Brief Overview of the Evidence for No Plane at the South Tower
1) Near impossible flightpath for amateur pilot-- and remote control plane would have taken more direct path without last-minute course correction (extreme banking)
2) Overwhelming evidence that the videos showing either "UA175" do not show a Boeing 767, were manipulated or are fraudulent:
a) clear airframe abnormalities seen in images of the plane
b) plane is too small for 767 in some videos
c) aircraft attitude/flight path discrepancies between videos (even more apparent with photos)
d) bizarre/unreal/unlikely camera pans/zooms
e) "nose-out" video fakery phenomenon in Fox 5 video
f) lack of a plane in long zoom out shot of Fox 5 video
g) linkage of many videos to video animators
3) Impossible crash physics upon contact with the tower
a) no slowing as plane enters
b) no explosion as plane enters
c) no part of plane breaks off despite fact that entry hole doesn't accomodate all of wings and tail
d) no deflection in the plane's path as it enters
e) no deflection/distortion of wings as they impact the tower
f) almost no deflection of debris backwards
g) impossibility of plane acting indestructible as it enters but then undergoing complete destruction after it goes in
4) Lack of plane debris clearly matching a Boeing 767 and no black boxes officially recovered
5) Evidence of planted plane debris
a) engine under canopy
b) fuselage piece on top of tower debris on WTC5 roof
6) Witnesses who were in a position to see the plane but never did
2) Overwhelming evidence that the videos showing either "UA175" do not show a Boeing 767, were manipulated or are fraudulent:
a) clear airframe abnormalities seen in images of the plane
b) plane is too small for 767 in some videos
c) aircraft attitude/flight path discrepancies between videos (even more apparent with photos)
d) bizarre/unreal/unlikely camera pans/zooms
e) "nose-out" video fakery phenomenon in Fox 5 video
f) lack of a plane in long zoom out shot of Fox 5 video
g) linkage of many videos to video animators
3) Impossible crash physics upon contact with the tower
a) no slowing as plane enters
b) no explosion as plane enters
c) no part of plane breaks off despite fact that entry hole doesn't accomodate all of wings and tail
d) no deflection in the plane's path as it enters
e) no deflection/distortion of wings as they impact the tower
f) almost no deflection of debris backwards
g) impossibility of plane acting indestructible as it enters but then undergoing complete destruction after it goes in
4) Lack of plane debris clearly matching a Boeing 767 and no black boxes officially recovered
5) Evidence of planted plane debris
a) engine under canopy
b) fuselage piece on top of tower debris on WTC5 roof
6) Witnesses who were in a position to see the plane but never did
posted by spooked at 9:33 AM
17 Comments:
Thanks for this succinct, cogent "autopsy" of the WTC2 OCT cadaver.
"3) Impossible crash physics upon contact with the tower"
the plane passing into the building so effortlessly as a knife through butter
the strob light changing colors of the MM vids
from blue to black/gold to green ect...
ITS ALL A SCAM by the Illuminazi SCUM
Once again, Spooky, I can see why you (like your buddy the anonymous asshole co-idiot) stay anonymous. This post if the biggest bunch of hilarious bullshit I have seen you compile in one place.
Do you even know what 500 mph is? You quite obviously don't have any notion or concept or idea what the kinetic energy is of 150 tons moving at 500 mph.
You also have no idea how much dense, heavy metal is in an airliner, upwards of 35 tons (70,000 lbs) of titanium, steel and other dense heavy metals spread all throughout the aircraft, so your little idea of a "lightweight aluminum tube" is more bullshit that proves you have absofuckinglutely no idea what you are talking about.
You talk about "impossible crash physics" when you have no idea about what the physics should be in the first place.
Again, I can see why you remain anonymous - I wouldn't want my name associated with this crap either!
500 mph means the thick steel outer columns (13/16th inch steel thick) on two sides would be impacting the aluminum wings of the plane at 500 mph.
I never used the term "lightweight aluminum tube" and I am not one of those who say a 767 could not have penetrated the tower.
I do say however, the behaviour of the plane as it hits the tower as seen in the videos was bogus for the multiple reasons I listed. All reasons you ignore to bring up a straw man argument, Anonymous at 8:09 am (who makes fun of other people posting anonymously but then posts anonymously).
You are just too stupid to understand. Its not a straw man argument - the things you speak of as "reasons" is nothing but ignorant blathering by someone who does not understand 1) aerodynamics 2) physics nor 3) the interrelationship between the two.
You keep asking this completely idiotic question (well, they ALL are, but this one is symbolic) about "almost no deflection of debris backwards". What part of 500 mph do you not understand and please, if you would be so kind, explain the physical properties of an object that *would* be able to reverse its Newtonian movement of 733 feet per second in *one direction* into a opposite direction? How big would this piece of aircraft have to be? What would its make-up be? Would it be titanium? steel? aluminum?boron fiberglass? What? Because when I look at the physical properties of an aircraft impacting a predominantly glass and thin-steel enclosed open area like the WTC floors were, I can NOT see where *anything* of substance would reverse its forward momentum and go backwards.
