The Three Key Problems with the Official South Tower Plane Crash Story
Trying to make a more simplified argument here.
1) According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without significant slowing or alteration in its path or anything breaking off. I actually don't argue with this. Who can say for sure that a plane going extremely fast can't enter the tower in this way? The real problem here is that after this seamless entry, the 160 foot long plane never exited the 208 foot wide tower and officially shattered into many small pieces. By itself, I also have no problem with the idea that the plane disintegrated after hitting the tower. But you can't have both things going on at once! This is a violation of physics and is solid proof that the story is wrong. It is like cutting into butter with a knife-- there is no resistance as the knife goes in-- yet once the knife enters, it disintegrates! This is obviously nonsense, and this conflict is the strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked.
2) According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without the tail breaking off, yet pictures of the "entry" hole show no hole for the massive tail section to enter, meaning it must have broken off. Further, there is absolutely no evidence of tail pieces falling to the ground.
3) Pilot with no experience flying a jet plane before, makes a bee-line shot for the south tower, controlling the plane out of a plane power dive then going over maximum speed at sea level, makes perfect last minute course correction, smoothly guiding the plane into the tower-- all completely ridiculous!!!
1) According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without significant slowing or alteration in its path or anything breaking off. I actually don't argue with this. Who can say for sure that a plane going extremely fast can't enter the tower in this way? The real problem here is that after this seamless entry, the 160 foot long plane never exited the 208 foot wide tower and officially shattered into many small pieces. By itself, I also have no problem with the idea that the plane disintegrated after hitting the tower. But you can't have both things going on at once! This is a violation of physics and is solid proof that the story is wrong. It is like cutting into butter with a knife-- there is no resistance as the knife goes in-- yet once the knife enters, it disintegrates! This is obviously nonsense, and this conflict is the strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked.
2) According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without the tail breaking off, yet pictures of the "entry" hole show no hole for the massive tail section to enter, meaning it must have broken off. Further, there is absolutely no evidence of tail pieces falling to the ground.
3) Pilot with no experience flying a jet plane before, makes a bee-line shot for the south tower, controlling the plane out of a plane power dive then going over maximum speed at sea level, makes perfect last minute course correction, smoothly guiding the plane into the tower-- all completely ridiculous!!!
posted by spooked at 11:26 AM
23 Comments:
Was not the official approach for the south tower plane from the west (at some point) and then north? How many people claimed to have witnessed the plane (screaming 500 mph monster) during the long approach, in New Jersey, for example?
It would of course be impossible to adjust the altitude(different from the impact) in 15 seconds, say, from two miles out, and hope to strike the target. Thus, the plane was very low relative to that speed. Nice day, thousands of people out.
One of the most important considerations (according to me) about the 2nd hit event is to see how the "no planers" have been intentional liars for many years now. There's an extremely good reason for this. The "nose out" event is part of the hi-tech aircraft / bomb that impacted, pierced, and exited WTC 2.
The "melting in" of the craft (as in the case for the WTC1 impact), which is real, and is indicative of a technology for the hit fundamentally removed from the impact physics which would be associated with a normal Commercial Jetliner into the towers.
The details, above, which no-planers have called non-physical, or cartoons, are real (with the right technology) as related above are so damning to the "official story" of 9/11, it was a necessity to get those researchers off the track of understanding the clear indication that an aircraft, not UA 175, or any other Commercial aircraft was part of the 9/11 plot.
According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without significant slowing or alteration in its path or anything breaking off. I actually don't argue with this. Who can say for sure that a plane going extremely fast can't enter the tower in this way?
....spooked
i can say for sure.
a beer can can't enter a BBQ grill, no matter how fast it is going.
The "melting in" of the craft (as in the case for the WTC1 impact), which is real, and is indicative of a technology for the hit fundamentally removed from the impact physics which would be associated with a normal Commercial Jetliner into the towers.
....BG
really dude, a magic plane? and you find this scenario more likely than simple video fakery?
Point 1:
If you say plane / flying object was faked (which is not a match for the batch of evidence as I see it), then do you go with all pre-planted explosive as the cause of damage, or other exotic weaponry?
