WTC7 Explained? I Don't Think So.

Somebody named Mark Roberts wrote an extremely long piece on the collapse of WTC7. The text is here, and on that same page you can download a PDF or a WORD version of the piece. It is over 100 pages, but much of it is pictures. I actually read through the whole thing.

First of all, Roberts did a reasonably thorough job trying to support the "official story". He obviously spent a lot of time on the piece.

Second, Roberts seems very (perhaps even inordinately) determined to prove nothing suspicious happened with WTC7, i.e. that there was no controlled demolition. Oddly, for all effort he put into the piece, one thing Roberts didn't seem to cover was the issue that WTC7 was built over an electrical substation and had an awkwardly built lower section with supposedly some columns having too much stress on them. It is odd he doesn't really talk about it, because it tends support the official story.

Roberts' big beef seems to be that "Conspiracy Theorists" are slandering NYC firemen. That may be the case, and I am not going to try to defend Alex Jones or Les Jamieson. I don't trust those people myself.

Overall, I imagine this article will be convincing to most people who know little about WTC7 and have few if any doubts about the official 9/11 story. And probably the piece won't sway people who tend to doubt the official 9/11 story.

MY major complaint is that there is a very disturbing credulity on the part of Roberts and his ilk (the Screw Loose Change gang) about WTC7 and the official 9/11 story in general.***

A HUGE 47 story office building sinks down in a symmetrical fashion, essentially at free-fall speed, and collapses into a very neat little pile-- and it's like: hey no problem! It's normal! People who question it are kooks!

They have the same view about everything relating to 9/11: the incredible collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, the way UA175 melted into the South Tower, the unlikely Pentagon attack, the bizarre flight 93 crash site. It's all "NO PROBLEM!" This is NORMAL physics! The amazingly ineffective air defense system on 9/11? The lack of apparent knowledge about the hijackers PRIOR to the attacks? Incompetent government! No problem! People who question it are kooks!

Obviously, I DON'T THINK SO.

Here is what I say about WTC7:

-- I always thought Silverstein's "pull it" comment was bizarre and confusing and not really a smoking gun (though possibly disinfo)

-- yes, WTC7 WAS damaged from the fall of WTC1 and was on fire

-- the extent of the damage is unclear and photos showing the damage more clearly have been with-held from the public for some reason

-- there is no evidence for massive raging fires at WTC7, there were hardly any fires on the north face of the building

-- the big question is: how can asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause a perfectly symmetrical free-fall collapse?

--even NIST says they don't know exactly why WTC7 fell

-- Roberts says that WTC7 fell at 13 seconds not 7 seconds. But this timing is only because the penthouse structure of WTC7 took several seconds to collapse. In fact, the main structure of WTC7 fell at essentially free fall speed: 7 seconds

-- the fall of WTC7 was much too smooth and controlled to be from a building completely breaking apart and collapsing from gravity

-- the fireproofing of WTC7 was not damaged so why should the fires have caused the collapse?

-- whatever happened at WTC7 probably wasn't purely conventional demolition, and some sort of beam weapon may have been used like at WTC1 and WTC2

-- firemen saying that WTC7 was going to come down may have been saying that after seeing what happened to WTC1 and WTC2. It doesn't imply specific knowledge of demolition. On the other hand, the firemen's statements do not RULE OUT demolition. The statements are ambiguous, just like Silverstein's comments.

-- it seems quite possible that WTC7 was somewhat unstable and that firemen were indeed worried that it would collapse, and a similar device that was used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 was used to bring down WTC7.

-- WTC7 had several suspicious tenants such as the CIA and Secret Service, not to mention various financial services companies, that may have wanted to destroy evidence

-- If WTC7 was in fact highly valuable, why wasn't more effort made to save it?

-- questioning the WTC7 collapse is not kooky, nor is questioning anything else about 9/11, especially since the bulk of the evidence implies 9/11 was an inside job and a huge fraud on the American people



***The Screw Loose Change gang are probably a mixture of extremely credulous "useful idiots" and professional "debunkers"/"disinfo agents".

A Short History of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement

from Veronica Chapman.

A Critique of Eric Salter's Article on the No-Plane Theory in "The Journal of 9/11 Studies"

Salter's article is here: Journal of 9/11 Studies, October 2006/Volume 4, page 1-14. Alternatively, here.

The article is slick, and Salter explemplifies exactly the reason of why the 9/11 perpetrators would want to play mind games with the planes: not using planes is such an effective tool for the perps -- for keeping the truth from getting out because no one wants to believe they were lied to about the planes in such a big way. In other words, someone has to be crazy to believe that no real planes were used for the 9/11 attacks.

One merely has to witness the vitriol of a 9/11 "truther" against the "no-planers" to realize how effective this big lie about the planes is. The idea of course, is that since "everyone" thinks no-planes is crazy, that people who talk about no-planes are "hurting the movement"-- a standard mind-control technique. And of course die-hard activists would HATE to see their movement mocked or made fun of! Like that would NEVER happen if we never talked about the no-plane-theory!

Salter's main reasoning that the WTC attacks involved real planes is essentially that we have all these videos of the plane hitting the South tower and how therefore could the perpetrators ever possibly control all these videos?

Let me address this first by stating the facts of the 2nd hit videos:
1) the two known "live" videos show a plane that is clearly too small for a Boeing 767-200 (Salter does not address this issue)
2) many videos and photos of the 2nd plane show abnormalities in the plane such as a deformed tail section, a dropping port wing or the "pod". (Salter does not convincingly explain away these issues)
3) very few if any videos show a relatively normal Boeing 767-200 in unambiguous United Airlines livery (Salter does not address this issue)
4) some videos show plane approach paths that differ from other videos (Salter does not address this issue)
5) many videos have suspicious zoom-ins or zoom-outs right before the plane hits (Salter does not address this issue)
6) several videos show the plane entering the South tower with no significant decrease in speed (Salter only partially and incorrectly addresses this issue, see below)
7) extremely little plane debris was recovered from the two extremely large jets that hit the WTC, including the black boxes, officially (Salter does not really address this issue)
8) one of the larger pieces of plane debris, a several hundred pound engine section, ended up UNDER a construction canopy (Salter does not address this issue)
9) the planes left cut-out shapes of themselves in walls constructed of large steel columns and the planes then themselves disintegrated, a physical impossibility (Salter does not address this issue directly)

Salter either pretends all this evidence doesn't exist or he presents bogus arguments against it.

Objectively, we have rather strong evidence for video fakery, fake plane crashes, and planted evidence. We are most likely either talking about all the plane videos being faked and the building damage done via special mechanisms, or about some sort of non-conventional 767-like plane being used for the attack and where some videos of this plane were later edited to show a more correct 767. These ideas are discussed more at the end of this piece.

As for ALL the 2nd hit videos, video fakery is not hard these days, and a team of select camera operators and video animators would obviously be recruited for the task. Some of the animators may not have even know exactly why they were making plane images. The camera operators would be in on the plot "big time", and would undoubtedly have the threat of death over them if they confessed. As far as innocent camera operators who happened to capture either 1) a weird plane or 2) no plane, these people could be dealt with relatively easily. In the former case, their videos would be left alone or modified slightly before dissemination on the internet. In the latter case, they would have to be silenced, possibly under the threat of death. We don't really know what happened in the early days after the attacks, and certainly it is possible incriminating videos turned into the authorities were destroyed or manipulated and their owners threatened. Finally, the chance of some random person filming no plane before the South tower exploded would be minimized by the fact that if there was no plane, there was nothing for them to film! Remember two other points: 1) the South tower attack could not be seen well by most people in and around Manhattan, 2) at the time, the 2nd hit was completely unexpected (officially) so there would be no reason for people to be focusing on the South tower. Indeed, several videos have come to light where the person was filming the North tower, and then was totally surprised by the South tower hit, thus missing filming the 2nd plane. Either the person was bored and turned off the camera before the South tower was hit, or they simply did not see a plane and didn't focus on the South tower.