But then again you have your own definition of physics so I suppose that's why you don't understand this.
And remember, I'm not the one who has to hide behind an anonymous facade because my posts are so fucking stupid and I risk losing my job because I am posting such idiotic stuff. I don't post my name here because you all are crazy as bat shit.
But like I said, if I was posting the crap you post I'd stay anonymous as well cause I'd want to keep my "scientist" job. (LMFAO)
wow ANONYMOUS @8:09 sure is bright!:
""Do you even know what 500 mph is? You quite obviously don't have any notion or concept or idea what the kinetic energy is of 150 tons moving at 500 mph""
i wonder if YOU do.
anon @12:34 said:
""What part of 500 mph do you not understand and please, if you would be so kind, explain the physical properties of an object that *would* be able to reverse its Newtonian movement of 733 feet per second in *one direction* into a opposite direction?""
*newtonian movement*?
what are you high?
newton's 3rd law:
"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
this means that if the thin walled aluminum tube of a real 767 (with a smooth rounded lightweight plastic nosecone) were to really hit a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be hitting the aluminum/plastic 767 with the SAME force equivalent to X.
anon @12:34 also said:
""predominantly glass and thin-steel enclosed open area like the WTC floors were,""
i don't think so, liar.
building the wtc
^h.
Does anon @ 12:34 think that a huge piece of glass in the shape of an airplane traveling 500 mph would be able to penetrate the 13/16th inch thick steel walled outer WTC columns-- simply because it is going 500 mph?
Does anon @ 12:34 think that a huge piece of glass in the shape of an airplane traveling 500 mph would not bounce off the 13/16th inch thick steel walled outer WTC columns-- simply because it is going 500 mph?
Does anon @ 12:34 not remember the test of an F4 jet going 500 mph that crashed into a concrete wall where the jet disintegrated and the pieces flew straight backwards?
Perhaps the whole problem is that anon@12:34 has no clue about how strong the WTC was. As I said, the outer columns at the 80th floor had two sides each 13/16th thick of high-strength steel. There is no part of an airplane that strong -- period.
Not to mention the 3 inch thick concrete floors encased in steel.
As I said, the fuselage may have been able to ram it's way into that massive structure, but what about the wings and tail-- about would the fuselage go into without distortion or crumpling or exploding upon contact?
But really, anon@12:34 is clearly wrong about physics-- because something going 500 mph can bounce straight back very hard if it doesn't penetrate the object it hits. THAT is simple physics.
To be honest, I would rather not be associated with Spooked's talk about the moon, which is not to say there might be something to it.
I'm not interested.
I am interested in the crimes of 9/11, and anyone trying to cover them up. I have no problem with being associated with what he's saying here. In fact, I would be ashamed to be associated with what you're saying, having looked into the matter. Why don't you put your real name to what you are saying?
Dwight Van Winkle
My name is hardly important here. Is what I am saying right or wrong?
Isn't it true an F4 jet hitting a concrete wall disintegrates and each piece is suddenly able to "reverse its Newtonian movement of 733 feet per second in *one direction* into a opposite direction".
I think this point is far more important than who I am.
"newtonian movement"
is that different than a regular movement?
there's at least 2-3 operatives who monitor this blog OBSESSIVELY...who gives them their orders? secret white house spy units? i wouldn't be surprised if the Perps had networks of spies who monitor S-11 sites/blogs, and get paid to post complete baloney on them (especially here because Spooked runs a hard-hitting, fresh/updated blog that deals with a serious crime)...but it all comes down to the nuking of WTC and obvious TV-Fakery, so it's just a matter of TIME...hey spooks/spies/shills/operatives, hope you enjoy the fall when it ALL comes down...
:)
Your basic point is, then, that every one of the thousands of still photos and video footage of planes hitting at least one tower are ... faked? And the plane debris, which any idiot can see DOES belong to 757-767's in NYC and the Pentagon ... were magically planted, instantly, at the sites. By Secret Government Agents with cloaking devices. Or with time travel.
In addition to never having taken a Physics course in your life, you're a complete loon.
There aren't thousands of videos, there are maybe 30 or so. If they can fake one, they can fake two or seven or any number of them.
They are video composites. This is the simplest explanation for the evidence. It perfectly accounts for the effortless entry of the plane into the tower. It's actually a video plane disappearing into a layer mask.
I salute Spooked for a wealth of excellent research.
"and the plane debris, which any idiot can see DOES belong to 757-767's in NYC and the Pentagon ... were magically planted, instantly, at the sites. By Secret Government Agents with cloaking devices. Or with time travel."
what plane debris? got any evidence m8? plz provide since i am in search of the planes myself
Gosh, there is really much useful information above!
Post a Comment
<< Home