Second Hit Revisited

First, take a gander at the shots of the second plane hitting the WTC, and in particular this particularly clear CNN video.

So, here are some more thoughts on the second hit, following up on my earlier observations.

First, what happens to the tail, and especially the massive vertical stabilizer of the 767? It seems to gointo the building without bending or breaking, yet there is no hole for it.

Second, as shown by the FEMA/NIST diagram, the plane hit at least seven concrete floors from the side, since it was going at an angle. Most noteworthy is the fact that the freaking fuselage hits a floor smack dab in the middle, such that the floor either had to give way or the fuselage would have been ripped into two halves. When the concrete floor ripped into the center fuel tanks, you would expect an immediate explosion. Wouldn't you?

Granted, the whole thing is happening very fast, there is a lot of momentum, but I can't figure how when the fuel bursts out as the plane impacts the building, the fireball bursts out the other side.

What I have yet to see, and I think would be informative, is map out exactly what parts of the plane went into different floors, then coorelate this with the debris that comes shooting out the other side. Does it match what went in?

As I see it, here are the major possibilities for the second hit:

1) it all happened as we saw on TV

2) it was a hologram-cloaked special military plane

3) a flying craft that wasn't UA175 hit the tower, but the media overdubbed other footage in order to:

--a) sanitize it (perhaps it was too gruesome to show on TV, bodies could be seen)

--b) to cover up that the plane broke up AS IT HIT and thus to justify the shooting fireball out the other side

--c) to cover up that it was a different plane than UA175

4) there was no plane hit at all and the media/911 controllers faked all the footage (the classic "no plane" theory).

While the no-plane argument has some appeal, I think it most likely thatprobably some fairly large flying craft hit the south tower. In general, it would be too hard to fake and cover up that there was no plane, although it is still possible.

One novel idea for what happened is that the media aired some fake footage of the second plane going into the tower (particularly the CNN footage from the south), for one of the reasons listed above (3a - 3c). Remember, there were not too many high detail shots of the plane going into the building. So they only needed to fake a couple of videos this way.

But I am open to the other ideas as well, except I doubt it was really UA175 that hit the tower.

I'll do more analysis on this.