SI
SI
discoversearch

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: sea_urchin who wrote (10351)3/12/2005 5:45:51 PM
From: Don Earl  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
The serendipity site is not one of my favorites. There are places where their analysis isn't too far off, but just about every article contains obvious flaws. For example, the Naudet video is not the "only known footage of the first plane hitting the first tower". While the other video which captures the event doesn't show much useful detail, it does exist.

This part: "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", is pure fantasy. The resolution of the Naudet film is not good enough to tell what sort of plane hit the building, one way or the other, and there is absolutely nothing which could be perceived as "three (or four)" missiles being launched. There is a very bright white flash, which certainly suggests the presence of high explosives. It's a little hard to tell for sure, but the flash occurs either right before, or right as, the nose of the plane comes into contact with the building. The shadow of the plane's body and wings is visible for several frames after the flash, so most of the plane was clearly outside the building at the time of the flash. I believe a case could be made for either a bomb in the nose of the plane, or a bomb in the building which the plane homed in on, but I don't see anything that could be taken for missiles being fired.