Second Hit Not Right
If you can, take a look at this video.
After the plane goes in, what looks to be the fuselage comes out the other side, very briefly, and then it bursts into flames and disintegrates.
I have no huge problem with the fuselage of the plane coming out the other side-- assuming it went in between floors, it would have missed the solid core section and just plowed through a few flimsy office walls, and could have gone out the other side.
What I have a problem with is the front of the fuselage EXPLODING. There is no reason for it to do so. Moreover, it seemingly disintegrated, since no one ever reported large chunks of the fuselage on the street below. And certainly in the video, the "fuselage" gets completely enveloped in the strangely massive fireball.
The whole scene seems very odd, in deep retrospect.
And there are other anomalies, nicely summarized here:
After the plane goes in, what looks to be the fuselage comes out the other side, very briefly, and then it bursts into flames and disintegrates.
I have no huge problem with the fuselage of the plane coming out the other side-- assuming it went in between floors, it would have missed the solid core section and just plowed through a few flimsy office walls, and could have gone out the other side.
What I have a problem with is the front of the fuselage EXPLODING. There is no reason for it to do so. Moreover, it seemingly disintegrated, since no one ever reported large chunks of the fuselage on the street below. And certainly in the video, the "fuselage" gets completely enveloped in the strangely massive fireball.
The whole scene seems very odd, in deep retrospect.
And there are other anomalies, nicely summarized here:
...the strange mode of how the visible flying object entered the solid steel-column wall without reacting to it. That means:I still have to say that I think this theory is very compelling.
- the entering craft is in south wall’s shadow wedge but parts of the craft shine white like a lamp
- the visible flying craft emits a yellow flash instants before nose-touch-wall event
- the visible flying craft cuts six floors which is impossible (Prof. Wierzbicki, MIT)
- the entering craft creates dust pimples that blow outward as from explosions
- the sensitive wing tips do not bend or break off, nor do they flip forward
- the sensitive tips of tail rudder and elevator (winglets) do not break off
- no veer or teeter despite flying in at an angle (about 13 degrees)
- no deceleration despite calculated loss of kinetic energy of 26%
- no deformation, crumple or smash-up of the visible flying object
- no explosion until the visible flying object has faded out of sight
Slow motion opens our eyes, as far as the viewer is not terrorized into mush-brain idiocy, to the fact that the videos we were shown are absurd and impossibly show a real physical solid object. We explain this as a much smaller USAF cruise missile cloaked with a holographic skin to make it look on TV like a large Boeing 767-200 (hologram theory). No other viable explanation has emerged to date, except possibly the theory that the videos are 100% fakes (media hoax theory – but amateur footage and the few credible eyewitnesses known by name definitely saw „something“ fly into each of the towers, and we have a sound recording from a probably neutral source of both hits as well).
posted by spooked at 8:17 PM
6 Comments:
there is NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY that that was a commericial airliner (which is essentially a thin aluminium-skinned flying coke can) which was able to penetrate through TWO sides of the thick STEEL walls of my twin towers. NO WAY IN HELL. first off as you know spooked, my great-uncle Ray built those twin towers (he was one of the engineers). they were strong & solid as could be. plus, having grew up & lived here in nyc my entire life, i have been fascinated with the Twin Towers my entire life. i have visited them countless times, more than i can remember and have literally felt the steel that made up the outside of the towers many many times (i know it sounds odd...but i always did that when i would go there...i'm a tactile kinda person) and to say they were thick & sturdy would be a gross understatement.
then, when you factor in THE FACT THAT THE NOSECONES OF AIRLINERS AREN'T EVEN MADE OF METAL!!! but are made of a composite material MUCH weaker than steel...you can come to NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAN THAT WAS NO "NORMAL" commericial airliner that struck EITHER tower. period.
I agree Rob!
Thanks for the info!
very welcome spooked!
i actually now have reached the conclusion (took a long time, and a great deal of internal debate to reach this..) that what we witnessed on the TV news replays of the "plane" hitting tower #2 was a cloaked object, and/or a manipulated TV image. and trust me...i FULLY realize HOW that 'sounds' to the uninitiated 9/11 researcher or novice. but, after many months (YEARS actually) of examination i can simply & honestly come to NO OTHER conclusion that sufficently exlains the frankly BIZZARE (and laws of physics suspending) behavior that the "Plane" exhibts. the "Plane" suffers ABSOLUTELY NO 'CRUMPLING'. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING breaks off the "Plane" as it enters. There is absolutely NO torsion visable in the rear of the "Plane" (the tail structure specifically) WHATSOEVER as the first half of the "Plane" is completely inside of tower 2. it simply behaves as a non-physical (read: non 3-dimensional...like a shadow for example) object would when encountering a wall: it simply disappears into it.
one more thing. i (and other researchers as well) believe that the SECOND hit was cloaked, and NOT the first (WTC #1) for reason of the sheer amount of coverage and cameras that would then be trained on the towers as a result of the first hit. no one (apart from the planners) was expecting the first hit, therefore the need to go through the effort of holographic cloaking would be virtually unnecessary due to the completely unexpected nature inherent in the attack.
