A Critique of the Complete Official Version of the South Tower Hit
Everyone knows a hijacked jet slammed into the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, resulting in a spectacular fireball.
We ALL saw it on TV, right?
But what if the airplane never existed? What if the story of a hijacked airplane was a giant hoax, used as a linch-pin to sell the official 9/11 story?
What follows is a multi-point presentation of the complete South WTC tower attack-- and a critique of this story.
I think that there is no doubt that the official story of this central event of 9/11 simply doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.
O.S. = official story (in some cases the official story has not been fleshed out completely, and in these instances, I try to make the best case for the official story).
O.S. 1) Terrorists hijacked a 767 and a hijacker pilot on a suicide mission took over controls of the plane.
Critique: It is unclear how this was accomplished given the hijackers were only armed with knives, boxcutters, and possibly pepper spray and fake bombs. In particular, it is unclear how the hijackers got the pilots out of their seats without ground control being alerted of a hijacking. It seems unlikely the pilots would give up their seats without a struggle, and the pilots were large armed services veterans. It is not clear how the hijackers took the cockpit by surprise, given that at least two of the 9/11 hijackings had fights/struggles in the passenger compartment as the hijackers tried to move to the cockpit.
O.S. 2) The hijacker pilot navigated to New York City and approached the WTC complex from Southern manhattan at a speed between 500 and 600 mph. The plane was seen approaching Manhattan by several video cameras.
Critique: Given that the hijacker pilot had never flown a large jet before, this feat seems highly unlikely-- particularly given the extreme speed, which was at the operational limit for the aircraft. Near sea level, such a speed could even damage the plane. It is hard to imagine someone who had never flown this type of craft before steering and descending the plane effectively at this speed. For an unknown reason, some shots show the plane approaching directly from the south, while other videos show the plane coming from the southwest. Different videos show different rates of descent. It is hard to understand how one plane could take markedly different approach paths, unless one or more videos were faked.
O.S. 3) The hijacker pilot needed to make a last second course alteration, and so banked the plane to the left for the last few hundred feet of approach. This event was captured by a few video cameras.
Critique: One video ("Park Foreman") shows the plane making an extremely rapid and smooth roll to the left (though oddly the plane's course does not obviously change). Given the extreme speed, this maneuver is not trivial, and it seems to occur too fast and smoothly for a huge jet being flown by a first-time pilot. Moreover, for a suicide pilot in the last incredible intense seconds of a massive and long-anticipated attack, it is hard to believe that the pilot wouldn't OVER-compensate, and jerk the plane even farther to the left, as opposed to the seemingly controlled piloting that is observed in the videos. Remember again, officially the plane was flying at near maximum speed, making any maneuver very tricky. Interestingly though, this apparent last-second course-correction would tend to rule out remote control guidance of the plane, since guidance systems should have made the plane come in straight on target. The idea that someone was using a joystick from a remote location to control the plane would seem to have some technical problems. However, if the plane were a computer-generated image (CGI), this last-second maneuver would be no problem to add to the video, and would basically add extra drama to the imagery.
O.S. 4) The plane smashed into the south WTC tower full speed, and this event was captured by multiple video cameras. The plane hit the building almost perfectly straight on, such that both wings and wing-mounted engines impacted at about the same time.
Critique: Four of the 29 known videos of the second plane showed the plane directly impact the building, and all four showed the plane enter the building smoothly, without slowing, without any part breaking off. This will be discussed more below. However, there are other odd things about the second hit videos: 1) the plane enters the building at slightly different places in different videos, and 2) the timing of the fireball appearance after the plane goes in is different between different videos. Although live video shots of this event were shown on TV, there are serious anomalies/oddities in the initial presentation of this event. More the suspiciousness of this "live" footage here and here and here.
O.S. 5) Because the plane was banked when it hit, the plane impacted 7 different floors (see Figure 1). The fuselage impacted two different floors and the 150 foot long wings struck several more floors. Specifically, the port wing struck across two floors while the starboard wing struck across four floors.
