Summary Post: Reasons to Think the Wheel and Columns Are Not Legitimate Evidence of an Airplane Crash at WTC1
This wheel putatively embedded in these columns:
The biggest and most conclusive reasons to think this is fake are:
1) the amazing lack of damage to the street and curb by these extremely heavy steel (estimated 6 tons) columns falling from over 1000 feet and impacting the concrete and asphalt. The very long extended shape of these columns would prevent any significant sliding or tumbling following their descent and impact.
2) the wheel stayed in the columns despite the impact of the fall from over 100 feet-- and despite that the wheel does not look particularly tightly wedged in there (notice it is tilting to one side as if it loosely in there).
3) a huge amount of force had to be applied to the columns to get them dislodged from their multiple anchoring bolts in the building (spanning at least two floors) and then moving 40 mph (see two posts back), yet the columns do not seem bent or significantly distorted from this force.
Other reasons to think this scene is fake:
1) the photos have an odd coloring and one photo is admitted to be enhanced
2) the right hand part of the columns in the top two pictures look out of the proper plane of view and this may be a sign of photo manipulation
3) the columns are next to an oddly empty and open parking lot
4) the extent of the piping that supposedly came with the columns-- and the incredibly amount of curling it has undergone
5) just one wheel is present, stripped perfectly clean of its axle and strut and no other sign of landing gear-- it is impossible that this one wheel could have popped the column section out of its moorings
6) unlike other pictures of WTC plane debris, this evidence has received very little attention, indicating limited to no exposure of this evidence to the public prior to the NIST report
7) even NIST modeling suggests that the landing gear should not have penetrated the core of WTC1
8) Other WTC plane debris found on the street is also suspicious-- such as the engine part found upright under a construction canopy and the surprisingly undamaged wheel that also landed under a construction canopy.
POSSIBILITIES TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY FAKED THE EVIDENCE:
1) the columns were photoshopped into the pictures
2) the columns wewre detached by the WTC attack and landed closer to the WTC-- and were moved here and the wheel inserted (seems unlikely because heavy construction machinery-- a crane or a front loader-- would be needed to move this large and heavy object; also not clear why they would move the columns here).
3) the columns were prepared prior to the WTC attack and unloaded from a moving van onto the street here along with the plane wheel to provide evidence of a plane crash (this would suggest that the pictures apparently showing a missing section of columns from the south face of WTC1 was manipulated)
4) high-tech devices (magnetic weaponry?) were used to detach the columns from the South face of the WTC1, bring the columns down "softly", and then the plane tire was inserted once the columnns were down
I tend to favor possibilities 1 and 3.
The biggest and most conclusive reasons to think this is fake are:
1) the amazing lack of damage to the street and curb by these extremely heavy steel (estimated 6 tons) columns falling from over 1000 feet and impacting the concrete and asphalt. The very long extended shape of these columns would prevent any significant sliding or tumbling following their descent and impact.
2) the wheel stayed in the columns despite the impact of the fall from over 100 feet-- and despite that the wheel does not look particularly tightly wedged in there (notice it is tilting to one side as if it loosely in there).
3) a huge amount of force had to be applied to the columns to get them dislodged from their multiple anchoring bolts in the building (spanning at least two floors) and then moving 40 mph (see two posts back), yet the columns do not seem bent or significantly distorted from this force.
Other reasons to think this scene is fake:
1) the photos have an odd coloring and one photo is admitted to be enhanced
2) the right hand part of the columns in the top two pictures look out of the proper plane of view and this may be a sign of photo manipulation
3) the columns are next to an oddly empty and open parking lot
4) the extent of the piping that supposedly came with the columns-- and the incredibly amount of curling it has undergone
5) just one wheel is present, stripped perfectly clean of its axle and strut and no other sign of landing gear-- it is impossible that this one wheel could have popped the column section out of its moorings
6) unlike other pictures of WTC plane debris, this evidence has received very little attention, indicating limited to no exposure of this evidence to the public prior to the NIST report
7) even NIST modeling suggests that the landing gear should not have penetrated the core of WTC1
8) Other WTC plane debris found on the street is also suspicious-- such as the engine part found upright under a construction canopy and the surprisingly undamaged wheel that also landed under a construction canopy.
POSSIBILITIES TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY FAKED THE EVIDENCE:
1) the columns were photoshopped into the pictures
2) the columns wewre detached by the WTC attack and landed closer to the WTC-- and were moved here and the wheel inserted (seems unlikely because heavy construction machinery-- a crane or a front loader-- would be needed to move this large and heavy object; also not clear why they would move the columns here).
3) the columns were prepared prior to the WTC attack and unloaded from a moving van onto the street here along with the plane wheel to provide evidence of a plane crash (this would suggest that the pictures apparently showing a missing section of columns from the south face of WTC1 was manipulated)
4) high-tech devices (magnetic weaponry?) were used to detach the columns from the South face of the WTC1, bring the columns down "softly", and then the plane tire was inserted once the columnns were down
I tend to favor possibilities 1 and 3.
posted by spooked at 10:08 PM
18 Comments:
you did a very good summary of this "evidence".
---
huge amount of force had to be applied to the columns to get them dislodged from their multiple anchoring bolts in the building..
probably bolts AND welds. those towers withstood wind-forces much greater than the alleged plane impacts on a regular basis.
granted not all focused in one spot like a real plane impact would be but still those towers were super massive and extra sturdy.
the whole business of this WTC section lying in the street is just BIZZARE with a capitol B!
i mean, NONE of it makes any sense. not one thing.
1)not the lack of concrete curb damage.
2)not the fact AN INTACT, RUBBER TIRE IS EXTREEEMELY UNLIKELY TO HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THE ENTIRE TOWER #1
2)not the fact of where in the world did the massive energy required to propel this MASSIVE section, THAT FAR from WTC #1.
LEAST of which is why anyone would go through the OBVIOUS trouble & effort of planting this (supposedly) massively heavy prop.
Why would this be faked? Bandanas and passports are one thing. What is the motive for planting a 6-ton piece of metal on Cedar Street?
To show that there really was a plane crash.
Yeah okay.... 'Cause the government really needed THAT piece to conclusively prove a plane hit the building.
Well, if you don't think the evidence was planted or faked, then you have to explain how these items got there. And the scene makes no sense.
And it is not that they needed this to conclusively show a plane. Theirs was a cumulative argument with many weak spots, such as this one.
Well then you also need to explain why they would go to the trouble of planting/photoshopping something that you yourself just said they didn't really even need.
no anonymous, spooked does not need to explain WHY someone would go to the trouble. it is enough that he and others have noticed that there is something wrong with those photos, just as there is something wrong with the photos taken at the pentagon on 9/11.
i notice that neither yourself nor pinch has claimed that there is nothing wrong with any of these photos.
Well then you also need to explain why they would go to the trouble of planting/photoshopping something that you yourself just said they didn't really even need.
no, they didn't need to fake this particular photo. but what they did need to do was sell the story via tv, radio, newspaper and the net. the perps would never have pulled it off with the mcmedia tagging along.
the argument shouldn't be 'why fake this particular photo' but should be 'why fake/alter any piece of media referring to 9/11'
and the answer, which all regulars here are well aware of, is that the media was instrumental is carrying out the hoax and selling the story to the american people.
this photo, if indeed staged or faked, is just another puzzle piece which points to media complicity. was it essential to fake this photo? no. was it essential for the media to use every medium available the sell a fake story? yes.
media complicity? stop, that makes my movement hurt!
Ummm, sorry guys. But MOTIVE is always a determining factor in a crime.
You can't provide one in this instance, so you skirt the issue, instead focusing on the "well it looks faked, so it must be faked". What you fail to realize is that with no proof that it was staged (other than the apparent lack of damage visible in the photos), a motive would be most useful to help bolster your case.
the media has plenty of motive for faking photos and videos, which Spooked has laid out clearly over numerous blog entries.
if you're unwillingly to take the time and examine evidence for media complicity, including the above photographs, or unwillingly to take the time the consider to essential reasons the mcmedia would want to sell a phony story, well, too bad so sad.
Spooked has discussed multiple times the underlying motivations for media complicity. do some research yourself.
So how vast is this conspiracy Shep?
The government... the media... the scientific community... eyewitnesses....
And not one of these people has 'fessed up?
... Wow
MOTIVE is always a determining factor in a crime.
of course it is but spooked has done his part by pointing out obvious anomalies.
You can't provide one in this instance, so you skirt the issue,
could it possibly get any more ironic than you accusing one of us of skirting the issue?
anonymous you were doing a great job until you resorted to that old stand by time worn trick of insisting that spooked/we explain why.
i'm afraid that i must retract my prior statement that you deserve a promotion and an increase in salary. keep trying though!
I'm sorry that your lack of common sense fails to show you how having a reason for faking a 6-ton section of columns laying in the street when it's not necessary to keep up the appearance of an "conspiracy" might be helpful.
Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????
You can't give an answer. And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth".
It's pathetic.
when there are obvious anomalies found in photos of so-called "evidence" it is enough for one to point them out.
why? who knows. you're right; i can't give an answer. but i take exception to your praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth".
if you don't believe that these anomalies that have been pointed out are actually there then you should just say so.
until then please tell conspiracy smasher that re: his "hobby" he should tell his wife that i wear a size 12 clown shoe and that he should do the math.
Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????
anon, they faked the second hit vids. they faked the magic passport. they faked the shanksville crash. agreed, the faking of these particular photos don't impact the OGCT, but all of us here are well aware of media involvement.
stop acting like we're pretending these photos are essential to the cover up. we're not. as a whole, looking at what was 'produced' by the media, these photos simply add another piece to the puzzle..
[b]ut would also risk exposing the inside job????
whoa. back up there. anon, are you claiming 9/11 was an inside job? anon, do you believe the OGCT or do you believe 9/11 was an inside job or do you believe whatever gold and albanese feed into your head?
Everyone, I may have I misread NIST when they said all their models showed the landing gear stopping inside, or just outside the core. I read this to mean the landing stopped before in entered the core or in the core. It probably means the landing stopped in the core, or got through and stopped just outside the south side of the core. I don't thinks this changes my conclusion - even if it got through in the most severe impact model, it would have had little kinetic energy left.
You're saying the second plane was faked?
Do you have any idea how many people in NYC saw the second plane hit?
After the first plane hit, so many many people were watching the towers and saw the second plane hit.
When I lived in NYC from 2005-2007, I must have spoken to at least 5 personal friends about their experiences of seeing the second plane hit.
You're insane if you think there wasn't a second plane hit.
Post a Comment
<< Home