Just Trying to Make Sense of It All

I have been interested in 9/11 Truth for about three years now, but I have doubted the "official story" story since day one. The official story doesn't make sense to me. 19 Islamic terrorists with boxcutters hijack four planes...three of them crash into the WTC and the Pentagon and Flt. 93 crashes into the ground at Shanksville, PA. Now here is my question regarding the Pentagon. This is supposed to be the most heavily-guarded airspace on the planet. I'm supposed to believe that Hani Hanjour managed to evade all the radar and other monitoring systems and was able to hit the Pentagon--"luckily" right in the section that was being renovated at the time, so it was relatively empty. Now, does this sound funny to anyone else? Plus, Hanjour was supposed to pull off maneuvers that are supposedly only able to be performed by trained military pilots. I know the guy had a commercial pilot's license but a "top gun" he wasn't!

Then, the WTC: the buildings collapsed because of uncontrolled fires even though no steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed due to this cause. Later on I read that although the WTC architechts had supposedly designed the Towers to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707, but they never took the fuel load into consideration. I dunno, but this smells worse than Limberger to me. Who would be that STUPID?

The more I learn, the less I believe the garbage put out by Washington or Popular Mechanics.


Let me be the first to welcome you to this site. May I recomend two other Videos for you to watch? Thge first is "9/11: The Birth Of Treason" & Iraq: The Death Of Reason". As someone who wanted to know how Bible believing Christians feel about what happened on that fateful day, I found these two gems. Just go to Google "video" & type in these two titles & watch. The first one is about 1 1/2 hours long, & the second was about 2 1/2 hours. I think they have edited them down, but try to watch the longer versions. It'll be worth it.

Hanjour may have had a commercial pilot's certificate in hand,

(real or fake, who knows), but I've not seen any evidence that he ever flew airliners successfully. In fact, when Hanjour merely flew a Cessna at a U.S. flight school, the instructor said he flew somewhat below average & his English skills were rather poor. I don't see Hanjour & his buddies box-cutting the pilots to death, turning the airliner back from Ohio & flying 250 miles by the seat of their pants to find & strike the Pentagon while doing acrobatics, no less. Also, a Boeing 757 with a 125' wingspan cannot fit through a 16' initial impact hole!

Not taking the "fuel load" into consideration when designing towers to absorb airliners is preposterous. Anyway, most of the fuel vaporized/fireball on contact, & outside the towers, especially the plane that struck the south tower.

Lastly, there was a smoky hole in the ground at Shanksville. No evidence of an airliner nor bodies there.

Building designer John

Building designer John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
Robertson who made the claim of not taking the fuel in to consideration was a subordinate of John Skilling and is directly contradicting Skilling.