portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

9-11: WTC1 hit scar SMALLER than Boeing 767, was something else;WTC2 glancing hit,low fuel

If I was going to simply use planes as the cover story for the demolition of the towers I would be damn sure to use the only "recommended" type of planes: Boeing 707s. Later for the WTC2 hit with the media watching, if I had to use a Boeing 767 I would make sure it was homing onto a corner for a glancing blow. Furthermore, I would make sure that this Boeing 767 would be low on fuel, thogh full of pretty pyrotechnics for the already assembled media.

And from a comparison of the holes and the video of the entrances of these two hits, that is what the evidence shows happened. Boeing 707 sized plane on WTC1, lots of fuel or lots of explosives, dead on hit. On WTC2, a Boeing 767 sized plane, larger and dangerous, so low on fuel and hitting the building with a glancing blow.
WTC box columns: 3 pillars per 10 ft.
WTC box columns: 3 pillars per 10 ft.
WTC1 box column gash: actual 43 pillar hole  ( 43/3 * 10 = 143.33 ft. )
WTC1 box column gash: actual 43 pillar hole ( 43/3 * 10 = 143.33 ft. )
WTC1 FEMA box column 'diagram' of gash: 33 pillar hole (33/3 * 10 = 110 ft. )
WTC1 FEMA box column 'diagram' of gash: 33 pillar hole (33/3 * 10 = 110 ft. )
This would have been much longer, and more thorough, except for a crash that wiped out what I was typing! So this is a summary of the argumemnt.


First, it is important to know that the box column width was 3 columns per 10 ft. With that in mind, we can proceed. See the image above.

cite:  http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/wtc-demolition-old.htm

Second, it is widely known that the WTCs were designed by the architects to withstand a Boeing 707. This is well known. The only safe plane would have been a Boeing 707.

cite:  http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/wtc-demolition-old.htm

Third, there is plenty of evidence that, when one looks at the width of the holes that sheered into the WTC1 from photographs, the hole is smaller than the U.S. government or FEMA's cover story of a Boeing 767-223ER, which would have had a wingspan of around 156 ft. The actual hole is around 143.33 ft. What fits?

Compare wingspans of various Boeings here:


Wingspan 145.75 ft (44.42 m)


(737-200) 93.0 ft (28.35 m)
(737-300) 94.75 ft (28.88 m)
(737-700) 112.58 ft (34.31 m)


(747-100) 195.67 ft (59.64 m)
(747-400) 211.42 ft (64.50 m)
(747-400XQLR) 225.42 ft (68.77 m)


Wingspan 124.83 ft (38.05 m)


(767-200) 156.08 ft (47.57 m)
(767-300) 156.08 ft (47.57 m)
(767-400ER) 170.33 ft (51.97 m)

The actual hole however is only 143.33ft wide.

So what would fit? A Boeing 707, the safe plane to use for a cover operation where the actual destruction of the towers. It's been staring people in the face. Certainly they would use planes that were as safe as possible for the hits, because other planes would be unknown in their effects on the towers.

WTC1 hit analysis:

If I was going to take down the World Trade Center by demolitions to get it right this time (unlike the 1993 attempt in which the FBI were directly culpable in providing the basement explosives to the cover operations of terrorists--who were actually even trained by an Egyptian that was working for the FBI to teach them how to do it), I would argue to my fellow conspirators that only a Boeing 707 would be 'safe' enough for the WTC1. Why? According to the architects, that was what they designed it for and that is good enough for a cover operation. Anything more would be very dangerous--particularly if it was a Boeing 767. A bit bigger and who knows what would happen? It could spoil the demolitions somehow if the building collapsed halfway, or horrors, it might only shear off a part of it causing it to fall off onto something else. Then what would be used to distract people from the demolition if a huge hunk fell off, then for some strange rationale, the rest of the undamaged part suddently turned to dust? The whole demoltion would have to be called off. Furthermore, what if the damage was REPAIRABLE? That would be the worst.

So stick to being a conservative state terrorist, and make your cover operation nothing more except that which was an 'architect recommended' plane, the Boeing 707.

Actually, guaging from the hole, that is the only one that fits.

