This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7
Preface: This essay does not question whether Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, or whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or another nation-state had a hand in the attacks. It focuses solely on a peripheral issue regarding the third building which fell on that terrible day.
Former commander-in-chief President Bush said:
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission was warned not to probe too deeply. For example, ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory reported (quoting RawStory):
Senior
Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission
against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.
The current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, has also warned against questioning 9/11:
As anyone in the military knows, you can't give your opinion unless you get first "permission to speak freely".
We're not in the military. However, I am not entirely sure that matters, given that speaking out against government policies may be considered a type of terrorism in America today.
Many hundreds
of high-level military officers, intelligence officers, congressmen,
legal scholars and experts have broken the commander-in-chief's orders
not to question the government's official narrative regarding 9/11. And
see this and this.
But neither Bush nor Obama has instructed us not to discuss World Trade Center Building 7. Indeed, they have never once mentioned the
fact that a third building collapsed on 9/11 (and the 9/11 Commission
never mentioned it either), even though that building was not hit by a
plane.
And no one was killed when Building 7 collapsed. As such,
discussions of why Building 7 fell does not question Al Qaeda's
responsibility for the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans which occurred
on 9/11. It doesn't even touch on U.S. military affairs since 9/11,
since no wars or anti-terror campaigns were launched to avenge anything
which happened in connection with Building 7.
For these reasons, I
will take the commander-in-chiefs' silence on this subject as
permission to speak freely. And the family members who lost loved ones
on 9/11 want this topic discussed.
Moreover,
if Building 7 collapsed for reasons other than the official
explanation, that does not necessarily show nefarious intent. For
example, Paul K. Trousdale - a structural engineer with decades of
experience - says
:
I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.
Here It Is
Have you ever seen Building 7 collapse? Here's footage from several different angles:
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense
Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about
office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official
explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on
9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of
physics":
- Two professors of structural engineering at a
prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo
Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I
agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The
most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
- John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The
collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a
controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the
original investigation.
- Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From
videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior
to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical
line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out,
and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line
in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the
building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one
can see the similarities
- Kamal
S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering
from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos
of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the
unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as
well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well
planned and controlled demolition
- Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why
would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10
seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would
all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven
seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in
any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three
collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of
the dust.
- Graham John Inman points out:
WTC
7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and
external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a
steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on
this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
- Paul W. Mason notes:
In
my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically
into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by
controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible
explanation!
- David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced
collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
- Nathan Lomba states:
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for
the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The
gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures
collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating
causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from
an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the
argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent
that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were
exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the
argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural
framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature
of the failures.Neither of the official precipitating sources
for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the
floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they
finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that,
given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural
framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the
burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel
members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the
individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have
dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the
flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same
rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have
resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining
intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and
stiffness.Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to
compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its
tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the
structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken,
the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the
burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at
which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless,
the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper
floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a
concentric, vertical collapse.For this reason alone, I rejected
the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of
hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition
of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse
modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the
causes for the structural failures.
- Edward E. Knesl writes:
We
design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist
the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall
structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is
impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of
the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We
do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate
internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the
top.The engineering science and the law of physics simply
doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening
effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the
partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that
more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.
Where would such energy would be coming from?
- Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire
and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for
the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not
suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.
The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It
is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with
the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
- Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
- James Milton Bruner,
Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the
Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and
a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It
is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid
hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very
suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
- David Anthony Dorau,
practicing structural engineer with 18 years' experience in the
inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a
policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the
U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on
technological matters
- Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
- Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
- Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
- Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
- William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:
- The
former head of the Fire Science Division of the
government agency which claims that the World Trade
Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of
Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s
leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called
for an independent review of the World Trade Center
collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a
peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST
investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has
assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally
and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
- Harry
G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of
Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two
major national architectural organizations - National Architectural
Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor
bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the
District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global /
Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies.
Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple
Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:
The
collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did.
- A prominent
physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in
Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory
for why Building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
Again,
this essay is not questioning whether or not Al Qaeda carried out the
9/11 attacks, or even the collapse of the Twin Towers.
It is simply questioning why a third building which was never hit by a plane collapsed on 9/11.
»
- advertisements -
This is the biggest load of crap video. Lets not intermingle fantasy/religion in with facts. It will never be a story on ZH.
I am also not interested in the backward chaining. Hoagland type numerology stuff. (make a picture in wingdings and the convert A-Z, then come up with an acronym from the millions of possible features in NYC) A lot of people dont realize that TI engineers are porn pushers. type 80085 into your calulator.
But that classroom lesson footage has to be altered. any vetted footage of the classroom with bush at the time he was notified? That chant is crazy stuff
The chant is NOT altered.
The words are phonetically different intentionally though [but no difference when you "say it the fast way".
For example,....'Playing" becomes "Plane".
"Steal" is used for "Steel".
Kite is what they call a hypnotic device.
And I do hope zerohedge makes the historical video a story one day.
It is what it is. :(
Aleister Crowley "The Great Beast" seems to have been an interesting character.
You have NOOOOOO idea. ;)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS430US430&q=Aleister+Crowley+BUSH
Forget this 9-11 stuff. The world is going to end in two days and Dancing With the Stars is only two days after that! Focus on the important stuff.
"Clearly something has gone terribly terribly wrong in America."
Yeah, I agree. And so do the native American Indians. Seems like it went bad a LONG time ago...
excellent article. It does not "add up".
To advance the ball a bit...
Assume a party or parties had the opportunity and skill to carry out the demolition of 1, 2, or all three buildings.
What is the motive for bringing down bldg 7? What is the core narrative that benefits from building 7 dropping?
The effect of Bldg 7 dropping doesn't add much, if anything to the terrorist attack narrrative. It seems like a lot of complication and risk for no apparent contribution to the narrative.
There were a lot of intense things going on that were handled through offices in that building, it was the New York headquarters of the SEC, the IRS, the Secret Service, DOD, CIA, Federal Home Loan Bank, and the INS. Of course Solomon was the largest tenant, and several insurance companies had major space there as well. And of course there were the gold bouillon vaults under WTC #4, that whole complex was a maze of passages, train stations, parking garages underground. The only thing I am sure of is that we will never be told the truth and if it ever does come out we will long be past caring because we will be way dead. For my own part of the story I can tell you that what I saw with my own eyes did not match what the public was told in the media then or since. I was at home that day up in Carmel and the jets went right over the house, I was out on the patio having my first cuppa. I saw what I saw and it was not what you will be told if you google their flight paths.
Okay, so spill...
What did you see that was so unusual?
The United and American Airlines jets went over the house wingtip to wingtip and moving very fast, I estimate they had to be going wellover 300, they were at about 12-1500 feet, I could see the individual windows as well as the tail markings. Our house was about one mile from the I-84 exit 17 at Ludingtonville just a few miles from Carmel which was the town we lived in.
MailingName State
Code ZIP
Code Latitude
(North) Longitude
(West) Carmel NY 10512 41.4470 73.7115
According to the Poughkeepsie Journal the jets passed over the area several miles away and several minutes apart, if you Google the flight paths that is pretty much what you will see, the paths crossed in almost a right angle to each other and with enough time lag that one could not be seen from the other.
I remember it so well, Erik had gone down early and was out doing a crossword, I got a cup of coffee and was talking to him about our plans for the day, it was really pretty out and the cottonwoods were rustling in a slight breeze, magnificent morning. Crystal clear.
Moss Hill Farm, our estate, was along the flightpath for landing jets going into Westchester Airport, sometimes at night you could see them strung out like brilliant pearls, a silent reminder that you were at the hub of the universe, 8 or 10 of them headed to White Plains, but because they were descending and queued up for approach they were quite high and always quiet, several thousand feet and always at minimum a mile and a half apart. In all the years I lived there I had never seen a jet low enough to make out windows or for that matter engine noise, and they always loafed along so slow sometimes you would wonder how they just hung there like that.
So that morning I would have remembered anyway because it was one of the finest days at one of the best points of my life, it was such a happy start to the day. I know the word awesome is over used now but that is what that morning was.
So, I looked up and saw these two jets go over the house and immediately said to Erik "look at those two jets Erik, they look like they are drag racing to the airport, there must be some mistake." You could see the individual windows and now in my imagination I think even make out faces in the windows, but that is an artifact of my sympathy and shock of what ensued, they were about as high up as the top of the World Trade Center would be had it been on the farm. But they were no more than 500 feet apart at most and the nose of one was just about mid plane to the other, no more than 600 feet from the right wing of one to the left wing of the other. I said someone is going to pay a hefty fine for that, and about 10, 15 or so minutes later Erik said he was going up to shower, I said I was making more coffee did he want some?
While it was brewing I went into the living room and put on the news, all I could get on any channel were blotchy jumping pictures from a helicopter in Manhattan and frantic news reports of a jet that had just hit the WTC. It had just happened, smoke was not even as tall as the building was. I was shocked that a plane had hit the building but like the news people did not think of anything other than an accident.
I rushed up to Erik's bathroom, it took a few few minutes because it was a very large house, and I got him out of the shower to see, we were sitting at the end of his bed and just shocked when the second plane hit, I just looked over at Erik and said this means we are at war. So our plans for the day were undone and we watched it all unfold all day. As the cloud went up the island I thought about my Aunt Una who lived at 14th and Avenue C and thought with her breathing problems I should go down to the city and bring her up to the farm till it was over. When I called her she said my father was there, on a layover from Ireland to California, so she could not leave, but I should come see him anyway since it had been years. Great, Dad was in Manhattan for a week and this was how I found out about it? That fucker. First time he had been to Ireland or New York since 1949 too. But I did go into town to see them, and the smoke, the smell, I will never forget it. The cops had lower Manhattan streets closed south of 14th, it was a dream world turned nightmare.
They chose not to come because Dad's plane west was scheduled for early the next morning and I caught the last MetroNorth train back to Carmel before they shut down all travel. Dad was stuck for almost a week in the city.
The upshot of all of this is why would they lie about the paths of the jets in the media, the Poughkeepsie Journal story disappeared about the same time they started the 911 commission. Now all you can find on the net is the approved flight path and there is no variance to be found on that score. But it is not what I saw. And if they can/do lie about something that seems on the surface so insignificant then what else are they not telling the truth about? Could that be the plan? change one detail start one conspiracy theory going and you can essentially destroy the credibility of anyone that says they saw or know something other than the approved line of propaganda. Kind of like gold and silver prices yes?
I do not want to think that our government is involved or even covering up because they had to be able to deny an ally was involved or that our security was so sloppy, but at this point there is nothing that would surprise me. As a follow up, Moss Hill Farm burned down 3 months to the day later and Erik was killed in the fire, I almost was. My life has not been the same since that day.
Thanks for sharing that interesting story . Do you remember exactly what time you saw the planes? My condolences on your loss.
I saw a video, within days after 9/11. the second plane was blue and grey,wrong colors. with no windows. not a commercial airliner
rummy said pentagon lost a few trillion couple days earlier.
evidence allegedly was inside.
who was in charge of the pentagon when this money ended up missing?
Actually, he said that $2.3T couldn't be accounted for, mainly due to different computer systems and incompaible programming that does not allow for proper tracking of money.
This is a perfect example of CIA trolling that, in effect, poisons the debate for the truth as it rolls in ludicrous conspiracy theories.
It's the same as the original CIA disinformation campaign about Eisenhower and the military-industrial complex. Ike, you see, had been visited by aliens...
http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html
http://www.rense.com/general80/comprooms.htm
planes hit both towers , in the secure mainframe computer areas. strange. now why did this happen?
also this guy, dr steven jones, who came forward and started talking about things is s disinfo agent probably working for the CIA. he is a mormon and the CIA recruits heavily in the mormon ranks. he also has worked at los alamos etc. he is hip deep in the intrigues about all of this. he will get his own special rope around his neck soon enough..........that is after he is waterboarded........and after being so helpful he will be executed.......
I have followed Dr. Steven Jones closely regarding 9/11. I see no evidence that he is a mole in the truther movement working for the dark side. His research, particularly in finding dust samples and testing them for unreacted nanothermite, has been invaluable. Besides being a Mormon, what leads you to think he is working for the dark side? He basically was fired by BYU despite being a tenured full profession and world recognized for work on particle decay.
As was the SEC's Enron evidence. Oopsy, no conviction, no future settlement for you.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
benjamin chertoff, popular mechanics and 911 truth. oh my, does the name chertoff ring a bell with you?
Let's not forget the third-grade "experiments" performed by National Geographic in a desert somewhere. Just unbelievable that anyone would swallow this nonsense.
well you can believe whatever you want. at this stage, i really don't give a hoot what you think........believe what you want. for ten years we have been arguing about this stuff and frankly at this point , as i have stated many times around here, a few will get it and many won't. i have accepted this. it does not bother me anymore. i understand this. it is the way things are. i cannot change it. therefore, i will not look for the calvary to come to my rescue. there will come a time when i must stand up and be accounted for. at that time i will. for now i wait.
You are the best. The multiples are understood.
But at the end of the day what can you really prove? I (and I'm not alone here) have looked into so many things re: 9/11. I still love reading about it.
But what do I really know? I know the Pop Mechanics WTC7 story is bullshit and anyone who promotes it is either stupid or evil. Pols like Clinton/Bush/Obama who would rather censor the internet than investigate it are evil too. Call 'em puppets if you wish but we have evil people running the government.
So why does man need government? You think it's going to get better if we continue this way? Never.
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
Seriously?
Since you managed to locate the article on your own, I'm assuming you can google the many refutations of it that exist.
Here's an easy one. Bldg 7 was not even built with a symmetric framework as it was built around the power plant (and its diesel fuel tank) that was already there. For it to fall straight down despite this fact would mean there would have to be cutter charges, otherwise it would not fall into its own footprint.
Even easier is Larry Silverstein's appearance on a PBS documentary where he states that they had to pull Bldg 7.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/23816/WTC_7___Pull_It_By_Larry_S...
Sayanim Silverstein
How does any appologist for the real perps explain away Larry Silverstein's "We had to pull it" statement?
I saw the appologist RichardP do this once by making the remarkable claim that if only we knew, many tall buildings in Manhattan are pre-wired and loaded with explosives, just in case the need ever arises to ... you know ... pull it. What foresight!!
Does Mayor Bloomberg know about this?
Come on, Bringin It. You got it half-right. I've never claimed that, if we only knew - many tall buildings in Manhattan are pre-wired. I would not say that because I don't know it to be true. I did throw out the idea of tall buildings being pre-wired for insurance purpose as an idea that seemed plausible to me. I responded to your previous mention of my handle above.
Come ON you flaming douche wrangler. Link your (credible) sources or shut the fuck up :-)
To this day, not even PHD's understand gravity. Amazing.
It is simply questioning why a third building ...collapsed on 9/11.
No it's not (so simple)
the problem is if Building 7 is exposed as an dynamited (inside) job it automatically exposes the twin towers attack as also being known as apposed a surprise by those same insiders, otherwise how could the charges have been readied let alone in the right area of a 'surprise' in a matter of minutes
Building 7 is a key (battleground) to put it mildly for the establishments 'surprise terrorist attack' storyline to hold together
+1000
Exactly ZG 100%, but that is the back door angle we need to peruse to get to the crux of the matter.
I subscribe to the guy from australia and his FFT economic newsletter at http://www.forecastfortomorrow.com that guy has called many big events before they have happend,including this 911 terror and attrocity.
I am worried about my financial future. Is anyone else nervous out there?
None of this is relevant. Whatever the people who planned this wanted to achieve, it's already been done. We know that obviously it got them into Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lybia, and soon more countries.
But what else did they pull off that day that we yet don't know about? They had to know that eventually the ruse would be figured out. In fact, I'm sure they're past laughing and are now stunned that most people still haven't figured out that they've been duped. These tracks are too big to cover, and they knew that, but they knew that they would be able to pull off their heist with more than enough time to get away with it.
So what have they gotten away with?
But that's all the obvious stuff. What did they pull off that day and during the subsequent period of time when they were given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted?
That's the question that is screaming for answer.
I am Chumbawamba.
yes it sure is. and i think that the answer to that question can be understood by only a small subset of those who understand the obvious stuff which is a small subset of the general population.
a fractal within a fractal.
so true chumba. If anything it tells us how low this place has sunk, how deeply in trouble we are, how we've spent the wad and are riding down the chute. I would just like for once for some of these bastards to take a hit.
+911
all the enron files, bond fraud evidence, insider trading , and other SEC open cases, were housed in bldg 7. how convenient
Even though it makes me sick to agree, you are right. Unless somebody knows of a better way, we are just pawns in the game.
probably in new york, whenever you build a tall building, you have to make build in the necessary means to demolish the building whenver it outlives its usefulness. all of these buildings probably were wired to for demolition before 911, during the time when they were built. all it took was about a week or so, for engineers to get them ready. then the order was given. there were mistakes made. i am sure all of them were supposed to fall about the same time or something but instead, the wtc building hit by the second plane fell first and the wtc7 fell about 5:00 pm that day. oh well. the eternal search for 911 truth continues and yet no one will ever find it..........(isn't that so surprising? ).....
If Flt. 93 wasn't somehow taken back by its pilots we wouldn't be having this discussion.
flight 93 was shot down by a national guard pilot who was not in the scam. there were two crash sites in pennsylvania, the fake crash site and the real crash site. it is my understanding that both sites are under constant guard till this day. i am not sure what happened on flight 93. perhaps it was intended on being used to attack camp david. i think that a plane was supposed to hit wtc7 too, i would think. what hit the pentagon? probably a cruise missle of some sort........it is interesting how no one will talk at the pentagon to this day, afraid of repercussions i suppose. i can't imagine having to live with that.
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
one thing is for certain. we have all seen those people walking around inside of the pentagon with hazmat suits on. there was a reason for this.
HPD, you can't get into the flight 93 crash zones?? aint that your specialty?? what plains you drifting around in?
flight 93 was shot down by a national guard pilot who was not in the scam. there were two crash sites in pennsylvania, the fake crash site and the real crash site. it is my understanding that both sites are under constant guard till this day. i am not sure what happened on flight 93. perhaps it was intended on being used to attack camp david. i think that a plane was supposed to hit wtc7 too, i would think. what hit the pentagon? probably a cruise missle of some sort........it is interesting how no one will talk at the pentagon to this day, afraid of repercussions i suppose. i can't imagine having to live with that.
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
one thing is for certain. we have all seen those people walking around inside of the pentagon with hazmat suits on. there was a reason for this.