Now, Salter's article is filled with many apparent truths, and in general much of his logic is persuasive to someone who isn't familiar with the details of the no-plane theory. But Salter is very selective in what he talks about, as is the case with most people who try to spin something a certain way. And boy, does he spin!

So, recapping a bit from above, here is what Salter does NOT talk about at all in his article:

1) the evidence against a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon, which supports the no-plane theory.

2) the almost complete lack of plane wreckage for flight 93 and the strangeness of the crash crater, which supports the no-plane theory.

3) the wreckage from the WTC attacks that appears to be planted-- e.g. an engine section under a construction canopy.

4) that no black boxes were officially found at ground zero (the various articles that appeared a year and a half ago saying the FBI really found the boxes and were keeping them secret is likely disinfo, but in any case needs to be taken with a fair amount of skepticism).

5) the overall LACK of plane debris found at Ground Zero, which is striking considering the rubble was carefully sifted for human remains (as described in the book "9/11 Revealed").

6) the idea, that no one YET has refuted, that a plane cannot leave a cut-out shape of itself and a hole in a building and at the same time have the plane be completely destoyed by the building. This concept is based on solid physics and is one of the strongets arguments against real planes hitting the WTC.

7) the MULTIPLE abnormalities in the visual record of the planes that hit the WTC (see this blog or Marcus Icke's Ghost Gun article for mutliple examples. Salter states at one point that no one filmed a smaller plane than a 767 hitting the South tower. But this is simply false! Salter doesn't mention the plane path inconsistencies, even though this is a true smoking gun for fakery.

8) the idea that if no plane was flying towards the WTC, then no one except an agent specifically waiting for the South tower attack would be there to film the explosion; the chances that someone would be filming the WTC from the other side of where the first plane hit and capture open sky before the explosion are minimal. In general, the vast majority of people in Manhattan would not be able to see a plane approach from the south. People in New Jersey of Brooklyn would have had a better view, but it is not clear how many of these witnesses were legitimate.

9) the actual reasons the 9/11 perps might not have wanted to use real planes: a) the psy-op effect, b) various technical reasons made it easier logistically to fake the planes than use real commercial aircraft, c) a real plane would have exploded much more on the outside of the tower and not penetrated completely, this would be a problem with selling the idea that the plane crash caused the WTC to completely collapse, d) a fake plane would not have a chance of getting interecepted by the air force.

10) Salter claims to be a video expert, but does not note any of the many video oddities of the 2nd hit, such as zoom-ins and zoom-outs just fractions of seconds before the plane appears-- suggesting some level of video fakery. Most remarkably, Salter seems to be completely unconcerned with the major oddities of his unique 9/11 footage of the 2nd hit, for instance, that there are a series of zoom-ins on the South tower before it is hit, and the plane is never seen until the last zoom-in.

Salter very sloppily wand-waves around several key points:

1) Salter says the outer halves of the wings on "UA175" fragmented upon hitting the tower. The parts of the wings that hit the windows went in, and the parts of the wings that hit the columns shattered into aluminum confetti and fell to the street below. The problem is: 1) there is no evidence for this and no video shows the wings fragmenting at all, 2) no video shows pieces of the wing deflecting off the building as would be expected for this theory, 3) no video shows the fuel-filled wings exploding as they are torn apart by the outer columns, and 4) since Boeing 767 wings are swept back at a 35 degree angle, the wings would not hit flush. Thus even if a wing fragmented at one section first, the rest of the wing should have broken off and ricocheted away from the building.

2) Salter says the length of the plane that hit the North tower is about the right length for a 767, but his "analysis" is rough and imprecise in the extreme. Both Marcus Icke and I have done more careful asessments of this 1st hit "plane", and found that it is clearly too small to be a 767. In one of his articles, Salter says he did not do a careful measurement of the 1st hit plane, because the image was not good enough quality for a proper measurement. But clearly he could have done a much more precise measurement than what he showed.

3) Salter says that since the South tower swayed after the attack/impact/explosion, it had to be a plane that hit the tower, not a bomb. It is obvious that some sort of directional explosion could have produced the tower sway as well, and thus in no way does the fact that the tower swayed mean that a plane hit it. The sway is CONSISTENT with a plane, but does not PROVE a plane (much in the same way the Naudet 1st hit flying blob is consistent with a plane but does not prove a plane).

4) Salter naturally places some emphasis on eye-witnesses. Eye-witnesses are notoriously fungible, and most 2nd hit witnesses saw the building exploded. At least 99.9999% of the people who saw the South tower explode on 9/11 saw it on TV with a plane going into it. Curiously, Salter counts 2nd hit videographer Evan Fairbanks as a reliable eye-witness, even though Fairbanks should be viewed with extreme suspicion given what I outlined above. Eye-witnesses can be important, but since the video of a plane hitting the South tower was played over and over and over on TV it's hard to trust the eye-witnesses. "Ear" witnesses are even less reliable, as no doubt, whatever happened at the South tower sounded loud and could pass for a jet engine.

5) Salter seems to think that the people who videotaped UA175 are normal everyday innocent people. This is possible, but there is simply no evidence for this. In fact, we know VERY little about the videographers of UA175 and especially their history.

6) Salter brings up the Sandia labs experiment with the F4 jet to show how a plane can disintegrate upon impacting a solid object. Unfortunately, this experiment doesn't really help Salter's case and at best is ambiguous. First, if a plane can disintegrate so easily, it stands to reason the 2nd plane would have disintegrated upon the outer wall of the tower. Second, if there was disintegration of the plane, one would expect a large amount of "deflection" of debris away from the tower-- but this was not seen in any video. Third, the F4 experiment ultimately is ambiguous as it is not at all clear how much of the plane disintegrates into small pieces versus a mixture of large and small pieces.

7) Salter tries to explain how the plane apparently enters the building intact but then disintegrates inside by saying that the core of the WTC had a 3 cm thick GYPSUM WALL that destroyed the plane! He seems to be actually saying it was 3 cm thick gypsum that tore apart the plane-- NOT the 13/16 inch thick steel outer columns nor the 3 inch thick concrete floor slabs plus steel trussing nor the steel spandrels between floors! It was the gypsum!!! Does anyone believe this?


Finally, Salter is still wrong about the sidea that the 2nd "plane" slows as it impacts the building, as I and Rick Rajter have showed. The plane simply does not slow to any significant degree.

Overall, Salter is extremely unscientific and biased in his analysis, and essentially refuses to give any credit to any argument that is not his own or any argument that goes against a 767 hitting the South tower. He seems to leave open the possibility that a drone 767 was used for the WTC attacks, though he clearly prefers the official story of AA11 and UA175 hitting the towers.

I know Salter has had some bad blood with "no-planers" Webfairy and Gerard Holmgren, and indeed those two can be difficult-- though to a certain extent the frustration of Webfairy and Holmgren is understandable since they have had to put up with a lot over the past few years. On the other hand, I have had had run-ins with Holmgren and Webfairy myself and they can be fairly obnoxious if you disagree with them. So I think part of Salter's attacks on the no-planers derives from his bad interactions with Webfairy and Holmgren. Salter also critiques Scott Loughrey, one of the earliest proponents of 2nd hit video fakery. While Loughrey makes many good points overall, he also makes some sloppy mistakes and these are what Salter seizes upon. A glaring problem with Salter's critique is that he dismisses much too easily all of Marcus Icke's excellent analysis. He simply doesn't even mention much of Icke's work. Importantly, the no-planers/video fakery researchers have expanded quite a bit from the early small group and Salter is simply not aware of the more recent work done by myself and several others. As a group we have analyzed the all existent 2nd hit videos and found multiple severe flaws and irregularities.

In general though, Salter displays such an extreme amount of bias against the "no-plane theory" that it is hard to take his analysis very seriously. His ending analysis on the psychology of the no-planers is clearly speculation that can just as easily be turned around on the "plane-huggers".

To summarize, I think Salter is being terribly disingenuous in this article. I don't know if he himself is a "useful idiot" or whether he is an agent whose main job is to undermine the no-plane theory, but he is NOT BEING HONEST HERE and just as important, not weighing the evidence for and against planes fairly.

WHAT DO I THINK HAPPENED WITH THE PLANES?

I've gone over the odds of various 9/11 scenarios here.

In terms of what happened at the South Tower on 9/11, I have outlined five basic possibilities here. Basically, as I mentioned above, I think the most likely explanations for the South Tower are: 1) attack with a non-conventional plane, meaning there was flying mechanical object of some sort that didn't act like a normal plane (along with some digital fakery), or 2) that all images of the plane are digital fakery and that there was no mechanical plane (and that the plane-shaped hole was created through alternative means, such as internal bombs or some sort of beam weapon). I've gone back and forth on these two possibilities quite a bit, and currently I am leaning toward the idea that all images of the plane are digital fakery and that there was no mechanical plane.

UPDATE (10/30): Marcus Icke has an excellent and much more extended take-down of Salter here. There are many good points there including some discussion of the idea that a 767's wings simply would not penetrate the WTC.

UPDATE 2 (11/1): Rewritten extensively in parts to hopefully achieve greater clarity.

Election 2006

No matter what happens, who is going to trust the results from incredibly flawed voting machines?

(Though it is safe to say, whichever side wins will trust the results and whatever side loses will scream murder if it is close.)

Mutant Tail Section on UA175

The Robert Clark photo of UA175 shows a plane very similar to a 767-200, as Marcus Icke has noted.


Flight Simulator can match this plane fairly well (using a Boeing 767-200 in United Airlines livery), in contrast to other images of UA175:

Although the body and wings line up well, the tail STILL doesn't line quite right, as I have noted for other UA175 images. The tail is quite close in the Clark photo, but one can see it is not right if you look carefully. The port tail fin (horizontal stabilizer) is swept back at too much of an angle, and is too triangular looking. Most notably, the vertical stabilizer looks tilted too much to starboard and may be swept back at too far of an angle as well. It should also be noted that the starboard wing in the photo is too tapered at the end-- it is the same thickness as the The starboard horizontal stabilizer (note the port wing looks normal) .


Here is UA175 extracted from the famous "Ghostplane" or "CNN Best Angle" footage:


Here is a "match" with Flight Simulator (using a Boeing 767-200 in United Airlines livery):


The big problem here again is the tail section. The tail horizontal stabilizers are smallish, abnormally thin and triangular (as opposed to a quadrilateral appearance). The vertical stabilizer lacks any depth and is merely a thin line. The horizontal stabilizer also appears to be at an improper angle, tilted abnormally to starboard. The other main problems with the Ghostplane UA175 image are: 1) the strange piping down the center of the fuselage that does not match the UA paint scheme, and 2) the dark bulge under the starboard wing root. Overall, this image of UA175 has a remarkably "cartoonish" look to it, and is undoubtedly some flawed computer animation of what is supposed to be a Boeing 767-200.

Note: in case you don't trust Flight Simulator's rendering of a 767-200, I can tell you that the 767-200 airframe of Flight Simulator is indentical in these simulations to what I get with a physical 1:200 scale model of a Boeing 767-200 (obtained from a hobby store).

Laser Armed Aircraft Ready to Fly

Well, imagine that!

By ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 28, 12:37 AM ET

WICHITA, Kan. - The U.S. Missile Defense Agency rolled out an airborne laser aircraft on Friday, the latest development in a missile-defense system that was once ridiculed as a "Star Wars" fantasy.

In a ceremony at the Boeing Co.'s Integrated Defense Systems facility in Wichita, the agency announced it was ready to flight test some of the low-power systems on the ABL aircraft, a modified Boeing 747-400F designed to destroy enemy missiles.

Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said he embraced early critics' comparison of the laser-equipped plane to the Star Wars movies.

Yeah, yeah, I know this thing is not yet ready to start shooting down missiles. But the point is they clearly have this technology and must have had it for a while.

Was 9/11 a "Star Wars" Demonstration?

It is interesting to recall that prior to 9/11, one of the most controversial topics related to the Bush administration was their wanting to invest billions in missile defense ("Star Wars"). This was something they were actively trying to sell during Bush's first year.

I actually remember thinking on 9/11, how ironic that the Bush administration was spending so much time on missile defense when the country could be attacked by (what I considered at the time to be) such low technology means (since I had accepted the official narrative of that day, being too much in shock to consider anything else).

It seems quite possible to me that 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC was a top secret demonstration of US anti-missile systems.

Now, some of you may wonder-- if they had something they could shoot from space to destroy things, why on earth didn't they use it to destroy the hijacked planes?

The answer is complicated.

First, that's not what they wanted. They wanted money to develop new systems, and the best way to get new money for the DOD was to start a new war, one with a really great provocation.

Second, they also wanted a new war for various reasons, they didn't want to STOP a new war.

Third, there were no hijacked planes to shoot down!

Conflicting Plane Paths-- Clearest Example Yet?

The two videos in question are shot from opposite sides of the WTC, one about three miles to the EAST of the WTC, and one perhaps four to five miles WEST from the WTC. Importantly, one can see the towers lined up perfectly on north to south, indicating the camera angles are from exact opposite sides.

The first clip, the one from the east, has been around for a while, but the government released a longer version at the conclusion of the Moussaoui trial just this last August (video P200015, about 2:57 in).


The second clip, taken from the west, is what I've called the Japanese video, available here or here.


Here are screen shots showing the approach of the plane in the video from the east. Notice how the plane starts very small and then gets bigger and bigger:

Screen shot 1.

Screen shot 2.

Screen shot 3.

Screen shot 4.

Basically, the plane curves in from the west, with little apparent descent. Notice how far below the smoke trail the plane is, though I realize the perspective can be misleading, since the smoke is trailing to the east.

Now, here are screen shots showing the approach of the plane in the video from the west. Notice how the plane size barely changes during the sequence. Note screen shot 2 of this video shows the plane in a similar position from the WTC as screen shot 2 in the video above. From screen shot 2 to screen shot 3 here, if anything the plane gets biggers as it approaches the WTC, similar to above:

Screen shot 1.

Screen shot 2.

Screen shot 3.

Here the plane descends through the smoke cloud as it approaches, which is different from the first video (though again this may be misleading).

The point that should be obvious is that in the top video, the plane undergoes a huge change in size from beginning to end, consistent with the plane coming closer to the camera as it approaches. In the second video, the plane hardly changes size at all, consistent with an approach where the plane maintains a similar distance from the camera throughout.

Yeah, I know the plane image is tiny and the 2nd video is low quality. I'd love to have better versions. But you work with what you got.

Even with the resolution we have, it is clear that the plane does not change size in the 2nd video anywhere near the same extent as in the first video. According tot he video from the east, the plane came sharply from the west, and this should have been apparent in the second video, shot from the west. But it is not at all apparent.

At minimum it is very odd, and at most, it indicates one or both of the videos is a fake.

And NOW for something completely different...

(Via Attaurk.)

Beam Weapon Article Update

Good stuff here.

The World According to Matt Taibbi

There are no conspiracies, but if there were, and they pulled them off really well, they should be able to get away with it, even if many innocent people were killed.

I always thought Taibbi was very funny, and he is here too. But somehow his joking dismissal of all alternative 9/11 theories is rather glib, and really doesn't do his subject justice.

But I guess he doesn't care much about justice.

Follow-Up on the Pentagon Theory

I posted my theory for what happened here.

First off, a couple of people in comments said there was a missile involved. I think a missile may have been used as part of the attack, but I think the overall damage pattern cannot be explained simply by a missile. The smoke trail in the Pentagon security camera videos may be from a missile, or it may be fake. It's hard to know.

I do not think a missile would penetrate so deeply and produce the completely linear damage that was seen through three rings of the Pentagon. A beam weapon could do this more easily.

A missile cannot explain what happened with the generator, with the fence in front of the generator and with the light poles. A beam weapon could. (A 757 might be able to explain the light poles but a 757 cannot explain the generator and fence damage.

Also, a properly targeted beam weapon could have produced the rough plane outline seen on the Pentagon facade. A missile can't. (A 757 would have left far more debris outside the building if it went through the official Pentagon hole).

A high-energy beam weapon can explain the toasted cars near the entry hole. A missile can't.

Finally, the beam weapon, as poorly characterized as it is, represents a reasonable grand unified theory for 9/11-- it produced those physics-defying plane-shaped holes in the WTC, it produced the odd Pentagon damage, it produced the bizarre debris-free plane-shaped hole in Pennsylvania, and ultimately it was used to destroy the WTC twin towers (and possibly even WTC7).

There's no doubt the Pentagon has high-tech "Star Wars" weapons they do not talk about, and there's no doubt some sort of microwave beam weapon exists. The idea here is that some type of beam weapon like this could knock down (the lamp poles), toast (the generator and the cars) or blow apart all steel and concrete (Pentagon walls) in its path.

Interestingly, those cable spools in front of the damaged Pentagon weren't affected-- probably because they were made of wood, and the cable was wrapped in plastic which also wouldn't have been affected.

Lastly, it's amazing we have so much information about trivia like the knocked down light poles at the Pentagon, and precious little information about what happened to the huge plane that supposedly crashed at the Pentagon.

I Don't Know What Kind of Planes These Photos Show, But Neither Image Shows a Normal 767-200

The second plane to strike the WTC, UA175, was officially a 767-200.

Picture 1:

Magnification of the plane:

(source)

Here, the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Additionally, the port wing is distorted--it is abnormally elongated. Also, the fuselage ahead of the wings is too short, and the empennage is far too skinny for the angle.

Finally, I can see color abnormalities around the rear of the fuselage and some funny blue tones around the plane, suggesting manipulation in Photoshop. Double click on the picture to enlarge it and you will see clearly there is major funny business with the plane image-- I have not altered this image in any way except to enlarge it.


Picture 2:

Magnification of the plane:

(source)

In this image, again the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Again, the port wing is distorted. Here, the port wing has an abnormal bend.

For comparison with the plane in these photos, I used a 1:200 scale model 767-200 purchased from a hobby store. This model shows an identical shaped plane to the 767-200 model in the Flight Simulator software, suggesting conformity with a standard model 767-200.

I invite anyone to show that the planes in these photos are bona fide 767-200s.

My strong guess is these photos show fake plane images.

The really interesting question is: why did the forgers create such misshapen and abnormal planes? Was this on purpose for people to find, or were they just sloppy? Perhaps, the forgers used a model 767-200 for comparison, and then hand-drew the plane, which created the abnormalities I've observed?

UPDATE-- I didn't link to his "Ghostgun" article when I wrote this up this morning, because the page was not functioning, but Marcus Icke started documenting these plane abnormalities much earlier than I did. He has previously analyzed the lower picture, but has not analyzed the upper picture that I know of. Perhaps because the upper "window" picture is such an obvious fake.

In any case, Marcus Icke's "Ghostgun" article is up again.

How 911 Conspiracy "Debunkers" Operate

They ridicule, they ignore or construct a strawman, and then they ridicule some more.

Take this exchange I found last night by chance, from the GAO (a video game discussion site) forum. (Note, spelling, capitalization and punctuation have been corrected from the original.)

Let's start with a person named Hajaz, who asks--
"More importantly, explain how Bin Laden succesfully manipulated American public opinion with the 9/11 attacks? How did they push the American people towards Al Qaida goals?"

A person named "Boogie" responds--
"The whole basis behind Al Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 WAS to provoke a disproportionate response by the US in order to fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the Middle East and drive more muslims to their cause. Duh."

So Hajaz says--

If this was the aim of the 9/11 attack, then why didn't the US government state: "these terrorists are trying to provoke us into attacking Arab countries in order to fuel more hate against us, so we'll do the exact opposite (for example fair trade with third world, stopping blind support for Israel)."

There were so many things that the US could have done other then war, yet according to you guys, Bush did exactly what Bin Laden wanted him to do. That's pretty funny considering the Bin Laden tape that was released just prior to Bush's re-election, anyone remember that one? Bin Laden warning Americans not to re-elect Bush. Americans thinking Bush must be doing something right if Bin Laden doesn't want him re-elected. Instead they spread this BS about the Muslim religion hating American freedom.

Hajaz has a good point. Why did the US do exactly what Al Qaeda wanted them to do-- especially when so many Americans actually realized the goal of Al Qaeda was to provoke a violent reaction in the Middle East and books were even written on the topic?

It's a reasonable question, if you believe the official 9/11 story. Why did the US fall into such an obvious trap as invading Afghanistan and especially Iraq? It was obvious that military invasions of these countries would provoke Muslim outrage from the beginning, and it did.

Again, it's a good question. Intelligent people could differ on the answer, but it is certainly a reasonable question.

So what is the response to this question?

Someone name "Mac" says: "For god sakes man, take a poly sci class or read a book. You sound like a blithering moron."

Boogie chimes in: "Hajaz, you continue to be a blithering, incoherent source of entertainment."

(Gee, where have I heard that one before?)

Hajaz continues very reasonably: "Address points instead of going back to doing personal attacks, thanks. Boogie: Explain what you meant when you said that Bin laden's intention was to 'provoke a disproportionate response by the US in order to fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the Middle East and drive more Muslims to their cause'. You did mean that the US government reacted exactly as Bin Laden intended right?"

What is the response to this?

Boogie: "No, personal attacks are more fun. And from past experience, we know that when we address points that you can't refute, you simply ignore them or pretend they didn't happen. So instead, I'm simply going to mock and insult you for your utter lack of comprehension about Bin Laden's ideology, history, methods, and goals."

Who is unable to refute who, here?

Hajaz is NOT saying these are not Bin Laden's goals per se. He's asking why, if these are Bin Laden goals, is the US pursuing them?

But Boogie resorts to name-calling and acting like Hajaz is asking something different than what he is really asking.

Hajaz continues--

No. You fail to see the contradiction in what you're saying. Posting a pic of a book written by an American author on what might or might not be the motivation behind Bin Laden's actions doesnt take away what you typed on this page. According to you:
_ Bin Laden intended to provoke the US into attacking Arab countries and fuel more hatred against the US
_ the US is aware of this
_ the US attacks Arab countries and fuels more hatred against the US

Thus, by your reasoning, the US government and Bin Laden have the same intrest: fuel a conflict that justifies US occupation of the middle east and justifies the murder of thousands of innocent civilians.

Very straight-forward and logical. At some level, the US and Bin Laden have the same interests.

What is the response to this?

Mac: "Hey Hajaz, we don't keep you around to hear about your feelings. Now get with the crazy street person talk, dance monkey dance. Actually a point of all this is that you are an uninformed, clueless boob who has no reasoning skills. So calling you an idiot is on point."

I REST MY CASE.

I Think I Know What Happened at the Pentagon

A small version of Judy Wood's Star Wars beam weapon was used to knock down the lamp poles and fry the generator and create the hole in the building. Pre-planted explosives did the rest of the damage to the building. Plane parts were pre-planted and also sprinkled from an over-flying plane a la Operation Northwoods.*

Possibly some poorly visualizable holo-trick was also used in conjunction with the beam weapon to fool witnesses on the ground-- this may be not unlike what happened at the South tower.

Importantly, "flight 77", whatever it was, never came near the light poles. It wasn't even on the right trajectory.

Possibly, some "flight 77" over flew the Pentagon about the time of the attack to make more distant witnesses think a plane flew into the building.

*Interestingly, the same C-130 flew over both the Shanksville and Pentagon hits. It's rather tempting to wonder if this C-130 was packed with 757 fuselage pieces (in American and United colors) to sprinkle from above.

More 2nd Hit TV Freakiness

Unbelievable!

Following up on this post of mine, a new video has surfaced with similar audio but different video for the local FOX coverage of the 2nd hit on 9/11.

This means THREE DIFFERENT SETS of visuals for similar audio coverage of the South tower attack.

It's not clear to me yet whether the commentary of the South tower hit is exactly the same for all three versions, but clearly it is very similar, with the same announcer. What the heck is going on here?

Still Diggin' has done some nice analysis of these videos, though I think more could be teased out by even more careful analysis.

Bottom line is there is some prima facie evidence of CGI TV fakery here, though I'm not sure there is an absolute smoking gun yet.

Does Anyone Else See the Absurdity of a 150 Foot Long 757 Making an Imprint of Itself in the Ground Upon Crashing Without Leaving Any Major Debris?

The "tail" imprint is what gets me:

South Tower Mystery

Anonymous said...

the second plane/south tower is a total mind-f*cker...how did the Perps pull this one off? cause i've met people who know people who claim they "saw" the second plane "with their own eyes"...perhaps they saw the explosion from the opposite side and assumed it was a plane...we know some kind of aircraft hit the North tower (too many credible witnesses, plus Naudet video), but WTF happened to the South Tower?
I'm not convinced a plane hit or didn't hit...right now i'm leaning towards a missile with
Psy-Op/Media brainwashing of the "plane" meme...with possible other explosives in the building to create the "plane impact" illusion...

12:49 PM

Indeed-- the South tower hit is a major mind-fucker. It's what has kept me wondering, for almost a year now, what the hell happened. A real plane doesn't make sense, nor does total CGI. The best I can figure is a non-conventional high-tech plane that was seen by many people and not seen at some angles and therefore was recreated by CGI. Not clear how many videos actually saw a plane. And why did many videos show a smaller misshapen plane instead of a 767? Was this a CGI mistake or a built-in smoking gun or did the videos show something real?

I like the idea that a smaller version of the Star Wars beam weapon was used to create the plane shaped holes. This could explain the WTC and Pentagon. But what created the freaky plane-imprint in Pennsylvania?

Military Counter-Intelligence Office Burns

Freaky.

"Showing Off" New Technology-- An Important Motive for 9/11?

Following up on the previous post on energy beams being used to demolish the WTC, and tying in the previous research I've done on the no-planes issue, it seems likely that the US used extremely high tech top secret weaponry systems to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks.

While there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, one reason that has not been explored very much is that the US was SHOWING OFF its technology to other countries.

This may be an important reason why the US "tipped their hand" and left so many odd clues and smoking guns in the 9/11 evidence. They WANTED people, scientists from other countries in particular, to know what they did.

How else can you explain something like the physics-defying plane-shaped holes in the WTC, the bizarre Pentagon hit, the pulverization of the WTC towers and this incredibly freakish flight 93 crater:



It's like some sort of "ghostplane" hit the ground, made an imprint crater and disappeared.

The only real explanation is some sort of high-tech weapons system.

Saving Lower Manhattan

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have put together some fascinating evidence about the demolition of the WTC.

Unfortunately, the article isn't finished yet, but the idea seems to be that beam weapons were used to disintegrate the top of the WTC so that the impact of the massive weight of the WTC buildings wouldn't destroy lower Manhattan with a large earthquake.

The most compelling evidence for this theory is that the seismic signal for the WTC collapses was MUCH SMALLER than it should have been.

There are also some very striking images of perfectly rounded holes in WTC5 and WTC6, apparent evidence of the beam.

If you think this is all sheer craziness, there's probably not much anyone can say to you at this point.

But I highly recommend everyone read this amazing article on exotic weapons systems by Leurent Moret.

Iraq: I Can't Say It Any Better Than This

Billmon:

But we knew, or should have known, that what Bush was planning was an illegal act of aggression, based on a warmongering campaign of deception and ginned-up hysteria. And we knew, or should have known, what our moral and legal obligations were:

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

We were all complicit. I was complicit. Because I was afraid -- afraid to sacrifice my comfortable middle class lifestyle, afraid to lose my job and my house, afraid of the IRS, afraid to go to jail.

But not nearly as afraid, of course, as the thousands of Iraqis who have been tortured or murdered, or who, like Riverbend, are forced to live in bloody chaos, day after day. Which is why, reading her post today, I couldn't help but feel deeply, bitterly ashamed -- not just of my country, but of myself.

Please read the rest, and the heartbreaking Riverbend post as well.

See You in Gitmo

Olbermann nails the madness of the Bush administration again, with the help of Jonathan Turley:


What did YOU do, when your basic rights were signed away by Bush?

10/17/06 was truly a day of shame for the US.

Just in case you think this is no big deal cause Bush would never abuse his authority, I have two questions:
1) what planet are you living on?
2) so maybe you trust Bush, but how would you like this power in the hands of a president you DON'T like?

UPDATE: more from KO--

Great Essay on 9/11 Truth, Doublethink and Disinfo

by Veronica Chapman.

TV Fakery -- Not Dead Yet!

Watch this:

then the first few minutes of this:

then this:


Which reminds me of this old observation, how the 2nd shot of the 2nd hit shown by CNN had no plane.

It is also remarkable how several 2nd hit videos had zoom-outs or zoom-in one second before the plane came.

Video fakery could have been done either: to cover up that the plane that hit the towers was nothing like a 767, OR to convince people there was a plane when in reality no plane came close to hitting the towers and the tower damage was done by some other means.

Of course, there was clearly video fakery, because some footage shows a picture perfect 767-200, whereas other footage shows a mutant Boeing-like plane somewhat smaller than a 767-200.

And we know no normal plane would have melted into the tower the way "UA175" did.

The big question is: did some non-conventional plane hit the tower that was actually videotaped live and then some videos were faked later? Or was the building damage produced by a different mechanism and all videso were faked?

I have gone back and forth on this, and certainly there are good arguments for both sides.

I think right now I am leaning somewhat more towards the pure video fakery side.

Strange Plane

The video here is sometimes referred to as the Park Foreman video, particularly by Marcus Icke.

Here is a frame from the video:


Here is a simulation of this frame in Flight Simulator:

Obviously it's not a perfect match-- although the wings are lined up very similarly, at the same angle. But in order to get the wings at the same exact angle as in the video, I have to rotate the plane considerably to portwards. But then the tail section is not lined up properly. The same thing is seen when I've used a 1:200 plastic model of a Boeing 767-200.

Here is the rear view of the plane angle, showing the plane coming in at a much straighter angle to the tower than seen in other videos:


The problem appears to be that the plane in the video is not a normal 767-200. This agrees in general with what Marcus Icke has found.

This could be explained if many, if not all of the planes, are video fakes.

Reality Starting to Catch Up with the Bush Administration

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
October 14, 2006

Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

I think the moral is that you can only create your "own reality" for a little while before it starts to fall apart.

Best E-Mail Yet?

