Humint Events Online: So, According to Several Video Clips, the Second Plane Plowed Into WTC Without Slowing and Without Any Piece Breaking Off

Thursday, February 16, 2006

So, According to Several Video Clips, the Second Plane Plowed Into WTC Without Slowing and Without Any Piece Breaking Off

What does this mean?

Let us assume this was a real plane-- that because of its huge size, mass and speed, was able to easily break through the outer walls of the WTC tower and also through multiple floor slabs and various inner walls and filing cabinets, desks, etc.

Because the plane went in FULL SPEED, we can safely say that the plane entered the building completely and in completely intact condition. Because any destruction of the plane would have slowed it considerably. This is simple logic.

Now here is where it gets interesting.

The plane was a 767, which is 160 feet long.

The WTC tower was 208 feet thick.

So we saw the plane go in completely, full speed, then the plane disappeared inside the building and a fireball appeared out the other side with a few small chunks going out with plane-like momentum.

Where did the plane go?

Since the plane went in intact, how did it get completely destroyed by 48 feet remaining structure after plowing full speed through 160 feet?

This of course makes no sense.

If a 767 completely penetrated into the WTC tower full speed IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING EMERGED OUT THE OTHER SIDE.

It is ridiculous to assume that it could penetrate 3/4 of the buildings thickness, and then get completely destroyed by the last 1/4.

So we have two main choices here:

1) there was a huge bomb on the plane that exactly as the plane was completely inside the structure and before it could come out the other side, and this huge bomb completely destroyed the plane. I think this is fairly unlikely. If you think the fuel should have acted as a bomb, the question is why the plane didn't slow down, break up and explode BEFORE it disappeared completely inside the building (which a normal plane should have).

2) there was no real plane shown in the video.

The answer would seem to be (2).

This gives us further options:

a) there was no plane at all, and the videos showed only a digital plane; the explosion was recreated by pre-planted explosives; this implicates the media in the hoax

b) a large missile struck the building, penetrated it, then exploded inside. This missile:
i) was cloaked in a holographic shield that recreated the image of a plane
ii) digitally camoflaged by a plane image over the missile to cover up the clear indication of government involvment; this also implicates the media in the hoax


Frankly, I have no idea WHAT happened on 9/11. But I do know that the WTC towers were not hit by a 767*.

I also think the idea of a missile that could cloak itself in a hologram is technically feasible, and it also is the simplest explanation for ALL of 9/11. That is, all the very odd "plane" crashes of 9/11: the WTC, the Pentagon, Shanksville, can be explained by the use of hologram-cloaked missiles, presumably which originated from the US military.

However, there is still some evidence for clear video manipulation in the case of the second tower strike, and I think the media was guilty in this regard. Whether they were in on the plot is unclear. Possibly they altered videos of the second hit, inserted planes they never saw, simply to make the images more dramatic.


*remember, they never officially recovered black boxes from ground zero.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry that this is OFF TOPIC, but you have to cover this speech from Republican(!) Congressman Ron Paul of Texas , at the excellent blog http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

SPREAD THE WORD FAR & WIDE, Thanks to Ron Paul, the corruption of the US monetary system is now official record.

(PS - Great Blog by the Way!)

8:18 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

"What does this mean?"

It means you are an idiot.

Really. Please do us all a favor and take a quick - correspondence would work - course on aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering if you *insist* on opining on aviation matters.

The destruction of an airliner traveling over 400 knots as it hits, at a wing-down attitude of 25 degrees, the upper floors of a skyscraper is completely consistant with what is seen on the videos.

Keep up the hilarious work, though! I'm waiting for your post next on how the towers didn't *really* fall, but they are still there, hidden behind a mass hypnosis spell cast by the duo of Paris Hilton and Gary Coleman, both clad in tasteful coral and fuscia tutus.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

9:00 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

How would a Gov't SHILL explain the fact two of the so-called "Planes" (flights 11 AND 77) DIDN'T EVEN EXIST THAT DAY ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN BTS DATABASE!??!

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

So, ummm...Shill...er, I mean pinch...how do planes that never took off....HIT ANYTHING!!!??????????????????????????????????????

So pinch...from someone who should know, what does being a WHORE for the Bush Cabal feel like??

Hope it pays well at least... ;-) LOL!!!

9:19 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Pinch-- please explain how a real airplane completely enters a building without slowing down, using your precious aeronautical principles. I'm dying to know your explanation.

In any case, this has to do with simple physics, not aeronautics.

Jesus. You can't even read, it seems. You NEVER even try to directly rebut my points, you simply claim it is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to expect a plane to slow as it breaks through steel beams and concrete floors?

10:03 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

By the way, Pinch-- want to make a little bet that Cheney was shitfaced when he had his little accident?

:)

10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger