I may have mentioned in some other place, Eric Francis' Substack maybe, where I was that day in NY. From day one it made no sense, defied physics and I never accepted the story. I was woken by loud planes taking off from the airport 8 miles due west of an alternate strip for landing the Space Shuttle in Orange County NY. Walked out to the kitchen, set a kettle for tea, turned on CNN just in time to get the first report about a small plane hitting the WTC. IIRC, just a month earlier a small plane was flown into a building in Texas and that was part of the discussion as well. I sat and watched it unfold live.
Over time I became aware of Rob Balsomo's Pilot for 911 Truth. He had collected data from radar, and what ever black box was produced from the planes. Part of that data, the radar data showed planes strange "dos - e - do" in small circular holding patterns with transponders being turned off and on, suggesting a switch of planes in mid air. Out of that the switched plane with drone planes. It then clicked in my brain what actually woke me on that day.
You told me! My first 40 hrs/week job, a summer job, Summer of Love ironically ('67), after my college sophomore year,i worked as a draftsman/designer-in-training for a consulting engineering company in midtown Manhattan, in the plumbing section (do all the plumbing design). And my first job assignment was to go through all the drawings of the Twin Towers (which this company had the contract for, plumbing, heating-venting-air conditioning and electrical) and make sure the right designer had their initials on the right drawings.
There is only one video of the flying object which hit WTC1, the one by the Naudet Brothers. And it was NOT an airliner. The object which hit WTC2 was most likely not an airliners, the videos were heavily edited. And the flight paths right before impact could not have been done by human pilots, per Aidan Monaghan. But i don't really care. The impacts from these objects did not bring down either WTC1 or 2, and definitely did not bring down WTC7. When someone is punched in the face, and a half hour later their head explodes, leaving large holes in the skull, are we gonna waste our time analyzing the punch? NOT ME!
I respectfully disagree regarding airliners, unless by airliner you mean a passenger prepped 767. Please compare to the passenger 767 to the KC-767 tanker. The bulge on the belly is present in that tanker.
You are correct, the big flash of fuel burning was a distraction, even if they were tankers loaded with full tanks of fuel, it burned off in the initial collision with the buildings. Also what looked like willie pete aided the ignition to provide the impressive flames.
the critical bit here is the fact that "airport security" is based upon a lie, its a given that there were no airliners used as weapons, therefore "airport security" has no foundation.
the 4th amendment is being violated at airports and for no excuse at all.
A military prepped KC-767 mid air refueling tanker looks like the planes that hit the towers IMHO. The airport I mention in my comment above, SWF, is a military installation with 12 C5A Galaxies for the 105th airlift wing as well as a military and a private run aerial refueling.
The KC-767 is beefed up military version of the passenger plane of the same designation and is over spec'd. They were being tested by the Air force at the time to replace the tankers that were currently in use. The deal fell through due to a bribery scandal and the planes were not adopted by the US military, although Japan and Italy consequently bought them and used them.
I am not aware that they were stationed at that base.
Global Hawk technology to remotely fly planes has been available since the mid 1990s.
Global Hawk was highly likely what flew the planes, Aidan Monaghan's work demonstrated that the trajectories make human piloting pretty much impossible.
And the plane which flew into WTC1 had wings joined to the fuselage right by the nose, not in the middle of the body, Unlike either 767 or KC 767. It's visible for only a second in the only video of the event, the documentary which was being shot by the French Naudet Brothers when the event happened. About that video,
To my eye, the Naudet video, the image is blurred, the detail is bad up to the point the plane drops below the roof line where the sun seems to be casting a shadow of the wings forward on the building causing an illusion of the wings being forward... Certainly no way to clearly discern the plane's wing configuation at this point without the original tape.
The second plane is much clearer and resembles the KC-767 to me.
Yes, they were put in that spot with the firemen, are they dupes? Arguable.
Their positioning not only being at that intersection but the specific corner of it is way too good to be coincidental, not to mention the substance of the video. There are many videos of the second plane. There is something very doctored about the main one used, namely the nose emerging on the "other side" (i.e. the next face of WTC2, rather than the opposite face)
Considering the core columns are so big, structurally integral & overbuilt it may have deflected the plane. I doubt it could go through those. A better view of the trajectory to determine momentum which may be to the left of the direction of travel would help. Physics from one angle at a quarter mile with a brief window to see the approach vector is far from optimal.
"only one video of that first impact has ever surfaced, shot by two French video makers, the Naudet brothers. They were making a documentary about the New York Fire Department, and just “happened” to be in the right place at the right time to capture that event. "
Since 2020, I've become open to most conspiracy theories, including this one. However, I remain critical, and part of my critical thinking involves making sense of details and their speculative meaning vis-a-vis the overall theory. The above excerpt I quoted reflects what I call "the Keystone Konspiracy problem" -- which comes up whenever the conspiracy theorist implies or imputes that the conspirators do things which, when you think about them, indicates strange ineptitude on the part of the conspirators. Here, if the conspirators fabricated footage of second tower, why wouldn't they fabricate lots of footage of the first tower and leave it only to one pair of guys? I doubt they would be worried that people wouldn't find it plausible that people were filming that day -- given that by 2001, people were filming all kinds of things, especially in a city that has an influx of thousands of tourists year round.
Can you show me, and other readers, where i stated in this article that "the conspirators fabricated footage of second tower"? Or the first? I did not say the Naudet Brothers fabricated the video. I assume their video is genuine. I merely question their apparent incredible luck being at the one sport where they were able to get a very brief tape of the plane impacting WTC1. Not long enough for anyone to casually note details, but enough to show this happened. If one examines that video, they would actually see that the plane involved was highly unlikely to be a 767, as alleged, given its wings were joined to the fuselage at a rather short distance to the plane's nose, not at all like a 767. This item alleges not that the video was fabricated, but that it was scripted. By the way, i regard the nature of the flying objects which hit the WTC towers as a pretty minor matter. They did not bring down either WTC1, WTC2 or (for sure) WTC7/
You didn't bother reading my response to you in full. Them being there at the perfect spot was likely scripted. See the Les Raphael post i linked to. In any event, a minor part of the entire event, the key being that flying objects did not bring down any of the 3 steel frame hi rises.
Scripted still has the same problem I'm talking about. If the nefarious dastardly conspirators scripted that, why didn't they script more, to add more credibility to that part of the narrative?
What more could be scripted? Not have planes at all?
You are totally ignoring the MEAT of the entire matter: Whatever flew into WTC1 and WTC2 did not bring down either of these buildings or WTC7. You are trying to make this entirely about a secondary matter.
Again, it's just a matter of testing each individual component claim for plausibility (not a perfect science, but if something doesn't make sense, it might be time to adjust at least the component). I am a conspiracy theorist myself, but I notice other conspiracy theorists don't pay sufficient attention to whether a component is plausible. Another example you just provided:
"both planes were actually flown via remote control rather than "hijackers," none of whom could ever be placed on any of the planes via videos showing them boarding, initially not via the passenger manifestos."
If you widen the focus of the theory and consider the conspirators, we reasonably assume they're not just some rag-tag group with not much money or power who pulled this off, but rather a powerful & wealthy group with likely not just local or national influence, but internationally connected. Given this, why wouldn't they just fabricate all the evidence one needs to put "hijackers" on the plane, from boarding to occupying passenger seats? That's a common problem with a conspiracy theorist -- he lands an "aha!" based on *absence* of evidence; but since part of the conspiracy involves powerful groups perfectly capable of manufacturing "evidence" and we also reasonably assume they're not so stupid they don't know that not having such "evidence" in place may raise suspicions, it doesn't make sense they would leave such loose ends.
Please note: no matter where the video came from, the fact is that ALL of the video that alleges to show "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the south tower " like a hot knife through butter " is FAKE the event as shown in the video constitutes violation of the laws of physics.
I may have mentioned in some other place, Eric Francis' Substack maybe, where I was that day in NY. From day one it made no sense, defied physics and I never accepted the story. I was woken by loud planes taking off from the airport 8 miles due west of an alternate strip for landing the Space Shuttle in Orange County NY. Walked out to the kitchen, set a kettle for tea, turned on CNN just in time to get the first report about a small plane hitting the WTC. IIRC, just a month earlier a small plane was flown into a building in Texas and that was part of the discussion as well. I sat and watched it unfold live.
Over time I became aware of Rob Balsomo's Pilot for 911 Truth. He had collected data from radar, and what ever black box was produced from the planes. Part of that data, the radar data showed planes strange "dos - e - do" in small circular holding patterns with transponders being turned off and on, suggesting a switch of planes in mid air. Out of that the switched plane with drone planes. It then clicked in my brain what actually woke me on that day.
You mentioned it at Planet Waves, but this has more details. Thanks!!
I lived here when it happened.
You told me! My first 40 hrs/week job, a summer job, Summer of Love ironically ('67), after my college sophomore year,i worked as a draftsman/designer-in-training for a consulting engineering company in midtown Manhattan, in the plumbing section (do all the plumbing design). And my first job assignment was to go through all the drawings of the Twin Towers (which this company had the contract for, plumbing, heating-venting-air conditioning and electrical) and make sure the right designer had their initials on the right drawings.
Interesting....
actual science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
that no airliner ever flown could have done as was reported by the media,
the crashes constitute violations of the laws of physics . . . .
There is only one video of the flying object which hit WTC1, the one by the Naudet Brothers. And it was NOT an airliner. The object which hit WTC2 was most likely not an airliners, the videos were heavily edited. And the flight paths right before impact could not have been done by human pilots, per Aidan Monaghan. But i don't really care. The impacts from these objects did not bring down either WTC1 or 2, and definitely did not bring down WTC7. When someone is punched in the face, and a half hour later their head explodes, leaving large holes in the skull, are we gonna waste our time analyzing the punch? NOT ME!
I respectfully disagree regarding airliners, unless by airliner you mean a passenger prepped 767. Please compare to the passenger 767 to the KC-767 tanker. The bulge on the belly is present in that tanker.
You are correct, the big flash of fuel burning was a distraction, even if they were tankers loaded with full tanks of fuel, it burned off in the initial collision with the buildings. Also what looked like willie pete aided the ignition to provide the impressive flames.
Responding to your next comment, below.
the critical bit here is the fact that "airport security" is based upon a lie, its a given that there were no airliners used as weapons, therefore "airport security" has no foundation.
the 4th amendment is being violated at airports and for no excuse at all.
Not true.
A military prepped KC-767 mid air refueling tanker looks like the planes that hit the towers IMHO. The airport I mention in my comment above, SWF, is a military installation with 12 C5A Galaxies for the 105th airlift wing as well as a military and a private run aerial refueling.
The KC-767 is beefed up military version of the passenger plane of the same designation and is over spec'd. They were being tested by the Air force at the time to replace the tankers that were currently in use. The deal fell through due to a bribery scandal and the planes were not adopted by the US military, although Japan and Italy consequently bought them and used them.
I am not aware that they were stationed at that base.
Global Hawk technology to remotely fly planes has been available since the mid 1990s.
Global Hawk was highly likely what flew the planes, Aidan Monaghan's work demonstrated that the trajectories make human piloting pretty much impossible.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/declassifying-9-11-aidan-monaghan/1112181344
And the plane which flew into WTC1 had wings joined to the fuselage right by the nose, not in the middle of the body, Unlike either 767 or KC 767. It's visible for only a second in the only video of the event, the documentary which was being shot by the French Naudet Brothers when the event happened. About that video,
https://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm
To my eye, the Naudet video, the image is blurred, the detail is bad up to the point the plane drops below the roof line where the sun seems to be casting a shadow of the wings forward on the building causing an illusion of the wings being forward... Certainly no way to clearly discern the plane's wing configuation at this point without the original tape.
The second plane is much clearer and resembles the KC-767 to me.
Yes, they were put in that spot with the firemen, are they dupes? Arguable.
Their positioning not only being at that intersection but the specific corner of it is way too good to be coincidental, not to mention the substance of the video. There are many videos of the second plane. There is something very doctored about the main one used, namely the nose emerging on the "other side" (i.e. the next face of WTC2, rather than the opposite face)
Considering the core columns are so big, structurally integral & overbuilt it may have deflected the plane. I doubt it could go through those. A better view of the trajectory to determine momentum which may be to the left of the direction of travel would help. Physics from one angle at a quarter mile with a brief window to see the approach vector is far from optimal.