Figure 1:
Critique: One HAS to wonder why the plane doesn't really line up with the hole very well. How can the engines get in when there are columns blocking it? Moreover, the plane should have made a BIGGER hole in the wall than its profile, not a smaller hole, if it truly smashed through the wall without anything breaking off. Next, take a good look at that large chunk of wall laying right in the bottom of the center hole where the fuselage is supposed to have entered. The only possible explanation is that the plane pushed aside this large section of wall as it went in, much like a kitty-door folds up as the kitty walks through, and that after the plane "passed" through, the folded section of wall broke off and fell down to the bottom of the hole. However, this explanation strains credulity. A plane that smashes through the wall full-speed, if we even assume that is possible, is not going to fold up a broken-off section of wall and leave it right next to the entry hole. This large section of steel columns should be pushed farther inside, particularly considering that according to the videos, the tail of the plane passed into the building without breaking off, and the tail should have caught on this chunk of columns and carried it inwards.
O.S. 6) The plane went into the building, smashing though multiple thick steel columns of the outer wall, without slowing, showing signs of break-up, or any immediate explosion. The extreme mass and speed of the plane was no match for the outer columns, and they gave way to the plane.
Critique:Watch the flash video of the plane entering the building. Does this look real? Does a real plane behave this way? I have no problem with the fact of the fuselage entering, but the lack of immediate explosion, lack of crumpling and lack of deceleration defy belief. Remember, this impact was centered at the 80th floor of a 110 story building. The outer walls were supporting much of the weight of the 30 floors above, and these outer walls were constructed of 13/16 inch steel columns. Then there were also the multiple floor slabs that dissect that plane's path. Floor slabs include heavy steel spandrels where the floor meets the outer wall, 3 inch concrete and steel support trusses. Moreover, the 160 foot plane impacted at least one extremely strong core column after penetrating only 30 feet into the building. If not the outer columns and floor slabs, this impact should have slowed the plane-- but according to the videos, it didn't! Of course, a digital plane can pass easily through steel and concrete without slowing.
O.S. 7) The wings of the plane, on video, were seen to smoothly pass into the building (see Figures 2 and 3), also here; post-impact photos of the entry hole showed several columns near the central hole were sliced through. Less clear is what happened to the thinner, outer sections of the wings; they did not seem to sever columns but still damaged them. The outer sections of wings must have disintegrated upon impacting these distant columns, with some sections of wings breaking through, and some sections shredding upon impact. Little to no fuel was kept in the outer sections of wings and so no significant fuel was spilled to spark an immediate explosion.
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Critique: there is no good explanation for what happened to the wings; their behavior defies physics. The behaviour of the wings is discussed here and here. I think wings on a real plane would have broken off and exploded upon impacting the steel columns of the outer wall. Wings are semi-hollow segmented constructs of aluminum, they are not stronger than steel. Wings frequently break off in other plane crashes. In a slow speed impact, is there any doubt that a thick steel column would rip apart a wing? At high speed, this would only have happened QUICKER. Of course, digital wings can easily pass through steel columns. In reality, the wing-like damage to the outer columns must have been mimicked by precision pre-planted explosives.
O.S. 8) The fuselage of the plane, once inside, impacted a core column of the WTC tower (see Figure 4). This column was substantially larger than the outer wall columns. This column was only aout 30 feet in from the outer wall. There is no data on what happened to this column. We can hypothesize that this column, and the one to the north of it (in line with the plane's path) were minimally damaged by the plane due to their massive strength. Since the plane did not slow upon impact, the plane must have shredded around this column and the one north of it, causing almost complete destruction of the fuselage. Momentum carried the rest of the plane, including the huge tail structure, full-speed into the building as the fuselage shredded against the columns.
Figure 4:
Critique: the lower superstructure of the fuselage that supported much of the weight of the plane and held it together, was a continuous rigid structure. Impact of the fuselage superstructure on a massive core column should have slowed the plane significantly, since the force of the impact would have been transmitted through the plane's framework. The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminum plane. If we assume there was a plane, the only explanation is that the plane broke up after impacting the core column, since the plane officially disintegrated AFTER entering the building. But if this is the case, then why didn't the plane slow? We can see in the video that the tail of the plane smoothly passed into the building following the same initial course of the plane. The idea that the huge 30 foot tail of the 767 passed into the building at full-speed and without deviation in its angle SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER the plane impacted a core column defies common sense. Overall, in the larger sense, we have a huge problem with what officially happened. The 160 foot long plane enters the 208 foot wide building, seemingly indestructible as it passes completely into the building. Yet somehow, in the last 48 feet, the plane disintegrates. This simply defies physics. On the other hand, a computer image of a plane, would certainly be able to pass into the building in the manner seen in the 9/11 videos.
O.S. 9) The starboard wing was torn off from the plane by the corner core column (Figure 4) and was also shredded by the various floor slabs it impacted.
Critique: Again we have the problem with the wing entering the building seemingly in an indestructible fashion, then getting sliced into pieces and spilling fuel.
O.S. 10) Much of the plane's fuel was coincidentally carried in the starboard wing, such that when this wing was torn and shredded, the fuel spilled out with a large amount of momentum.
Critique: if the fuel tanks were as full as is always claimed in the official story, it seems highly unlikely that little to no fuel would be in the port wing.
O.S. 11) A few sections of the fuselage and starboard wing had enough momentum to break all the way through the building. The fuel exited the northeast corner of the building with this debris in a large mass about the size of the fuselage, but this mass quickly erupted into a massive fireball (Figure 5).
Figure 5:
Critique: this large object that initially appears out the north face of the south tower is very odd. It is large enough to be the fuselage, yet a fuselage should not explode massively and essentially evaporate as this object does. The flash movies on this page show this odd phenomenon in good detail. If this object that bursts out of the corner is not the fuselage, what is it? And what causes the object to explode the way it does?
O.S. 12) In particular, a section of the starboard wing that traversed the 83rd floor had a large amount of fuel and scraped across the east wall of the tower, starting the east wall fireball (Figure 5, panel 2).
Critique: the explosive pimples that appear on the side of the building at floor 83 are odd. The only official explanation can be that they are generated by a shredded portion of the starboard wing. Even if we assume a shredded section of wing exploded against the wall, it is hard to believe so much fuel was carried in this thin outer section of wing. Further, the explosions occur outwards from the wall but also travel along the wall. It is hard to imagine how a section of wing can hit against the inside wall, start an explosion, but keep traveling, hit against the wall again, start another explosion, and hit against the wall AGAIN, and start another explosion. Watch the video. How can one section of wing do this?
O.S. 13) The port wing of the plane carried little fuel and was completely destroyed by the core columns and thus did not produce significant damage, explosion or fire on the west side of the building.
Critique: a true oddity is that where the rest of the plane impacted the core, there were few if any fires reported or seen in pictures and videos . Further, in contrast to the North tower hit, I could not find reports of fuel going down the elevator shafts in the South tower. How can this be? The bulk of the plane clearly impacted the core structure (Figure 4), and officially a great deal of fuel should have been in the port wing and fuselage.
O.S. 14) Damage to the core columns from the fuselage, plus fires started by the remaining plane fuel, significantly weakened the tower structural columns at the point of impact, causing the top 30 floors of the building to tip.
Critique: the top 30 floors clearly started to tip, as seen in several videos. (No, I don't think these videos were faked; I think only the plane image was manipulated). If we assume a plane attack, there is no reason to think the core columns that supported much of the weight of the building were damaged. If core columns were damaged by a plane, the plane should have broken through the other side of the building, since not even core columns could stop it. If we assume significant numbers of core columns WERE damaged by a plane, the building should have started tipping immediately after the crash. But ultimately, the idea that jet fuel-induced hydrocarbon fires could weaken the massive thick steel core columns enough on just one side to cause the whole top of the building to topple, simply doesn't hold up. The outer columns of the building were not even particularly damaged on the side where the top started to tip (to the east).
15) The tipping upper tower reached the point of no return, and the top 30 floors of the tower broke off and fell down, starting a global collapse of the complete tower.
It is not clear how the top 30 floors of the tower, which were undamaged, disintegrated in a matter of two seconds. Also not clear is why black jets of smoke were seen shooting out of the upper 30 floors as the top of the tower started to tilt. In the absence of demolition, there is no explanation for what caused the tipping top of the tower to stop falling over on its side and instead to disintegrate.
16) The collapse of the towers released so much energy that the black boxes of the plane were destroyed (officially).