Point 2:
A link to my speculation of what allowed the "melting in":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm
i was fortunate enough to be watching the news that morning right after the wtc1 had smoke pouring out of it so i saw what was supposedly live footage of the plane hitting the wtc2. at the time it looked like a plane was actually hitting the tower. it took many years for many different analyses to show that this plane's appearance and behavior including the so-called nose out were laughable at best and were nothing more than badly done CGI.
anyway there was a reporter on the ground and he said "the other tower just exploded" - then the studio mopes said "it was a plane hit" - then the reporter said "i didn't see any plane".
the mopes saw the laughable plane inserted on their screens but the guy on the ground would have seen/heard it if it had actually been there.
i also remember the news guys saying that they were getting several reports of missiles being fired from the woolworth building but they never followed up about that and it was swept under the rug.
i can't speculate on what made the phony plane-shaped holes, but i don't think that a missile could have made the phony wing marks on the side of the tower.
There is not a single word of intelligence or honesty in BG’s absurdities above, or in any of his blogs.
It is more evidence that the intel agencies have orders to have one of their ASSets comment whenever any post demonstrates the validity of the videos being obviously nothing more than CGI for TV.
BG’s proof for the violation of the inviolable Laws Of Physics includes the following from him:
1. “According to me.” [BG]
2. “indicative of a technology for the hit fundamentally removed from the impact physics which would be associated with a normal Commercial Jetliner into the towers.”
3. A URL for shape charges.
Hint 1: The definitive article on this matter was posted here, showing zero interaction physics for both the plane and the tower.
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-interaction-physics-or-zero-crash.html
Hint 2. Even one of the videographers declared that his video now looked like “bad, special effects” when he got it back with the FBI’s “special processing” that happened to include “some of them there newfangled melting-in laws of physics” that only happen when the regime’s intel agencies need them.
Hint 3. The existence of shape charges does not help this imbecilic intel ASSet. Rather the opposite. Shape charges explode. By citing the obvious absurd and impossible PRISTINE nose out video, he is well-done. Shape charges explode. We saw the huge explosions. You can’t have it both ways. Something either exploded or it is pristine.
Obviously there is nothing to BG’s posts. So this one is very much like Judy Wood and DEW, desperately trying to latch onto to anything that a superficial and imbecilic understanding might seem to support [according to him], but do not in fact lend any credence AS THEY CANNOT BECAUSE OF THE INVIOLABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
His comments just show the desperation of an intel asset in Austin, TX. And the orders to post any absurdity whenever a reasonable NPT article appears. They can’t even send over someone who comprehends the terms “inviolable” or “Laws Of Physics.”
Because they cannot counter the truth, and so must resort to absurdity and impossibility, and citing matters that DISPROVE their own claims.
The missile from Woolworth bldg could be genuine eyewitness or more clever intel handling, when nothing but internal pre-planted explosions went off.
I don't mind taking these hits or others. However, for the sake of honest debate, I find your decision to be anonymous less than optimal. Since the thoughts posted are so dead set against the nose out being real, I would welcome a full reference to more web pages / materials (other than killtown, who I'm invested enough time in without satisfaction) to support the argument. For the record, here is what I believe to be footage which accurately shows the event:
http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2197600/
http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2219678/
Also see:
http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2236994/
If anything I post is wrong, I appreciate the honest seeking of what is true.
I appreciate this blog and community to continue the discussion.
Yeah you're so honest. You "forgot" to counter the points.
1. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-interaction-physics-or-zero-crash.html
2. The existence of shape charges does not help this imbecilic intel ASSet. Rather the opposite. Shape charges explode. By citing the obvious absurd and impossible PRISTINE nose out video, he is well-done. Shape charges explode. We saw the huge explosions. You can’t have it both ways. Something either exploded or it is pristine.
Finally show you understand:
“inviolable” or “Laws Of Physics.”
Instead of ignoring the points and declaring your "honesty."
Just posting more obvious stupid video fakery gets tiring.
Shame on you!
The first video you just posted shows the "incoming plane" missing one of its wings.
Shame on you.
Yeah you're "honest."
Congratulations, Spooked. Your explanation/analogy of a knife and butter is the very best, most intelligent, logical, and common sense argument I've ever read or heard.
Must be nice to have such a good mind and ability to explain things.
Anon.
For your sake, I hope you are more personable, reasonable, and pleasant in person that you silly name calling here.
Seriously...?
You're comparing the towers to sticks of butter...?
SERIOUSLY????
It appears like a butter building, and of course that is why it is a joke. That is the point!
The real world, 2010 a.d.
The Sept. 11 attacks were a series of coordinate suicide attacks by al_Qaeda....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_September_attacks
The 11 September attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Google map, satellite, "world trade center attacks".
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.712525,-74.013788&spn=0.002667,0.006947&t=h&z=18
BG:
I repeat, and you must reply
Yeah you're so honest. You "forgot" to counter the points.
1. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-interaction-physics-or-zero-crash.html
2. The existence of shape charges does not help this imbecilic intel ASSet. Rather the opposite. Shape charges explode. By citing the obvious absurd and impossible PRISTINE nose out video, he is well-done. Shape charges explode. We saw the huge explosions. You can’t have it both ways. Something either exploded or it is pristine.
Finally show you understand:
“inviolable” or “Laws Of Physics.”
Instead of ignoring the points and declaring your "honesty."
Just posting more obvious stupid video fakery gets tiring.
Shame on you!
The first video you just posted shows the "incoming plane" missing one of its wings.
Awaiting your reply, BG. Just getting your fellow intel assets is not a reply.
BG, this is your link to footage of the so-called nose out.
http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2197600/
first of all, that video was not presented until well after 9/11/01 - that fact alone makes it suspect.
secondly, it depicts an alleged 767 that is flat black in color despite being supposedly filmed from the east, but at that time of day the sun would have been totally gleaming off of the silvery finish that is a real boeing 767.
third, it is missing one of it's wings - i think that if it was a real plane then it would be the left wing that is missing.
obviously that is not a real 767 so therefor it must be video fakery (and badly done at that). frankly they could have achieved a better result with a cardboard silhouette of a plane sliding down a wire.
but kudos to the producer of this vid for the shadow that the supposed nose out seems to cast on the tower.
Anon.,
The beginning of the process of understanding the 2nd hit is becoming aware that UA 175 (or any commercial jetliner) is not involved.
I agree that some video (including live video) may have been altered / fake.
However, the concept that some of the video isn't a reliable depiction of the flight path or the impact in no way implies there wasn't a flying projectile which hit WTC2.
on SPOOKED's website:
Ace Baker
Chopper 5 velocity study, etc.
Still no answer from "BG."
What filth you are.
In case people forgot, look at BG's first post. It began with:
"One of the most important considerations (according to me) about the 2nd hit event is to see how the "no planers" have been INTENTIONAL LIARS for many years now."
So this obvious and moronic intel vermin begins a post at a blog that has perhaps mostly enlightened people that can see, and have researched, that clearly the videos of the 2nd hit are merely CGI. And that the towers were exploded without any plane impacts.
And BG begins with a disgusting insult to nearly all here (not counting all the other intel ASSets).
Then in moronic attempts to support his own lies, he posts an obviously and poorly faked video as "the most genuine" (or words to that effect) and a URL to a shape charge article--that as I logically pointed out above--totally DISPROVES the absurd CGI "pristine nose-out" video fakery.
I thank the intel agencies for sending this moron to us to help prove NPT!
Hint #4 to his intel controller. If your moron agent is going to claim all he cares about is the "911 community", don't have him call intelligent people deliberate liars to start out with. And then have everything he writes help prove NPT!
From the standpoint of pushing for a real investigation of 9/11, on the topic of the 2nd hit, I count as my ally anyone who agrees that UA Flt. 175 did not crash into the WTC.
Is that a poor attempt to apologize for calling many here:
"INTENTIONAL LIARS for many years now."
?
My experience with Nico, Simon Shack, even Ace Baker when he takes on a all-fakery, all the time stance (and whoever else I'm leaving out) has not been enjoyable.
I was simply saying I'll take a no-planer over anyone who thinks AA 11 and UA 175 hit the towers.
Now you are making no sense. You called all the NPTers liars:
"One of the most important considerations (according to me) about the 2nd hit event is to see how the "no planers" have been intentional liars for many years now."
You didn't single anyone out.
Now just above, you wrote,
"I was simply saying I'll take a no-planer over anyone who thinks AA 11 and UA 175 hit the towers."
A sentence supposedly favoring NPT.
Are you on crack or something?
Or did the CIA give you some of their LSD, like they did to their agent, Olson?
Very helpful info, much thanks for your post.
Post a Comment
<< Home