Humint Events Online: Hunt the Boeing III: WTC2 Edition!

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Hunt the Boeing III: WTC2 Edition!

This is a Boeing 767-200. It has a wingspan of 156 feet and is 159 feet long.
According to the official 9/11 story, this plane hit the South (WTC2) tower of the World Trade Center.


This picture shows WTC2 right after a Boeing 767-200 supposedly hit the tower. Is this what you would expect to see if a huge plane going several hundred miles per hour smashed into a massive steel-framed building?


This picture shows WTC2 a fraction of a second after a Boeing 767-200 supposedly hit the tower. The plane supposedly hit on the left side, but notice how there is no fireball developing where the plane hit. The only fireball is forward and to the side of the entry site. Is this what you would expect if a 767-200 with wings full of jet fuel smashed into thick steel columns of a massive steel-framed building? Would you expect the wings to stay intact and then only dump and ignite their fuel once inside the building?


This picture shows the face of WTC2 where the Boeing 767-200 supposedly entered. Do you see any plane wreckage? Do you see how a huge plane could have gone in this hole which is blocked with building debris? Do you see where the huge tail of the plane went into the building? What happened to the tail? There are no signs of it breaking off.



Here is the other side of WTC2 from where the plane officially entered. Do you see where the plane exited the building? Do you see plane wreckage piled up in the windows? Do you know how an aluminum plane can make a cut-out silhouette shape of itself in a massive steel-framed building then completely disappear inside a building only slightly wider than the plane?


Did you find the Boeing 767-200? Can you still defend the official version of events?

Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be glad to hear from you!


If you found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing 767-200, for example): if you begin to question whether a Boeing 767-200 really did crash into the WTC2 tower then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!


Please also see "Hunt the Boeing II: Shanksville Edition" for more Boeing hunting fun!

11 Comments:

Blogger JohnGault said...

Very nice. Perhaps the caption for picture #3 should mention the attitude of the 'jet' (in Aeronautics- the inclination of the three principal axes of an aircraft relative to the wind, to the ground, [the building] etc.) .
The attitude prior to 'impact' indicates a plane (and its fuel) headed to the LEFT. Why the explosions on the right side?

1:12 PM  
Anonymous james ha said...

wow you actually did it - nice job spooked!
now i'd like to see the sword of pinch-smasher gang actually address even a single one of the questions that you've raised.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the debris.... Is it not possible it fell into the hole after the plane crashed?

And I still can't get over this idea that you all think the tail should've broken off....

2:09 PM  
Anonymous jha said...

the tail should've broken off? no way! the delicate thin aluminum tail section should have been observed passing smoothly into the side of the tower totally unhindered by any of the massive steel and concrete in all 4 video recordings of alleged ua175 actually hitting and entering the wtc2 without even slowing down. and then photos of the resulting cartoon-like-plane-shaped hole should reveal that there was no section of said hole that corresponded with where the tail section should have been seen to have disappeared entirely without a trace.
everybody knows that massive hardened steel perimeter columns spaced at 2-3' centers and a 5' wide steel spandrel belt reinforcing a concrete slab are no match for the thin aluminum skin of a 767's delicate tail section!

3:59 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Check out pic (figure 6-30) of the North face of WTC#2 that spooked posted.

THERE IS NO, REPEAT NO EXIT HOLE(S)!!

HOW THE HELL THEN DID THAT SUPPOSED 'ENGINE' FROM THE MAGICAL 'PLANE' MANAGE TO MAKE IT SEVERAL BLOCKS NORTH AND LAND UNDER SCAFFOLDING!???????

Remember, we saw the "Plane"...COMPLETELY ENTER THE TOWER. SO....that 'engine' HAD TO HAVE PASSED THROUGH THE BUILDING. BUT!! WHERE'S THE HOLE IT TRAVELLED THROUGH TO GET TO WHERE IT LANDED (UNDER construction scaffolding I'll happily remind everyone)??!


Explain THAT ONE, all you gov't SHILL leeches that infect this site!

4:31 PM  
Blogger brad said...

engine supposedly hit the hood of a car ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4147958.stm

just as hard to believe though, maybe harder

its really hard to beleive that an engine went all the way through that building.
remember, even though the outer walls may have been somewhat easy to penetrate, the engine would have had to go straight through the floor.
what i mean, is if it were on an upward, or downward angle, it would have hit the floor/ceiling

now , the engine may have bounced around a bit, BUT, we have pictures of the nose exiting the building, which is even stranger to me.
so the nose, or even part of the fuselage, would ahve had to stay intact, bouncing around elevator shafts, missing support columns, and also had to be going in level, as not to hit the floor/ceiling !

thjis has always been the hardest part to beleive.

im not saying a aplne didnt hit it,
but maybe theres a video or 2 that have been altered ?
or maybe something strange hit it to account for that ?
i dunno, but its still strange to me...

Brad

911review.org

7:03 PM  
Blogger brad said...

engine supposedly hit the hood of a car ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4147958.stm

just as hard to believe though, maybe harder

its really hard to beleive that an engine went all the way through that building.
remember, even though the outer walls may have been somewhat easy to penetrate, the engine would have had to go straight through the floor.
what i mean, is if it were on an upward, or downward angle, it would have hit the floor/ceiling

now , the engine may have bounced around a bit, BUT, we have pictures of the nose exiting the building, which is even stranger to me.
so the nose, or even part of the fuselage, would ahve had to stay intact, bouncing around elevator shafts, missing support columns, and also had to be going in level, as not to hit the floor/ceiling !

thjis has always been the hardest part to beleive.

im not saying a aplne didnt hit it,
but maybe theres a video or 2 that have been altered ?
or maybe something strange hit it to account for that ?
i dunno, but its still strange to me...

Brad

911review.org

7:03 PM  
Anonymous we know said...

Brad said:

"BUT, we have pictures of the nose exiting the building, which is even stranger to me."

I have never seen such a picture or even heard that this happened. Can you post a link? Thank you.

I could see an engine maintaining forward momentum even if its glancing of ceilings and floors.

Can't see it come through that hole on the north face, though. Good point, Rob.

10:41 PM  
Anonymous we know said...

John Gault, good point about attitude. Thanks, I was wondering the same thing, but couldn't really tell if the plane was moving left. Is it moving left by definition when it is in such an attitude? Does the plane bank left?

Another thing that is weird is that all the engineers trying to show how the building collapsed say that core columns were cut in the South Tower by the plane's impact. Yet the picture in FEMA shows the plane's nose just brushing the corner as it passed the core columns. Although I think the cut-core-column theory is wrong, I could see it more as to the South Tower if the plane was banking left as you say. But that creates the problem of explaining how the jet fuel went to the right instead of following the momentum of the plane into the core columns.

The more I look at this, the more I think that spooked is right - those planes couldn't have gone in the way they said and the way that video shows.

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

The more I research it, the more I begin to realize: 9/11 is THE SCAM OF ALL SCAMS.

3:13 AM  
Anonymous james ha said...

yo, we know - look at this:
new york 4
taken from here:
the strange images of 9/11
keep looking at those images and in a subsequent page you'll see that while a weird nosecone-looking item seemed to poke out the other side of the tower, there is no corresponding hole there where it was observed poking out of.

7:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger