Humint Events Online: What Hit the WTC Towers

Thursday, September 14, 2006

What Hit the WTC Towers

I stipulate that:
1) the Naudet video of the 1st hit, the two live videos of the second hit and at least one amateur video of the 2nd hit all show a significantly smaller plane than a Boeing 767-200.
2) the Naudet video showing the first plane hit the north tower has a strangely disjointed entry and subsequent explosion
3) of the 32 or so videos of the second plane, several videos look strange and show planes that appear to defy physics-- in particular videos that show a Boeing jet passing smoothly without slowing into the WTC south tower (CNN "best angle" or "Ghostplane" video, the Jennifer Spell video, the Evan Fairbanks video, the NOVA video)
4) some videos show contradictory plane shading and coloration, as well as contradictory plane bank angles and approach paths
5) multiple witnesses saw an actual plane hit the tower
6) too many videos captured this event for them to all be faked; it was too hard to control every possible video that could have filmed the 2nd hit
7) even though scars made in the facades of the north and south towers were the same size as the profile of a Boeing 767, it is impossible for a normal, conventional plane to produce this cut-out entry pattern and then completely disintegrate inside the towers.


Here's what I think may have happened--


1) both the north and south towers were struck by Boeing-like airplanes that had smaller airframes than Boeing 767's. These were not conventional aircraft, and were specifically designed to leave a Boeing 767-like imprint and also to disintegrate once they (or as they) passed inside the towers. The exact nature of these craft is not clear at this point. For the eventual demolition of the towers, it was important to have the alibi of the plane going into the towers (along with its putative jet fuel) and disappearing. Additional charges were set off in the building to coincide with the plane attack.

2) the Naudet video, the two live 2nd hit shots and at least one amateur 2nd hit video (Jennifer Spell) captured this unusual smaller plane, which looked passably like a United Airlines Boeing jet. Videos taken from a great distance only showing a dark blur probably also captured this plane. The filmers of the Naudet video and the two live shots of the 2nd plane very likely expected the plane at a certain time. Importantly, there was a real plane that witnesses saw and that was filmed.

3) several 2nd hit videos were "enhanced" to show a more realistic-sized United Airlines Boeing 767, and this is where the pod and other abnormalities in the plane images were added. Some 2nd hit videos were a CGI image over-laid over the original plane-- such as the CNN "best angle" or "Ghostplane" video. Some videos cut out the original plane completely and then altered the approach path and bank angles.

5) some videographers were specifically in place to film the 2nd hit and were in on the plot. These people most likely modified their footage of the plane.

6) most if not all photos of the 2nd plane were faked or were modified from videos.


The important points are that:
1) there was a real "Boeing-like" plane that people saw and it was filmed passing into the towers
2) this was not a conventional plane-- it was designed to pass smoothly into the towers and to disinegrate inside.
3) this unconventional plane also was designed to leave a 767-like profile (except for the tail section).
4) many videos of the 2nd plane were later altered, for various reasons, but primarily to make the plane look the right size.
5) this theory does tend to let the media off the hook somewhat, but also strongly implicates a high-tech military operation was used.
6) this is neither a "no plane" theory nor a fly-by theory-- it is more of a "special plane" theory.
7) this special plane may have also been used for the Pentagon and Shanskville events.

I think this explanation fits the facts the best of anything I have come up with so far. The huge question now is: what WAS the nature of the planes that hit the buildings?

9 Comments:

Anonymous j said...

both planes flash

4:32 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

yeah, that is an important clue about the planes

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Tom the Barbarian said...

I think Col. Mustard did it in the library with the candlestick.

Seriously, I enjoy this website. It is entertaining to see how many people can contort their minds to dismiss tons of evidence and seize on grams of seeming discrepencies to spin out ever more elaborate "theories". It is kind of watching creationists deal with advancing scientific knowledge. They will never yield because they think they cannot accept truth without abandoning their religious ferver. The 9-11 conspiricy theorists have the same sad but entertaining refusal to stare a bald fact in the face.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Fatty was had said...

