9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

Cobb: Why did [the twin towers] fall like a controlled demolition - no skyscraper has ever fallen down [as a result fire] previously.

Ghandi2:  I'm pretty sure that other skyscrapers have fallen down. However, even if no building has ever fallen down before, they weren't hit by a 100 ton 747 going 550 mph!

Ian: It has nothing to do with being hit by a plane.  The plane only damaged a handful of floors.  Not even The 9/11 Commission Report blames the planes themselves; they blame the fires caused by the explosions of the planes.

In this regard, The 9/11 Commission Report claims that the towers fell as a result of steel support structures being weakened by the ensuing fires.  The Report claims that the fires fed on flammable materials in the building, leading to the weakening of the interior and exterior support structures, which then led to the collapse of the buildings in a "pancake effect" - i.e., one floor collapsing on top of the next, with the combined weight causing each of the buildings to collapse.  Here are some facts that "put the lie" to that theory:

-The impact of the planes in and of themselves did "take out" some of the exterior and interior support structure.  However, the impacts themselves would not have caused the buildings to collapse.  Not one report - on either "side" - claims so.

-The initial "fireballs" of jet fuel probably caused some damage, but were not hot enough, or for long enough duration, to cause significant damage.  It is important to keep in mind that, in both impacts, the vast majority of the diesel fuel burned up within seconds.  More importantly, jet fuel burns, at its hottest, at around 1,800 degrees.  Yet the melting point of steel is 2,900 degrees - and only under consistent high temperatures.  So the heat from the fires - even had they been the hottest possible temperature (which they were not) - could not have melted the support structures.  Numerous studies have been done on this - including by independent engineers with no "ties" to either "side" - and all have concluded that there is no way that the fire was hot enough to melt steel.

-There was very little flammable material in the buildings that could have provided "fuel" for the fires, especially to create a hot enough fire to continually affect the steel.  In fact, it is very clear that the fires were not very hot at all.  For one thing, the darker the smoke, the more fuel-starved the fire is: and the smoke from the fires in the two towers began to get dark in less than 20 minutes, which means they had very little to "feed" on.  In addition, there are numerous photographs of people standing in the areas in which the fires were supposedly hottest: yet these people are standing there comfortably (though admittedly stranded), many in clothing that is not even black from smoke.

-Each tower had a "central core" comprised of 47 vertical solid-steel beams.  Note that The 9/11 Commission Report completely omits this: it is as if these "central cores" did not exist!  This is because their "pancake theory" falls apart given these "central cores."  Had the floors collapsed on top of each other in perfect pancake fashion, as the Report claims, there would have been a "stutter" effect - i.e., a slight time lag - due to the existence of this "core."  Yet it took just under ten seconds for each of the towers to collapse.  This is called "free fall" speed: i.e., the time it would take for an object dropped from the top of one of the towers to reach the ground.  But buildings - any building - cannot fall at "free fall" speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed.  The only thing that could have destroyed the interior "cores" of the towers is explosives: i.e., a "controlled demolition."  There is simply no other way to explain how and why the towers fell at "free fall" speed.  Indeed, in some of the photographs and videos of the collapses, you can spot the "squibs" (i.e., explosive charges) blowing up just prior to each floor collapsing, and see parts of the building flying outward - and even upward - which can only be the result of explosives.

-Over 90% or more of the concrete in both towers was pulverized into fine dust: there were very few large chunks of concrete.  If the government's "pancake theory" were true, there would have been quite a few large chunks of concrete flying off as the floors collapsed on top of each other.  The only thing that could have pulverized 95% of the concrete is explosives - especially given that some of this pulverizing occurred before the buildings had completely collapsed.  As well, there were no pieces of steel longer than between 12 and 24 feet.  In fact, almost all of the pieces of steel were exactly that size.  Only explosives could have created such perfectly "cut" steel pieces.  (As an aside, is it coincidence that this is the exact size that fits on a flatbed truck?)

