Six Basic Possibilities for What Happened at the South WTC Tower
IN MY OPINION, These are the six basic POSSIBLE explanations for what might have happened at the South WTC Tower on 9/11/01:
1) A top-secret non-conventional plane, a drone or possibly even carrying passengers, similar looking to a Boeing 767 or with "cloaking" similar to a Boeing 767, hit the tower. The videos that show the plane melting into the tower are mostly legitimate. Some videos were probably altered to make the plane look more like a United 767 and also to confuse investigators. Rather than shearing off upon impact, the wingtips and tail of this plane were some special material or energy form that was able to disintegrate/dissipate upon contact and also leave a ghost-like imprint in heavy steel columns. The plane body was constructed of a special material with the ability to penetrate heavy steel and concrete but this material also completely disintegrated after the initial penetration.
2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and the damage to the tower was caused by an invisible beam weapon of some sort, by pre-planted bombs or by an invisible/cloaked missile.
3) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear as the attack plane in any 2nd hit video.
4) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower but a plane image (and possibly sound) was projected over a short distance by holography (or related means) to fly into the tower in order to fool witnesses. Most videos showing the plane hitting the tower show the hologram plane. Videos showing the plane coming from a longer distance were faked (possibly explaining some of the conflicting approach paths). The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. One interesting permutation of this possibility is that the beam weapon that produced the building damage also projected the plane image.
5) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.
6) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or faked after the fact-- for any of the following reasons: to specifically confuse investigators, to attain fame, for commercial purposes, or a combination of these motives.
#6 (the official story plus faked videos) can be completely ruled out since the plane defies physics-- it enters the tower indestructably than disintegrates inside the tower leaving a cut-out shape of itself in the steel facade. Moreover, aluminum wings and tail should have never penetrated the thick steel columns of the facade. Additionally, there is no explosion at the point of impact, rather the explosion initiates much farther into the building.
The problems with #5 are that it assumes every video shot from close-up was altered after the fact, a difficult proposition, and that it doesn't explain the plane-shaped hole. Having a missile or smaller plane coincide with some other device that produced a larger 767-shaped hole seems overly cumbersome.
The big problem with #4 is that it is far from clear any holography could be so good to look real on video (even as poor as the plane looks in many videos) or to eyewitnesses, and it is not obvious why this approach would be attractive to the perpetrators, since it needs to be combined with other effects. The possibility that a beam energy weapon both projected the plane and produced the building damage cannot be ruled out, but this pre-supposes a technology that is top-secret. However, this explanation does work on a few levels.
The main problem with #3 is it assumes every available video of the second hit was faked (at least 33 videos), an idea that seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Though of course, if there was no plane at all, few people would bother to film empty sky to the south of the WTC. This theory possibly supposes the perpetrators have essentially complete control over what is posted on the internet and is shown on TV (the latter seems more likely than the former).
The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane passing into the tower like a ghost is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane turning invisible before the tower exploded, c) an amazingly precise timing between the cloaking and the explosion and d) that something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile, beam weapon or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of this theory is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected. However, I don't think this benefit outweighs the serious other problems with this explanation.
The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a technology that is not well-known (i.e. it is top secret). The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains the most: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this theory is that it doesn't explain some of the real oddities of the live TV coverage that imply video fakery (see the ABC/FOX/CNN live video and the Salter WNYW live video). This theory also doesn't explain why some videos show conflicting approach paths for the plane, unless we assume the perpetrators made some clearly bogus videos with altered plane paths to throw investigators off the track.
Overall, I think #1 is the most explanatory theory, and this scheme using a high tech plane might have the least amount of risk for the perpetrators, assuming such a plane is available.
However, explanation #2-- pure video fakery with a beam weapon used to create the plane-shaped hole-- is my intuitive choice. In large part, because so many of the second hit videos have serious anomalies implying some fakery.
#4 (holography/beam weapon projection) is hard to completely rule out but does not seem very likely to me. It is very intriguing on a technology level.
-------------------------------------------------
The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower (jet fuel fires and severe damage to the structure). Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts and bodies on the ground.
A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect for witnesses of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.
Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.
On the other hand, video fakery (theory #3) could have as much of a psy-op effect as the non-conventional plane.
------------
At least one helicopter was traveling north towards the south face of the south tower when the tower exploded. Thus, this helicopter was also in a similar position as the 2nd plane.
For instance, see here.
Questions:
1) did any eyewitnesses mention seeing this helicopter?
2) could any people have mistaken this helicopter for the 2nd plane?
3) this helicopter was in a prime location to see the plane hit the tower (assuming a plane was even there). Are there any accounts from the pilot of what he/she saw?
4) could this helicopter have been directly involved in the attack?
