Humint Events Online: 2nd Plane "Eyewitnesses"

Friday, June 23, 2006

2nd Plane "Eyewitnesses"

Funny how my obscure little blog has gotten a few commenters lately who claimed the saw the 2nd plane or know someone who saw it.

Unfortunately, these people never stick around to give any details to what they saw.

There is sort of an odd flatness, a lack of any emotion or personality to these comments, though. They seem rather generic.

Gee, I wonder if any organization ever pays people to leave comments on blogs espousing a certain idea.

I wonder....

17 Comments:

Anonymous james ha said...

wow over on the pinch blog he has a little reminiscence about his wingman's wing taking the nose of his plane off: the story about the nose of your plane being taken off by your wingman landing is amazing. astounding even!
a shame that his wingman's wing wasn't made of hardened steel box-columns, then the nose of pinch's plane would have no doubt punched a hole clean thru his wingman's wing!
live and learn aircraft manufacturers. live and learn.

11:34 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

good find, James!

Must just be those military airplanes that are made of cardboard-- I'm sure commercial jets are MUCH stronger and can punch right through hardened steel.

1:58 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

When I do experiments, Spook, ol buddy, I don't use a silly child-like contraption.

If you took a look at the image of my aircraft, you'll see that there was a bit of damage aft of the ballistic bulkhead - the frame that the radar dish is attached to, part of the aircraft's basic frame, acting as a firewall does in a car. It was only about 3-4 inches of impact on that steel frame, yet it was enough to transfer the impact forces back into the wing of Hooter's aircraft, tearing off that 2 and a half feet. At 135 kniots, the landing speed of a Tomcat, the relatively soft-when-compared-to-steel-frame wing tip *still* damaged the steel ballistic bulkhead. Increase that small tactical fighter jet wing-tip to a full 767 wing, fill it with fuel to increase mass and weight, accelerate it to 500 knots, and I guaran-fuckin-tee it will do what it did to WTC 2.

But, even though you *constantly* say "prove me wrong!" (upcoming comment on that soon), even in the face of the practical effects of a collision that I have personally experienced, you'll still maintain this cockamamie wacked-out idea that the 767 should have bounced off the face of a predominantly glass structure.

6:37 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

When I do experiments, Spook, ol buddy, I don't use a silly child-like contraption.

If you took a look at the image of my aircraft, you'll see that there was a bit of damage aft of the ballistic bulkhead - the frame that the radar dish is attached to, part of the aircraft's basic frame, acting as a firewall does in a car. It was only about 3-4 inches of impact on that steel frame, yet it was enough to transfer the impact forces back into the wing of Hooter's aircraft, tearing off that 2 and a half feet. At 135 kniots, the landing speed of a Tomcat, the relatively soft-when-compared-to-steel-frame wing tip *still* damaged the steel ballistic bulkhead. Increase that small tactical fighter jet wing-tip to a full 767 wing, fill it with fuel to increase mass and weight, accelerate it to 500 knots, and I guaran-fuckin-tee it will do what it did to WTC 2.

But, even though you *constantly* say "prove me wrong!" (upcoming comment on that soon), even in the face of the practical effects of a collision that I have personally experienced, you'll still maintain this cockamamie wacked-out idea that the 767 should have bounced off the face of a predominantly glass structure.

6:38 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Oh, yes, we're all being paid by the illuminatti to spy on blogs that get 20 people a day that look at them

8:10 PM  
Anonymous shep said...

Must just be those military airplanes that are made of cardboard

Actually, the F-14A wings are made out of one TI-6A1-4V titanium alloy with a width of 6.71m and the fuselage has machined frames, which consist of titanium main longerons and light alloy skins. Remember, these planes can fly faster than the speed of sound and must be able to withstand high G forces during combat maneuvers (or just the general airshow tool-around-on-tax-payer-dollars - thanks maverick and goose).

predominantly glass structure

OMG, what do you think these towers were, a giant glass house? Here's some great shots of the 'predominantly glass structure' under construction: one two three four and five. If you need anymore, Google it up!.

And what are those Boeing wings made out of? Hmmm, lets think. Boeing signed a deal with 5 Aluminium mills totaling $4.3 billion dollars. Wow, thats alot dough - they must use alot of aluninium. Did you know that aluminium is primary aircraft material, comprising about 80 per cent of an aircraft's unladen weight and that because aluminium resists corrosion, some airlines don't paint their planes, saving several hundred kgs of weight? [source linked to]

There's no doubt however that when these aluminium wings attached to a commercial jet (lightweight by design) are filled with fuel and accelerated to 500 knots, structural steel wouldn't stand a chance. But then, you've got to wonder, how did a bird leave a whole in the main wing of a Boeing 767 in midflight?

