Modified 'plane hit he towers?

[catfish]

I've been watching the videos a lot recently.

I think that everyone is agreed that they were not normal Boeing 767s that struck the towers.

Bob and Bri's video is edited so that you can't see what struck the 2nd tower and the Naudet footage of the second strike also has frames missing, but they are missing after the plane has hit. As if to obscure something coming out of the other side.

I posted the thread "why did they NOT show the chopper 5 footage?" because I genuinely think it odd that they didn't show it. Perhaps the black screen was to hide this aswell.

The engine found is apparantly the wrong one according to this:
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
Although I have no way of verifing that apart from it looks a bit small!

This is my theory: The modified plane that they used to destroy the tower had something that would enable people to realise that the 'plane was not an American Airlines flight.

I think marky54 had a discussion with someone where they agreed that the 'plane was not blue? Not sure though correct me if I'm wrong.

Any video editing of the footage, and I think there is, is to hide the fact that this was not a normal passenger jet.

Further I do think it unlikely that a normal passenger jet would have melted into the building as depicted (I know I'll get some grief for the melting part!) But if a modified "bomb 'plane" was used with reinforced wings and nose that would penetrate the wall.
Also, like a bunker buster, it could have shaped charges in the nose to blast its way through and then be loaded with timed charges to produce the enormous explosion.

So in summary, it was a 'plane but something in the videos gave away the game that it was not a normal passenger jet and some of them have been manipulated to hide that fact.

What do you think?

[Stefan]

It's entireley possible, but then so are a lot of things.

I really dont see where the gain is in speculation of this kind - it doesn't lead us anywhere useful.

I don't think everyone is agreed they weren't normal boeings either - the empire states building plane crash shows pretty clearly that plane + steel framed building = hole in steel framed building...

... a point which no NPT supporter has failed to ignore...

[marky 54]

[catfish]

This is the Naudet footage which clearly has frames missing:


Link


This is Bob and Bri's video which also has the relevant part missing.
The women in the film are heard saying it was "a huge military 'plane":


Link


@Stefan

I think that perhaps a vital piece of evidence is hidden in the footage. That's where the gain is in speculation.
Got to speculate to accumulate after all!

Peace

David

[catfish]

[Stefan]

The hole in the WTC was not the same width either - if you look at the photos in a lot of places just the aluminium cladding had broken off and the steel beams were still continuous.

As for your other point:

1) The fact (?) that some B25s had reinforced noses does not mean this one did.

2) The planes that hit the WTC had a much much greater kinetic impact.

3) The ESB was also clad in stone on top of the steel frame - neither caused the plane much problems in entering the building.

So planes CAN enter steel buildings - I'm not suggesting this is proof that they did (as an NPTer no doubt would) I am asking that the repeaters stop babbling this discredited line over and over again - it's like the "nose out" - can you not see that whatever is exiting the building is expanding and changing shape - how can that be a nose?

This isn't aimed at you David I just wish people would stop repeating debunked nonesense over and over again.

[telecasterisation]

[catfish]

[catfish]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

I recall at the time it being said that the B737 confusion came about because at that time large jets were mostly four engined, excluding the distinctive tail engined large tri-jets like the DC-10 and L1011 Tristar.

The first time I saw a B757 at our local city airport, I was surprised because the resident's association would never have so easily accepted 'jumbo jet' (B747) operations, yet 'twinjets' sounded less obtrusive. Yet there is not that much difference in size.

The fact that a B737's fuselage diameter barely matches a B757's engine pod diameter is now neither here nor there.

[catfish]

[catfish]

@chek

What relevance your comment here pray tell?

[chek]

[catfish]

@ chek

I still don't get the relevance. What confusion is it that you refer to?
Also what do you think of the claim that the engine found in the street is too small to be from a 767?

Thanks and peace

David

[chek]

[catfish]

My admittedly brief research seems to demonstrate that the core of the engine is a little over half the length of the total engine which is 137 inches.

This means that the core would still actually be almost 6 feet high!

Now I can understand a running jet engine being able to fly through the building at the same speed, near as dammit, as the 'plane enters.

I very much doubt however that a not running 'spare' engine could have propelled itself this far.

Peace

David

[Micpsi]

[catfish]