1) A top-secret non-conventional plane, a drone or possibly even carrying passengers, similar looking to a Boeing 767 or with "cloaking" similar to a Boeing 767, hit the tower. The videos that show the plane melting into the tower are mostly legitimate. Some videos were probably altered to make the plane look more like a United 767 and also to confuse investigators. Rather than shearing off upon impact, the wingtips and tail of this plane were some special material or energy form that was able to disintegrate/dissipate upon contact and also leave a ghost-like imprint in heavy steel columns. The plane body was constructed of a special material with the ability to penetrate heavy steel and concrete but this material also completely disintegrated after the initial penetration.
2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and the damage to the tower was caused by an invisible beam weapon of some sort, by pre-planted bombs or by an invisible/cloaked missile.
3) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear as the attack plane in any 2nd hit video.
4) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower but a plane image (and possibly sound) was projected over a short distance by holography (or related means) to fly into the tower in order to fool witnesses. Most videos showing the plane hitting the tower show the hologram plane. Videos showing the plane coming from a longer distance were faked (possibly explaining some of the conflicting approach paths). The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. One interesting permutation of this possibility is that the beam weapon that produced the building damage also projected the plane image.
5) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.
6) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or faked after the fact-- for any of the following reasons: to specifically confuse investigators, to attain fame, for commercial purposes, or a combination of these motives.
#6 (the official story plus faked videos) can be completely ruled out since the plane defies physics-- it enters the tower indestructably than disintegrates inside the tower leaving a cut-out shape of itself in the steel facade. Moreover, aluminum wings and tail should have never penetrated the thick steel columns of the facade. Additionally, there is no explosion at the point of impact, rather the explosion initiates much farther into the building.
The problems with #5 are that it assumes every video shot from close-up was altered after the fact, a difficult proposition, and that it doesn't explain the plane-shaped hole. Having a missile or smaller plane coincide with some other device that produced a larger 767-shaped hole seems overly cumbersome.
The big problem with #4 is that it is far from clear any holography could be so good to look real on video (even as poor as the plane looks in many videos) or to eyewitnesses, and it is not obvious why this approach would be attractive to the perpetrators, since it needs to be combined with other effects. The possibility that a beam energy weapon both projected the plane and produced the building damage cannot be ruled out, but this pre-supposes a technology that is top-secret. However, this explanation does work on a few levels.
The main problem with #3 is it assumes every available video of the second hit was faked (at least 33 videos), an idea that seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Though of course, if there was no plane at all, few people would bother to film empty sky to the south of the WTC. This theory possibly supposes the perpetrators have essentially complete control over what is posted on the internet and is shown on TV (the latter seems more likely than the former).
The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane passing into the tower like a ghost is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane turning invisible before the tower exploded, c) an amazingly precise timing between the cloaking and the explosion and d) that something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile, beam weapon or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of this theory is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected. However, I don't think this benefit outweighs the serious other problems with this explanation.
The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a technology that is not well-known (i.e. it is top secret). The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains the most: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this theory is that it doesn't explain some of the real oddities of the live TV coverage that imply video fakery (see the ABC/FOX/CNN live video and the Salter WNYW live video). This theory also doesn't explain why some videos show conflicting approach paths for the plane, unless we assume the perpetrators made some clearly bogus videos with altered plane paths to throw investigators off the track.
Overall, I think #1 is the most explanatory theory, and this scheme using a high tech plane might have the least amount of risk for the perpetrators, assuming such a plane is available.
However, explanation #2-- pure video fakery with a beam weapon used to create the plane-shaped hole-- is my intuitive choice. In large part, because so many of the second hit videos have serious anomalies implying some fakery.
#4 (holography/beam weapon projection) is hard to completely rule out but does not seem very likely to me. It is very intriguing on a technology level.
-------------------------------------------------
The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower (jet fuel fires and severe damage to the structure). Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts and bodies on the ground.
A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect for witnesses of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.
Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.
On the other hand, video fakery (theory #3) could have as much of a psy-op effect as the non-conventional plane.
------------
At least one helicopter was traveling north towards the south face of the south tower when the tower exploded. Thus, this helicopter was also in a similar position as the 2nd plane.
For instance, see here.
Questions:
1) did any eyewitnesses mention seeing this helicopter?
2) could any people have mistaken this helicopter for the 2nd plane?
3) this helicopter was in a prime location to see the plane hit the tower (assuming a plane was even there). Are there any accounts from the pilot of what he/she saw?
4) could this helicopter have been directly involved in the attack?
posted by spooked at 8:22 AM
26 Comments:
Very interesting thoughts.
I like option #1 for another reason.
I tend to believe that the Naudet Bros video of the first hit is authentic, even if planned (time, cover story, positioning or camera).
I tend believe that the same technology was used for the flying object that hit WTC1 was used for WTC2.