The idea that both black boxes were completely destroyed (as well as the black boxes from the North tower plane) is hard to believe, given the strength of the boxes and that human remains were found in the rubble. Unofficially, it was reported the black boxes WERE found but were kept secret for some unknown reason. My interpretation is that there were never any black boxes to find, because no plane ever struck the tower!
Okay, perhaps you're onto something-- but what about all those videos and photographs of the plane? There are indeed a lot of videos, perhaps even TOO many. I have found 29 different videos that capture the 2nd plane before it hit the WTC. These show the plane for varying lengths of time, for less than a second to almost ten seconds in one case. 29 videos of such an extremely transient event that could only be seen from very select angles seems like a lot to me. A careful scrutiny of the videos reveals a number of abnormalities, most strikingly the fact that different videos show different approach paths for the plane (as indicated above). The more one analyzes these videos, the more one should be struck with their obvious peculiarities in many different regards. I have discussed the large number of videos in more depth here. Overall, the background story is far too hazy on all these videos for us to have confidence in their veracity. The photos that exist of the putative second plane before it hit the tower are also similarly odd. Some of the photos are simply laughable fakes. Other photos show the plane coming in too low for where it impacted. Other photos have oddities, such as the famous Carmen Taylor photo of the plane right before it hit, which shows a plane with a clearly abnormal bulge under the starboard wing root. Many of the anomalies of the second plane images are covered in this fine article by Marcus Icke. The bottom line is that I believe all plane images in photos and videos were added in using computer graphics and computer animation.
But what about all the eye-witnesses?
In fact, some witnesses said they saw a plane, some eye-witnesses said there were missiles being shot at the building (this is even written in police reports and a CNN reporter says people told him missiles were being shot at the building) and some eye-witnesses saw the building explode but saw no plane at all (also here). Some people may have seen a plane that flew by after the North tower was hit and before the second building exploded. The bottom line is that the original eye-witness testimony is conflicted, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. Moreover, the TV images of the second plane have been so embedded in people's minds by now we can't take seriously anyone who might currently come forward and say they were an eye-witness to the plane. In the absence of reliable eye-witness evidence, the physical evidence must rule.
An Alternative Theory
So what did happen at the south WTC tower on 9/11? I think the story of a hijacked 767 hitting the tower is a carefully orchestrated media hoax. I do not know what happened to UA175. But the point is that the official story of this flight hitting the South tower makes little sense. My best guess is that teams of photographers and videographers in on the plot were in carefully pre-positioned places waiting for the second tower to explode. See this article for more on the generation of the plane images. I think that the power down of the top half of the South tower described by Scott Forbes was when the explosives and incendiaries were planted. Interestingly, if we assume there was no plane, and the South tower attack was all done with bombs, it gives a entirely different perspective from which to view the collapse of the South tower.
Summary: we have been lied to about this central event of 9/11. It is a perfect example of the "big lie" technique, where the lie is so enormous, no one can believe it actually is a lie. But viewed from a distance, it makes perfect sense that a televised hoax, using media outlets such as CNN, was the perfect vehicle for selling the whole story of Arab terrorists hijacking planes and attacking the US (not unlike a modernized version of Orson Well's "Martian Invasion" radio hoax). Afterall, there had to be some reason why US Army psy-ops personnel were working at CNN. And it has long been known that the US media is heavily infiltrated by the CIA.
How much do you truly trust the US news media?
Moreover, do you enjoy being LIED to about something so enormous?
We ALL saw it on TV, right?
But what if the airplane never existed? What if the story of a hijacked airplane was a giant hoax, used as a linch-pin to sell the official 9/11 story?
What follows is a multi-point presentation of the complete South WTC tower attack-- and a critique of this story.
I think that there is no doubt that the official story of this central event of 9/11 simply doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.
O.S. = official story (in some cases the official story has not been fleshed out completely, and in these instances, I try to make the best case for the official story).
O.S. 1) Terrorists hijacked a 767 and a hijacker pilot on a suicide mission took over controls of the plane.
Critique: It is unclear how this was accomplished given the hijackers were only armed with knives, boxcutters, and possibly pepper spray and fake bombs. In particular, it is unclear how the hijackers got the pilots out of their seats without ground control being alerted of a hijacking. It seems unlikely the pilots would give up their seats without a struggle, and the pilots were large armed services veterans. It is not clear how the hijackers took the cockpit by surprise, given that at least two of the 9/11 hijackings had fights/struggles in the passenger compartment as the hijackers tried to move to the cockpit.
O.S. 2) The hijacker pilot navigated to New York City and approached the WTC complex from Southern manhattan at a speed between 500 and 600 mph. The plane was seen approaching Manhattan by several video cameras.
Critique: Given that the hijacker pilot had never flown a large jet before, this feat seems highly unlikely-- particularly given the extreme speed, which was at the operational limit for the aircraft. Near sea level, such a speed could even damage the plane. It is hard to imagine someone who had never flown this type of craft before steering and descending the plane effectively at this speed. For an unknown reason, some shots show the plane approaching directly from the south, while other videos show the plane coming from the southwest. Different videos show different rates of descent. It is hard to understand how one plane could take markedly different approach paths, unless one or more videos were faked.
O.S. 3) The hijacker pilot needed to make a last second course alteration, and so banked the plane to the left for the last few hundred feet of approach. This event was captured by a few video cameras.
Critique: One video ("Park Foreman") shows the plane making an extremely rapid and smooth roll to the left (though oddly the plane's course does not obviously change). Given the extreme speed, this maneuver is not trivial, and it seems to occur too fast and smoothly for a huge jet being flown by a first-time pilot. Moreover, for a suicide pilot in the last incredible intense seconds of a massive and long-anticipated attack, it is hard to believe that the pilot wouldn't OVER-compensate, and jerk the plane even farther to the left, as opposed to the seemingly controlled piloting that is observed in the videos. Remember again, officially the plane was flying at near maximum speed, making any maneuver very tricky. Interestingly though, this apparent last-second course-correction would tend to rule out remote control guidance of the plane, since guidance systems should have made the plane come in straight on target. The idea that someone was using a joystick from a remote location to control the plane would seem to have some technical problems. However, if the plane were a computer-generated image (CGI), this last-second maneuver would be no problem to add to the video, and would basically add extra drama to the imagery.
O.S. 4) The plane smashed into the south WTC tower full speed, and this event was captured by multiple video cameras. The plane hit the building almost perfectly straight on, such that both wings and wing-mounted engines impacted at about the same time.
Critique: Four of the 29 known videos of the second plane showed the plane directly impact the building, and all four showed the plane enter the building smoothly, without slowing, without any part breaking off. This will be discussed more below. However, there are other odd things about the second hit videos: 1) the plane enters the building at slightly different places in different videos, and 2) the timing of the fireball appearance after the plane goes in is different between different videos. Although live video shots of this event were shown on TV, there are serious anomalies/oddities in the initial presentation of this event. More the suspiciousness of this "live" footage here and here and here.
O.S. 5) Because the plane was banked when it hit, the plane impacted 7 different floors (see Figure 1). The fuselage impacted two different floors and the 150 foot long wings struck several more floors. Specifically, the port wing struck across two floors while the starboard wing struck across four floors.
Figure 1:
Critique: One HAS to wonder why the plane doesn't really line up with the hole very well. How can the engines get in when there are columns blocking it? Moreover, the plane should have made a BIGGER hole in the wall than its profile, not a smaller hole, if it truly smashed through the wall without anything breaking off. Next, take a good look at that large chunk of wall laying right in the bottom of the center hole where the fuselage is supposed to have entered. The only possible explanation is that the plane pushed aside this large section of wall as it went in, much like a kitty-door folds up as the kitty walks through, and that after the plane "passed" through, the folded section of wall broke off and fell down to the bottom of the hole. However, this explanation strains credulity. A plane that smashes through the wall full-speed, if we even assume that is possible, is not going to fold up a broken-off section of wall and leave it right next to the entry hole. This large section of steel columns should be pushed farther inside, particularly considering that according to the videos, the tail of the plane passed into the building without breaking off, and the tail should have caught on this chunk of columns and carried it inwards.
O.S. 6) The plane went into the building, smashing though multiple thick steel columns of the outer wall, without slowing, showing signs of break-up, or any immediate explosion. The extreme mass and speed of the plane was no match for the outer columns, and they gave way to the plane.
