The First Hit, Reconsidered
I really got to wondering exactly what the shadows of 767 wings would look like on the WTC, and so last night I did an experiment with a small model plane, a small model tower and a light source that mimicked the early morning sun on 9/11.
I'll post the pictures at some point, but the bottom line is this, if the picture is out of focus, the actual wings don't show up well-- much like in the naudet video. Moreover, due to the angle of the light source and the length of the front fuselage, the wings don't make a shadow on the building until the wings MEET the building (or slightly before). In fact, the shadows seen in frames 54 and 55 here, are not inconsistent with large wings. In particular, the weird shadows in frame 55 actually look quite a bit like the distorted shadows cast by the wings of my small model 767.
This certainly doesn't prove a 767 hit the tower, of course-- all I'm saying is the video is not inconsistent with a 767.
But there are still some oddities here, and I am going to run through them without sourcing anything. I just want to get all these facts down in order to better think.
Flight 11 (a Boeing 767):
1) apparently was a twin flight
2) the only 9/11 flight with no passenger calls
3) officially piloted by Mohamed Atta
4) officially hit the north tower at 8:46am
5) was several miles from Manhattan at 8:46am (according to air traffic control data)
6) never took off according to the BTS database
The Naudet video of the first hit:
1) out of focus
2) shows a plane like object hitting the WTC north tower
3) at first impact, there is a bizarre bright flash--is it an explosion?
4) the object goes into the building but is overwhelmed by large explosions
5) very complicated shadows play on the wall as the object goes in, these may come from the wings that aren't seen
6) the plane-object enters the building at the same speed as it was flying beofre it hit (judging by frame numbers)
6) the explosion starts immediately upon impact, near where the fuselage would go in
7) the explosion shifts and secondary explosions develop along where wings would have impacted the building
7) a huge explosion eventually develops where the plane went in, then other explosions come out other parts of the building (side and top)
After the first hit:
1) there is a hole roughly with the same proportions as a front profile as a 767
2) long gashes in the wall correspond to winglength of a 767
Comparing the first and second hits
1) both planes go in very fast, at the same speed as what they were flying before they impacted
2) there is a large explosion as soon as the first plane hits while there is no explosion in the second hit until the plane has gone in
3) for the first hit, the main explosion seems to be out the side the plane went in, whereas for the second hit, the the main explosion comes from opposite the side the plane went in
4) for the second hit, parts of the plane seem to come out the other side; we don't know about the first hit
5) the first hit plane most likely struck the strong WTC core head-on, whereas the the fuselage of the second plane probably missed the core (assuming there was a real plane)
6) offcially, no black boxes were found for either plane
7) Webfairy says the second hit is a cartoon (the plane image is fake) whereas the first hit is real, shows a real object-- I tend to believe this
Conclusions:
1) the evidence we have for the first hit is consistent with a real 767 crash, although we don't know for sure if it was a 767, and other possibilities exist, such as some sort of large Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (or a group of them mimicking a large plane)
2) holograms would probably cast shadows, and so the hologram idea for the first hit is not very strong
3) I still have a lot of trouble with the idea of plane wings cutting through the steel beams of the WTC walls so precisely and throughout their length. This is why I speculated about pre-planted charges that mimicked the wing impacts. And in the Naudet video of the first hit, one can see seemingly independent explosions going off where the plane wings would have impacted. But on the other hand, if there were wings (because of the shadows), that means a tremendous amount of (and unlikely) coordination to get a plane to crash at the perfect spot where there were pre-planted charges. In fac, the biggest problem I have with real planes hitting the WTCs is the cartoonish hole they left behind. It simply looks faked (the idea being that the wing-shaped holes were pre-planned to make it LOOK as though a large plane hit).
4) So the first hit is a bit of a mystery all around-- the plane (flight 11) never took off, there was a double flight 11, flight 11 wasn't near Manhattan at 8:46am; yet much more than the second hit, it looked like a real crash (except for the wing-imprints)
5) flight 175 officially DID take off and its official path took it to NYC at the right time-- yet the videos of this plane clearly are faked at some fundamental level. Moreover, there was some confusion throughout the day of 9/11 about flight 175-- it took the authorities a LONG time to announce that flight 175 was what hit the tower.
6) Possibilities for the second hit:
---a) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't captured on video, and so networks pasted a plane in for "dramatic effect"
---b) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't the right kind of plane, and so networks pasted a United 767 as part of the cover-up (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)
---c) that there was no real plane involved in the second hit, it was all an elaborate hoax involving fake video and pre-planted bombs
---d) the second hit was carried out with a hologram-cloaked missile (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)
For some reason, my gut has told me for a while that the first hit was with a real plane and the second hit was some sort of elaborate fake-- though why the plotters would do it this way is hard to imagine. I wonder if there was a mix-up somewhere and flight 175 was what hit the north tower? The second hit is clearly a cartoon and fits with a fake plane (flight 11) that never took off. There is still the problem of the wing imprints for both strikes on the towers.
I still can't figure the damn thing out.
I'll post the pictures at some point, but the bottom line is this, if the picture is out of focus, the actual wings don't show up well-- much like in the naudet video. Moreover, due to the angle of the light source and the length of the front fuselage, the wings don't make a shadow on the building until the wings MEET the building (or slightly before). In fact, the shadows seen in frames 54 and 55 here, are not inconsistent with large wings. In particular, the weird shadows in frame 55 actually look quite a bit like the distorted shadows cast by the wings of my small model 767.
This certainly doesn't prove a 767 hit the tower, of course-- all I'm saying is the video is not inconsistent with a 767.
But there are still some oddities here, and I am going to run through them without sourcing anything. I just want to get all these facts down in order to better think.
Flight 11 (a Boeing 767):
1) apparently was a twin flight
2) the only 9/11 flight with no passenger calls
3) officially piloted by Mohamed Atta
4) officially hit the north tower at 8:46am
5) was several miles from Manhattan at 8:46am (according to air traffic control data)
6) never took off according to the BTS database
The Naudet video of the first hit:
1) out of focus
2) shows a plane like object hitting the WTC north tower
3) at first impact, there is a bizarre bright flash--is it an explosion?
4) the object goes into the building but is overwhelmed by large explosions
5) very complicated shadows play on the wall as the object goes in, these may come from the wings that aren't seen
6) the plane-object enters the building at the same speed as it was flying beofre it hit (judging by frame numbers)
6) the explosion starts immediately upon impact, near where the fuselage would go in
7) the explosion shifts and secondary explosions develop along where wings would have impacted the building
7) a huge explosion eventually develops where the plane went in, then other explosions come out other parts of the building (side and top)
After the first hit:
1) there is a hole roughly with the same proportions as a front profile as a 767
2) long gashes in the wall correspond to winglength of a 767
Comparing the first and second hits
1) both planes go in very fast, at the same speed as what they were flying before they impacted
2) there is a large explosion as soon as the first plane hits while there is no explosion in the second hit until the plane has gone in
3) for the first hit, the main explosion seems to be out the side the plane went in, whereas for the second hit, the the main explosion comes from opposite the side the plane went in
4) for the second hit, parts of the plane seem to come out the other side; we don't know about the first hit
5) the first hit plane most likely struck the strong WTC core head-on, whereas the the fuselage of the second plane probably missed the core (assuming there was a real plane)
6) offcially, no black boxes were found for either plane
7) Webfairy says the second hit is a cartoon (the plane image is fake) whereas the first hit is real, shows a real object-- I tend to believe this
Conclusions:
1) the evidence we have for the first hit is consistent with a real 767 crash, although we don't know for sure if it was a 767, and other possibilities exist, such as some sort of large Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (or a group of them mimicking a large plane)
2) holograms would probably cast shadows, and so the hologram idea for the first hit is not very strong
3) I still have a lot of trouble with the idea of plane wings cutting through the steel beams of the WTC walls so precisely and throughout their length. This is why I speculated about pre-planted charges that mimicked the wing impacts. And in the Naudet video of the first hit, one can see seemingly independent explosions going off where the plane wings would have impacted. But on the other hand, if there were wings (because of the shadows), that means a tremendous amount of (and unlikely) coordination to get a plane to crash at the perfect spot where there were pre-planted charges. In fac, the biggest problem I have with real planes hitting the WTCs is the cartoonish hole they left behind. It simply looks faked (the idea being that the wing-shaped holes were pre-planned to make it LOOK as though a large plane hit).
4) So the first hit is a bit of a mystery all around-- the plane (flight 11) never took off, there was a double flight 11, flight 11 wasn't near Manhattan at 8:46am; yet much more than the second hit, it looked like a real crash (except for the wing-imprints)
5) flight 175 officially DID take off and its official path took it to NYC at the right time-- yet the videos of this plane clearly are faked at some fundamental level. Moreover, there was some confusion throughout the day of 9/11 about flight 175-- it took the authorities a LONG time to announce that flight 175 was what hit the tower.
6) Possibilities for the second hit:
---a) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't captured on video, and so networks pasted a plane in for "dramatic effect"
---b) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't the right kind of plane, and so networks pasted a United 767 as part of the cover-up (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)
---c) that there was no real plane involved in the second hit, it was all an elaborate hoax involving fake video and pre-planted bombs
---d) the second hit was carried out with a hologram-cloaked missile (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)
For some reason, my gut has told me for a while that the first hit was with a real plane and the second hit was some sort of elaborate fake-- though why the plotters would do it this way is hard to imagine. I wonder if there was a mix-up somewhere and flight 175 was what hit the north tower? The second hit is clearly a cartoon and fits with a fake plane (flight 11) that never took off. There is still the problem of the wing imprints for both strikes on the towers.
I still can't figure the damn thing out.
posted by spooked at 8:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home