9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausible

[TRUTH]

September 11, 2001. The day the world changed. Or so we are told.

We are also told the events of that day had been subject of several extensive official investigations. There are documents that have been produced as the result of those investigations - namely, the 9/11 Commission Report and an assorted collection of government-commissioned studies. We will refer to the version of events parlayed in the Report as the official version. The following is a partial list of problems found in that version of the events of 9/11.

The items on this list labeled "impossible" are claims laid in the official theory that can not be reconciled with general scientific knowledge. It must be noted that the laws of nature are not absolute and there is some theoretical probability of absolutely any event occuring. Yet some events, such as a boulder leaving the ground and floating through the air on its own, are so unlikely as to be considered impossible. The reason we say they are impossible is that they violate what has come to be known as basic laws of science. In this discussion that determines what we shall refer to as "impossible".

The term "improbable" shall refer to what is theoretically possible but unlikely to occur. Some may say unlikely enough not to be considered a realistic scenario.

The term "implausible" shall refer to what is also theoretically possible but does not conform to expected patterns of human behaviour.

Filed under "Impossible"


* Near free-fall speed collapse of WTC1 (10 seconds), WTC2 (10 - 14 seconds) and WTC7 (6.5 seconds). The collapse of the latter one is most mysterious as that building was not struck by an airliner and only suffered direct strike damage that was largely superficial relative to the scale of the building. Regardless of how the collapse of those three buildings was initiated it is alleged to have been a progressive failure. That is an impossibility as it contradicts basic laws of physics including the Law of conservation of momentum. As calculated by Jim Hoffman it would take a building such as either one of the Twin Towers at least 15.5 seconds to fall as a result of "pancaking" even assuming each subsequent floor being hit by the floors above gave way with no resistance and merely were at a standstill prior to being hit. That model excludes such factors as resistance each floor should be expected to provide, the air resistance or considerations of energy needed to pulverize the contents of the buildings reported to have been turned into fine dust.

* The pools of molten steel found in the ruins of the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11. According to the official version of the 9/11the fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt the steel, merely to weaken it. That point is suspect too but it is pretty much a given that at no point were the fires caused by the aircraft impact hot enough to melt any steel.



Filed under "Improbable"


* Four airliners successfully hijacked and subject to intercept procedures are not intercepted, even though one of them, American Airlines Flight 77, flies after being hijacked for over 40 minutes. All four hijackings are facilitated in a highly unusual manner - the pilots are removed from the controls, sometimes murdered, with hijackers taking over the cockpit. All four hijackings occur in what is probably the world's most heavily defended airspace - the US Northeast. The failure to intercept occurs in direct violation of the procedures and guidelines in place.

* The individuals alleged to have taken over the job of piloting hijacked airliners were all characterized by their flight instructors as rather inefficient, if not hopelessly inept, pilots. That is especially striking in the case of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted AA 77 into the West Wing of the Pentagon executing a descending turn so difficult that even professional pilots are divided on the issue of whether or not it could be executed at all in a Boeing 757, the aircraft Hanjour allegedly piloted.

* Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of AA 77, chooses to aim for the West Wing of the Pentagon. That was an extremely odd choice of target as that part of the Pentagon was at the time udergoing renovation and as a result largely empty. That renovation included installation of blast-resistant windows and other modifications aimed at making the building more fire and blast-resistant. The approach to that part of the building was most difficult. But, knowingly or unknowignly, Hanjour still chose to perform a near-impossible meneuver directing the aircraft under his control at the section of the building opposite from where the offices of the Secretary of Defense and other top brass are. If Hanjour simply dove into the building aiming for the center he would have most likely killed a lot more people there.

* On September 11, 2001 a number of war games, some simulating aircraft hijackings were in progress. Mohammed Atta and his team seem to have chosen a very lucky day for them as, among other things, a number of false radar blips were inserted into civilian and military radar systems to simulate fake hijackings. As a result the air defense system in place had trouble distinguishing real-life hijacked aircraft from the make-believe ones which made proper response difficult if not impossible. This begs several questions. For instance, how often do multiple large-scale war games and disaster preparedness excercises take place on the same day? What is the likelyhood that a team of foreign terrorists alleged not to have any inside contacts would just so conveniently for them happen to schedule their strike for that particular day?


Filed under "Implausible"


* Al Qaeda, the group alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9/11, never openly claimed responsibility for them. That makes little sense, if only due to the fact that if they indeed were the perpetrators it would be rather naive of them to expect not to be found out as hardly ever in history has a perfect crime of such a monumental proportion been executed. So if you have indeed commited an act that is in line with your ideology, is likely to enhance your prestige amongst your followers and admirers and is, on top of that, virtually impossible to keep secret for long - then why not just announce it? Instead, according to the official version of 9/11, the culpability of Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden was aknowledged by Bin Laden on a low-quality video tape found in Afghanistan. Several Arab aquaintances of mine while not voicing any strong opinions regarding this tape this way or the other claimed that while watching it on TV they could tell that the language spoken was Arabic but the quality of the recording was so poor that they had to read subtitles to understand what was being said. Meanwhile, some experts with a specific experience of translating Bin Laden's speeches claim that the above-mentioned "confession video" is a fake as are most if not all audio recordings attributed to Bin Laden in the recent years.

* The Secret Service fails to evacuate President Bush from the school where he is making a photo-op appearance while the attacks of 9/11 are unfolding. Consequently, no one in his security detail is reprimanded or sanctioned in any way. The event at the Emma Booker Elementary School had been scheduled in advance and was known to the public. It would have been absurd to assume that the President was not a target while a surprise attack was in progress. With a supposedly unknown number of potentially hostile hijacked airliners roaming the sky who and how could have known that one of them would not try and take out the school building where the President was attending an event of no decision-making value? What way was there that one could be sure terrorists would not try to level that building potentially killing the President along with hundreds of bystanders? If you were President and your security detail were so slow thinking on their feet wouldn't you consider firing them - simply out of concern for your own survival if for no other reason? In situations such as that of September 11, 2001 it would be entirely natural for anyone to think of whether or not the threat could directly impact them - in this case, if an airliner could be targeting the location they are at. Many a coworker of mine worried that the government facility I worked at on that day might come under attack. As someone familiar with pilotage I viewed that scenario as unlikely but overall, given the information available at the time, my coworkers' concerns didn't strike me being unreasonable or a sign of panic. Now take into account the fact that security operatives are specifically trained to anticipate potential threats to the persons or objects in their care. Their apparent failure to consider the possibility that an unfriendly airliner might be making its way towards the Booker Elementary would be a certain sign of being unfit for their duty.

* Mohamed Atta, the alleged leader of the terrorist team, checked in a suitcase containing incriminating evidence at the airport in Portland, Maine. Contents included Boeing airliner flight manuals, a copy of the Koran, Atta's will and other papers that later helped federal investigators to trace back the terrorist plot. However, it is very strange that Atta would pack all these things. What he expected to need for the actual hijacking he would have been expected to take with him as carry-on. But why would he carefully collect items that could easily arouse suspicion and pack them in his luggage? According to the FBI he and Abdulaziz Alomari arrived at the airport in Portland with only a few minutes to spare. If any airline security or law enforcement officer became suspicious of them and decided to question them for any length of time that may have interfered with the timing of the whole operation. Why would an expertly trained terrorist such as Atta chance that?

* The 9/11 Commission whose creation the Administration initially opposed was finally created after a staggering 411 day delay. Its final report some came to call The 9-11 Omission Report. This is hardly a joke given the glaring inconsistencies and omissions littering that report. For instance, the mystery of WTC 7 is not mentioned there once. The Administration appears largely content with what the Commission came up with even though one would expect that the country's leadership would be interested in a true exhaustive analisys of how a surprise attack of such magnitude could ever materialize. The unprecedented events of that day also have significant implications for many industries such as insurance, architecture, firefighting, urban planning and others. Yet there does not apear to be much open discussion of such implications. That appears to run counter to what would be expected if 9/11 were truly what the official story would have us believe.

* If there is nothing to hide then why is the US government hiding so much, including records of things anyone could have observed? The question mainly pertains to the multitude of 9/11-related materials the government is reluctant or outright unwilling to release. For instance, the feds are still holding on to some of the videos of the Pentagon attack that were taken by security cameras located in public places.


Please note that the list offered in this article is by no means complete or exhaustive. Can you reconcile these anomalies with the official version of the events of 9/11? Many experts have tried and failed. It must be noted that failure to explain the "impossible" claims alone must inescapably lead one to the conclusion that the official story is a sham, likely designed to cover up the real story.

Let me reiterate it. You've got to either demonstrate - to yourself and preferably others - that the impossible and highly improbable events suggested by the official explaination of the events of 9/11 are somehow possible or to accept that the official explaination of what happened does not hold water. In case it is the latter your choice fundamentally is whether to accept this reality as inevitable or join those who demand a real investigation of 9/11. That choice is yours, and yours alone.

http://pyramid.blog-city.com/911_the_impossible_the_improbable_the_imp lausible.htm

[xmasdale]

I think this is a good summary of the case, Truth, and might form the basis of a leaflet.

Good as DVDs are, not everyone has access to means of viewing them and in any case people need material they can easily refer to. An A4 leaflet on these lines could be useful to many, in my opinion.

Noel

[blackcat]

I know it is just a summary but I think the miraculous unburned passport found near the twin towers has to be included as well as the ridiculous notion the "hijackers" would seek flight training in the USA and not Pakistan or Egypt or virtually anywhere else. God, there is much implausibility I don't know when to stop!!

[Garrett Cooke]

Implausible: that film makers (aka Naudets - anagram of Duane St) happen to be in one of the few positions in the city which allow filming of the explosuion at the North tower.

Impossible: the Naudets film the first explosion but an object seen approaching the tower is strangely just out of focus although the towers themselves are not (out of focus)

Impossible: aluminium plane slicing through the steel structure of a WTC tower like 'a knife through butter'.

Impossible: no parts being removed from the plane in the process of passing into the building.

Impossible: a plane enters the building and then exits as a missile.

Impossible: a large passenger plane dissappears inside the Pentagon through a 15 foot hole.

Impossible: the plane is vapourised within the Pentagon such that nio substantial wreckage remains.

Impossible: (given the vapourisation of the plane) ALL the passengers are identified by their DNA.

Implausible: that a true teorroist attack on the Pentagon would attack the most sparsely populated and most recently reinforced section of the Pentagon.

Impossible: if a plane simply crashed in Shanksville its debris would be spread over an 8 mile radius in the prevelent wind conditions on 11/9/01.

Of course I could go on and on and so no doubt could you.

Garrett

[Newspeak International]

Since you mention the Naudets film Garrett,something that has been troubling me for a while now,(and has been mentioned by another guy who I'm afraid I don't remember) is the timing of the attack on the Pentagon.
In the Naudet film the rookie states "the pentagon is on fire" (PP) and the time on the Fire Stations clock is 09.30.
Since the official time of the attack by flight 77 is around 09.37 ish
why the is there a difference?

Has anyone an reason for this?



N

[TRUTH]

[paul wright]

[Jane]

[blackcat]

They were not the only ones to capture the first plane on video. There is at least one other taken from below the tower and looking directly up.

[Newspeak International]

[blackcat]

The one I remember was of a tourist being videoed by a friend who must have been squatting as he was capturing the tourist smiling against the background of the rising tower which was all in frame. The plane hit and he naturally jumped out of his skin. I take it that it was the first hit as surely he would not have been so jolly if there had already been a crash. Presumably he would have been videoing that instead.

[johnnyhotshots]

[quote="Newspeak International"]Since you mention the Naudets film Garrett,something that has been troubling me for a while now,(and has been mentioned by another guy who I'm afraid I don't remember) is the timing of the attack on the Pentagon.
In the Naudet film the rookie states "the pentagon is on fire" (PP) and the time on the Fire Stations clock is 09.30.
Since the official time of the attack by flight 77 is around 09.37 ish
why the is there a difference?

Has anyone an reason for this?



N[/q

spooky!!

[Newspeak International]

Holy nonsense

On the burning bodies in the lobbyof WTC1-

28.33 "It was later proved that jet fuel exploded down the elevators"
pp

I don't know why I didn't notice this statement earlier!

as for the answer to my question,it appears that proby may have been acting the part for 09.30!


As for your comment Johnny, what is N[/q supposed to mean? I mean most people have regular jobs, and can't spend the rest of their free time probing what may be obvious to you and all?

(Bearing in mind I've just spent the best part of my evening going through the link supplied and watching the 911 dvd)