Critique:Watch the flash video of the plane entering the building. Does this look real? Does a real plane behave this way? I have no problem with the fact of the fuselage entering, but the lack of immediate explosion, lack of crumpling and lack of deceleration defy belief. Remember, this impact was centered at the 80th floor of a 110 story building. The outer walls were supporting much of the weight of the 30 floors above, and these outer walls were constructed of 13/16 inch steel columns. Then there were also the multiple floor slabs that dissect that plane's path. Floor slabs include heavy steel spandrels where the floor meets the outer wall, 3 inch concrete and steel support trusses. Moreover, the 160 foot plane impacted at least one extremely strong core column after penetrating only 30 feet into the building. If not the outer columns and floor slabs, this impact should have slowed the plane-- but according to the videos, it didn't! Of course, a digital plane can pass easily through steel and concrete without slowing.
O.S. 7) The wings of the plane, on video, were seen to smoothly pass into the building (see Figures 2 and 3), also here; post-impact photos of the entry hole showed several columns near the central hole were sliced through. Less clear is what happened to the thinner, outer sections of the wings; they did not seem to sever columns but still damaged them. The outer sections of wings must have disintegrated upon impacting these distant columns, with some sections of wings breaking through, and some sections shredding upon impact. Little to no fuel was kept in the outer sections of wings and so no significant fuel was spilled to spark an immediate explosion.
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Critique: there is no good explanation for what happened to the wings; their behavior defies physics. The behaviour of the wings is discussed here and here. I think wings on a real plane would have broken off and exploded upon impacting the steel columns of the outer wall. Wings are semi-hollow segmented constructs of aluminum, they are not stronger than steel. Wings frequently break off in other plane crashes. In a slow speed impact, is there any doubt that a thick steel column would rip apart a wing? At high speed, this would only have happened QUICKER. Of course, digital wings can easily pass through steel columns. In reality, the wing-like damage to the outer columns must have been mimicked by precision pre-planted explosives.
O.S. 8) The fuselage of the plane, once inside, impacted a core column of the WTC tower (see Figure 4). This column was substantially larger than the outer wall columns. This column was only aout 30 feet in from the outer wall. There is no data on what happened to this column. We can hypothesize that this column, and the one to the north of it (in line with the plane's path) were minimally damaged by the plane due to their massive strength. Since the plane did not slow upon impact, the plane must have shredded around this column and the one north of it, causing almost complete destruction of the fuselage. Momentum carried the rest of the plane, including the huge tail structure, full-speed into the building as the fuselage shredded against the columns.
Figure 4:
Critique: the lower superstructure of the fuselage that supported much of the weight of the plane and held it together, was a continuous rigid structure. Impact of the fuselage superstructure on a massive core column should have slowed the plane significantly, since the force of the impact would have been transmitted through the plane's framework. The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminum plane. If we assume there was a plane, the only explanation is that the plane broke up after impacting the core column, since the plane officially disintegrated AFTER entering the building. But if this is the case, then why didn't the plane slow? We can see in the video that the tail of the plane smoothly passed into the building following the same initial course of the plane. The idea that the huge 30 foot tail of the 767 passed into the building at full-speed and without deviation in its angle SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER the plane impacted a core column defies common sense. Overall, in the larger sense, we have a huge problem with what officially happened. The 160 foot long plane enters the 208 foot wide building, seemingly indestructible as it passes completely into the building. Yet somehow, in the last 48 feet, the plane disintegrates. This simply defies physics. On the other hand, a computer image of a plane, would certainly be able to pass into the building in the manner seen in the 9/11 videos.
O.S. 9) The starboard wing was torn off from the plane by the corner core column (Figure 4) and was also shredded by the various floor slabs it impacted.
Critique: Again we have the problem with the wing entering the building seemingly in an indestructible fashion, then getting sliced into pieces and spilling fuel.
O.S. 10) Much of the plane's fuel was coincidentally carried in the starboard wing, such that when this wing was torn and shredded, the fuel spilled out with a large amount of momentum.
Critique: if the fuel tanks were as full as is always claimed in the official story, it seems highly unlikely that little to no fuel would be in the port wing.
