Another Physicist Speaks out on 9/11
I'm an aging physicist who had his eyes opened to the likelihood of 9/11 being an inside job 4 years and 36 days late. But "Better late than never!"
Being less than youthful, I haven't been much of a blogger, and that might not change with my joining 911 Blogger.com. Still, to my surprise and delight I finally put together a real web site, which I emailed to my friends with the subject line: "Geezer Builds Own Website!" So here it is: http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com
While this site is built to look like an advertisement for consulting services, my consulting business hasn't been very lucrative. The real reason was to have a platform where folks can download my 9/11 "all passengers survived" conspiracy hypothesis (currently in the form of an essay as a Word doc with the cited slides provided in an accompanying animated PowerPoint, plus a second, self-contained PowerPoint on the Pentagon attack only). In brief summary, in my hypothesis, WTC1&2 and the Pentagon were struck by remotely controlled drones (no incompetent Arabs to mess up the timing). The actual Flights 11 and 175 landed in Griffiss AFB, NY, and McGuire AFB, NJ, respectively. There is plenty of evidence that Flt 93 landed in Cleveland, and I have now proposed that Flt 77 did too. The drone that hit WTC1 came from Griffiss, the one that hit WTC2 came from McGuire, and the one that hit the Pentagon came from Andrews AFB. I think it likely that the 757 that feigned impacting the Pentagon came out of Andrews, in tandem with the C-130 that eyewitnesses spotted flying above it from Springfield, VA, toward the Pentagon. Finally, there were fighter planes, likely F-16s, spoofing radars by operating transponders squawking the transponder codes of the real jetliners that they replaced in the air. One of these fighters is seen in multiple videos of the WTC2 attack.
- dlgriscom's blog
- Login to post comments
welcome to the arena....
Here, various ideas are given their due scrutiny, debated. Have at it.
==============================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)
---
on edit: if you haven't already done so, you might wish to check out various other sites that discuss those issues in more detail. I always suggest first, Hoffman's
www.911review.com (and linked sites) and the scholars for truth & justice site
http://stj911.org/ and the scholar's journal accessible from it. You have probably already been to those and others but what the heck. Many more listed in the side bar.
Be well.
Welcome
Welcome to 9/11 blogger sir.... aside from the trolls monitoring the site for chances to push the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, you should feel quite at home here.
so you think the alleged passengers faked their deaths?
or were they killed by the perps? I think they faked their deaths. unless of course one of the flights was actually remotely hijacked and flown into the towers, but I find that unlikely.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Yup, they're on pseudo-witness protection programs...
with no Mafia to fear and hansom Swiss bank accounts.
Agreed, VERY unlikely they were remotely hijacked. Visit my site and download my full story.
Éminence grise
Problems with this scenario
1) It's mostly speculation.
You're making up facts without substantive evidence.
2) You're making it require a lot more treasonous people (inside the military, such as pilots), which is less and less likely to succeed, to be kept quiet, to be approved by the perps.
3) You're assuming that US servicemen would obey orders and just murder US citizens.
4) You put a controversial statement, "passangers landed alive" which will instantly piss off large segments of the population.
I do not like this theory at all.
A more likely scenario would have the actual passenger planes electronically hijacked, such was the techology created by Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Department of Defense when trillions went missing.
In the electronic hijacking scenario, a gas could have taken out the passengers and crews. This has no proof and is purely speculative, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. That would need the presence of voice morphed phone calls to put out the Arab hijacker story to the victim's families.
That scenario is highly speculative as well, but it eliminates the need for lots of US pilots and airbase personnel to know what's happening.
Another possibility of course is that suicidal hijackers took control of the planes, like they wanted to, and the Air Force was made to stand down and let them.
This scenario may have an additional plane, Flight 77, that wasn't part of the Arab's plans, yet fell in line with "Act of War" Dick Cheney's plans. The Flight 77 is the most suspicious of the flights, allegedly "disappearing" from radar after going off course, which would have triggered an emergency situation on any other day.
An interesting web page noticed that the two towers were impacted at the same tilted angle going in. Could this be a way of minimizing the impact by shredding the plane across several floors so that it didn't knock out the supporting columns before schedule? The floor pans of concrete would have taken most of the blow instead of the columns. If the planes were perfectly level, the engines might have blown right through and attacked the central support columns with maximum force on one floor.
I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
I think my speculations fit more facts than your speculations.
Have you downloaded and digested my analyses?
Éminence grise
Well, when it comes to insulting and insensitive...
...you're the expert, you nasty lying little git:
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/04/nico-haupt-is-lying-bitch.html
You should really watch the company you keep, sunshine.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Where is the debris
from these drones that you say hit the Twin Towers?
Truly remarkable
Asking about the debris is down-rated, but suggesting that the passengers faked their deaths does not. I agree with johndoraemi that this is very offensive and should not be said without some basis. In questioning whether the plane videos depict physical events, I have never suggested that people that boarded planes faked their deaths, nor do I have any basis for such a suggestion.
I find this VERY odd.
Jenny, brainster may be a shill, but he is right. This theory is insulting and insensitive, and should not be offered without some basis beyond speculation. It is not even necessary to the man's main theory, making it gratuitously insulting and insensitive.
I ask again
Where is the debris from these drones? I find it hard to believe that the perpetrators would risk flying something other than a Boeing 767 into the buildings, because of the risk of leaving incongruous debris. is it your claim that this drone could penetrate the buildings? What is your position on whether or not the videos of a plane penetrating the South Tower depict an event that comports with the laws of physics?
I assume that this question is fair game at this blog, since it also claims that the passengers faked their deaths.
Which leads me to another question, Dr. Griscom. Is the passengers faking their deaths necessary to your main theory of planes being switched? Isn't it equally possible that real people board real planes (whether or not the reported flights) and were murdered in some way after the plane switch? Isn't this an unknown for which you have no evidence either way? I would ask you to consider whether it is necessary to make this claim, because it is inflammatory.
you're trying to conflate
no planes with no passengers. all arguments for video faking of the plane impacts at the twin towers are absurd--plainly wrong. OTOH, David Ray Griffin, probably the most widely respected researcher and writer on 9/11 not only writes of the possibility if not probability that the hijackings never occured as advertised but also that the passengers' deaths may have been faked.
Stop pretending that we are doing anything wrong by questioning these things--far from it, we are trying to ensure that the REAL victims' families are not denied justice by virtue of some people not wanting to offend FAKE victims' families' sensibilities.
Emotional arm-twisting is getting so old, and is a key element in the cover-up itself.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Not conflating
I'm simply pointing out that real passengers are not inconsistent with your theory, and asking you what is your basis for saying the passengers faked their deaths.
If there is a basis for the argument, then sure, present the argument. Emotional arm-twisting is saying don't question the official story at 9/11 at all, because it dishonors the victims. That is clearly wrong, for the reason you state. But an argument that says that real family members, who are suing in federal court, are deceiving or being deceived, should have some basis.
And you do not answer my reasonable question about how the perpetrators could risk flying a drone into the towers, which would be expected to leave incriminating debris and lack of consistent debris, showing the plane was not what it was supposed to be. Even if you say that the planes disappearing into the towers is physically possible, that would not have been expected because even MIT was surprised by it before they cobbled together an unrealistic model to explain it.