Hurry back pinch! I am looking forward to maing you my instabitch again. Ta ta flyboy.

8:25 PM  
Anonymous james ha said...

thanks maverick and goose

don't forget hooter! did he actually paint hooter on his helmet?
------------
they make 767 nosecones out of 3 different materials: some are aluminum some are carbon and some are plastic. what was this one made out of? LINK and where is the tail wing?

9:44 PM  
Anonymous james ha said...

did you also know that when a big airliner is way way up there they only pressurize the cabins to the equivalent atmospheric pressure of 8000' because a sea-level pressure would put too much strain on it's delicate seams?

10:03 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

I never said a 767 would bounce off the WTC. Moreover, as Shep points out, the WTC was a stupendously strong steel and concrete structure-- made in the 60's, it had thick steel outer columns and very narrow windows--not all like these glass towers they build today.

Idiot.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous shep said...

An excerpt from Dealing with Bird Strikes [pdf]:

While the most commonly damaged component is the engine, the second most damaged element is the wing. “The main worry if birds hit the wing is if they were to penetrate the leading edge and hit the spar, behind which lies the fuel tank,” said Professor McCarthy [a member of the Materials and Surface Science Institute at the University of Limerick]

I wouldn't worry about those wings too much... after all, if the wings of a 757 can slice through structural steel, what could the organic flesh and bone of a bird really do?

12:14 AM  
Anonymous pinch said...

I've always had a problem - contempt, really - once this Internet thing came out, with people trying to pass themselves off as some sort of "expert" in something by posting a bunch of hyperlinks based on a few Google searches.

This has just reinforced that belief.

There was unsolicited evidence of a personal experience I had with wing/aircraft damage, and we have this shep character all of a sudden an expert on the structural components of a tactical fighter jet wing and tries to pass himself off as such.

Yet another reason why I am completely confident that the left will never, ever be trusted again with the national security of this nation.

7:00 AM  
Blogger PerpetualYnquisitive said...

Ah, Pinch, my favourite socialist, welfare princess.

So how's that fight against socialism going?

Kinda strange, a socialist that is supposedly against socialism, that must be some caused by some intellectual schism.

8:31 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

I have always had a problem-- contempt really-- with idiots who misinterpret what other people say and who can't even seem to figure out what a joke the official 9/11 story is...

9:05 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Pinch-- as far as "national security": between 9/11, the anthrax attacks, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, record debt and spiraling fuel prices, it is hard to imagine anyone on the left bungling "national security" more than Bush.

This is even according to conventional wisdom and doesn't even count the very real possibility that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.

So don't get me started about "national security".

Finally, no one here ever said they were an expert on anything-- they were providing information (which you have not disputed). No one here disputed your story, they only used it to show that wings are not so strong. No one here ever said a 767 would bounce off the WTC. No one besides you ever claimed the WTC was a "predominantly glass" structure, something which is obviously false.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't even matter what a real 767 would have done to the WTC, because the videos do not provide evidence for a real 767. And you have not been able to show otherwise.

9:30 AM  
Anonymous shep said...

Yet another reason why I am completely confident that the left will never, ever be trusted again with the national security of this nation.


A sneaky attempt at steering the debate, ol pinchy? This isn't a left and right issue nor do I believe political affiliation should hold much bearing when debating these matters.

and we have this shep character all of a sudden an expert on the structural components of a tactical fighter jet wing and tries to pass himself off as such.

and we have this instabitch character all of a sudden an expert of the impact of Boeing 767 wings with the structural steel box columns of the exterior wall of WTC 2 [...a full 767 wing, fill it with fuel to increase mass and weight, accelerate it to 500 knots, and I guaran-fuckin-tee it will do what it did to WTC 2]

So, you 'guaran-fuckin-tee' us that a 767 wing filled with fuel and traveling at 500 knots is going to 'do what it did to WTC 2'?

And what about that bird that damaged a Boeing 767 and left a hole in its main wing? I know you didn't read the article, so I'll provide a tiny excerpt: It said a collision with birds when a plane is flying at several hundred kilometers per hour can cause a hole in the aircraft's body.

No one here is an expert and has never made such claims, but, IMO, it does appear that most people here are capable of questioning 'events' which defy logical, reason ,and in some cases, established laws of physics.

Everyone here, except you pinch... So put up, or shut up, instabitch.

11:07 AM  
Anonymous james ha said...

pinch is just bitter because his friend got the call-sign "hooter" before he did! it's ok pinch.

5:31 PM  
Blogger Lawson Copywrite & Co. said...

Paid to leave comments????
I do this for fuN!

12:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger