The "pod" gets bigger!
The explosion seems stagnant! many frames later:
OTHER LINKS: http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/theodolite-nynj.html
Please leave comments!
See also other strange aircraft invovled in a WTC tower crash:
At an Ann Arbor 911 Truth presentation at the Michigan Union, there was a white haired gentleman in the audience. He is an Army Air Corp veteran from WWII and a retired master plumber. He was a Master Sargent, the Flight Chief (and a mechanic) in charge of the aircraft and maintenance at the base in Fassi, Italy. Once in a while, he talks about his experiences. The following dialogue took place on one such occasion:
“Do you think those jetliners really crashed into the Twin Towers?”
“Oh God no. Those things are just aluminum rings riveted together with thin channels and a sheet metal skin. Hell, you could just about put your fist through one. It’s a wonder they can even fly! The only real solid parts are the engines and landing gear.”
“What was FLAK all about?”
That 88 was a helluva gun, they used it for a lot of things. The flak shells (holding hands about a foot and a half apart) were like a damn hand grenade. They’d set the delay for the elevation they’d want them to explode at.”
“They weren’t really large pieces were they?”
“No, a lot of small pieces not hardly a pound even. We’d send up a whole bunch of bombers and off to one side there’d be a German fighter radioing our position the whole way. But they’d fly to the target constantly zigzagging and dropping and climbing to avoid the flak, but once they got to the target area, they’d have to stay in formation for the bombing run. That’s when the bombardier would take over control of the plane with the Nordson bombsight. Oh, he really only had control of the rudder, but they had to maintain their formation and that’s when they really got it. We lost a lot of planes that way.”
This was an interview with someone who has aircraft experience and an opinion that he expressed. Here's a WWII Vet about 85 years old that went to a 911 presentation and still sharp enough to tell others about it.
His opinion on Boeings of Mass Destruction and FLAK in WWII are of interest. Didn't anyone find their evasive tactics interesting or that they had a parasite flying alongside? You could write a book on the war stories he retells... such as how a piece of flak took out one windshield and the inrush of air blew the bombay doors open.
He responded to 2 questions concerning aircraft and steel;
did he think real aircraft could have smashed through the steel walls of the Towers,
how vulnerable aircraft are to tiny bits of steel in mid air (FLAK).
There's no need for anything but common sense to comprehend the physics as applied to 911 Towers.
It wouldn't matter if an airplane struck the tower or if the plane were stationary in the atmosphere and the earth rotated the tower into it. Conservation of energy dictates all the kinetic energy converts into pure damage in this inelastic collision (I took a shortcut past conservation of momentum). It doesn't matter which was moving, the WEAKEST parts start crumpling and turn into heated wreckage, until all the parts stop. Most agree the jetliners would be flimsier than the Tower walls (except MIT), but how much damage would the wall suffer? Could the plane actually enter or just go thud and drop?
My opinion is thud and drop and I'll go into that briefly. The jetliners might weigh 100 tons, but they cover a very wide area and are for the most part, hollow aluminum structures. The walls that took the supposed impacts were forty or so square steel welded column shapes tied together with acres of concrete & steel reinforcing them against the impact. The damaged walls and floors greatly outweighed the jetliner, was of a more structural shape (recall the description of plane construction from the Vet?) and was far stronger metal than an airframe. The plane would really only make a dent on the ductile steel walls. They'd have stretched, not been cut by blunt aluminum sheet metal. I have no doubt the sabotuers knew this and thus could not use real aircraft, hijacked or remote controlled.
For a REAL detailed view of the damaged regions, study the numerous images provided by German Engineers- (see what they say about pixel planes while you're there). http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
Note that a large percentage of the columns are still intact. The fact that most of the "cut" columns are still straight and display narrow cuts looks to be the work of explosives implanted at the exterior of the columns. That's why siding flew off the building and is seen hanging outside, not inside. Torches and jackhammers would easily have prepared the walls and floors behind the phony plane silhouettes.
What I really would like you to study are the regions where the wings supposedly struck. If the majority of the columns survived in those outer extremes, where are the wings? Why is there no evidence of plane wreckage inside, on the outside or on the ground? It is like the story of the King's clothes created with invisible thread. Nonexistant debris only comes from nonexistant planes, just like the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA.
Also, those craft sported large single rudders. Why don't the walls reflect damage from the rudders? Surely you studied the CNN video frame by frame where Flight 175 slides right through the wall suffering no apparent damage- as you watch the wall reappears first behind the left wing and then behind the right wing. You'd need a magician to explain that, not a physicist.
As a retired master plumber, a lot of years of practical hands-on mechanical & construction experience.
Just WWII experience for aircraft, but at Yankee Air Force or Dayton Air Force Museum, he'll describe every detail of the old crafts, their strengths, weaknesses, how the B17 could be propped up after belly landing and sent right back out while B24s couldn't as easily, how to change wings, how they had to run out and change brakes on the runway, how they fixed up the General's P51 Mustang, how another CREW CHIEF went out with some officers spending their 4 hours flying time practicing touch & go, then smashed into a mountain... the stories don't quit.
|QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 19 2007, 12:15 AM)|
How about a non-jet, i.e. a smaller, slower plane? Below is an excerpt of one of the few plane crashes into a tall steel-framed sky scraper. It is the crash of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Mitchell Bomber into the Empire State building at 9:50 am on Saturday, July 28, 1945:
Comparing the two events shows some very dramatic differences.
How about the fact that, this picture clearly shows, the wings sheared right off. No cartoon like plane outline here.
Most of the Bomber fell as wreckage. Some of the main fuselage entered as disintegrated pieces. The entire plane, did not enter intact, as the 911 planes supposedly did. An engine also went through a window and wound up in the elevator shaft. The Empire State Building also did not shatter into dust and fall.
As would be expected, the wing tanks ruptured, and the fuel caught fire and ran down the side of the building.
The B-25 Mitchel bomber, .... did not penetrate the building and then explode into a fireball after smoothly going inside, .... as the videos of the WTC impact supposedly show.
Look at this 911 plane impact video. See how it smoothly enters all in one peice, without deforming or breaking up at all, and then it explodes after it is inside. That is just not possible. The videos are fake.
One wing .... entirely .... sheared off.
A .... portion of .... the other wing .... partially embedded .... in the masonry facade.
The fuselage .... deformed and broke up .... upon impact.
The wing tanks .... ruptured .... spilling fuel.
The fuel caught fire .... ran burning down the .... outside .... of the building.
Most of the plane .... did not penetrate .... the building.
The building .... did not .... shatter into dust and fragments.
Now please dear BoneZ, look again at this 911 plane impact video.
Now .... please .... read .... each .... of the .... following words .... slowly .... and .... meditate upon .... these points.
Because I am telling you, out of great kindness, that you are missing out on something extremely important BoneZ.
The jetliner .... smoothly .... entered.... ? .... all in one piece .... ? .... without deforming .... or .... breaking up .... at all .... ? .... and then .... and only then.... it explodes .... only .... after .... it .... is .... inside?
Come on now BoneZ. :) Think about it. Watch that video again. You are not alone. A lot of smart people were taken in. A lot of them have gotten over it and seen through the ruse also.
The B-25 Mitchel crash was real. That is why it looks so different.
if we can show the videos are fake, this would serve to cause people to disconnect, from the very propaganda weapon used to get us war after war after war, and which is used by the same elements of the government behind this event to excuse themselves and even to hide their evil deeds. I speak of the TV and the nWO media mouthpiece which uses it, against us, as a psychological weapon of information warfare.
Prior to 9/11 one might assume that the media would be all over the story of the CENTURY regarding its obfuscation and cover-up by government officials -- but they are not.
Prior to 9/1 one might assume that Architects and Engineers -- tens of thousands of them -- would be up in arms if they were told that three steel structures "collapsed" due to fire, all on the same day, demanding thorough investigations and, if necessary, new building codes to prevent the likelihood of a recurrence of such catastrophes.
Prior to 9/11, one might assume that if American's knew one thing but were shown something completely different on the TV, or were told something completely different by government authorities, they would be yelling from the roof-tops.
I could go on but as we see the psychological operation that IS 9/11 continues even to this day. If I thought human beings were logical and not psychological that they were truly conscious beings ass opposed to sheeple who can be hypnotized by slight of hand and Jedi mind tricks, I might agree with you.
Unfortunately, we live in a post 9/11 bizaro world where buildings and airplanes defy not only common sense but the laws of physics and it is astonishing how few seem to even notice much less care.