Simple Physics
(Yes, I have gone through this argument before, but I am trying to make it as easy to understand and as streamlined as possible.)
What the second hit videos show is the plane smashing full-speed into the WTC-- the plane does not slow at ALL, then the plane disappears inside-- then we see an explosion occur on the other side of the building and no more plane.
But the plane leaves a plane-shaped hole where it went in-- even the very wing-tips of the plane cut through steel columns.
So the plane SLICED into a steel building at full speed. It completely disappeared inside after cutting a shape of itself through steel and concrete. We never see the plane lose any integrity outside the building. But apparently the plane disintegrated once inside?
This makes no sense.
If the plane can slice into the building full speed and disappear inside, why can't it simply slice ALL the way through the building?
The length of a 767-200ER (160 feet) is about 3/4 of the width of the WTC (208 feet).
The plane seems to cleanly go into the building for its complete length, but then COMPLETELY breaks apart in the last 50 feet?
The only way this could happen at all is if the plane hit something inside the building that was much harder than the outer wall and floor slabs-- perhaps the core structure with its huge box columns. Indeed, the second plane would have hit the core on the southeast corner.
But here's the thing-- the core was only about 40 feet inside from the outer south wall.
So the only way the second hit would make ANY sense is if the plane smashed through the outer wall, then struck the core and tore apart. But since the core was 40 feet in, and the plane was 160 long, we SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLANE SLOW ITS ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING AND there should have been a huge explosion coming out of the SOUTH WALL first. The explosion should not have ejected out the northeast corner.
What we saw was a cartoon.
So... maybe this doesn't convince you by itself. But when you put together everything else, such as the discrepent plane paths, the other video anomalies, etc-- the case is overwhelming that at least some of the videos were fake. And if some of the videos were faked, you have to ask WHY.
I think the answer has something to do with this.
What the second hit videos show is the plane smashing full-speed into the WTC-- the plane does not slow at ALL, then the plane disappears inside-- then we see an explosion occur on the other side of the building and no more plane.
But the plane leaves a plane-shaped hole where it went in-- even the very wing-tips of the plane cut through steel columns.
So the plane SLICED into a steel building at full speed. It completely disappeared inside after cutting a shape of itself through steel and concrete. We never see the plane lose any integrity outside the building. But apparently the plane disintegrated once inside?
This makes no sense.
If the plane can slice into the building full speed and disappear inside, why can't it simply slice ALL the way through the building?
The length of a 767-200ER (160 feet) is about 3/4 of the width of the WTC (208 feet).
The plane seems to cleanly go into the building for its complete length, but then COMPLETELY breaks apart in the last 50 feet?
The only way this could happen at all is if the plane hit something inside the building that was much harder than the outer wall and floor slabs-- perhaps the core structure with its huge box columns. Indeed, the second plane would have hit the core on the southeast corner.
But here's the thing-- the core was only about 40 feet inside from the outer south wall.
So the only way the second hit would make ANY sense is if the plane smashed through the outer wall, then struck the core and tore apart. But since the core was 40 feet in, and the plane was 160 long, we SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLANE SLOW ITS ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING AND there should have been a huge explosion coming out of the SOUTH WALL first. The explosion should not have ejected out the northeast corner.
What we saw was a cartoon.
So... maybe this doesn't convince you by itself. But when you put together everything else, such as the discrepent plane paths, the other video anomalies, etc-- the case is overwhelming that at least some of the videos were fake. And if some of the videos were faked, you have to ask WHY.
I think the answer has something to do with this.
posted by spooked at 11:45 PM
3 Comments:
Here is my main issue with the no-plane theory: if I was going to stage the second hit, let's say yes, I could somehow control all the major media covering it to alter their video broadcasts. But if a single amateur passerby was pointing a video camera at it (likely, since the neighboring tower was on fire) during the event and showed an explosion without any planes, I'd be screwed. It just seems too risky to stage - it would be fine for the first hit, when no one is expecting it and the chance of independent video is next to nil, but not for the second hit, with dozens of cameras on the towers.
in principle you are right. someone like that could blow the whole thing apart.
in practice, perhaps such a video could be easily discredited.
The fact is, I still don't know exactly what they did All I know is that some videos are clearly faked, and that there is reason to believe no planes really were used.
that was a good point anonymous; all it would take to foil a media no plane cartoon plot would be a single independent video - but really, you can't fault spooked's logic at all - and I, for one, can see with my own eyes that 175/south looks mighty fishy as it slips thru the tower wall - so it seems to me that we're faced with two choices::
1] either some new and unexplained technology was responsible for allowing 175 (which looks fishy even before it hits the tower) to slip into the tower with no resistance - or
2] spooked is correct and it was a cartoon designed to fool the world -
Post a Comment
<< Home