Yeah no doubt Tom!
By the way, what "tons of evidence" are they dismissing?
I'd surely like to see some of it.

1:58 AM  
Blogger u2r2h said...

Nothing really makes sense.

I suggest the following:

China or Russia (or Iran, or France) recreates
20 floors worth of World Trade Center,
and then flies a 767 into it...

Then we will know what the effect looks like.

My guess is that it looks VERY different.


My favourite photo still is this one;

http://www.google.com/search?q=handschuh+photo+wtc

http://sageauthoring.com/images/WTC/911/Attack/911_FallingPlaneParts001_DavidHandschuh-UAflt174-DailyNews-1.jpg

http://wtc10048nyc.free.fr/120.html

Apart from the MISSING PLANE DEBRIS and the weird explosion
it shows the simultaneous explosions IN THE OTHER TOWER (north tower).

One can also see them in a VIDEO (sorry, I don't have the link now)

It is a short snippet (30seconds? avi?) where
some video-editor inserted WHITE WRITING pointing out
a person standing in the corner of the NORTH TOWER
and at the exact moment the explosion happenes in the
south tower, is he falling down... there is even a hint
of explosion at the corner (above the N-tower-explosion-hole)
where he was standing.

In other words.. it CLEARLY shows explosions in the NORTH TOWER
at the exact moment that the explosion in the SOUTH TOWER happens.

Like Andrew Grove (sp?) said: The whole thing was a magicians trick:
They divert your attention.

The witness Rodriguez (WTC janitor) also described in his affidavit
the huge explosions IN THE BASEMENT of the NORTH TOWER seconds
B-E-F-O-R-E the explosion happens 80 floors above.

1:58 AM  
Anonymous Tom The Barbarian said...

fatty was had said: "By the way, what "tons of evidence" are they dismissing?
I'd surely like to see some of it."


OK, let's start with some basic evidence.

1) Hundreds, if not thousands of eye witnesses. All their stories do not match identically but that is normal at any sudden, emotionally jarring event. I've witnessed car accidents and been an eye witness at crimes and I can tell you that, while each witness's account will have minor discrepencies, they will generally give a fairly good account. This is perfectly understandable given that each person watched from a different location, each one had a different level of distraction and each usually has a differering ability to recognize and process technical details. For example, at one hit-and-run accident witnessed by me and about 8 others the policeman investigating got several varied accounts. One witness said the car that fled the scene was "beige". Another witness said it was a "white Pontiac G6 with a sunroof". A 9-11 conspiricy theorist would say. "A car can't be two different colors, this must have been a goverment operations faking a a hit and run". However; the copy probably thought to himself, "This happened at night where the lighting wasn't so good, I'm looking for a light-colored G6, probably white, and maybe needing a wash." That is because the cop brings basic investigative skills to his task and does not expect every eye-witness account to be exactly identical. He does not seize on minor differences to dismiss one witness or the other but, rather, looks for patterns that fit their general account.

First ton of evidence: Hundreds, if not thousands of eye witnesses that saw planes strike the buildings.

2) Live TV coverage of the 2nd plane striking. Of course I know that many people here think that every news outlet was in on the deception and therefore helped fake the live footage that followed the 1st plane, but I don't have any tin-foil in my wardrobe so I just can't buy that. In an age when the NY Times would run stories on the NSA phone monitoring operation, everyone and his brother was reporting on Abu Ghraib and the CIA secret prisons were reported on a year ago, CT-ers want me to believe the government and media would conspire (and succeed) in keeping a secret this monumental? Get serious. If you are not so enourmously stupid to belive the media perpetrated a hoax then what about the live footage of the second tower being struck?

Second ton of evidence: Live coverage.

3) People who actually know what they're talking about vs. people just blowing smoke. I'll give one example from this original post:

"7) even though scars made in the facades of the north and south towers were the same size as
the profile of a Boeing 767, it is impossible for a normal, conventional plane to produce
this cut-out entry pattern and then completely disintegrate inside the towers."

Now, if the author of this entry actually had anything other than bald assertion on his size we would see something to back up such a claim. It is not enough to declare something to be impossible. One must at least attempt to explain why. Could we have a short discussion of the relative tensile strengths of aircraft aluminum versus reinforced concrete? How much kinetic energy is involved in a fully loaded airliner striking a building like WTC 1 or 2? After all that energy has to go somewhere. Any chance it could contribute to the shredding of the airframe? Ever seen what happens to the aircraft when a ramp strike occurs on a carrier? Take a look. Keep in mind that the speed is probably about 1/3 to 1/4 the speed the airliners were going, the weight is less by at least an order of magnitude and that is a glancing blow, not a direct hit. And yet parts of any "ramp strike" aircraft will be reduced to very small bits and pieces. This is a much better simulation that burning newspaper inside a wire fence frame, which was offered here as "evidence" in the past.

Call me crazy but I bet 90% of the posters here talking about "physics says" this couldn't even compute the energy released by the collision, or tell you what an erg is or have even seen a CRC Handbook. I'm no structural expert, my engineering training was in EE and software, but I got enough introduction to other fields that I can recognize those who know what they're talking about and those who are crackpots.

Third ton of evidence: Nutball theories and assertions by CT-ers that betray a lack of basic scientific and engineering knowledge.



Now, I don't expect to change any minds. I recognize the hardcore CT-ers for what they are. Fundamentalist religious zealots. They are convinced of their own truth and nothing that conflicts with it can be believed. Look at Spooked own profile statement, he is simultaneously "dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11" and convinced "the evidence is incontrovertible". Anyone who is thinks evidence is incontrovertible has quite looking for the truth, that person is already persuaded, and nothing will sway him. Spooked sounds like I guy I once knew who rejected contemporary Bible translations saying, "The King James Version was good enough for Paul and it's good enough for me." You have to admire his dedication to his point of view but you can also get a lot of entertainment out of hearing him advance it.

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

This site has plenty of great pictures and diagrams that are on solid engineering footing. Also please note that many of the supposed "conspiracy theorists" are highly educated, such as Jeff King who is an MIT trained engineer with other advanced degrees.

Fred

There's people from all political perspectives who show that the official story is false. Why ridicule people who are trying to make sense of the evidence?

11:53 AM  
Anonymous fatty was had said...

Tom, your claim that there were thousands of eyewitnesses is not evidence. For example, we all saw your wife climbing out of your neighbor's window when she was done with him. What's that you say? Your wife was with you the entire time? But we all saw her, she was wearing a red sweater. No, she had a green jacket on! What? she clearly had a yellow scarf around her neck at the time! Not a chance, pal it was a blue dress!
But Tom insists that she was with him the entire time?
Eyewitnesses are trumped by actual evidence, which in this case consists solely of the video records of ua175.
then what about the live footage of the second tower being struck?
actually there were only 2 "live footages" - one by ABC and the other FOX - they were filmed with a military camera set-up - and they not only were delayed by almost 10 seconds but the images they presented conflicted with each other.
and that leaves us with the images presented later in the day of ua175 actually entering wtc2 like a ghost without the wing tips breaking off or even slowing down as they slipped thru the side of the tower like butter.
the images of ua175 were faked, as shown here by Marcus Icke:
ghostgun ua175

12:37 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Tom-- why do so many non-9/11 skeptics seem to have reading comprehension problems? Why are you talking about eyewitnesses when I was actually saying a plane hit the building? You didn't even read my whole post and you clearly don't understand it. As far as whether a plane can make a cutout shape of itself in a building, I was referring to an article that I have posted many times by Gerard Holmgren where he says it is impossible. I invited people to rebut it and no one has (see the post three or four below this). That is why I didn't put a citation.

In any case, much of engineering and physics/mechanics more or less boils down to common sense. You don't have to do the math to see things don't add up.

In terms of my beliefs, I am open to evidence and i have changed my mind on things over time as I learn new things. I said it was incontrovertible that the towers were brought down by demolition, but that doesn't mean I know the truth about everything in 9/11.

1:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger