|
Debunking The [Propaganda Mechanics] Debunkers
by Eric Hufschmid
In regards to the issue of NORAD, I think the best response is the public
hearing in which Norman Mineta mentions
that Dick Cheney and others were watching
an airplane fly towards the Pentagon.
They were not describing a mysterious
airplane with its transponder off. Rather,
they were observing it as if they knew
where it was going and had no concern
:
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS
UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made
aware of it during the time that the
airplane coming into the Pentagon. There
was a young man who had come in and
said to the vice president, "The
plane is 50 miles out. The plane is
30 miles out." And when it got
down to, "The plane is 10 miles
out," the young man also said to
the vice president, "Do the orders
still stand?" And the vice president
turned and whipped his neck around and
said, "Of course the orders still
stand. Have you heard anything to the
contrary?"
--------------------------
I have some specific responses below.
The red color is from Popular Mechanics
article.
A general remark about the Popular Mechanics
article is:
There are a lot of silly remarks about
9-11 on the Internet, some from children,
and some for amusement only, such as
the possibility that Martians destroyed
the World Trade Center towers. The article
in Popular Mechanics has selected some
of the sillier arguments. If they were
serious researchers, they would address
the issues that are brought up by Jimmy
Walter and Eric Hufschmid. Jimmy Walter
is offering this information at low
cost to help educate the population.
--------------------------
THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center
towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few
hours later--initially surprised even
some experts. But subsequent studies
have shown that the WTC's structural
integrity was destroyed by intense fire
as well as the severe damage inflicted
by the planes.
Where are these "subsequent studies"?
The FEMA report about the collapse of
the buidings admits that they could
not figure out why Building 7 collapsed.
The FEMA report is proof that there
are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore,
Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim
that the issue has been resolved.
--------------------------
"The jet
fuel was the ignition source,"
Williams tells PM. "It burned for
maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were
still standing in 10 minutes. It was
the rest of the stuff burning afterward
that was responsible for the heat transfer
that eventually brought them down."
What is this "rest of the stuff" that was burning? The floors were concrete,
and the frame was steel, so what was
burning? Carpeting, styrofoam cups,
and office paper?
The fire in the South Tower was so small
that it did not even spread from one
side of the floor to the other. This
issue is covered in detail in Chapter
4 of Painful Questions. Figure 4-1 on
page 27 even shows a woman standing
in the hole created by the airplane.
How hot could these fires have been
if people are walking around in the
crash zone? (click the photo for more perspective)
--------------------------
Like all office
buildings, the WTC towers contained
a huge volume of air. As they pancaked,
all that air--along with the concrete
and other debris pulverized by the force
of the collapse--was ejected with enormous
energy. "When you have a significant
portion of a floor collapsing, it's
going to shoot air and concrete dust
out the window," NIST lead investigator
Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds
of dust may create the impression of
a controlled demolition, Sunder adds,
"but it is the floor pancaking
that leads to that perception."
If the floors slid down like pancakes,
then there should be a large pile of
flooring on the ground, with office
furniture, people, and carpeting squashed
between the floors. Figure 5-4 is a
diagram to show this dilemma. There
is nothing in the rubble that suggests
any floor fell down in one piece. The
reports from the firemen and the photos,
such as Figure 5-19, prove that every
floor disintegrated into tiny pieces,
and the pieces were scattered hundreds
of feet.
Besides, the diagram in Figure 5-22
shows even if a floor fell down like
a pancake, it would create a corresponding
vacuum above it. Therefore, the air
that was pushed out the windows would
be sucked up through the windows above.
The air would be displaced, it would
not be thrown hundreds of feet out the
windows at extreme velocity. The explusion
of dust and the lack of a corresponding
suction implies that gas was being created,
such as from explosions. The floors
were not simply falling down.
Another serious problem with the Pancake
Theory is that photos, such as Figure
5-10, show that the top of the South
Tower broke off and tipped over, and
fell onto Building 4. None of the government
reports mention that the top of the
South Tower broke off, nor do they explain
why the entire base of the South Tower
would disintegrate after the top fell
off.
Are the editors of Popular Mechanics
getting their information from the government?
If so, it is no wonder that they are
naïve about the 9-11 attack. They
should get the packet of books and DVDs
that Jimmy Walter offers before they
write any more articles.
Since nobody has explained the mysteries
of the South Tower, only a fool would
say that this issue has been resolved.
--------------------------
FACT: Many conspiracy
theorists point to FEMA's preliminary
report, which said there was relatively
light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse.
With the benefit of more time and resources,
NIST researchers now support the working
hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised
by falling debris than the FEMA report
indicated. "The most important
thing we found was that there was, in
fact, physical damage to the south face
of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells
PM. "On about a third of the face
to the center and to the bottom--approximately
10 stories--about 25 percent of the
depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented
damage to WTC 7's upper stories and
its southwest corner.
Where are the photos that prove 25%
of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos
published in reports, and those available
on me Internet do not show anything
other than trivial damage, such as some
broken windows.
Tom Franklin, a professional photographer
for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled
quickly to the World Trade Center to
get photographs. According to his own
report, he was standing in front of
Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took
lots of photos, but where are his photos
of Building 7? Why would he ignore a
skyscraper with 25% of its first 10
floors scooped out?
--------------------------
NIST investigators
believe a combination of intense fire
and severe structural damage contributed
to the collapse, though assigning the
exact proportion requires more research.
Where is evidence that there was an
intense fire in Building 7? The photos
taken in the afternoon do not show intense
fires. Just because a few investigators
believe something, that does not make
it true. They need evidence to support
their beliefs.
--------------------------
Second, a fifth-floor
fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There
was no firefighting in WTC 7,"
Sunder says. Investigators believe the
fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel
that many tenants used to run emergency
generators. Most tanks throughout the
building were fairly small, but a generator
on the fifth floor was connected to
a large tank in the basement via a pressurized
line. Says Sunder: "Our current
working hypothesis is that this pressurized
line was supplying fuel [to the fire]
for a long period of time."
How can a fire burn for seven hours
without spreading to other offices or
other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel
was dripping from a supply pipe. Since
the fire was small, and since the building
had a steel frame with concrete floors,
the fire could not travel to other offices.
So how could such an insignificant fire
bring down an entire skyscraper?
--------------------------
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.
Where is a photograph that shows a
hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available
in reports and the Internet show only
small holes. What are we to believe,
one person's wild speculation, or the
photographs?
--------------------------
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.
Nobody expects an airplane to create
a cartoon-like outline of itself when
it hits a building. However, if one
wing hit the ground, where are the photographs
of that wing? The photographs do not
show anything resembling a wing.
--------------------------
What was left
of the plane flowed into the structure
in a state closer to a liquid than a
solid mass.
Did the passengers and their luggage
also turn into a liquid state and flow
into the building? After they got into
the building, did they solidify back
into a solid state? What sort of physics
is this? How were they able to identify
human parts when metal melts at temperatures
far beyond that necessary to reduce
flesh to nothing buy carbon ash?
When airplanes crash in other locations,
every piece of the plane can be found,
even if it is in small pieces. Pieces
of the passengers and their luggage
can also be found. How is it that when
a plane hits the Pentagon, everything
suddenly changes and the plane is liquefied?
|