PROOF that no commericial airliner struck tower 1 can be seen in the "Naudet" clip of the object entering tower one. if you observe the point in the clip when the object is so close to tower 1 that it casts a shadow of itself on the building, you will clearly see THAT NO WHERE IN THE SHADOW CAST CAN THE SHADOW OF WINGS BE OBSERVED. the shadow simply appears long & cylindrical. NO WINGS of any kind can be observed. Last time I checked, ALL American Airlines passenger aircraft had wings. They haven't introduced rocket or missle flights just yet. ;)
interesting sidenote. i just recieved in the mail 5 full dvd's worth of live TV recordings from september 11th that someone made. i am going to give them to nico this week, then soon i will make copies of them and mail them to you. they are the raw hours of TV coverage, recorded LIVE off of the TV on the morning of 9/11, exactly as the attacks were unfolding. i must say, watching the HOURS of recordings this person gave me REALLY felt like going back in time to that morning. and i have found some VERY interesting stuff from that day. you will be MOST interested in these dvd's spooked...i can't stress that enough. what i'm getting to relates to this "Second Hit Not Right" post in a most interesting way. watching the hours of real-time TV coverage, NOWHERE is that famous shot/shots of the second plane coming in & hitting shown 'Live', right as it happens. IN EVERY INSTANCE now watching the whole day's coverage on DVD, the hit is shown with the caption "Recordeed Earlier". this goes to the HEART of the contention that the footage was doctored, AND THEN delevered to the "news" media. because i can simply not find ONE instance in ALL the coverage of that day that I have now watched, with the DOZENS OF NEWS CAMERAS that were trained upon the towers, and giving "Live" feeds after the first hit, that show it as it happened. ALL of them have a "recorded earlier" caption. all.
Fascinating. And it is gratifying that we seem to be coming to similar conclusions.
I have a friend who recorded one hour of 9/11 footage from 9am to 10am, and they saw some interesting things when they recently reviewed it.
What about the kinetic energy argument? I think it is weak but what is a quick answer...I'm very bad at science.
And about the protruding fusilage, does the explosion come up from behind or does it all explode at once? It's been a few years since I've seen the footage.
"Anonymous", there is a link to the footage in question at the beginning of the blog post.
let's break it down.
nosecone is made of CarbonFiber.
my twin towers exterior walls were made of STEEL.
ANY contest between CarbonFiber and THICK, Steel walls (TWO of them keep in mind)...
NOSECONE OF "Airliner" LOSES!
Therefore, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT "AIRPLANE" NOSE WE SAW POKE THROUGH TWO THICK STEEL WALLS OF THE TWIN TOWERS , WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE OF CARBON FIBER, TO HAVE SURVIVED.
IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD.
Ever seen one of those hopped-up, Japanese street race cars like those in films like "The Fast & The Furious"?
A lot of those spoiler kits you see on 'em are made from carbon fiber. Ever see one of these cars after they crash into a steel guardrail?
The carbon fiber IS OBLITERATED. THE carbon fiber parts ARE SHREDDED! The steel guardrails ALWAYS WIN.
So now tell me how the easily breakable, carbonfiber nosecone of that supposed "Airliner" we all saw crash into Tower#2 managed to pentrate through TWO THICK STEEL WALLS....and come out the other side...WITH ITS CONICAL SHAPE STILL COMPLETELY INTACT!!!???
take a look at WHAT A BIRD IMPACT DOES TO A RADAR NOSECONE OF A LARGE JET AIRLINER:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5517/noseconedamagefrombirdstrike6t.jpg
http://www.aviation-friends-cologne.de/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/Specials/thumb/BS_A320_D-AIPH_30.10.04_1.jpg
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/birdstrike.pdf
A BIRD WILL DEFORM, AND CRUMPLE THE NOSECONE!!!!
A FUCKING BIRD!!!
YET WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT FLYING THROUGH NOT ONE, BUT TWO THICK-STEEL WALLS OF ONE OF THE STRONGEST BUILDINGS EVER BUILT, DOES NOT!!????
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! THE BUSH CABAL MUST THINK THEY RULE OVER A NATION OF FUCKING MORONS!
AND SINCE THE MASSES HAVEN'T SAID BOO ABOUT THIS MOST OBVIOUS SCAM YET...THE BUSH CABAL MAY JUST BE RIGHT. :(
Post a Comment
<< Home