Five Basic Possibilities for What Happened at the South Tower
1) A non-conventional plane or missile, either similar looking to a Boeing 767 or with cloaking similar to a Boeing 767 hit the tower, and the videos that show the plane melting into the tower are mostly legitimate. Some videos were probably altered to make the plane look more like a United 767 and also to confuse investigators. Rather than shearing off upon impact, the wingtips and tail of this plane were apparently some special material or energy form that was able to disintegrate/dissipate upon contact and also leave a ghost-like imprint in heavy steel columns.
2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile.
3) No visible plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear in any 2nd hit video.
4) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.
5) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or were faked after the fact, to confuse investigators, for fame or for commercial purposes (or any combination of these).
The problem with #5 (the official story plus faked videos) of course is that the plane defies physics as it enters the tower.
The problem with #4 is it assumes every video from close-up was faked, and idea I also find unlikely.
The problem with #3 is it assumes every video was faked, and idea I find unlikely.
The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane "buttering" into the tower is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane going off to the side then invisible before the tower exploded, and c) something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of #2 is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected.
The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a some flying bomb technology that is top secret. The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains EVERYTHING: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this explanation is that we don't know what it was that hit the tower.
Overall, I think #1 is the most likely explanation, and it has the least amount of risk if we go on the reasonable assumption that the south tower attack was rigged.
Thus right now, I think #1 is most likely, and #2 and #3 are alternative possibilities in that order.
-------------------------------------------------
The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower. Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts on the ground.
A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.
Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.
2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile.
3) No visible plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear in any 2nd hit video.
4) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.
5) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or were faked after the fact, to confuse investigators, for fame or for commercial purposes (or any combination of these).
The problem with #5 (the official story plus faked videos) of course is that the plane defies physics as it enters the tower.
The problem with #4 is it assumes every video from close-up was faked, and idea I also find unlikely.
The problem with #3 is it assumes every video was faked, and idea I find unlikely.
The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane "buttering" into the tower is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane going off to the side then invisible before the tower exploded, and c) something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of #2 is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected.
The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a some flying bomb technology that is top secret. The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains EVERYTHING: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this explanation is that we don't know what it was that hit the tower.
Overall, I think #1 is the most likely explanation, and it has the least amount of risk if we go on the reasonable assumption that the south tower attack was rigged.
Thus right now, I think #1 is most likely, and #2 and #3 are alternative possibilities in that order.
-------------------------------------------------
The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower. Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts on the ground.
A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.
Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.
posted by spooked at 3:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home