"Second" Thoughts

More thoughts on the second hit.

a) if by some chance the second hit was staged completely with planted explosives, it was an amazing job, and you almost want to say "bravo". Overall because of the way the explosives coincide with the "plane" impact and move at the speed of the plane, it is almost impossible to imagine this being staged. Thus, I still think it most likely there was some flying device involved.

b) this video of the second plane is very odd. When the plane approaches, there is a very odd lack of perspective.

c) One reason why the second hit is so strange is the way videos of the plane going into the building show it going in very cleanly and smoothly, without any explosion at the site of impact. In fact, the plane goes ALL the way in, then explosions appear, culminating with the big spetacular fireball out the other side. My thought on this is-- if the plane could go in so easily one side, why didn't it come out more intact the other side? Inside there was little in terms of structure-- certainly nothing like the steel walls and concrete floors where the plane impacted. I wonder if we should expect to see some very large pieces of the plane coming out the other side. I know there are some pieces that go shooting out with the fireball, but what about very large chunks of fuselage and the huge engines? There should be large metal pieces that don't get burned in the fireball. The only explanation is that the initial impact tore the plane up into small pieces, and this is what we would expect. The PROBLEM is the video shows the plane going in completely intact, even where it should be impacting concrete floors! So, this is a conundrum, I think. Either the plane was incredibly penetrating and thus should have come out more intact on the other side, or the plane should have been been more visibly broken up as it hit the building on first impact.

d) In terms of what happened to the tail, this picture shows more of a mark for the tail than an earlier one I had. Though it is still not clear if the tail went all the way in.

e) One reason I have long thought that something was fishy with the second hit is the spetacular, "cinematic" fireball that comes bursting out the other side of the hit. While it is plausible (and this is why most people don't question it), that the fireball is a simple consequence of the plane breaking up, the fuel releasing, mixing with air and then continuing outside by sheer momentum to blow up in a firework-like manner, there are still three points to seriously consider:
--was the huge volume of the explosion consistent with the amount of fuel that would be carried outside by the crash?
--does kerosene (which is not nearly as volatile as, for instance, gasoline) explode
like that, even when mixed optimally with air?
-- what was the missile-like object that appeared right before the fireball blossomed?

f) Were ANY plane SEATS reported as being found outside any 9/11 crash? I know there were pieces of seats found a couple of miles from the official flight 93 crash site, and supposedly there were plane seats inside the pentagon (no pictures though)-- but wouldn't you expect some plane seats to come flying out the WTC?

g) I would never doubt that 767's were involved in the WTC hits if it were not for the fact that the case that the flight 77 and flight 93 crashes were faked is fairly strong.

h) The "no plane" theory does overcome that pesky issue of what happened to the air defenses on 9/11! Also, there is evidence that flights 11 and 77 never took off. And once again, I'll point out that Gerard Holmgren makes a good, logical case for not using planes on 9/11.