O.S. 11) A few sections of the fuselage and starboard wing had enough momentum to break all the way through the building. The fuel exited the northeast corner of the building with this debris in a large mass about the size of the fuselage, but this mass quickly erupted into a massive fireball (Figure 5).
Figure 5:
Critique: this large object that initially appears out the north face of the south tower is very odd. It is large enough to be the fuselage, yet a fuselage should not explode massively and essentially evaporate as this object does. The flash movies on this page show this odd phenomenon in good detail. If this object that bursts out of the corner is not the fuselage, what is it? And what causes the object to explode the way it does?
O.S. 12) In particular, a section of the starboard wing that traversed the 83rd floor had a large amount of fuel and scraped across the east wall of the tower, starting the east wall fireball (Figure 5, panel 2).
Critique: the explosive pimples that appear on the side of the building at floor 83 are odd. The only official explanation can be that they are generated by a shredded portion of the starboard wing. Even if we assume a shredded section of wing exploded against the wall, it is hard to believe so much fuel was carried in this thin outer section of wing. Further, the explosions occur outwards from the wall but also travel along the wall. It is hard to imagine how a section of wing can hit against the inside wall, start an explosion, but keep traveling, hit against the wall again, start another explosion, and hit against the wall AGAIN, and start another explosion. Watch the video. How can one section of wing do this?
O.S. 13) The port wing of the plane carried little fuel and was completely destroyed by the core columns and thus did not produce significant damage, explosion or fire on the west side of the building.
Critique: a true oddity is that where the rest of the plane impacted the core, there were few if any fires reported or seen in pictures and videos . Further, in contrast to the North tower hit, I could not find reports of fuel going down the elevator shafts in the South tower. How can this be? The bulk of the plane clearly impacted the core structure (Figure 4), and officially a great deal of fuel should have been in the port wing and fuselage.
O.S. 14) Damage to the core columns from the fuselage, plus fires started by the remaining plane fuel, significantly weakened the tower structural columns at the point of impact, causing the top 30 floors of the building to tip.
Critique: the top 30 floors clearly started to tip, as seen in several videos. (No, I don't think these videos were faked; I think only the plane image was manipulated). If we assume a plane attack, there is no reason to think the core columns that supported much of the weight of the building were damaged. If core columns were damaged by a plane, the plane should have broken through the other side of the building, since not even core columns could stop it. If we assume significant numbers of core columns WERE damaged by a plane, the building should have started tipping immediately after the crash. But ultimately, the idea that jet fuel-induced hydrocarbon fires could weaken the massive thick steel core columns enough on just one side to cause the whole top of the building to topple, simply doesn't hold up. The outer columns of the building were not even particularly damaged on the side where the top started to tip (to the east).
15) The tipping upper tower reached the point of no return, and the top 30 floors of the tower broke off and fell down, starting a global collapse of the complete tower.
It is not clear how the top 30 floors of the tower, which were undamaged, disintegrated in a matter of two seconds. Also not clear is why black jets of smoke were seen shooting out of the upper 30 floors as the top of the tower started to tilt. In the absence of demolition, there is no explanation for what caused the tipping top of the tower to stop falling over on its side and instead to disintegrate.
16) The collapse of the towers released so much energy that the black boxes of the plane were destroyed (officially).
The idea that both black boxes were completely destroyed (as well as the black boxes from the North tower plane) is hard to believe, given the strength of the boxes and that human remains were found in the rubble. Unofficially, it was reported the black boxes WERE found but were kept secret for some unknown reason. My interpretation is that there were never any black boxes to find, because no plane ever struck the tower!
Okay, perhaps you're onto something-- but what about all those videos and photographs of the plane? There are indeed a lot of videos, perhaps even TOO many. I have found 29 different videos that capture the 2nd plane before it hit the WTC. These show the plane for varying lengths of time, for less than a second to almost ten seconds in one case. 29 videos of such an extremely transient event that could only be seen from very select angles seems like a lot to me. A careful scrutiny of the videos reveals a number of abnormalities, most strikingly the fact that different videos show different approach paths for the plane (as indicated above). The more one analyzes these videos, the more one should be struck with their obvious peculiarities in many different regards. I have discussed the large number of videos in more depth here. Overall, the background story is far too hazy on all these videos for us to have confidence in their veracity. The photos that exist of the putative second plane before it hit the tower are also similarly odd. Some of the photos are simply laughable fakes. Other photos show the plane coming in too low for where it impacted. Other photos have oddities, such as the famous Carmen Taylor photo of the plane right before it hit, which shows a plane with a clearly abnormal bulge under the starboard wing root. Many of the anomalies of the second plane images are covered in this fine article by Marcus Icke. The bottom line is that I believe all plane images in photos and videos were added in using computer graphics and computer animation.