-The twin towers collapsed almost perfectly into their own "footprints": even though the top of one of the towers was leaning precariously, both towers fell straight down, causing the most minimal damage to the buildings around them. This is exactly how a controlled demolition works.

As for fires weakening steel, what Cobb was noting was that no steel and concrete building has ever collapsed as the result of fire – even when those fires were far more intense, and burned for much, much longer than the twin towers.  The “Loose Change” video shows three of four of the most intense, long-burning skyscraper fires ever – all of which were far, far more intense than the fires at the WTC.  Yet all of those building remained standing.

Ultimately, even if the fires had weakened the steel on the floors directly affected by the fires, common sense – and science – dictates that all the floors below it were still completely intact.  Thus, there is simply no way – none whatsoever – that both buildings would have collapsed completely, even as the combined result of structure destroyed by the planes and steel weakened by the fires.  At very most, those floors directly affected, and those above them, might have collapsed inward or outward.  But the bulk of both buildings would have remained intact as a result of the 47-column inner cores and the complete lack of damage to floors below the directly affected area.

Cobb:  Why was the Pentagon hit 1 hour and how many minutes after the intial event (this in itself is a damning epitath to America's readiness to defend itself)?

Ghandi2: We're not at war; we don't have planes constantly ready to scramble, as that is very expensive and Clinton cut back the military significantly to fund other things, such as Welfare. We had planes ready, but it takes a long time to get a plane from being ready for flight to actually getting it in the air.

Ian:  Horsehockey!  You give yourself away by bringing Clinton and welfare into this.  They have not one jot or tittle to do with anything.  The U.S. always has jets ready to scramble, and always will: it is military law re readiness.  And military cutbacks rarely if ever affect readily available manpower and materiel, especially for emergencies.  And it does not take a long time to get a plane in the air: in fact, the Air Force is required to have jets ready to take off literally at a moment’s notice in case of internal or external attack.  What kind of tripe are you trying to push here?

Cobb:  Why did the President continue to look nonchalant in a classroom after an aide had told him "America is under attack"?

Ghandi2: It's called keeping up appearances. What was he supposed to do, make a mad dash for the limo? There wasn't really anything he could do immediately anyway.

Ian:  Poppycock!  The president had just been told that the U.S. was under attack, supposedly by unknown forces – planes had been used as missiles and hundreds, if not thousands, were already dead, and more might die.  There is no “keeping up appearances” under such circumstances: there is only instant action.  "Kids, I would really love to stay and continue reading with you, but there is an important presidential matter that I must address immediately.  I really appreciated you having me here.  And keep reading, because it is very important."  Simple, easy, effective.  Besides, as Michael Moore points out, if the U.S. is under attack, there is an inherent elevated risk to the president personally.  And everyone knew where he was.  Thus, by sitting there, he was endangering the lives of every person in that school.  “There wasn’t really anything he could do immediately anyway?”  I’m glad you’re not president.  Any president with a modicum of common sense – to say nothing of concern and knowledge – would have been getting information and giving orders even before he boarded Air Force One.  And then he would be in constant touch with anyone and everyone who was needed to assist him.  No, his demeanor and actions (and inaction) that morning are so suspect as to be an almost obvious give-away that he knew what was happening and why, and that he was in no danger because he knew exactly what the plan entailed.

Finally, re the Pentagon, only one question need be asked to put the issue to rest: if the other videotapes – from the hotel, the gas station, etc. – show the same thing that the Pentagon video shows, why will the FBI not release those tapes?  This single question speaks volumes more than all the videos and counter-videos, papers and counter-papers you will see.

As I noted before, you are all playing the “this video/paper is more accurate than that one” game.  But you are not thinking for yourselves.  It is not “my video is better than your video.”  It is looking at the totality of everything – including using your own common sense and discernment.  As Obi-Wan said to Luke: “Don’t trust your eyes – they can deceive you.  Trust your feelings.”

Peace.