ACT II: ADDENDUM 1
From the "Underreported News" file: On November 22, 2004, a Gulfstream III jet crashed on approach to Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, where it had reportedly been scheduled to pick up George H.W. Bush and shuttle him off to Latin America (likely on some drug-related business, but that's not really the point here). The jet crashed, curiously enough, after clipping a light pole! Here is how the esteemed Los Angeles Times described the incident:
The Gulfstream III jet, descending in heavy fog, clipped a light pole and slammed into a field south of downtown ... Authorities said the Gulfstream III was 1½ miles from the runway when it hit a light pole on Beltway 8, a toll road that encircles the outskirts of the city. Part of the jet's wing was sheared off by the impact; the pole was bent in half.
(Lianne Hart "Jet Bound for Bush's Father Crashes," Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2004)
That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? I mean, except for the part about a portion of the jet's wing being sheared off ... and the part about the light pole being bent in half (even though a Gulfstream III is a considerably smaller and lighter aircraft than a Boeing 757) ... and the part about the plane crashing right after the impact with the light pole (even though the Gulfstream was presumably piloted by a professional crew, rather than a reject from a Florida puddle-jumper school, and even though the plane only hit one light pole, rather then five light poles, a chain-link fence and a large generator).
None of that, of course, should cast any doubt on the official story of what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Right?
* * * * * * * * * *
In the previous post, I posed the following query: "How much thrust do you suppose is required to get a fully-loaded, 100+ ton aircraft off the ground and then propel it through the air at 500+ miles per hour?"
It was largely a rhetorical question, but, as it turns out, reader David had a ready answer: "Each engine produces roughly 50,000 pounds of thrust, with exhaust gases ejected at mach 0.95 = 720 mph." I can't vouch for the accuracy of those numbers, and even if I could, numbers are so coldly abstract. Luckily though, thanks to alert reader Brad, we don't have to rely on just raw numbers. Instead, we have an actual video clip that illustrates, quite dramatically, how much thrust is produced by jet engines. I'll wait while you cue it up ...
... So, how did you like the show? It appears that the correct answer to the question of how much thrust is required to get a passenger aircraft off the ground, presented in the most technical terminology, is: "a shitload."
Now that we know the correct answer to that question, it is probably safe to conclude that there might be a bit of a credibility issue with any alleged eyewitnesses who recall an enormous airplane passing so low overhead that it clipped light poles and car antennae and caused survivors to duck to avoid being hit. And unfortunately for the defenders of the official story, whose continuing line of attack is that "the no-planers ignore all the witness testimony," most of their star witnesses fall into that credibility gap.
The problem here is that the official story - in order to account for both the height of the alleged entry wound in the Pentagon, and the path of the alleged damage within the building - requires that the plane came in at an extremely low altitude. Therefore, those witness accounts that generally support the official story necessarily include sightings of a large airplane flying low enough to convert Marge Simpson's beehive into a flat-top. And the bottom line, my friends, is that those witness tales cannot possibly be true.
* * * * * * * * * *
A funny thing happened during my long-delayed mission to get this information posted: before its official debut, the simulation video has already been commented on by researchers on both sides of the Pentagon debate. A couple months ago, you see, in response to an e-mail that found its way into my in-box, I sent out a link to the video clip to the handful of researchers who were CC'ed the original message. Jerry Russell, of www.911-strike.com, seized on the clip to lend weight to arguments that he had previously presented. And then, quicker than you can say "damage control," Jean-Pierre Desmoulins responded.
The following is an excerpt from Russell's recent post (Eyewitnesses and the Plane-Bomb Theory):
As we argued in "The Five-Sided Fantasy
Island", the very
survival of star eyewitness Frank Probst is difficult enough to
reconcile with the "Official Story", since he was supposedly
undisturbed by wake turbulence as he stood near the heliport while the
plane passed over his head. Further evidence of the validity of
our argument was recently provided by David MacGowan [Editor's note:
it's McGowan, Jerry; think
Irish, not Scottish], who posted this
video http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/simulation.mpeg,
which is a "staged demonstration" showing an automobile being blown
about like a tumbleweed by the blast of an aircraft engine
exhaust. As NASA explains at: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/directline_issues/dl6_blast.htm
Yet we are expected to believe that the 757 flew over a highway overpass at about 10 feet altitude, clipping antennas with its engines, passing near billboard-style highway signs, and passing within 6 feet of Frank Probst, all without catching anything in the blast of its turbine exhausts. We found ourselves wondering if perhaps the forward speed of the plane might paradoxically have mitigated the effects of the engine's blast, by carrying the air mass forwards around itself (relatively speaking). We can investigate this further by using the engine modeling tool at:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html
Before a crew can say "powerback," jet
engine blast
can up-root trees, flatten building structures, shatter windows, lift
and propel heavy objects, weathercock braked airplanes, blow over lift
trucks, shift unbraked baggage carts, and create other havoc on airport
ramps, taxiways, and runways.
Although the diagrams don't say so, jet blast can also injure or kill crew and passengers who happen to cross its path.
Although the diagrams don't say so, jet blast can also injure or kill crew and passengers who happen to cross its path.
Yet we are expected to believe that the 757 flew over a highway overpass at about 10 feet altitude, clipping antennas with its engines, passing near billboard-style highway signs, and passing within 6 feet of Frank Probst, all without catching anything in the blast of its turbine exhausts. We found ourselves wondering if perhaps the forward speed of the plane might paradoxically have mitigated the effects of the engine's blast, by carrying the air mass forwards around itself (relatively speaking). We can investigate this further by using the engine modeling tool at:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html
Russell then proceeded to debunk the notion that jet blast is negated by the airplane's forward motion. He also conducted a revealing investigation into the nature of the purported eyewitness accounts of the 'crash' into the Pentagon:
Possibly the most important subset of
witnesses consists of those
who provide
explicit,
realistic and detailed claims that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon
after executing a high velocity, low altitude approach. We
believe that,
contrary to Hoffman's opinion, these accounts can readily be
interpreted in
favor of our argument that no such collision took place. This is based
on the fact that there is almost total disagreement among
the
eyewitnesses, about the detailed physical description of the actual
collision,
as well as severe disagreements with the "official story" of the 757
impact as determined by the ASCE report. Out of 27 witness
accounts which
we classified as "explicit", we were able to identify substantial
errors or contradictions in 24 accounts, or 88% ... we [also] found a
very high prevalence of elite insider
connections among
the witnesses who claimed to see the 757 hit the Pentagon, compared to
other
witnesses whose perceptions were more indeterminate. Out of the
27
explicit witnesses, 14 had what we would consider "deep" insider
connections, while 24 of 27 worked for either the Federal Government or
the
mainstream media.
(more >>>)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I always figure that if I haven't offended at least a few government hacks and media whores, then I haven't really put in a good day's work.
Lest I forget, and for what it's worth, Jean-Pierre Desmoulins' semi-coherent attempt to marginalize the significance of the simulation video can be found here: Pentagon 2001 : The jet blast effect
* * * * * * * * * *
Astute readers may have noticed the
reference to a "Hoffman" in the excerpt from Jerry Russell's missive.
The Hoffman in question, of course, is Jim Hoffman, who was at one time
one of the more prominent skeptics of the official Pentagon story --
he was, that is, until he Kerried in a big way, penning a post that
he subtly titled: "The
Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics."
Hoffman's post is, for the most part, the same sort of disinformational gibberish offered up by Pentagon spinmeisters Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and Eric Bart, who have busily polluted the Pentagon waters with absurdities about self-destructing "plane bombs" and unlikely (to say the least) chemical reactions.
The "plane bomb" theory, by the way, is an elaborately constructed scenario that appears to be designed to reconcile the alleged eyewitness statements with the lack of significant damage to the Pentagon facade and the lack of aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn. What the "plane bombers" say, essentially, is that the plane was packed with high-tech, synchronized explosive devices that were detonated a split-second before the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. This series of perfectly timed explosions purportedly reduced the plane to confetti.
Imagine, if you will, an enormous, invisible force-field surrounding the Pentagon, such that the plane actually hit the invisible wall, rather than the Pentagon itself, and was thereby almost completely destroyed before even hitting the building. That, in a nutshell, is basically what the "plane bomb" theorists are selling. In other words, the eyewitnesses really did spot a large passenger plane screaming towards the Pentagon, and that plane really did blow up right outside the Pentagon facade, but it did so, you see, before actually hitting the building, thus explaining the lack of an airplane-sized hole in the Pentagon. And the explosions, of course, were so perfectly placed and synchronized that they completely obliterated the plane, explaining, conveniently enough, the curious absence of aircraft debris.
This theory provides a fascinating illustration of the extreme lengths that some 'theorists' are willing to go to explain away the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. As convoluted as this theory is, however, it still leaves a considerable amount of evidence unexplained, including the 300-foot path of destruction carved through the building complex. How, after all, could an aircraft reduced to confetti before the actual impact still generate so much destruction within the building?
I suppose it could be argued that the Pentagon was damaged with a separate series of synchronized explosions, but one has to wonder what the point would be of blowing up both the plane and the building in separate explosive events when the same effect could have been achieved by simply slamming the plane into the building, especially since, according to the "plane bomb" theory, that was a split-second away from happening anyway. Why then bother to stage such an elaborate spectacle when there was nothing to gain by doing so?
Anyway, the point that I set out to make, before getting sidetracked, is that there was one particular passage in the Hoffman piece that immediately caught my attention. That passage reads as follows:
That's a nice analogy, isn't it? I mean, sure, it's clumsily worded and all, and misapplied to boot, but the basic idea is a good one. And I'm sure that Hoffman came up with it all by himself, rather than, say, stealing it from a post that went up two months before his own. Granted, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to the following excerpt, but I'm sure that that is just a coincidence:
I'd just like to make one simple request here: in the future, if Mr. Hoffman (or anyone else) finds himself feeling the urge to steal my work, just steal it outright. Don't bastardize it in an inept effort to disguise the theft. It's not copyrighted material, after all, so as long as ethics and integrity aren't a concern, and they certainly don't appear to be, then just copy and paste as you see fit.
Hoffman's post is, for the most part, the same sort of disinformational gibberish offered up by Pentagon spinmeisters Jean-Pierre Desmoulins and Eric Bart, who have busily polluted the Pentagon waters with absurdities about self-destructing "plane bombs" and unlikely (to say the least) chemical reactions.
The "plane bomb" theory, by the way, is an elaborately constructed scenario that appears to be designed to reconcile the alleged eyewitness statements with the lack of significant damage to the Pentagon facade and the lack of aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn. What the "plane bombers" say, essentially, is that the plane was packed with high-tech, synchronized explosive devices that were detonated a split-second before the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. This series of perfectly timed explosions purportedly reduced the plane to confetti.
Imagine, if you will, an enormous, invisible force-field surrounding the Pentagon, such that the plane actually hit the invisible wall, rather than the Pentagon itself, and was thereby almost completely destroyed before even hitting the building. That, in a nutshell, is basically what the "plane bomb" theorists are selling. In other words, the eyewitnesses really did spot a large passenger plane screaming towards the Pentagon, and that plane really did blow up right outside the Pentagon facade, but it did so, you see, before actually hitting the building, thus explaining the lack of an airplane-sized hole in the Pentagon. And the explosions, of course, were so perfectly placed and synchronized that they completely obliterated the plane, explaining, conveniently enough, the curious absence of aircraft debris.
This theory provides a fascinating illustration of the extreme lengths that some 'theorists' are willing to go to explain away the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. As convoluted as this theory is, however, it still leaves a considerable amount of evidence unexplained, including the 300-foot path of destruction carved through the building complex. How, after all, could an aircraft reduced to confetti before the actual impact still generate so much destruction within the building?
I suppose it could be argued that the Pentagon was damaged with a separate series of synchronized explosions, but one has to wonder what the point would be of blowing up both the plane and the building in separate explosive events when the same effect could have been achieved by simply slamming the plane into the building, especially since, according to the "plane bomb" theory, that was a split-second away from happening anyway. Why then bother to stage such an elaborate spectacle when there was nothing to gain by doing so?
Anyway, the point that I set out to make, before getting sidetracked, is that there was one particular passage in the Hoffman piece that immediately caught my attention. That passage reads as follows:
Using the JFK assassination as an
analogy, the no-757-crash theory is like saying that Kennedy was not
shot at all, whereas the towers' demolition is like saying that there
were additional gunmen beyond Lee Harvey Oswald.
That's a nice analogy, isn't it? I mean, sure, it's clumsily worded and all, and misapplied to boot, but the basic idea is a good one. And I'm sure that Hoffman came up with it all by himself, rather than, say, stealing it from a post that went up two months before his own. Granted, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to the following excerpt, but I'm sure that that is just a coincidence:
The effect is the same as if, in the
years following the Kennedy assassination, while skeptics were
presenting the case for Kennedy having been shot from the front rather
than from behind, a group of researchers suddenly began arguing that he
wasn't actually shot at all!
I'd just like to make one simple request here: in the future, if Mr. Hoffman (or anyone else) finds himself feeling the urge to steal my work, just steal it outright. Don't bastardize it in an inept effort to disguise the theft. It's not copyrighted material, after all, so as long as ethics and integrity aren't a concern, and they certainly don't appear to be, then just copy and paste as you see fit.
* * * * * * * * * *
Does anyone see anything wrong with these photos? Because, all things considered, I really don't see how anyone could objectively review the evidence and reach any conclusion other than that this infamous taxi scene was staged. Recall that what we are supposed to believe is that the light pole in the picture was uprooted by the impact of a 100+ ton aircraft traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. Such an impact would likely have sent the steel pole cartwheeling off at an extremely high rate of speed. That rapidly moving pole was then purportedly struck a second time, by a moving taxi.
And yet, remarkably enough, the twice-impacted pole appears to be largely undamaged, the airplane that allegedly hit the pole was presumably undamaged, the surface of the highway appears to be undamaged, and the taxi escaped with no visible damage other than a broken windshield. Nothing unusual about any of that, I suppose.
* * * * * * * * * *
More
from reader David: "Responding to your Newsletter #68A... I
found your analysis of the Light Poles knocked down in the alleged
flight-path is acceptable except for one minor distinction ... the
plane (or whatever it was) probably didn't physically
hit the poles. Each engine produces roughly 50,000
pounds of thrust, with
exhaust gases ejected at mach 0.95 = 720 mph. I know the
numbers, but they're not the real problem. Light aircraft pilots all
know the real hazard of low-flying jumbo jets
is wingtip vortex. These vortex have such extreme power that a
light aircraft, such as a Cessna, would be violently flipped over and
slammed
to the ground if it met up with one of these vortexes. This can happen
during landing, takeoff or simply taxiing on the ground. Many such
accidents occur every year, and are often fatal. We're
talking about forces strong enough to throw a Ford Explorer across a
tennis
court. I did a Google search for a website that provides some factual
data as
well as some graphic indicators. Obviously there are many sites,
but I stopped after finding one that seemed adequate.
Although I think wingtip vortex is a much more likely explanation than
wings clipping poles, I do not know what really happened that day. Like
you, I am convinced that no 757 hit the Pentagon, so I don't think
it much matters 'what' knocked down the poles... we already know the
'who' wasn't 19 hijackers based out of Afghanistan."The link that David sent was to a post entitled "Wake-Vortex Hazard," which begins as follows:
When an aircraft wing generates lift,
it also
produces
horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential
wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful,
high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating
aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to
aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation
aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region
of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of
the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps,
landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of
self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is
an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices
have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther
downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the
decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices
occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative
flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme
excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load
factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the
encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing
approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.
(http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wake_vortex.html)
(http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/wake_vortex.html)
Fair enough. But if we accept that wake-vortex could conceivably uproot a series of steel light poles, then we are left with the problem of explaining why it is that the cars of witnesses, and the witnesses themselves, weren't literally blown off the road. We are also, of course, left with the problem of explaining how relatively lightweight wooden spools were left entirely undisturbed as the alleged plane's engines passed over them with, quite literally, mere inches to spare.
* * * * * * * * * *
Digging deeper into the mailbag, we find this question from reader Brian:
You wrote: "You would think that if a
100+ ton metal object traveling at
hundreds of miles per hour impacted a steel light pole, it might, at
the very least, maybe dent the pole, or perhaps bend it a little bit.
In
other words, you would think that there would be some kind of impact
scar visible on the toppled pole..."
The pictures you illustrated this statement with appear to me to document dented and bent poles, especially the picture on the left. Since I don't believe a plane hit those poles any more than you do, I wonder what, and who, did uproot, dent, and bend those poles, and when did they do it.
The pictures you illustrated this statement with appear to me to document dented and bent poles, especially the picture on the left. Since I don't believe a plane hit those poles any more than you do, I wonder what, and who, did uproot, dent, and bend those poles, and when did they do it.
I assumed that the slight curvature of the downed pole was by design. Perhaps that is not the case, but the curvature visible in the photos surely was not caused by the traumatic impact of a 757 traveling at a high rate of speed. The slight bend in the pole appears to be perfectly smooth and uniform, with no sign of crimping or denting. That is certainly not the way that metallic tubing bends due to sudden impact. You can verify this at home by attempting to put a smooth bend in a length of metallic conduit by whacking it with a hammer, rather than using a pipe-bender.
As to who and what did uproot those poles, and when it was done -- I haven't got an answer for that.
* * * * * * * * * *
Another problem that I have with the breakaway scenario is that I fail to see how this would be considered an effective safety feature. A pole designed to break free on impact would become, following that impact, a fast-moving, unpredictable, and highly lethal object. A large and heavy steel pole propelled into the path of oncoming traffic, for example, would probably not be considered very safe by other drivers or passengers. Pedestrians in the vicinity of the crash may not find such breakaway poles to be very safe either.
Yet another problem with the breakaway pole concept is that light poles, predictably enough, have high-voltage electrical wires running through them. So the question that naturally arises is: what exactly is supposed to happen to those live electrical lines when the pole snaps off its base? They would, I presume, stretch and break, thereby exposing anyone in the area of the crash to the very real possibility of electrocution.
For these reasons (and others that I could probably come up with if I had the time), I am not at all convinced that these alleged breakaway poles are, in fact, widely used. Until I see some definitive documentation, I will remain skeptical of these claims.
Remember
this graphic? ... the one that purports to document the damage to the
interior of
the Pentagon? An alert reader pointed out something that I failed to
grasp the significance of the
first time around: near the center of the path of destruction is a
large section of floor slab - measuring perhaps 20' by 40' - that was
"deflected upward." This naturally raises the question of what could
have caused
an upward deflection in that section, and only that section, of the
floor slab? Since the aircraft debris that allegedly caused the
internal
building damage would have been moving in a horizontal direction, the
official story doesn't provide much of an explanation for an extreme
upward force in one
particular portion of the building.
The most reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that someone got a little carried away with the explosive charge that was placed in that particular portion of the building. As further evidence of an explosive event at that particular location, note how the columns ringing the deflected portion of the slab suffered significantly more damage, for the most part, than did other columns in the surrounding area. Notice also that a bit further along the alleged path of travel lies an area where an opening was blown through the second-story roof. Interestingly, the columns near that opening were also more significantly damaged than the surrounding columns, indicating the probable location of another explosive charge. And the "Hole in wall," needless to say, was almost certainly caused by yet another explosive charge.
* * * * * * * * * *
This next missive, sent in very
recently by reader Mark, is typical of a several e-mails that I have
received. I have also seen this claim made on a couple of 9-11 websites:
Most of the metal street light
standards in this country are especially
designed and built to break away cleanly at their bases after only
modest impacts. This is so that they don't kill people who hit them
with their cars. I don't know whether the poles would break away
before altering the course of a plane/missile/whatever, but it seems
possible
that they might. They're pretty much ready to lay down and die
right from the factory as I understand it. (I'm no expert, but have
been around this stuff a little on the construction side.)
Sooner or later you'll see the aftermath of a car-versus-street-light collision on the road, and you'll probably see a relatively straight-looking street lamp pole laying down with a clean break at its base, like the ones in the Pentagon pictures.
I don't think this detracts from your point, I'm mostly writing in case you did not know that such poles are specifically made to snap off clean if you hit them very hard. And of course, I have no idea whether the Pentagon poles were breakaway.
Personally, I am a little skeptical of this claim, primarily because it
makes little sense to me. First of all, there are any number of objects
that, if struck, will tend to bring an automobile to an abrupt stop (e.g. - telephone poles, trees,
concrete or steel guard rails, buildings, parked vehicles, etc.), and
many of these objects are plowed into far more frequently than light
poles. Why then would this supposed safety feature be built into light
poles? What makes them any different than any other roadside
obstructions?Sooner or later you'll see the aftermath of a car-versus-street-light collision on the road, and you'll probably see a relatively straight-looking street lamp pole laying down with a clean break at its base, like the ones in the Pentagon pictures.
I don't think this detracts from your point, I'm mostly writing in case you did not know that such poles are specifically made to snap off clean if you hit them very hard. And of course, I have no idea whether the Pentagon poles were breakaway.
Another problem that I have with the breakaway scenario is that I fail to see how this would be considered an effective safety feature. A pole designed to break free on impact would become, following that impact, a fast-moving, unpredictable, and highly lethal object. A large and heavy steel pole propelled into the path of oncoming traffic, for example, would probably not be considered very safe by other drivers or passengers. Pedestrians in the vicinity of the crash may not find such breakaway poles to be very safe either.
Yet another problem with the breakaway pole concept is that light poles, predictably enough, have high-voltage electrical wires running through them. So the question that naturally arises is: what exactly is supposed to happen to those live electrical lines when the pole snaps off its base? They would, I presume, stretch and break, thereby exposing anyone in the area of the crash to the very real possibility of electrocution.
For these reasons (and others that I could probably come up with if I had the time), I am not at all convinced that these alleged breakaway poles are, in fact, widely used. Until I see some definitive documentation, I will remain skeptical of these claims.
* * * * * * * * * *
Remember
this graphic? ... the one that purports to document the damage to the
interior of
the Pentagon? An alert reader pointed out something that I failed to
grasp the significance of the
first time around: near the center of the path of destruction is a
large section of floor slab - measuring perhaps 20' by 40' - that was
"deflected upward." This naturally raises the question of what could
have caused
an upward deflection in that section, and only that section, of the
floor slab? Since the aircraft debris that allegedly caused the
internal
building damage would have been moving in a horizontal direction, the
official story doesn't provide much of an explanation for an extreme
upward force in one
particular portion of the building.The most reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that someone got a little carried away with the explosive charge that was placed in that particular portion of the building. As further evidence of an explosive event at that particular location, note how the columns ringing the deflected portion of the slab suffered significantly more damage, for the most part, than did other columns in the surrounding area. Notice also that a bit further along the alleged path of travel lies an area where an opening was blown through the second-story roof. Interestingly, the columns near that opening were also more significantly damaged than the surrounding columns, indicating the probable location of another explosive charge. And the "Hole in wall," needless to say, was almost certainly caused by yet another explosive charge.
* * * * * * * * * *
While
we are on the subject of the alleged exit hole, a few readers thought
that I was too quick to dismiss the possibility of additional exit
holes in the back wall of C-ring. Some researchers, as it turns out,
have been promoting the notion that there were actually three exit
holes. These theorists have used
photos such as those to the left and right to purportedly prove their
point.If it could be conclusively established that there were actually three exit holes in the back of C-ring, then that would obviously be a very significant piece of evidence, since it would not only cast further doubt on the official story, but also thoroughly discredit the preceding damage report, which not only doesn't identify the additional exit holes, but also fails to explain them, since there is no path of damage leading from the alleged entry wound to at least one of the alleged exit holes (hole #1).
As provocative as this evidence may at first appear to be, however, photographs reveal that there weren't two additional holes blown in the back wall of C-ring. In fact, an enlarged version of the very same photo used above reveals that 'hole #1' is nothing more than an existing door opening. Specifically, it appears to be a mirror image of the double-door arrangement that can be seen on the exterior wall of B ring, just to the right of the firefighter in the photo. At least one of the two doors is still hanging, and a portion of the louvered grill that had been above the doors can be clearly seen lying in the foreground.
'Hole #2,' viewed head-on in the photo below, appears to be a roll-up door, alongside of which is a service door, which is a pretty standard set-up in commercial and industrial buildings. Unlike 'hole'/door #1, these doors appear to have been added sometime after the initial construction of the building, as is evident from the fact that a header was obviously installed above the opening that was cut into the wall for the service door. To create the opening for the roll-up door, it appears that an entire section of the wall was removed up to the existing concrete beam. In any event, it is clear that these were existing openings into the building, not 'exit holes' created by the events of September 11.
* * * * * * * * * *
And yet more from the mailbag, this time from reader Sandra:
FYI - no biggie, but I thought you
might want to know it's Olsen (with
an "e") for Theodore or Barbara.
You mean to say that, after two attempts, I still got it wrong? I hate it when that happens -- particularly in this case, because I certainly do not want to show any disrespect to a fine, upstanding family like the Olsens. I'll try to do better in the future.