WTC2 hit analysis:

Here it gets a little hairy. Of course in bringing a plane of any kind to hit the World Trade Center TWICE, that would draw a lot of media--which you would want to use for your advantage. However, hitting it twice poses a logistics difficulty with the media as well. If only Boeing 707s are the outward bound limit for 'safe hits' on the WTCs, and a safe hit is all you wanted out of the plane since you had already rigged both buildings with explosives, ideally you would use another Boeing 707 sized plane there.

However, the media would certainly recognize such a smaller plane, so a larger plane would have to be used somehow anyway. Risky for a direct hit.

On the one hand, take the example of a 'recommended' smaller plane, or the lack of sound. It is difficult to imagine how a silent 767 jet can exist or how its WTC2 entry could be so radically different than the WTC1 entry. The WTC2 entry went directly into the building without exploding. The WTC1 went into the building and erupted into flame pouring from the gash immediately. This implies that there was little fuel on board WTC2's plane, or that the flames themselves were entirely pyrotechnical additions in that little pod.

For instance, one of the issues I have with the WTC2 hit is that I am unware of anyone being shocked to look up and see the WTC2 being hit because of the forewarning that was seen in the Naudet video (itself suspicious, though I'll let it ride) by the screaming of a jet engine. No one seems to have heard anything, or is this mistaken? This makes me want to lean towards a plane that is indeed smaller to be safe for the WTC2 cover operation hit, though perhaps with cloaking or hologram technolgy on it to make it look bigger and definitely with a lot of pretty pyrotechnics to make it blossom like a flash bulb for the world's media. There is plenty of information about the pod on the bottom of this WTC2 plane for instance.


One the one hand, to be safe for later demolitions, ideally WTC2 would be planned with a cover hit of another safe-sized Boeing 707 rigged up with pretty pyrotechnics, or a plane of similar size. Remember that since the buildings were destroyed by demolition charges already planted inside, the planes were simply part of the cover operation. It would be VERY DANGEROUS, ironically, if another plane was used that might actually damage or take down a tower in an unpredictable way. Then the clean up crews have lots of unused demolition charges to find everywhere. So if I was forced to use a Boeing 767 in the second hit on WTC2 I would make sure that it was intentionally low on fuel. The lack of flames pouring from WTC2 hit hole (unlike the immediate flames from the WTC1 hit hole) shows that it may have been drained of fuel intentionally, and that the fireworks that erupted were entirely drama for the cameras.

Because the media is already there, it has to be dangerously larger, something comparable to a Boeing 767 even though you have already rigged the buildings with explosives.

On this point, there has been a lot of speculation that the WTC2 hit's plane "accidentally" (it is theorized) almost missed the WTC2 with its glancing blow of that corner of the building. However, if it was dangerous for a Boeing 767 to actually hit the WTCs, than what happened--a glancing blow--would be much safer than a direct hit which would be unpreditable. A direct Boeing 767 hit might even mess up the more ideal total demolition I already had planned.

This inverted idea--that the glancing blow was absolutely intentional--helps explain that "white dot" that appears on the face of WTC2 which seems to be leading a remote control plane to exactly where it should hit--off centered in a corner. In addition, it would be relatively easy to put a homing device in a corner of WTC2 if you only wanted a glancing blow as part of the cover operation. Besides, such a large plane (only required because the media were watching) was dangerous, and a glancing blow would be safer.

An additional note is about the FEMA image. Why FEMA would have an image of the WTC1 hit that shows only a 33 pillar hole is beyond me--when the actual hole is 43 pillars wide--and a 33 pillar diagram of a hole would be far less than their other cover story of a Boeing 767. The FEMA diagram of the hole attempts to falsely tailor a thin plane with two engines that fails to exist at that size, instead of the very wide and tall gash that was real.

In conclusion, it only makes sense if you keep in mind you wanted planes only for the cover stories. Following from this, the only 'architect recommended' and 'safe' planes for cover operations are Boeing 707s. Plus, WTC1's hole fits a Boeing 707 well.

WTC2, with the media already there, and with the danger of a Boeing 767 actually hitting the tower, a glancing blow may have been more intentional than accidental. Ironically, it would be dangerous to hit the towers with a Boing 767. They might even fall down. That would mess up the demolitions of course, which were the main point, and the planes were only the cover story.

If I was going to simply use planes as the cover story for the demolition of the towers I would be damn sure to use the "recommended" type of planes.

More Conspiracy Nonsense 02.Jun.2004 07:22


Now 767's weren't crashed into the WTC Towers. You're really onto something here.

Don't post this crap here 02.Jun.2004 11:18


Obviously this is a cheap attempt at disinformation in order to discredit serious analysis. The fact that the goverment sponsors this sort of thing indicates a need to keep it surpressed.

The people behind this should question their own motives and their government.

Don't put this crap here, nobody is going to buy it.

um, wrong 02.Jun.2004 13:55


I have a 65 mb zipfile full of hundreds of photos and video from tourists, residents and media that says there WERE planes.

In the Northeast, you can talk to people who knew the folks who were on the planes (6 degrees of separation and all). It's like saying that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Crap like this discredits the REAL holes in the official WTC story, such as "why WTC7 collapse for no reason?" Or, why did the two main towers collapse, when such a thing is unheard of in the history of structure fires? One of the few good points in this article was that the fuel was low for these planes. The fires were nothing spectacularly hot - just widespread - so why did the buildings fall?

I don't pretend to have the answers, but the person who posted the photo in the first comment was right on in regards to the original poster's mindset.

media and links 02.Jun.2004 14:36


video of the first impact is rare, since nobody really saw it coming from the ground. Apparently there exist a couple of videos;  http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030906-110358-2442r.htm talks about this. The photos below are of the second plane.

keep this fact in mind when viewing 9-11 pictures and videos. 02.Jun.2004 15:34

this thing here

boeing 707's have 4 engines.

boeing 767's have 2 engines.

If you don't want to learn the truth, thats your problem. 02.Jun.2004 15:55

Bird dog

I forgot, your a government troll!
So spare us your BULLSH_T MR.leroy troll.

WE all know that the attack was staged by your PNAC friends.

Here is the proof.


Networking all the 911 People
United We Stand!

Home | Articles | Links Archive | Who is | Lets Roll! | LetsRoll911.org Forums


"All truth passes through 3 stages.

First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- Arthurr Schopenhauer -



Throughout the website you will see all the videos, pictures and proof, of not only missiles at the world trade center, but later a controlled demolition of Towers 1,2 & 7, the smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show at the Pentagon, as well as the Oddessy of 'Flight 93' as well an excellent in depth overviews by Cooperative Research. And if this is your 2nd visit here, and want to familiarize yourself with the general idea on how the 4 planes were hijacked, check out Carol Valentines, Flight of the Bumble Planes.

Ignition/Launch Enlargement with more frames

Will the U.S. Military being willing to wage War once they find out that 9/11 was an inside job?

Ignition/Launch Enlargement with more frames of the same Event as Captured by CNN!

Right click, check properties on this one as well; This picture is still running off CNN's server. Notice how good of a job the missile pod does of hiding most of the missile flare. It is completely dark where the pod is. Which was one of the purposes of this pod.

Now at this link, which has the full speed video, with sound, of both crashes, notice these things;

The bright flash which is emitted just before the 1st plane strike at the North Tower. Then, watch and notice, even at full speed, the missile pod is visible on the 2nd plane at the South Tower, although the missile flash is obscurred by the screen text , stretch and footer. Go to this link and press; "I accept the Download"

To continue on in the Forums, 911 For Dummies, and find out what really happened on 911, including many videos and pictures from 911 that show these events, please click here.

To continue, click here - The Missile Pod and it's Purpose

For more in-depth analysis, click here - 911 For Dummies

Sincerely, The Staff at LetsRoll911!.org


Article Archive

Article Title

the Missles of September - Part 1 - the Missles

the Missles of September - Part 2 - The Pod/Canopy

Why use Missles at the WTC?

Evidence of Controlled Demolition - MUST READ

Additional Articles

FAA Destroys 911 Evidence

March 20th Global Day of Activists

Bush Seeks Renewal of his Patriot Act - World Shocker

Retired General Assails Bush's Iraq War

Curious George Demands to see Video's of Torture!