But what about all the eye-witnesses?
In fact, some witnesses said they saw a plane, some eye-witnesses said there were missiles being shot at the building (this is even written in police reports and a CNN reporter says people told him missiles were being shot at the building) and some eye-witnesses saw the building explode but saw no plane at all (also here). Some people may have seen a plane that flew by after the North tower was hit and before the second building exploded. The bottom line is that the original eye-witness testimony is conflicted, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. Moreover, the TV images of the second plane have been so embedded in people's minds by now we can't take seriously anyone who might currently come forward and say they were an eye-witness to the plane. In the absence of reliable eye-witness evidence, the physical evidence must rule.
An Alternative Theory
So what did happen at the south WTC tower on 9/11? I think the story of a hijacked 767 hitting the tower is a carefully orchestrated media hoax. I do not know what happened to UA175. But the point is that the official story of this flight hitting the South tower makes little sense. My best guess is that teams of photographers and videographers in on the plot were in carefully pre-positioned places waiting for the second tower to explode. See this article for more on the generation of the plane images. I think that the power down of the top half of the South tower described by Scott Forbes was when the explosives and incendiaries were planted. Interestingly, if we assume there was no plane, and the South tower attack was all done with bombs, it gives a entirely different perspective from which to view the collapse of the South tower.
Summary: we have been lied to about this central event of 9/11. It is a perfect example of the "big lie" technique, where the lie is so enormous, no one can believe it actually is a lie. But viewed from a distance, it makes perfect sense that a televised hoax, using media outlets such as CNN, was the perfect vehicle for selling the whole story of Arab terrorists hijacking planes and attacking the US (not unlike a modernized version of Orson Well's "Martian Invasion" radio hoax). Afterall, there had to be some reason why US Army psy-ops personnel were working at CNN. And it has long been known that the US media is heavily infiltrated by the CIA.
How much do you truly trust the US news media?
Moreover, do you enjoy being LIED to about something so enormous?
posted by spooked at 11:46 AM
6 Comments:
hmmm, you wrote this one well, and pretty much covered all of it, so I predict that rebuttals, if any, will ignore the tedious and trivial details of this and cut right to the most important part; you should get some tin-foil underpants!
please make a video like Loose change!
We don't care how crude the production is, we just want a 20 minute film that shows the footage, with arrows pointing out what you mean. We NEED TO BE SHOWN.
Words are too abstract.
Make a film, ask avery to do it, DO SOMETHING FAST
u2r2h
When I was about 8 or 9 years old, the space program was going stong with the Gemini program. I adored that stuff, and used to spend all day drawing complicated and intricate pictures of rockets. I used to lable eveything I would draw, makign up names for things I though the rocket should have but didn't know any proper names for the equipment. I remember distinctly the box I put in the cabin to convert engine exhaust to breathable air I called the "transoxygenator".
The point being I was 9 years old. I didn't know things, so I made stuff up.
What's your excuse, Spooked, for not knowing things, but making stuff up?
Incidently, the little box that converts 12-stage engine bleed air to breathable oxygen, at least in naval jets, is called OBOGS - On-Board Oxygen Generating System. I don't have to make stuff up anymore.
Exactly, what did I make up, Pinch?
Anon-- good idea on the video. Wish I had the time...
he knows full well that you didn't make stuff up. you're doing a good job man!
@Proud Kaffir
You are a shill, and your only purpose of being here is to make sure the 'official story' is pushed. People of your ilk are all over the internet, and are easy to spot. Keep a look out for shills like 'Proud Kaffir' folks, the internet is riddled with them, especially 9/11 sites.
Post a Comment
<< Home