Special Planes on 9/11?
Let's forget about flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 for a little while.
What do we know about the planes that impacted the WTC, the Pentagon, and the ground near Shanksville?
The only good pictures of course are for the plane that hit the second WTC tower, and it looks like a 757 but also is slightly different.
But in terms of the damage the planes produced, what do we know?
The planes that hit the WTC sliced through fairly substantial steel columns like a knife through butter-- even the fragile tips of the wings went through the steel columns. Did the planes have special reinforced wings?
That might explain how the wings of the plane that struck the Pentagon could penetrate the thick reinforced stone, brick and concrete outer walls.
In the Shanksville crash, it really is not very clear where the wings went-- into the hole or did they blow up? If they were reinforced wings, this might help them burrow deeply into the ground.
What about the tail of the planes, though?
There is not one picture of a tail from one of the 9/11 planes.
The funny thing about a tail is that in a head-on crash (such as occurred on 9/11), the tail always suffers the least damage, and it usually breaks off in one piece. The tail is also huge-- almost forty feet tall for Boeing 757s and 767s, and the vertical stabilizer extends some twenty feet from the top of the fuselage.
The other funny thing about the tail of the plane is that it has a lot of identifying information-- what airline and there is a specific tail number for each plane.
What happened to the tails on the 9/11 planes?
In the case of the WTC and Pentagon, they seem to have vanished into the building. This is particularly odd in the case of the Pentagon, where there was no significant damage on the thrid floor of the Pentagon. It's less obvious but still true that the tail of the planes that hit the WTC didn't slice through the steel columns like the wings did. The tail of the plane in Shanksville appeared to leave a minor mark in the ground (see previous post), but then the tail disappared and we have no idea what happened to it. In all these four situations: there are three possibilities: either the tail disintegrated upon impact, it blew off, or it wasn't there in the first place.
I think we can basically discard the last two possibilites as not true, since a) it is unlikely a plane would fly without a tail and the pictures of flight 175 show a tail, and b) no one ever reported finding an intact tail for any of the 9/11 planes, so it didn't just blow off.
Thus, we are left with the idea that the tails of all four 9/11 planes behaved strangely and disintegrated.
Is it possible the 9/11 planners used specially designed planes with hardened wings and softened tails? Or am I missing something here?
It would make sense if they designed the planes this way. They would want hardened wings for more pentrating power. And they would want disintegrating wings that didn't leave any clear evidence behind.
So this makes sense that might design it that way, but wow-- what planning.
What do we know about the planes that impacted the WTC, the Pentagon, and the ground near Shanksville?
The only good pictures of course are for the plane that hit the second WTC tower, and it looks like a 757 but also is slightly different.
But in terms of the damage the planes produced, what do we know?
The planes that hit the WTC sliced through fairly substantial steel columns like a knife through butter-- even the fragile tips of the wings went through the steel columns. Did the planes have special reinforced wings?
That might explain how the wings of the plane that struck the Pentagon could penetrate the thick reinforced stone, brick and concrete outer walls.
In the Shanksville crash, it really is not very clear where the wings went-- into the hole or did they blow up? If they were reinforced wings, this might help them burrow deeply into the ground.
What about the tail of the planes, though?
There is not one picture of a tail from one of the 9/11 planes.
The funny thing about a tail is that in a head-on crash (such as occurred on 9/11), the tail always suffers the least damage, and it usually breaks off in one piece. The tail is also huge-- almost forty feet tall for Boeing 757s and 767s, and the vertical stabilizer extends some twenty feet from the top of the fuselage.
The other funny thing about the tail of the plane is that it has a lot of identifying information-- what airline and there is a specific tail number for each plane.
What happened to the tails on the 9/11 planes?
In the case of the WTC and Pentagon, they seem to have vanished into the building. This is particularly odd in the case of the Pentagon, where there was no significant damage on the thrid floor of the Pentagon. It's less obvious but still true that the tail of the planes that hit the WTC didn't slice through the steel columns like the wings did. The tail of the plane in Shanksville appeared to leave a minor mark in the ground (see previous post), but then the tail disappared and we have no idea what happened to it. In all these four situations: there are three possibilities: either the tail disintegrated upon impact, it blew off, or it wasn't there in the first place.
I think we can basically discard the last two possibilites as not true, since a) it is unlikely a plane would fly without a tail and the pictures of flight 175 show a tail, and b) no one ever reported finding an intact tail for any of the 9/11 planes, so it didn't just blow off.
Thus, we are left with the idea that the tails of all four 9/11 planes behaved strangely and disintegrated.
Is it possible the 9/11 planners used specially designed planes with hardened wings and softened tails? Or am I missing something here?
It would make sense if they designed the planes this way. They would want hardened wings for more pentrating power. And they would want disintegrating wings that didn't leave any clear evidence behind.
So this makes sense that might design it that way, but wow-- what planning.
posted by spooked at 10:25 PM
2 Comments:
"Is it possible the 9/11 planners used specially designed planes with hardened wings and softened tails? Or am I missing something here?"
I am VERY seriously beginning to suspect that had to have been the case spooked..at least for the "planes" that hit my Twin Towers. I live here in NYC and have been to the Twin Towers countelss times (my great uncle was an engineer on the construction of them).
Those exterior beams were MASSIVE! And they were entirely solid steel. I have felt them with my own hands on many occasions. Watching the videos of the "airliners" striking the towers, it always bothered me how a thin, aluminium-skinned pressurized tube managed to sever all those THICK outer steel columns like it was nothing. They just seemed to go through effortlessly. They just seemed to melt right into the bulidings. But as we can see from the photos of the impact area, MANY of the solid steel columns were in fact, totally severed by an object that was covered with a thin aluminium skin. Bizzare to say the least.
Yes, exactly!
Post a Comment
<< Home