More Thoughts on Flight 175

In my post a few posts back, I talk about this "Ghost Gun" article, and the no-plane theory.

While I am not sure I agree or understand everything they say in the article, I believe they do a thorough job and make some very provocative points.

From what I figure, there are eight possible explanations for flight 175-- the famous flight everyone saw hit the WTC on TV:
1) it was really UA175 with tail number N612UA that crashed in the WTC
2) it was another 767 that crashed into the WTC (likely a drone flown by remote control)
3) it was a missile cloaked in a hologram
4) there was no real plane, only bombs set cleverly in the WTC plus a hologram of flight 175
5) there was a smaller plane than a 767 driven by remote control, cloaked in a hologram
6) there was no plane, only missiles and video fakery by the networks
7) there was no plane, only cleverly placed bombs and video fakery by the networks
8) there was a smaller plane than a 767 (likely a remote control drone) and video fakery by the networks

Okay, so I really don't think the flight 175 crash as seen by hundreds of millions of people involved video fakery. That sort of lie would be too hard to cover-up, I think. I think some flying object did hit the south tower.

I tend to think either it was a different 767 than flight 175, or there was smaller plane cloaked in a hologram.

The reasons to believe there was a hologram are explained in the "Ghost Gun" article. Basically, the hologram theory can explain three things:
1) some of the oddities of the plane in pictures and in film
2) the orange flash seen in film when the plane nears the WTC-- this could be an aberration from the lasers involved in the hologram meeting the solid wall of the WTC. The hologram theory is the best explanation for the strange flash, I think.
3) the pod which is extremely obvious on some pictures of the plane as it nears the tower but not clear in other pictures. The pod could either represent some degraded section of the hologram image OR a protruding section of the plane that the hologram is cloaking.

I know this is WAY kooky. But the image of flight 175 is crazy and 9/11 is crazy. And there are parts of the film of flight 175 that don't make much sense unless you invoke something weird.

By the way, don't just read this and say, this is too weird, that I am just a kook. Please read the "Ghost Gun" article. They raise many interesting points. One of the most damning things, in my opinion, is how similar "flight 175" is to a UA 767 in their video game and NOT to a real UA 767 (particularly in terms of wing details).

This article also goes over the weirdness of flight 175, and has many good pictures, including the orange flash.