Even though I've been running this site for over two years, I've gotten surprisingly little e-mail chastising me for my wild conspiracy theories-- you know, calling me an America-hater and so forth. There have been a fair amount of nasty comments left (though less than I ever expected), but surprisingly few hate e-mails-- maybe three or four at most. This is even AFTER I got a few thousand hits from being linked to a hard-right wing site. I did get lots of comments on the post in question-- with the expected comments (more on this later). But it seems these people were more interested in expressing themselves on the site than conversing with me.

Anyway, I just got this priceless e-mail where the e-mailer seems to think I am Jim Fetzer:

To : Spooked911@hotmail.com
Subject : You Disgrace This Great Country


The subject says it all. I do not believe anything you say and AI do not believe you were ever in the military. O'Reilly didn't treat you nearly as rough as he should have.


Thanks,

XXXX
Ozark, AL 36360

Hilarious!

I can only assume "AI" is supposed to be "I". I love how he wrote "thanks" at the end. The guy actually left his address and phone number, as well.

Jennifer Spell's Story

While she looks and sounds like a nice, honest person, there are anomalies in the plane in her video, raising the question of what exactly she videotaped.

I have discussed the Jennifer Spell video previously.

WTC 1 Attack Witnesses

compiled by Marcus Icke.

The bottom line is few if any credible witness described a large passenger jet.

How the Iraq War Shows 9/11 Was an Inside Job

If the official 9/11 story is true-- why did the Bush administration do such an incredibly poor job of bringing democracy to Iraq?

Let's say the Bush administration version of the 9/11 story is true-- the 9/11 attacks were carried out solely by crazed Islamists who bubbled up from the sick depths of Islamofascism (which made them into the fucked-up and twisted creatures they were), and so they hated us and attacked us. They were fundamentalist Muslims who hated us for our western freedoms and for our support of Israel.

(That's about it, right?)

Okay, so the Bush administration said, let's not simply kill the terrorists-- let's drain the swamp from which they arose. Let's make the Middle East more democratic (and I honestly have no problem with that, in principle). And Iraq is as goood a place as any to start, because they have this nasty dictator who might have had nasty weapons he could attack us with (somehow, maybe).

Anyway, the important thing is to drain the swamp. Because the sure way to prevent Islamic terrorism in the future is to make the Middle East democratic and make all the Muslims like us.

So, the real goal of invading Iraq was ultimately to prevent another 9/11, right?

And the ultimate way we could do that was by really promoting democracy and by doing GOOD things so Muslims would like us.

So what did we do in Iraq?

We turned it into fucking hell.

We tortured innocent Iraqis.

We bombed and shot and killed innocent Iraqis.

We did not have enough forces to secure the country and so terrorists took over that blew up innocent Iraqis.

One way or another, we killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis by invading Iraq, thus pissing off thousands and thousands of Iraqis.

Finally, instead of the secular society under Saddam Hussein, we established a Islamic fundamentalist government that is aligned with Iran.


So again, if the official 9/11 story is true, and we wanted to prevent another 9/11 by establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq, because it was a life and death matter--

why the hell didn't the Bush administration take more care and do it right???

Honestly, what they did in Iraq really makes no sense, unless:

a) 9/11 was all a lie and the Bush administration has always had complete control over any major terrorist attack, and

b) the Bush administration really wants to create more terrorists.


Final note-- I know the mainstream explanation for the difficulties in Iraq is incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, but this simply doesn't hold water. Incompetence doesn't make you torture people or throw out an extensive post-invasion plan crafted by the State Department. Iraq was a HUGE UNDERTAKING, hugely expensive, with the lives of millions at stake. If we buy the Bush administration line, the future of the US was at stake. Remember, as they keep telling us, "IRAQ IS THE CENTRAL FRONT OF THE WAR ON TERROR". Iraq was not some trivial deal that they could do a rush job on.

A good analogy to what the Bush administration did in Iraq would be a heart surgeon doing a quadruple bypass then forgetting to sew the arteries up and just pushing the chest together without staples or stitches. Even the worst surgeon wouldn't do that. Yes, I know war is unpredictable and all that. But the Bush administration clearly threw out any reasonable approach and took an incredibly haphazard, careless and essentially deleterious approach to the whole post-invasion period.

In the Iraq war, the future of the Middle East was at stake and the future of the US was at stake-- heck, according to the Bush administration's logic, the fate of the world was at stake, since the US is such an "indispensible player".

Yet they did a BOTCH JOB.

This makes NO sense by any official mainstream logic.

But this careless warmaking DOES make sense if 9/11 was a sham!

(this essay was modified from an older post of mine found here)

Small Planes Hitting Buildings

Some older examples.

WTC Crash Computer Simulations

Purdue.
Okay....

Auto-dyn.
Hey, what happened to the wings?

A related one here obtained from Marcus Icke.

Why Bush and His Supporters Hate the Survey Showing Over 600,000 Iraqi Deaths Since the War Started

No, it's not that they care so much about the slaughter of innocent life.

Rather, it's that the 600,000 dead mark puts them well past the number of Iraqis Saddam Hussein killed.

A Major Reason to Doubt the Official 9/11 Story

Think about how accurate war propaganda is-- how a government, any government, will lie and manipulate the truth to start a war that the leaders have deemed important.

Now think of 9/11 as massive war propaganda.

Updated 9/11 Odds

Very little in this world is for certain, of course, and it is difficult to be absolutely certain of many aspects of 9/11. Moreover, my ideas for what happened evolve, as I take in new evidence.

The following are my current updated chances for various explanations about 9/11 (I note where I have significantly changed my odds or changed the wording for a particular occurrance):

1) Some officials in the US government had specific foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks: 100%

2) Some officials in the US government aided the hijackers at various points before 9/11: 99%

3) Some officials in the US government had a direct hand in carrying out the attacks: 99%

4) Flight 77 really crashed into the Pentagon: 1%

5) A conventional Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon: 1%

6) Pre-planted explosives and outside means such as exotic weaponry caused the total collapses of the WTC twin towers: 99% (added in "exotic weaponry")

7) WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition of some form: 99%

8) no plane crashed at all in Shanksville and the crash site was a complete hoax: 50% (this item is new; removed bombs at Pentagon)

9) no conventional plane crashed in Shanksville: 95%

10) flight 11 did not hit WTC1: 98%

11) flight 175 did not hit WTC2: 98%

12) at least some videos and photos of the second hit were faked: 99%

13) Bush had some specific foreknowledge about what was going to happen on 9/11: 50% (down slightly)

14) The civil air defense (NORAD) response to the hijackings was distracted and/or disbaled by wargames being run on 9/11: 50% (upgraded significantly; I'm not sure about this one)

15) The 9/11 attacks did not involve any conventional planes and were perpetrated by a covert group within the government: 98% (added in "conventional" before "planes" because I think this is more appropriate)

16) The 9/11 attacks did not involve any planes at all and were a hoax facilitated by pre-planted explosives, planted plane parts and video fakery; this was perpetrated by a covert group within the government: 30%

17) There is a cover-up/disinfo campaign about 9/11 being maintained by the government: 100% (removed "large" from before "cover-up"; added in "disinfo campaign")

18) There is a cover-up about 9/11 being maintained at high levels by the media: 99% (removed "large" from before "cover-up")

Sure Was a Lot of Wreckage Recovered for Such a Small Plane...

Investigators and workers in hard hats gathered up the scorched pieces of New York Yankee Cory Lidle's shattered plane at a luxury high-rise Thursday in a floor-by-floor sweep for clues to why the aircraft crashed.

The pitcher and his flight instructor were killed when their plane slammed into the 40-story condominium tower Wednesday.

Crews recovered the nose, wings, tail and instrument panel of the plane along with a hand-held GPS device as they conducted an exhaustive search of the building — inspecting even terraces and ledges, said National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman.