The design was to withstand a 707, not a 767.
https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"only one video of that first impact has ever surfaced, shot by two French video makers, the Naudet brothers. They were making a documentary about the New York Fire Department, and just “happened” to be in the right place at the right time to capture that event. "
Since 2020, I've become open to most conspiracy theories, including this one. However, I remain critical, and part of my critical thinking involves making sense of details and their speculative meaning vis-a-vis the overall theory. The above excerpt I quoted reflects what I call "the Keystone Konspiracy problem" -- which comes up whenever the conspiracy theorist implies or imputes that the conspirators do things which, when you think about them, indicates strange ineptitude on the part of the conspirators. Here, if the conspirators fabricated footage of second tower, why wouldn't they fabricate lots of footage of the first tower and leave it only to one pair of guys? I doubt they would be worried that people wouldn't find it plausible that people were filming that day -- given that by 2001, people were filming all kinds of things, especially in a city that has an influx of thousands of tourists year round.
Can you show me, and other readers, where i stated in this article that "the conspirators fabricated footage of second tower"? Or the first? I did not say the Naudet Brothers fabricated the video. I assume their video is genuine. I merely question their apparent incredible luck being at the one sport where they were able to get a very brief tape of the plane impacting WTC1. Not long enough for anyone to casually note details, but enough to show this happened. If one examines that video, they would actually see that the plane involved was highly unlikely to be a 767, as alleged, given its wings were joined to the fuselage at a rather short distance to the plane's nose, not at all like a 767. This item alleges not that the video was fabricated, but that it was scripted. By the way, i regard the nature of the flying objects which hit the WTC towers as a pretty minor matter. They did not bring down either WTC1, WTC2 or (for sure) WTC7/
http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/09/jules-naudets-911-film-was-staged.html
I didn't say you said that. But your sneer quotes around "happened" imply it.
"...and just “happened” to be in the right place at the right time to capture that event. "
You didn't bother reading my response to you in full. Them being there at the perfect spot was likely scripted. See the Les Raphael post i linked to. In any event, a minor part of the entire event, the key being that flying objects did not bring down any of the 3 steel frame hi rises.
Scripted still has the same problem I'm talking about. If the nefarious dastardly conspirators scripted that, why didn't they script more, to add more credibility to that part of the narrative?
The first impact could be scripted. The second one drew lots of coverage because of the first. I personally believe that both planes were actually flown via remote control rather than "hijackers," none of whom could ever be placed on any of the planes via videos showing them boarding, initially not via the passenger manifestos. Electronic engineer Aidan Mohaghan wrote a book regarding his analysis of the two flights, including how the paths flown by the planes could not have been done by human pilots, https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/declassifying-911-a-between-the-lines-and-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-september-11-attacks_aidan-monaghan/11283957/#edition=57492621&idiq=45620753
What more could be scripted? Not have planes at all?
You are totally ignoring the MEAT of the entire matter: Whatever flew into WTC1 and WTC2 did not bring down either of these buildings or WTC7. You are trying to make this entirely about a secondary matter.
Again, it's just a matter of testing each individual component claim for plausibility (not a perfect science, but if something doesn't make sense, it might be time to adjust at least the component). I am a conspiracy theorist myself, but I notice other conspiracy theorists don't pay sufficient attention to whether a component is plausible. Another example you just provided:
"both planes were actually flown via remote control rather than "hijackers," none of whom could ever be placed on any of the planes via videos showing them boarding, initially not via the passenger manifestos."
If you widen the focus of the theory and consider the conspirators, we reasonably assume they're not just some rag-tag group with not much money or power who pulled this off, but rather a powerful & wealthy group with likely not just local or national influence, but internationally connected. Given this, why wouldn't they just fabricate all the evidence one needs to put "hijackers" on the plane, from boarding to occupying passenger seats? That's a common problem with a conspiracy theorist -- he lands an "aha!" based on *absence* of evidence; but since part of the conspiracy involves powerful groups perfectly capable of manufacturing "evidence" and we also reasonably assume they're not so stupid they don't know that not having such "evidence" in place may raise suspicions, it doesn't make sense they would leave such loose ends.
Please note: no matter where the video came from, the fact is that ALL of the video that alleges to show "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the south tower " like a hot knife through butter " is FAKE the event as shown in the video constitutes violation of the laws of physics.
As i told you above, the flying objects were a diversion.