Even if you disagree, I would ask researchers to look for ways that hits #1 and hit #2 can both be explained as being part of the same plot and misdirection.
Right-- I agree about the same technology for 1 and 2.
also, my guess is the same technology was used for all 4 9/11 crashes, as I speculated here:
MISSING: Four Top Secret Planes
Last seen: 9/11/01
General Appearance: similar to a Boeing 757/767 series aircraft; wings sometimes flash off and on; color, variable
Details:
-- can pass easily without slowing into large sturdy buildings or into the ground, leaving a perfect silhouette shape of the Boeing 7X7
-- wingtips and tail look real, but disintegrate upon contact into fine powder, and only leave a mild indentation on solid surfaces
-- the rest of the plane has the unique ability to break into very small pieces upon impact, leaving a deep indentation in solid surfaces
-- can carry specially designed ordnance, either a fuel bomb or a penetrating warhead
Cost: priceless
Once again, you pasty-faced kooks are getting laughed at at CS...
this is off-topic, but i just listened to *Total Information Radio* at http://www.total911.info/2006/12/total-information-radio-dec-18.html
some topics include: PNAC, space/energy lasers, microwave weapons, and a speech given by *Douglas Beason* (directed-energy weapon expert, google him you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff) here's his bio:
DR. J. DOUGLAS BEASON
Dr. Beason is Deputy Associate Director (Defense Threat Reduction) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, responsible for coordinating all defense, intelligence, space, sensor RD, and bio-threat programs, a $260M portfolio. He has over 25 years of R&D experience that spans conducting basic research to directing cross-disciplinary, applied-science national security programs in directed energy, plasmas, advanced optics, high performance computing, pulsed power and space. His experience includes acquiring cutting-edge S&T systems, to formulating and coordinating national policy, with management experience ranging from line (35 people) to senior executive (1,800+).
Dr. Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the President’s Science Advisor (Office of Science and Technology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations, where he was an adjunct to the National Space Council. He has performed research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; directed a plasma physics laboratory; taught as an associate professor of physics and director of Faculty Research; and is the member of numerous review committees, including a Vice-Presidential commission on space exploration. He retired after 24 years of active duty from the United States Air Force as a Colonel, where during his last assignment he commanded the Phillips Research Site.
Dr. Beason hold a PhD and MS in Physics (University of New Mexico), an MS in National Resource Strategy (National Defense University), and is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy (BS Physics and Mathematics). The author of over 12 books (one bought by Universal Studios and another optioned by ABC) and 50 scholarly papers, he is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the recipient of the National Defense University President’s Strategic Vision Award, and a Nebula Award finalist
Another thing arguing against the official story is that no one had any warnings about the planes heading for New York, particularly the second one.
The television stations express complete surprise at the second plane.
If fighters were scrambled right at 8:46 , the FAA and military knew something was very wrong. Once the plane hit the North Tower at 8:46, another hijacked plane heading for New York would have been treated as a serious threat. There must have been evacuation procedures in place, but none were used.
Even if FAA and NORAD did nothing, it seems that local authorities or even citizens would have observed a plane heading for New York in an odd manner. Local airport traffic controllers would have noticed an unscheduled plane heading toward New York City, particularly after the first plane hit.
None of this makes sense. Rational anti-terrorism plans would have treated the World Trade Centers as the likely targets of hijacked planes, and WTC security would have been in the loop. So by 8:30 or so, there should have been evacuations of both towers called.
I know, no one expected it, FAA and NORAD screwed up, etc. I don't buy any of it. This tells me that hijacked planes didn't hit the towers. What did, I do not know.
Let me rephrase:
"Once the plane hit the North Tower at 8:46, IF NOT WELL BEFORE THAT, another hijacked plane heading for New York would have been treated as a serious threat."
reno said...
Once again, you pasty-faced kooks are getting laughed at at CS...
What's so funny?
I find it sad that you can't seem to understand any of the arguments we make, and that you just seem to find it all so amusing.
How stupid do you have to be to blindly accept what the government says, anyway?
Exactly, what's so funny?
They switch between "you're disrespecting the families," "you're traitors," and "you're moonbats - hah hah."
Murder and treason are no laughing matters. That's why we don't laugh about it. I for one am very serious about getting these crimes solved, and I am hopeful it will happen in 2007.
I will treat those who were sincere in their beliefs with respect.
You might add another possibility, which would be a non-hardened plane/UAV/missile with a plasma/beam weapon mounted on the front that zaps the scar into the building. In addition to generating a cloak of ionized gas, the plasma weapons are designed to shield planes and uavs from bullets and missiles. In other words, the same technology that turns the WTC to dust and melts cars can also protect against anti-aircraft weapons.
I'd guess that any real videos of the towers being hit show something that looks more like the naudet bros first video, with "blobs" attacking the tower that are only vaguely plane like. The videos are probably very blurry, so people who look at them say, oh, it's too bad I didn't get a good shot of the plane.
Then the TV shows the very fake "butter plane" stuff, so everyone says, Oh well, that guy got a better shot than I did.
In any event, the actual instrument that causes the towers to turn to dust is certainly not a conventional hijacked passenger jet, or a drone, or a plane of any kind. Since the videos are not mutually consistent we can rule out drones+no_video_fakery. Since the plane image butters into the building, we can rule out "conventional aircraft of any kind".
My personal guess is that there are lots of aircraft hiding out around the WTC before the attack participating in the FEMA and war games drills. Clearly there is lots of confusion from the eyewitnesses as to what hit the towers. Eye witnesses say things like rockets, missiles, military plane, small plane, etc. So, I'd guess something like this, a small-to-medium-sized aircraft flies slowly towards manhattan so that some people can see it, then shoots the WTC (either with beam weapon or missiles... it doesn't matter that much) then goes stealthy and zooms away from manhattan.) This aircraft could be either manned or unmanned.
Anyway, people who see the aircraft approach will remember the "plane" and then their attention will be turned to the giant WTC fireball, and that misdirection allows whatever hosed the tower to sneak off.
You'd have to have amazing powers of observation to keep your eyes trained on something that is almost invisible when the world trade center suddenly explodes with a giant fireball.
Maybe the following list helps--
Easy-to-see and understand (distractions):
Giant fireball
Big Jet Plane (manned or unmanned)
Television news showing a plane hitting the towers
Hard to see and understand (what they actually used):
Stealth/cloaked aircraft of any kind
Missiles or UAV's
Microwave beams, Lasers, or directed energy weapons of any kind
Fred
can't seem to understand any of the arguments we make
oh they understand completely - there can only be one possible explanation for them to continue to ignore every single issue that is raised - because there is no honest defense of the official fairytale frame-up and they know it. the only explanation for their continued willful ignorance is it must be their job.
i guess reno should be added to the B-UNIT roster.
that's B-UNIT in honor of james b. of the screwyrabbitchange blog and his alleged list of terrorist supporters or whatever the fool thinks that he's up to.
You might add another possibility....
there are so many possibilities already - how ironic that the official version is physically impossible.
"i guess reno should be added to the B-UNIT roster."
O goody - maybe I'll get my own Death ray and hologram machine...
You kooks are good for some laughs, they're's no doubt about that....
...and you should probably skip the star trek marathon this weekend...I think you've been watching enough science fiction...
All videos showing a plane are fakes.
They were no planes that hit WTC.
Happy holidays.
anon, no plane hit WTC-1? the Naudet/Firemen video's a fake also?
After serious thought and experimentation, I'd like to add:
7) A certain R. Reindeer was out on a training mission, and got lost in the fog. A mishap occurred, and a certain bearded gent needed to cover it up. It all makes sense.
Up your meds.
Human remains of passengers found in sewers.Guess that puts your theories to bed.
A CLOAKED missile??? He's right. Up your medication.
Idiot.
We did it.
We used tractor beams.
Die well.
-- the Klingons
Fred--
I think, if I am reading it correctly, your idea is basically the pure video fakery theory (#3) with how they made the scar a little more fleshed out.
Anonymous said...
this is off-topic, but i just listened to *Total Information Radio*
I'm none too impressed with "Total Info Radio". Looks like an Op to me.
"Anonymous said...
Human remains of passengers found in sewers.Guess that puts your theories to bed."
Authenticate those remains, and you've got something, though it is also possible the DNA was planted from another location. Given all the other lies of the government, I do not take those findings at face value.
Come on, man, think. We are saying the government is lying about what happened, and we more than ample basis. Do you think we believe their forensic claims?
"Anônimo disse...
anon, no plane hit WTC-1? the Naudet/Firemen video's a fake also? "
The question is not whether the Naudet/Fireman video is real. The question is what is seen on the video.
Each event and each video of each event has to be treated separately.
LOL, Spooky. You continue to impress me with your lunatic approach to all this.
Why not try a real experiment! Learn to fly, rent an airplane, and fly it into some abandoned building somewhere and report back to us on the effects of said collision!
And take Jimmy HaHa along with you. You can leave the others, if you like. We'll need SOMEONE to fill up those remote domestic detention facilities and thence do our bidding.
We'll be waiting...
sup pinch - way to go addressing those official 9/11 fairytale discrepancy issues that are all so obvious!
oh that's right, you and your junior associates wouldn't dare to even acknowledge them would you?
oh well. your job is to ignore them and my job is to point out the fact that you continue to ignore them - here's to 2 jobs well done - salud!
Post a Comment
<< Home