Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (10350)	3/12/2005 4:42:11 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > I was thinking about the photo you posted showing the holes to be approximately where the body of the plane, and the two engines hit. I'm glad, because we are not the only ones who are. Here are two articles, written by Leonard Spencer, which also relate to the holes: serendipity.li serendipity.li Re Flight 11 >>So let's get this straight. A plane that both the eyewitness reports and the Fireman's Video confirm was much smaller than a Boeing 767 crashes into WTC1 and leaves a scar that is demonstrably too large to have been caused by a 767. A government agency is then required to falsify its own report into the incident in order to conceal this puzzling conundrum. If you haven't already done so, I strongly suggest you take another look at the Fireman's Video, the only known footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. Look at it carefully, frame by frame. A DVD or video played through your TV is best but you can see a reasonably illuminating Quicktime version by clicking here. The plane that hit the WTC1 was indeed a small plane, much smaller than a 767. Just before it hit WTC1 it fired three (or four) missiles at the building and the impact holes from these missiles formed the resultant scar. The intention was clearly to use a small military plane to leave the impression of a Boeing 767. It was a pretty successful conjuring trick but the execution wasn't perfect and the resultant scar was rather too big. This may all sound fanciful, but I believe the video and photographic evidence and FEMA's fraudulent report prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. The seismic records lend further credence to the notion that the north tower was hit, not by a Boeing 767, but by a sequence of powerful missiles and bombs. This explanation fully accounts for the unexpectedly high force of the impact and its remarkably long duration. The official account cannot explain these facts. << Re Flight 175 >>There are some conspicuous absentees from the scar. Although the engines and parts of the underside apparatus survived the impact rather well, nothing of the plane's airframe seems to have done so. The wings, tail and fuselage have totally disappeared, as if vaporized. It is notable from videos of the impact that the plane appears to 'melt' into the building as it strikes and, interestingly, this same word was used by several eyewitnesses to describe the impact of the plane at the Pentagon. Here too, virtually no debris from the plane was found and it is tempting to wonder whether the two incidents are related, particularly on the matter of the composition of the planes. The photograph reveals other anomalies too. Notice that the points where the engines struck form rather narrow parts of the scar. Yet to the left of the left engine hole and to the right of the right engine hole are much larger impressions, corresponding to the 'official' engine holes implied in FEMA's diagram. What caused these larger holes? They are perhaps suggestive that explosive devices were in carried in the plane's wings, the purpose of which were to create these artificial 'engine holes'. Scrutiny of full-length versions of the CNN clip shows these secondary explosions erupting either side of the engines, shortly after the plane has passed through the building's facade. And what are we to make of that strange, isolated outward bulge to the right of the main scar and near to the building's edge? It seems to have been caused not by the impact of the plane but by an explosive charge inside the building, forcing the vertical pillars to bend outwards. Out of the NE corner of the building there emerges a missile-shaped object that is propelled northwards across the plaza. One of the best videos that captures this event was that taken by the Gamma Press and a copy may be downloaded here (1.8 Mb). Webfairy has also produced a shorter, edited version of this clip, focusing on this 'missile' event, which is available here (108 Kb). The two images below — the first a still from the Gamma Press video and the second a photograph taken by an AP photographer at the scene — clearly capture the emergence and flight of this object. serendipity.li It is interesting to note that the trajectory of the 'missile' northwards across the plaza corresponds rather neatly with the point where this debris was found, suggesting that the arrival of the debris was indeed intimately connected with the 'missile'. The diagram below illustrates this. serendipity.li In any event, the issue of the 'missile' ejected from the corner of WTC2 has given me cause to rethink my interpretation of the 'pod' and the burst of flame it produced. I now consider it possible (and I am prepared to put it no more strongly than that) that the burst of flame played a crucial role in setting off the sequence of explosions — and the ejection of the 'missile' — that followed the impact.<< I wonder if the "missile" isn't simply the engine, which ended up in Murray St, going under self-propulsion?