THE VICTOR WOOD & DMX 9/11 CONSPIRACY POST
Notes from 9/11 conspiracy theorist Victor Wood and (perhaps) "Dmx" and (possibly) some of their fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorists:
1. "Why am I a Kook?" The following Victor comment was posted on the Street blog on April 21, 2007:
Conspiracy theorists attempt to answer the Who Did It? and Why? questions. Good questions, many possible answers - some quite kooky indeed, and some quite cogent and well supported logically. One could spend every moment of one's life trying to answer such questions, I suppose. Without an official and impartial investigation, however, we will likely never know. (Most people do not realize that the events of 9/11 were never officially investigated by law enforcement officials and investigatory agencies) For me, I feel that it was an inside job, based upon what I have read, what I know about the power elite running America and what common sense serves up as a result.
But there exists another aspect of 9/11 that truly disturbs me - the physical evidence itself. It is in this area that the official version falls flat on its face, leaving gaping holes and logical inconsistencies. Questions arise all over the place, hundreds of them, that demand answers that are not forthcoming in the official version. Some chief ones in my mind are:
1. How can a building built specifically to withstand both fire, earthquakes and a collision with a Boeing 737 class airplane collapse?
2. How can a building supported by something like 47(?) massive concrete and hardened steel re-enforced vertical columns and an exterior supported by a mesh steel framework weakened to the point collapse neatly upon itself? How could this have happened in 9 seconds free fall time from a gravity perspective. Had the building collapsed purely of its own weight via some sort of pancake fashion, it would have taken far longer to fall as each floor in turn collapsed upon the one below forcing it in turn to give way.
3. If the buildings fell pancake fashion, where did the massive steel and concrete supports go? They were nowhere to be seen. They should have remained standing above the stacks of pancaked flooring. And how come there remained nothing but small bits of concrete and steel afterwards, if the building fell pancake fashion? Whole floors stacked upon each other should have remained afterwards. Where did they go? The remains of these buildings and how they fell and how fast strongly indicated controlled demolition.There was nothing left except still yellow-white molten steel (even weeks after!) and crushed powder remaining of the entire buildings - again consistent with controlled demolition.
4. Isn't it the strangest of coincidences that both buildings hit by planes fell in exactly the same manner with the same aftermath - nothing but bits of rubble and molten steel.
5. What happened to Building 7? It wasn't even hit by a plane, it wasn't close to the buildings hit by the planes (having another building between it and the others) and suffered no visible damage with the exception of some internal office fires. It too fell in place at free fall speed. It too had nothing remaining but bits of crushed concrete and molten steel. All this from office fires!? The official version doesn't even mention the collapse of Building 7! How is this possible?
6. How could novices with a minimum of flight training have possibly (didn't even know how to take off or land a small engined plane, much less a huge passenger jet) have managed the intricate flight maneuvers necessary to guide a massive plane at fast speed into these towers? Anyone who has ever been in the cockpit of a 737 flight simulator will know that it is not an easy thing to guide such a large craft due to its inertia.
7. Where is the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? What happened to it? Was it vaporized by aviation fuel? Aviation fuel burns hot, but not that hot. We are talking about massive steel constructed engines here. Where were the engines afterward? Where was the frame and the wheel casings and the tires and the black box (built to withstand any air crash)? Where were the bodies of the passengers? The tail on a 767 is higher than the roof of the Pentagon. How come the roof was not damaged by the impact of the plane's tail? Initial photos taken within minutes after the hit, showed an undamaged roof still in tact over the impact hole. After the initial TV shots of the hit, you never saw this scene again in the dominant media. It was a really small hole (the hole was much smaller in diameter than the diameter of a 767), and a roof still in tact above it. Only later did the roof collapse owing to structural damage. And if the heat from the explosion was intense enough to vaporize steel, why were adjacent offices exposed just after the impact not burned to a crisp, but instead were shown to be perfectly unharmed and in some cases with objects still remaining undisturbed on tabletops? And again, how could some with such minimal flight training have successfully guided that massive plane at such low altitude directly into the Pentagon? And again, where is the plane and its passengers afterwards? And what happened to the security films showing the whole crash? We were shown but one film from a considerable distance from the crash and at a poor angle. There were in fact other cameras all along the walls of the Pentagon and almost directly in the path of the plane(?) that would have shown it clearly coming straight at them at them. What happened to the film from those cameras? And why were the security films of stores across the street from the crash scene confiscated by the FBI and never seen again?
These are just a few of the questions left entirely unanswered after 9/11. There are so many, many more. The people who are today trying to answer some of these questions include extremely well-credentialed, sincere and extremely intelligent scientists, structural engineers, aeronautics specialists, police investigators, academics, scholars and many of the families of the victims of 9/11. Not kooks. Not stupid people. Honest people. With honest and sincere questions. Concerned people who want to know how and why all this happened to their country and to these 3000 souls who lost their lives because of it. People who NEED to know why such a thing happened. People who earnestly want to know why an official and authoritative investigation was never carried out as it would have been with any other tragedy of much lesser magnitude.
Why am I a kook for wanting to know the answers to these questions? Why am I a crazy conspiracy theorist for wanting truth instead of lies? Why am I accused of wasting time and energy by searching for truth and examining evidence? What is so different about my investigations into this conspiracy and those investigations of others on this site into unanswerable questions of conspiracy of the ruling power elite? We all want truth. Why aren't we all free to search for truth?
Give me the answers to these questions and I will gladly shut up. But until then, I and many many others will not rest until the truth is brought forward, the people properly informed and those criminally responsible are brought to justice. Yes, there was a conspiracy. We just don't know who or why. A proper, non-politically driven police investigation would answer those questions.
2. "The Truth About 9/11." The following Victor comment was posted on the Street blog on April 22, 2007:
The search for truth is never a waste of time or energy, even by Leftists. The truth about 9/11 is no exception to that. You, as readers of this blog, may or may not have yet formed opinions about the events contained within the 9/11 tragedy, but in all cases, if you are intellectually honest, you will be at least open to a fair analysis of those events. There is more to this than a simple argument from Popular Mechanics which attempts to say with authority that those points chosen (16 of them) are the major objections given by the 9/11 community. This is not even close to being true. Several major issues are not even mentioned by the article. Indeed some of the points raised by PM and assigned to 9/11 researchers are flatly and openly rejected by most serious 9/11 researchers. In this regard, the PM article tries to associate (and thus, discredit) all 9/11 research with the kooky positions taken by the few - a very typical and effective weapon frequently utilized by intelligences services upon a target population. I find it hugely ironic that part of the very corporate/governmental/ruling elite structure that is attacked so often on this site is in fact being used as the primary support for arguments against 9/11 truth seekers.
That the free and unabridged search for truth suffers is apparently of little concern to these individuals.
If you the reader have any questions about 9/11 in this regard, I would strongly encourage you to first read the Popular Mechanics article, which as it stands today is the best that the establishment has been able to proffer up for critical examination. PM has kindly placed this article on-line at this address:
Popular Mechanics article online: April
Then take just a bit of time to examine some of the reasoned responses to the PM article:
If you remain interested, then take a look at some of what these folks are saying about the wider issues surrounding that murderous event in our history.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://911scholars.org
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: http://stj911.org