WTC I Plane Hit Follow-up
In my post yesterday "Did a Global Hawk Hit WTC I Instead of Flight 11?", I deviated from a rule that I had laid out a few weeks back-- which was to ignore any evidence of 9/11 that only dealt with pictures.
In the X-11 drone analysis here, I should have pointed out that I don't necessarily agree with this person's analysis. I'm certainly not convinced of the X-11 drone model he comes up with-- I was just struck by how it looked like a Global Hawk and how this could make sense.
I have looked over and over at pictures from the Naudet (firemans') video of the first WTCI hit, and really, the plane image is simply to blurry to make out what it is. Very possibly, one can say that the plane doesn't have wing-mounted engines, but that's about it.
Today, I was working outside, and my house is near the airport. For a while, my neighborhood was right under the departure path for all the planes taking off from the airport. I saw some twenty planes over an hour and a half period. It gave me a good opportunity to look at planes from different angles. What I can say is that with a Boeing-style plane with wing-mounted engines, the engines are very prominent from quite a distance off. The engines are more prominent than the wings even, depending on the angle of the plane. I can't see any engines on the plane that hits the WTC I-- and this is even looking at every frame of the Naudet video before the plane hits the tower as shown on the Webfairy site. But still, the images are so far-off and hence indistinct, you really can't be sure there are no engines, it is just a guess.
What I can definitely say about the WTC I hit is the following:
1) the idea that missiles were fired to create the explosion clouds after the plane hits is absurd. I think the clouds are merely dust clouds expelled before the fireball appears from the impact site. The fireball likely erupts inside the building, and then is forced out because there is more room outside the building for expansion. The fireball likely pushes a lot of debris out before it comes out. A lot of 9/11 conspiracy sites don't like to talk about the WTC I fireball, but it is very prominent.
2) Leonard Spencer goes on about the seismic record showing that the first flight hit WTC I much harder than the second flight, and the first flight caused a longer vibration. Spencer takes this as evidence that WTC I was hit by bombs and missiles from the first plane. This is pure nonsense. The explanation for the stronger and longer seismic vibrations from the first plane hitting is that the first plane impacted on the central core of the tower. It therefore sent a strong shock through the strongest part of the building. The second plane on the other hand, passed through the tower almost completely and barely impacted the central core of the tower. This no doubt greatly affected the seismic vibrations recorded by the two plane impacts. The fact that the first plane hit the central core however, does give evidence for controlled evidence of the WTC buildings. Since the first plane would have caused more damage to the strong central core of the tower, yet this building fell an hour after the second. Logically, one would expect the tower with the most damage to the central core to collapse first.
3) Leonard Spencer refers to a close-up picture showing the gash in the WTC I tower and says it shows a plane engine. This again is absurd. It makes no sense that a plane engine would be laying just a few feet inside the tower looking relatively intact. In fact, the long grey striped section in the photo that he calls a plane engine is merely a section of the broken off outer WTC wall that is laying on its side. The stripes are the sections of columns-- they initially look odd because they are at a weird angle-- but clearly this object makes much more sense as a collapsed section of outer wall than a plane engine. This point brings out perfectly the problem with photographic evidence-- some people see weird things in photos and imagine things they WANT to see (the pod on the underbelly of flight 175 is a perfect example). Instead of being discriminating about that the picture could be something else, these people invent whole scenarios based on a fuzzy image. When people swear these things exist, it makes you wonder about their overall ability to analyze data.
4) Various people have noted that the lobby of WTC I was greatly damaged after the plane hit, and they take this as evidence of bombs going off in the building. While this may be, another explanation is that the first plane hitting sent a large amount of debris and burning fuel down the central core area of the tower. This would have fallen down the central shaft and likely impacted the lobby area, particularly through the elvator shafts, causing a great deal of damage.
5) The Naudet brother's video of the first plane hit is very suspicious in that it apparently shows foreknowledge of the WTC attack. They seemed to know the WTC would be hit by a plane because they zoomed very quickly to the WTC, which was some distance away from where they were filming, as soon as they heard the first flight overhead. They seemed to know exactly where the plane was going, and it is curious they decided to shoot the path of the plane in the first place, since they were originally filming firemen working in the street when the first plane flew over. Why did they decide to follow the plane's path? Did the Naudet brothers have foreknowledge of the attacks? Were these they French intelligence agents perhaps?
In the X-11 drone analysis here, I should have pointed out that I don't necessarily agree with this person's analysis. I'm certainly not convinced of the X-11 drone model he comes up with-- I was just struck by how it looked like a Global Hawk and how this could make sense.
I have looked over and over at pictures from the Naudet (firemans') video of the first WTCI hit, and really, the plane image is simply to blurry to make out what it is. Very possibly, one can say that the plane doesn't have wing-mounted engines, but that's about it.
Today, I was working outside, and my house is near the airport. For a while, my neighborhood was right under the departure path for all the planes taking off from the airport. I saw some twenty planes over an hour and a half period. It gave me a good opportunity to look at planes from different angles. What I can say is that with a Boeing-style plane with wing-mounted engines, the engines are very prominent from quite a distance off. The engines are more prominent than the wings even, depending on the angle of the plane. I can't see any engines on the plane that hits the WTC I-- and this is even looking at every frame of the Naudet video before the plane hits the tower as shown on the Webfairy site. But still, the images are so far-off and hence indistinct, you really can't be sure there are no engines, it is just a guess.
What I can definitely say about the WTC I hit is the following:
1) the idea that missiles were fired to create the explosion clouds after the plane hits is absurd. I think the clouds are merely dust clouds expelled before the fireball appears from the impact site. The fireball likely erupts inside the building, and then is forced out because there is more room outside the building for expansion. The fireball likely pushes a lot of debris out before it comes out. A lot of 9/11 conspiracy sites don't like to talk about the WTC I fireball, but it is very prominent.
2) Leonard Spencer goes on about the seismic record showing that the first flight hit WTC I much harder than the second flight, and the first flight caused a longer vibration. Spencer takes this as evidence that WTC I was hit by bombs and missiles from the first plane. This is pure nonsense. The explanation for the stronger and longer seismic vibrations from the first plane hitting is that the first plane impacted on the central core of the tower. It therefore sent a strong shock through the strongest part of the building. The second plane on the other hand, passed through the tower almost completely and barely impacted the central core of the tower. This no doubt greatly affected the seismic vibrations recorded by the two plane impacts. The fact that the first plane hit the central core however, does give evidence for controlled evidence of the WTC buildings. Since the first plane would have caused more damage to the strong central core of the tower, yet this building fell an hour after the second. Logically, one would expect the tower with the most damage to the central core to collapse first.
3) Leonard Spencer refers to a close-up picture showing the gash in the WTC I tower and says it shows a plane engine. This again is absurd. It makes no sense that a plane engine would be laying just a few feet inside the tower looking relatively intact. In fact, the long grey striped section in the photo that he calls a plane engine is merely a section of the broken off outer WTC wall that is laying on its side. The stripes are the sections of columns-- they initially look odd because they are at a weird angle-- but clearly this object makes much more sense as a collapsed section of outer wall than a plane engine. This point brings out perfectly the problem with photographic evidence-- some people see weird things in photos and imagine things they WANT to see (the pod on the underbelly of flight 175 is a perfect example). Instead of being discriminating about that the picture could be something else, these people invent whole scenarios based on a fuzzy image. When people swear these things exist, it makes you wonder about their overall ability to analyze data.
4) Various people have noted that the lobby of WTC I was greatly damaged after the plane hit, and they take this as evidence of bombs going off in the building. While this may be, another explanation is that the first plane hitting sent a large amount of debris and burning fuel down the central core area of the tower. This would have fallen down the central shaft and likely impacted the lobby area, particularly through the elvator shafts, causing a great deal of damage.
5) The Naudet brother's video of the first plane hit is very suspicious in that it apparently shows foreknowledge of the WTC attack. They seemed to know the WTC would be hit by a plane because they zoomed very quickly to the WTC, which was some distance away from where they were filming, as soon as they heard the first flight overhead. They seemed to know exactly where the plane was going, and it is curious they decided to shoot the path of the plane in the first place, since they were originally filming firemen working in the street when the first plane flew over. Why did they decide to follow the plane's path? Did the Naudet brothers have foreknowledge of the attacks? Were these they French intelligence agents perhaps?
posted by spooked at 6:21 PM
1 Comments:
Dear Spooked
I recently came across your 'WTC I Plane Hit Follow-up' piece on your blogspot page and, since you make a few critical comments about my research on 9-11, I thought I'd take this opportunity to respond.
i) 'the idea that missiles were fired to create the explosion clouds after the plane hits is absurd'.
One thing you overlook here is that the first 'explosion clouds' appear before the plane has penetrated the building, not after.
ii)'I think the clouds are merely dust clouds expelled before the fireball appears from the impact site. The fireball likely erupts inside the building, and then is forced out because there is more room outside the building for expansion. The fireball likely pushes a lot of debris out before it comes out'.
It's interesting that a similar phenomenon is not observed in the case of the South tower, where the expanding fireball erupts immediately from various parts of the facade, not preceded by these curious 'dust clouds'.
iii)'A lot of 9/11 conspiracy sites don't like to talk about the WTC I fireball, but it is very prominent'.
Not me, I talk about it a lot. It may be prominent but it is nonetheless considerably less prominent, both in magnitude and duration, than the WTC2 fireball. Clearly the second plane had a lot more fuel on board than the first.
iv)'Leonard Spencer goes on about the seismic record showing that the first flight hit WTC I much harder than the second flight, and the first flight caused a longer vibration. Spencer takes this as evidence that WTC I was hit by bombs and missiles from the first plane. This is pure nonsense. The explanation for the stronger and longer seismic vibrations from the first plane hitting is that the first plane impacted on the central core of the tower. It therefore sent a strong shock through the strongest part of the building'.
It's useful to know a little about the construction of the WTC here. It was built using 'tube within a tube' design. This comprised two concentric 'tubes' (though square in shape of course), each constructed using identical box columns of three pillars each. The two 'tubes' were harnessed to each other with horizontal steel girders at each floor. This design gave the buildings their immense strength. The inner core section was essentially no different from the outer section and it was certainly no stronger. The integral strength of the building derived from the dynamic interaction of the two 'tubes', which together formed a single, rigid whole.
There is no particular evidence that the first plane impacted with the core or that the second plane did not, but even if this were the case it is unlikely the seismic readings would be affected. Any impact on the outer section would be distributed to the core section as well. It is true however that the fact that first plane hit the North tower rather higher up than the second plane would marginally increase the seismic reading.
v)'The second plane on the other hand, passed through the tower almost completely and barely impacted the central core of the tower'.
Interesting comment. What is your evidence for this?
vi)'Leonard Spencer refers to a close-up picture showing the gash in the WTC I tower and says it shows a plane engine'.
I actually refrain from making any identification of the objects visible within the scar.
vii)'It makes no sense that a plane engine would be laying just a few feet inside the tower looking relatively intact'.
Funnily eough, if you take a close look at some of the photos that give a clear view of the scar created on the South tower, you'll see two intact engines lodged in the facade! I'm not sure why this makes no sense to you; one might reasonably expect it.
viii)'In fact, the long grey striped section in the photo that he calls a plane engine is merely a section of the broken off outer WTC wall that is laying on its side'.
Now you're the one who's being absurd. The WTC wall was made entirely of easily recognisable box columns. The grey object was smooth and shiny and, rather than being striped, had strange rose-like patterns all over it!
ix)'clearly this object makes much more sense as a collapsed section of outer wall than a plane engine'.
Sometimes people see what they want to see rather than what's really there...
x)'some people see weird things in photos and imagine things they WANT to see'.
Well quite.
xi)'(the pod on the underbelly of flight 175 is a perfect example). Instead of being discriminating about that the picture could be something else, these people invent whole scenarios based on a fuzzy image. When people swear these things exist, it makes you wonder about their overall ability to analyze data'.
Professor Amparo Carrasco of the University of Mataro in Barcelona has conducted a rigorous and independent analysis of the data in question and concludes:
"The detected cylindrical objects cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity.
"The detected objects have varying luminosity around them because they are in relief (this is the only possible explanation).
"The detected objects are clearly distinct from the landing gear".
His full report can be found here:
http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html
You may also be interested to know that the Boeing Corporation has been unable to confirm that the objects on the underside of 'Flight 175' are part of a regular 767's equipment, stating instead that the subject is a matter of 'national security'.
Some reactions to the 'pod' on Flight 175 have indeed been a perfect example of people only seeing what they want to see, but perhaps not quite in the sense that you meant.
Kind regards
Leonard Spencer
Post a Comment
<< Home