Men in hard hats lifted pieces of wreckage from the street and placed them neatly on a silver-colored tarp in the bed of a pickup truck. Neighborhood children gathered to gawk at the jagged and twisted metal, glass shards, and charred wing and door.

Hersman said the single-engine plane was cruising at 112 mph at 700 feet of altitude as it tried to make a U-turn to go south down the East River. It was last seen on radar about a quarter-mile north of the building, in the middle of the turn, at 500 feet.

"Early examination indicates that the propellers were turning" at the time of impact, Hersman said, suggesting the engine was still running.

Residents began returning to their battered and scarred apartments, one day after the crash engulfed apartments in flames and sent fiery wreckage raining down on the street and sidewalk. One witness said he saw the charred body of one of the victims in the street.

"It was in a fetal position, strapped into a seat. I could see a white leg sticking up. It was awful," said maintenance worker Juan Rosario, adding that other plane wreckage, including a door and wheels, was strewn near the body.

The medical examiner's office removed the bodies Wednesday, but pieces of fuselage, a plane door and crushed vehicles still littered the street. Officials said aircraft parts and headsets were on the ground, and investigators discovered the pilot's log book in the wreckage.

More details also emerged Thursday about the flight instructor who was with Lidle aboard the four-seat Cirrus SR20 during the sightseeing flight around Manhattan. Tyler Stanger, 26, operated a flight school in La Verne, Calif.

He and Lidle apparently planned on flying from New York to California this week, after the Yankees' defeat in the playoffs over the weekend.

"They were going to fly back together. It was right after the loss to Detroit," said Dave Conriguez, who works at the airport coffee shop in California that Stanger frequented. "Tyler's such a great flight instructor that I never gave it a second thought. It was just, `See you in a week.'"

The crash prompted renewed calls for the government to restrict the airspace around Manhattan to help ensure planes cannot get so close to the city's skyscrapers. Much of the airspace over two of the main rivers that encircle Manhattan is open to small aircraft flying under 1,100 feet.

A day after the crash, the building had a gaping hole where bricks and glass used to be, and a black scorch mark, six stories long.

Exotic Weaponry at the WTC

could explain some of the weirder stuff in this interview with EMT Patricia Ondrovic, who spoke of her experiences at the WTC on 9/11.

Exploding cars, strange explosions and flashes, lack of office contents in the WTC rubble, lack of personal belongings on bodies...

Her official interview is interesting as well, note the redacted portions.

Anthrax Attacks

What on earth is the FBI doing?

Operation Gladio

Some interesting videos from an old BBC documentary linked here.

Conspiracy Theorists Gone Wild!

Some threads on the 10/11/6 crash from Team8plus and the Loose Change Forum.

Flight Simulator Has Correct Proportions for a 767 and the WTC

Here I've used Flight Simulator to line up the United 767-200 model next to the WTC South tower. The port wing of the plane is actually inserted INSIDE the tower, so the plane fuselage is literally abutting the tower.


The WTC was 207 feet on each side, and a 767-200ER is 159 feet in length. Thus the ideal is a 0.77 ratio of plane length to tower width.

Using a print-out of the Flight Simulator alignment image shown above, I measured a tower width of 82 mm to plane length of 63 mm. This gives a 0.77 ratio of plane length to tower width.

The reason for showing this will be apparent in the near future.

The 10/11/6 Plane Crash

Small plane hits NYC hi-rise building at 20th floor.

Fire, but no building collapse.

Damage to the building, but nothing close to a silhouette shape of a plane on the building facade (brick).

Witness said some debris fell to the street.

At least 2 dead.

Type of plane unknown.

Cause unknown.

NORAD scrambled jets following the crash.

Pictures below at Update 5.

UPDATE 1: "It looks as if the aircraft didn't go into the building but fell down," she said. "It may be part of the debris burning on the ground."

Imagine that!

Also: "The FAA indicates that it was a two-engine plane flying under "visual rules"--not in contact with any tower. CNN reported that the plane had taken off from Teterboro Airport in Bergen County, New Jersey."

UPDATE 2: The fire is out.

Also, this photo appears to show a burning wing on the street.

NY Times is reporting 2 people were dead on the street, I'm betting the people in the plane.

While obviously this could all be a freak accident, it's still amazingly unusual to have a plane crash into a hi-rise building.

Now reports are saying the building was 50 stories, and it looks as though the crash was about the 40th floor.

NY Times BREAKING: Yankees Pitcher Cory Lidle Was Killed in the Plane Crash, High-Ranking City Official Says.

CNN BREAKING: the plane belonged to Lidle and his passport was found in the street.

UPDATE 3: First responders to the New York plane crash say an emergency call was made from the plane indicating a possible fuel problem.

New York Yankees Manager Joe Torre told CNN that the plane that was a Cirrus SR-20 registered to team pitcher Cory Lidle.

The Cirrus is a dinky prop plane, as seen here.

UPDATE 4: they're saying 4 deaths now.

LOTS of plane debris on the gorund, as seen here and here.

Armored police with automatic weapons were guarding the crash scene.

Yahoo slideshow here.

This story now says three people inside the building died.

UPDATE 5: They're saying it was Lidle.

Oddest part is, as pointed out in comments, the date is an inverse of 9/11/01.

Pictures:




UPDATE 6: I saw Mayor Bloomberg say on TV that the plane's engine block was found in one of the apartments-- so this was no glancing blow, with the plane just bouncing off. There was some penetration.

The one somewhat suspicious thing about Lidle is that he was a bit of a MLB outcast, in that he broke with the player's union during the strike in 1995. If there was a set-up here, could this be part of the motive?

The passport on the street is odd. Do pilots normally carry a passport when they fly?

UPDATE 7: 9/11 blogger says FoxNews said this incident will help Republicans by reminding everyone of 9/11 again. Predictably nauseating, though it does suggest a motive for this being a set-up!

Jose Padilla Tortured and Drugged?

Jose Padilla is the US citizen who was declared an enemy combatant and held for 3 and a half years.

I think it is very hard to write this claim off as "liberal propaganda" knowing what we know about how the Bush administration has operated.

Padilla's specific allegations can be read here.

There's no doubt this treatment was extremely brutal and inhumane.

What a nightmare realm this country has entered.

UPDATE: Olbermann has a must-see segment on the old-fashioned idea of Habeas Corpus.

We also learn that Bush has been in no rush to sign the Military Commissions bill-- the same bill Bush said over and over was so critical for Congress to pass right away.

Curious.

Over 650,000 Iraqis Have Died as a Result of the War?

It's got to be liberal propaganda.

IT MUST BE liberal propaganda, because otherwise this would indicate that the US has instigated a mass slaughter of people close to the scale of the holocaust.

One even HOPES it is liberal propaganda.

But I fear it isn't.

UPDATE: Juan Cole is a must-read on this topic. Bottom line, the death statistics are highly plausible.

Heavy Smoke and Strange Flashes on the South Side of WTC7

WTC7 footage starts after the Windsor Tower footage (now THAT was a building that was ON FIRE!!!):


Video found via 911blogger.

Bombs Going Off Before 2nd Hit

Even though this video (screen capture above) doesn't show the 2nd plane and you can't even see the point of origin of the south tower fireball, the video still shows a number of fascinating details.

Jane Doe/Judy Wood has annotated a number of these events here, but the bottom line is that it appears that explosives or at minimum incendiaries are going off in both towers JUST before the 2nd hit.

This evidence, coupled with the amply documented evidence of firemen hearing bombs going off in the towers before they collapsed, suggests that the towers were indeed laced with explosives that progressively weakened the structures, and that likely helped the eventual collapse occur-- even though I think it is quite likely that the driving force of the global collapses was some sort of exotic high-tech weaponry.

Not the Right Camera Angle for Seeing the Plane Come In

I always wondered if this video (screen capture above), which has blue sky to the west of the towers and never shows a plane before the south tower fireball appears, SHOULD have shown the 2nd plane coming in.

I spent a good amount of time this morning finding the right camera angle in Flight Simulator to mimic this video, and finally got the camera very close to the right position. Because the camera is looking UP a fair amount, a plane coming from some ways out from the west, even on a descending path, would not be seen by the camera.

Thus, Ewing 2001's presentation using this video is simply misleading-- which is unfortunately all too typical of his recent efforts. That is, he merges videos shot from several different angles, and shows the plane coming in a different angles-- and then uses this as evidence of conflicting plane paths. In reality, he is proving nothing.

While it is possible Ewing2001 is right-- that the 2nd plane was pure CGI-- his "9/11 TV fakery" video presentations that he has been pushing at YouTube are sloppy at best, and highly counter-productive to the 9/11 video fakery field at worst.

Duelling Incompetence?

Bush/Cheney versus Kim Jong-Il.

Sure, it could be reasonably argued that Bush/Cheney got exactly what they wanted-- an escalation of hostilities that will increase the chances of a military confrontation.

That doesn't mean that the Bushies aren't incompetent-- because escalating tension is the easy part. The military part is the hard-part (that is if you care about human life). And it's clear from Afghanistan and Iraq that Bush/Cheney have little clue how to use the military properly.

And incompetence DOESN'T mean that 9/11 wasn't an inside job-- merely that Bush/Cheney weren't particularly subtle about what they did.

I Lay This Disaster DIRECTLY at the Feet of the Bush Administration

WASHINGTON, Monday, Oct. 9 — North Korea said Sunday night that it had set off its first nuclear test, becoming the eighth country in history, and arguably the most unstable and most dangerous, to proclaim that it has joined the club of nuclear weapons states.

It simply is a monstrous failure in foreign policy. So monstrous one has to wonder if it was deliberate.

Some context here.

They All Know

It is an amply documented fact -- no news whatsoever -- that the Bush administration had absolute foreknowledge of 9/11, and deliberately ignored warnings received within the US and from officials and intelligence agencies outside the US.

As written by Michel Chossudovsky, “the foreknowledge issue itself is a red herring, a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue . . . Of course the Bush administration knew." Of course Washington “knew” about its own false flag operation. Of course Washington “knew” about using its own covert intelligence network. Of course Washington “knows” that 9/11 was an intelligence “success," not an intelligence “failure."

The media’s spotlight on “foreknowledge” and “lapses” serve to distract public attention from the deliberate cover-up of these facts:

1. 9/11 and the “war on terrorism” was and is a long-planned US operation carried out and sponsored by Washington consensus; official US geostrategic policy, carried out by the Bush administration, with unanimous bipartisan involvement from the US Congress, and with support from Wall Street.

2. “Islamic terrorism," including Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, is a creation of Anglo-American military intelligence. These networks have functioned in this role for the past two decades, and continue to carry out this role today.

3. Al-Qaeda is an apparatus that is supported by Pakistan’s ISI, which is itself is connected to the CIA.

4. Pakistan’s ISI chief, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who wired funds for the 9/11 operation to alleged 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, met and dined with members of the Bush administration, the CIA (George Tenet), and key members of the US Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats. In other words, Washington in its entirety is implicated in 9/11.

Good piece overall, good discussions of Bob Woodward's book "Sate of Denial" and Pervez Musharref's book and the rampant hypocrisy of everyone in DC.

In the context of this article, and what I tend to agree with, is that it makes complete sense that 9/11 was a massive psy-op using top secret and state-of-the-art technology, and that there are several layers of "truth" involved in 9/11. "No-planes" or "no-conventional-planes" would be one of the central layers here.

I still have a problem with the idea of 9/11 being a mechanism to start down the raod to a "police state".

Certainly, 9/11 has brought us closer to a "police state", but I tend to doubt that a "police state" is the ultimate goal of the planners and the elites. Rather, 9/11 allowed them to put in place measures that would more easily ALLOW a police state-- IF they found it necessary in the future. If they feel they need to control society more than they already do, which might happen if they felt threatened in some way... such as if 9/11 was exposed, ironically.

What Exactly Drove the Collapse of the Tower Here?

Dust?

Worth Another Look

Irrefutable evidence that the top of the WTC south tower rapidly disintegrated as it fell.

Flight Simulator Can Accurately Model 2nd Hit Videos

For instance, this "amateur" video found on a personal website.

Here is a screen capture from the video:


Here is the Flight Simulator simulation:


Here is the same plane position as in the above Flight Simulator simulation, but using a different camera position. As you can see, in this video, and modeled effectively in Flight Simulator, the plane is right on target to hit the tower:


Now contrast this simulation to what was seen with the Naudet 1st hit video and the "live" 2nd hit videos, when they were analyzed with Flight Simulator.

Early 9/11 Propaganda

Time, 9/24/01:

Lower Manhattan was a sharp steel forest where volunteers and fire fighters dug around the clock without rest. Doctors at St. Vincent's Hospital told of the fire fighter who had to carry out the decapitated body of his captain. The search dogs were overwhelmed; there was just too much flesh to smell. One emerged with a torn, blackened teddy bear in its mouth. Rescuers found the bodies of airline passengers strapped in their seats, a flight attendant with her hands bound.

NY Times 9/15/01:

"One worker who had tunneled into the debris said he had found the remains of people strapped into what seemed to be airplane seats. Another, in one of the most searing discoveries among the ruins, found the body of a flight attendant, her hands bound."

September 14, 2001 (C):

Some gruesome remains are discovered in the WTC remains. Investigators find a pair of severed hands bound together with plastic handcuffs on a nearby building. They are believed to have belonged to a stewardess. [Newsday, 9/15/01] There are reports of whole rows of seats with passengers in them being found, as well as much of the cockpit of one of the planes, complete with the body of one of the hijackers, and the body of another stewardess, whose hands were tied with wire. [Ananova, 9/13/01, New York Times, 9/15/01] Yet many months later, AP reports that "no remains have been linked to the 10 hijackers who crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center" contradicting the claim that a hijacker's body was found. [AP, 8/16/02] While all these bodies and plane parts are supposedly found, not one of the four black boxes for these two airplanes are ever found. A National Transportation Safety Board spokesman says: "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders." [CBS, 2/23/02] The black boxes are considered "nearly indestructible," are placed in the safest parts of the aircraft, and are designed to survive impacts much greater than the WTC impact. They can withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour, and can withstand an impact of an incredible 3,400 G's. [ABC News, 9/17/01]

Just wondering if anyone believes that passenger bodies were found strapped in their airplane seats in the rubble of the WTC. We're not talking about a bus rolling over here. The story was an incredibly destructive airplane crash where officially a huge plane was torn to shreds inside a building.

And we're expected to believe passengers were found STRAPPED IN THEIR SEATS IN THE RUBBLE where not even black boxes survived????

Come on. This was early bullshit fed to us to promote the passenger planes crashing into the WTC myth.

Even the "bound hands" story is suspect-- for a few reasons:
1) for the severed hands, how likely is it that the force that tore the hands off wouldn't break the bindings-- or at least cause it to slip off? How did they know they were stewardesses hands?
2) it is quite unlikey an intact stewardess body was found in the WTC rubble.
3) I am unaware of any phone call from a plane where anyone mentions that a stewardess was tied up.
4) how many stewardesses had bound hands? Was there a relatively intact body in the rubble and then severed hands on a nearby building from another stewardess? Or was one disinfo?
5) stewardess' severed bound hands were reportedly found at the flight 93 crash site. What are the odds that both sets of severed hands are real?