it sure looks like the workers intended for us to think so. The white outer panels were blown off with explosives, right? For if the wings did strike at the wing-tip locations, shouldn't the pounding have rattled off much more of the slabbing? Clearly, the workers of this "artwork" wanted us to see the wing lines as evidence plane's creating the holes.

Don't give up on me here in the midst of the battle. In the blogger page above, where the south tower-hole is shown, the photo comment reads, " can see where certain parts of the wings failed to make it cleanly through and only damaged the outer cladding." I would suggest, first of all, that this claim is a mere opinion. How does one possibly determine that the columns are not cut through where the dark line was supposedly formed by wing contact? I've not seen any close-up pictures showing the inside of these "cracks."

I can understand the suggestion that a wing wouldn't slice through the columns at the wing tips. The quote above is such an important statement that it may have had origin in the perpetrators themselves as they came into blogging sites.

The one making the quote gives thumbs-up to a Tony Szamboti, who compares the steel columns in the building to a steel pole two inches in diameter with walls 1/4' thick. Tony then compares the plane to a five-foot diameter log weighing three tons and moving against the steel pole at 300 mph. Tony then asks: "Does anyone think the pole will just cut right through the...log? Or do you think the pole will break in the middle due to a very high bending stress?" It's quite comical, Tony, and now I'm going to make you the brunt of ridicule.

Why doesn't Tony go out and find the dimensions of the 767 spar, as well as finding the dimensions of the steel columns? Why use a skinny steel pole and a fat log as an example, only to show himself for a dunce? He's basically creating a picture of an elephant sitting on a squirrel, no contest. Why did Tony leave out the fact that the building has more than one "steel pole"? Is Tony satisfied convincing grade-four students of his "wisdom"?

For the issue at hand, it doesn't matter how much mass the airplane carries along. It doesn't matter how fast the plane is moving. If the wings bend back where the 767 is low on fuel and without cargo or passengers, they'll bend back all the better with a loaded plane. The faster the plane, the more easily the wings will bend back or fail. The point is: higher velocity and more mass also affects the wings in a more-destructive way. You can't make the wings a five-foot tree versus a 2-inch pole based on the velocity and mass of the plane; the building could just as well be the five-foot tree while the plane could just as well be the 2-inch pole.

Let's go back to the spar photo for a 777, which is a larger / heavier plane than a 767. It's easy to see that the top and bottom flanges are at most 12 inches wide. The metal looks to be no thicker than what's expected in the steel columns at the altitudes where the plane's struck. One can disregard the tall, flat part of the spar as concerns resistance to bending, for it's negligible. It's the flanges alone that do 99-percent or better for resistance to bending. Just look at how flimsy this piece of structure is due to the great difference between the tallness verses the width of the flanges. In my opinion, the flimsiness demands that each wing use two spares connected by ribbing.

On the other hand, the columns are rectangular/square (depending on how high up in the building). Their dimension of 14 inches deep (toward the interior of the building) is online for people to verify (I don't know how wide the columns are, but John Lear said 14 inches i.e. 14 x 14 square). The fact that each column had two sides 14 inches in length while moreover protected from bending by two other sides 10 to 14 inches in length makes each column considerably stronger than a spar. The spar is flimsy because it's a flat H-shape, while the column is a "square" tube i.e. very strong in comparison. Therefore, where does Tony get off using a five-foot diameter tree verses a skinny 2-inch-diameter steel tube as a comparison scenario? Who's being disingenuous?

Yes, true, there are probably two spars back-to-back that combined ought to be at least as strong as one column, but after the spar system makes its first strike, it will be damaged while it has yet to strike a another column not yet damaged. Over and over again, the same spar system takes a pounding by columns not yet taking a pounding. It would be wrong to view the spar pounding the columns but not vice-versa just because the plane is the moving object. The columns really do pound the wings.

The Tonys of the word have tunnel vision, seeing the wings as the indestructible object. Meanwhile, the engineers tell us that the building was made to resist an airplane crash. Don't you think they might have made the columns strong enough to resist the entry of an airplane?

If this were two spars back-to-back flying merely against a single but equally-strong column, the spar would bend (in the forward direction) far more than the steel column, for the column is held on top and on bottom by other column sections, and moreover is supported behind by concrete floors and steel framing. On the other hand, both ends of the spars are free, held on to nothing. Which do you think should do most of the bending? It's obvious. The faster the flying spar, and the more mass that it's attached to, the more likely that it will loop around the column in the shape of a horseshoe than merely the shape of a chevron.

However, in the real situation, the row of columns block the path of the forward-bending spar to keep it from looping fully around one column. But this doesn't mean that the wings won't bend as far as they possibly can.

If you want disingenuous, look no further than Boeing for refusing to give the details, more than their spar picture does, on the spars. People want to know the grade of metal, its thickness, and, yes, how many spars per wing. It's not as though these things were top secrets. The fact that this and other pertinent information is withheld tends to show guilt in the official storyline.

Before the government supporters celebrate the possibility of there being two spars per wing, let's not forget that each floor is more than concrete, for under the concrete there are steel joists connected ultimately to other columns deeper in the building. The Tonys of the smart-ass world cannot argue that the resistance of the floors is virtually meaningless, for one can plainly see that the columns have been sliced through rather than pushed over due to weak floors. The only thing that keeps the columns from being pushed over, in a plane-crash scenario, is the floors. If not for the floors, the columns are standing upright in air.

Therefore, if the entire kinetic energy of the plane couldn't push the floors over upon initial contact with the first columns, how possibly could the wings get past the floors? Tony needs to tinker about that one.

Feel it out, my fellow feelers. If not for the floors, the columns would be a pushover. If the power-punch of the plane separated the columns at their joints rather than pushing the columns through the floors, them's got to be some mighty floors. In the opinion of my feelers, the concrete of the floors should have shattered upon impact, and the relatively thin / weak joists should have buckled, allowing the plane to push the columns deep into the building. That didn't happen because there were some guys with cutting torches doing "artwork" on the columns before 9-11 arrived.

Guaranteed, I am speaking the truth. The concrete floors in the north-building hole are visible, and, even at the center of the plane, these floors are undamaged immediately below the points where the columns are sliced through. The songcrate image provided above left out (conveniently?) the concrete floor, however, below the bottom of the image.

Let me put this to you in a way that you can't refuse. The first two columns struck by both wings are just 10 to 14 inches wide as they contact the concrete floors. That means that 14 inches of steel material at most was incapable of pushing the floor inward sufficient to allow noticeable bending of the columns. The spars, safe to say, are at least 24 inches wide. What does that tell you? Be honest.

Imagine a plane's nose (not the aluminum skin, just the metal beam) entering between two floors until the spar strike. While cutting through a few columns (let's play along), the right spar, positioned on a steep angle and reaching across more than one storey, comes into contact with one concrete floor. What next? If the pressure of the wings upon two 10-inch columns couldn't budge the floor enough to push a column over as much as five or ten degrees off the vertical, why should spars, offering about twice the 14 inches of resistance, rip through the concrete as though it were warmed butter? The wider the section that presses against the concrete, the less like a knife it can act. If the wings can't press the 14-inch knives through, how will the 24-inch-plus knives press through?

I think that I'm coming against Tony like a five-foot tree trunk here, and I think when he tries to catch this, he's going to be flattened. But, it's not me that's doing the flattening; it's the realities of correct physics versus his unreal attempt at correctness. The fact is, the unbroken concrete forces him to view the building as the five-foot log. He'll point out the areas where the concrete is gone, but I'll point out the areas where the concrete remains.

Don't I win if half of it remains? How can the wings push half the concrete away and not the other half? If half remains intact like the day that it was poured, doesn't that tend to prove that guys were in there with cutting torches and explosive materials? Doesn't it tend to prove that they exploded some of the floors away rather than the wings of a plane ramming through?

Look at the north-tower hole again, and see one section of a concrete floor on the far-right of the picture. The columns reaching up not far above the floor have been sliced through by the wing (lets play along), but they remain perfectly vertical because the concrete was too strong to be pushed over by the wing passing through the columns. It's clear.

Ahh, finally, a good shot of the north-tower hole, with a tip-to-tip distance of 43 columns in width:

If it disappears, see it here:

I would point Tony to look at that long concrete floor all along the line of the left-side wing. Look at how close to the floor the wing supposedly struck, yet, rather than pushing the concrete floor in, it sliced through the columns. I've seen the joints for these columns; they are not weak. I know where the joints are located. The columns that we see at the right-side wing line were NOT pulled apart at their joints (at least not all of them). The wings supposedly sliced right through them. Yet, the right-side wing was able to penetrate the concrete the wing's mid section, by the way, beyond the engine and where the wing in vulnerable to bending heavily under compounding leverage forces. [See columns.]

You really need to have the two images loaded on separate browsers rather than going back and forth from this article. The big surprise below will make it worth your time.

In the image at the "right-side wing" link above, draw an imaginary line with your mouse pointer to where the wing supposedly contacted the concrete floor. Look at the massive amount of concrete floor missing above that wing. We can't say that the engine destroyed this floor because the engine is below the wing. Here is the picture of plane model that reportedly struck into this hole:

If that Wikipedia image disappears for one with an engine higher up on the wing (which I doubt will happen), see the same image below from my files (which I have just saved this minute):

Why do you think it's important that the engines are fully under the wings? Try to find the place where the left-side engine struck the building. It's easier than making pie to find that spot, the only problem being that there is no spot where the engine struck. That is, the face of the building is as it was on the day that it was built where the left-side engine supposedly struck. I don't see how I can be missing something. Apparently, no more needs be said to prove that the plane didn't strike this building.

Actually, it's me who's the dummy, for I didn't realize until now that there is no engine hole in the north-tower hole. I have never read such a thing from others.

In all the time that I studied this crash site in the past, I was so concerned with the effects between the wings and columns that I neglected to focus on the engines. It's only now that I see the failure of the idiots to make a hole in the building for the left-side engine. This neglect is so unbelievable that I feel I must be missing something. But what is it that I'm missing? The wing line is plainly shown along the floor. The wing line is not far off the floor, which forces the crash of the engine below the floor. It's not there.

One can count 21 columns in from the left wing tip to find the center of the plane. The left-side engine is therefore supposed to make a hole to the left of the 21st column. THE ENGINE HOLE IS NOT THERE."

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist [as in Pilots for 9/11 Truth] 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."

I agree with Fetzer absolutely, and that makes Pilots for 9/11 Truth suspect as a counterfeit organization whose purpose it is to deny the truth with everything they've got. The article adds:

What it shows is that Flight 175 [feigned south tower crash] was intersecting with eight (8) floors [imagine] that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8" of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.

The wings supposedly penetrated eight floors. Only an imposter, or someone who can't keep a proper view of physics, could believe that. On top of the floors, the 35-40 columns.


On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic