The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter



By C. Porter

It stands to reason (and experience) that if a commercial aircraft hit a reinforced concrete structure the plane would be smashed to pieces and would fall straight downwards.

There have been several air crashes into reinforced concrete structures, in particular, the 14th Steet Bridge crash outside Washington DC, in which the plane hit a highway bridge and fell in the Potomac. I saw a film of this crash quite recently, with a helicopter picking 3 or 4 survivors out of the river.

In all cases, the reinforced concrete structure remained more or less intact while the planes were smashed to bits.

14th Street Bridge-Air Florida Flight 90 aircrash, January 13, 1982

Pic showing total damage to bridge
Stolen from af/Document_21
On the flimsiness of commercial aircraft generally, see
Quotes: "An airplane usually breaks up in a crash because the fuselage, which is regarded as little more than a cylinder to hold the passengers, is built in sections and is relatively flimsy. In terms of being airworthy, the fuselage is almost all drag and has to be strong enough only to contain the cabin pressure. In terms of being crash-worthy, this is a disaster."
"...In Boston 10 days later [January 23rd, 1982], a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 skidded off the end of an icy runway at Logan Airport and plunged into Boston Harbor. The front of the fuselage snapped off like the top of an eggshell..."

OK. We are told, “The reason that commercial airplane made such a tiny hole at the Pentagon, was because the plane was so flimsy that it got all crumpled up and telescoped up into the hole, and only a couple of pieces were found”. Very clever.


Then, we are told that “The reason those 3 towers fell down in New York (one of which was not even hit by an aircraft) is because those planes did so much damage that they simply knocked them down”. See?

Then, to prove that, we are shown 7 videos of the plane entering the second structure (all three of these structures were stolid steel, not even reinforced concrete: the only concrete was in the floor and ceiling pans) just like a knife into hot butter.

No problem! There aren’t even any pieces falling off!

Then, if you say, “No plane could do that, so there was no plane, it's an illusion, some kind of trick”, they say, “No, that couldn’t be, because that hole in that solid steel building was shaped like a plane, wings included”. An aluminium and titanium plane punched a plane-shaped hole in a solid-steel building, just like a cookie cutter!

OK. So why is the hole at the Pentagon round in shape?

You can’t have it both ways. It's 60 years since Hiroshima and we're supposed to believe they haven't got any new Hollywood-type tricks up their sleeves? Nobody thought the atomic bomb was possible, either.

I’d like an intelligible answer to these questions. And I don't want to be fobbed off with any crap about "911 disinformation", "pod people", "dividing the 911 movement", and all the rest of it, thank you very much.

Forgive my ignorance.

- C.P.

See also: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
(If the above link is broken, click here here)

(That the towers were destroyed by high explosives I consider so obvious that I don't even intend to discuss it; what interests me is the Incredible Flying Circus. The only semi-sensible reply I have had to this article so far is that most planes hitting concrete structures are flying at far lower speeds; at higher speeds, they would do more damage to the structure! Of course, at higher speeds, they would also do more damage to the plane itself! It works both ways. Nobody has attempted to answer the last question: why is the hole at the Pentagon round in shape? You can't have it both ways.)

See also the following:
Lies - 911 Octopus 8
911 TV Fakery
or search for:
911 fake
CNN fake footage
911 fake footage
etc. etc. etc.
(these videos tend to get deleted and then reposted under different names; search for them)

There also appear to be some serious problems with the New York landscape in the most famous of these videos.
For example, see:
Fake CNN Footed Blasted: Total Destruction

PS. The person who allegedly took one of the 91 videos is a "diamond dealer" (i.e., almost certainly Jewish) who refuses even to say where he was standing when he took it, and says "Talk to CNN". Hmmm.....
See also: skunkienote.htm, about halfway down.
It is important to note that these attacks were timed so that the second impact took place when the whole world was watching, including every TV station in the country, plus thousands of people with video cameras, etc.
This can only have been done deliberately, since the planes were hijacked from airports very closeby, but were flown hundreds of miles off course for about an hour before carrying out the attacks.
As a result, there are thousands of videos of the second attack, with more appearing all the time. We can bet that they are all copyright, all owned by some media interest, and all worth money. Our enemies can produce thousands more at any time, showing anything they want them to, just to keep us confused.
One minute there's a "pod", the next minute there isn't. And so on.
How many realistic-looking explosions do you see in a single weekend, just watching TV?
It is not a question of "flying holograms". .
It happened so fast, how many people are going to say, "that's not what I saw"?
Nobody, of course.
So far, I haven't had an answer as to why the hole in the Pentagon is round in shape.
The story so far -- according to a couple of government shills who have contacted me -- seems to be that, because of "kinetic force", a plane that would be smashed to pieces if it flopped down into a cornfield 50 feet off the end of the runway, would be capable of penetrating solid steel, the strongest structure on the face of the earth, at only 2.5 or 3 times the velocity!
I may not be a scientist, but I'm not an idiot, either. That still doesn't answer my question.
Thanks anyway.
- C.P.
17 October 2007