Was Sears Tower target of a foiled Terrorist attack April 19th?

Bush Seeks Renewal of his Patriot Act - World Shocker!

Open letter to 911 Citizens Truth movement from Ed Asner...Patriot!

EU - Paul Lannoye's Letter

Jack Bloods Special Report on LetsRoll911.org Video

Tribute - Can't Cry Hard Enough - By 911DigitalArchive.org - Bring Kleenex!

New York Fire Department Under Official Gag Order on 911?
Save this video and pass it to as many people as possible! Temporary Availability!
Explosive Video - New York Firefighters Telling of 911 Controlled Demolition, Bombs
NY Firefighters Slaughtered by Controlled Demo, Bombs....And Pissed off!
What can you do..? Glad you asked! Action Page from NY911Truth.org


Alternative Candidates (Not Skull and Bones)

Need other options besides AWOL and FLIP-FLOP? Full List of Candidates


Home | Articles | Links Archive | Who is | Lets Roll! | LetsRoll911.org Forums

Please Help to Cover Bandwidth Make a Donation today!

Video/Photo Credits: Top left, Slo-mo 767; CNN/ABC/Rosalee Grabel aka  http://www.thewebfairy.com
The Bluish photo showing the missile pod: Evan Fairbanks | Greenish photos/Video - Cameraplanet.com
FatSam by Guig0 | Copyright MMIV

Disclaimer - We are saddened by the losses of 9-11, and regardless of who is responsible, we would like to extend our deepest apologies and sympathies to the family members and friends of those killed or injured. This site or material within does not mean any harm to those family members. Sincerely, The Staff at LetsRoll911.org

answering the critiques 02.Jun.2004 18:15

original poster

from zero_sum0g: "I have a 65 mb zipfile full of hundreds of photos and video from tourists, residents and media that says there WERE planes. In the Northeast, you can talk to people who knew the folks who were on the planes (6 degrees of separation and all). It's like saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. "

to zero_sum0g: The scale is hardly a Holocaust and even your 'video' fails to tell you exactly what were the planes. So: empty hyperbole and the unsubstantiated statement. Why is that? You make me WANT to work for the CIA, because you are so asinine. Who said anything about being 'no planes?' Well? I am simply concentrating on the physical evidence of the hits themselves and working backwards in this piece. It is only your blind ignornace that makes the assumption that the same planes that took off were the ones that hit the WTCs. There's plenty of inconsistencies to worry about without getting lefty holier-than-thou dogmatics in a twist proclaiming oneself as the defender of the 'one true faith' or pointless childish claims about what particular single aspect of the whole conspiracy is more important than the others. Give your readers a break. I tend to avoid such empty rhetoric because it distracts from the actual research, guys and gals. We are dealing with relationships between many different variables. This is simply one variable, that is all. No where did I claim that this was paramount in anyway, unlike many of the critiques above. No where did I claim that this was somehow 'sidelining' the demolitions.

to the cap'n: Though his heart seems in the right place, he has a mind like a pit bull. Particularly eye-rolling in its stupidity was the other post about this (the "cap'n") where he claims that I am distracting from the demolitions, when I basically mentioned the demolitions throughout. Hello? Are you receiving? Cap'n, time to update your navigational charts. And best of luck with increasing your reading comprehension. Release, puppy, release!

to Bird dog: thanks for the Schopenhauer quote. And I do like that site.

to 'this thing here.': Thanks, good point.

to zero_sum0g (message 2, on the video issue of WTC1 hit):

a. Check out the webfairy on a critique of the origin of that video link you posted, to keep in mind;
b. and of course use it to compare with the Naudet 'fireman's video; and keep in mind this about the Naudet video's later incarnations:
c. 9/11 DVD Censored! Image of Strange Flash as Flight 11 Hit North Tower Missing From Footage: In the televised version of the plane hitting the North tower there is a frame containing a huge bright flash of light that has been digitally removed from the DVD version.

and to K. the troll, who posted that picture:

Did you know you have your head up your arse? Is that a job requirement?
Please keep it there for us, that's a good man.

what about the WTC2 scar--width? POST IMAGES HERE. 02.Jun.2004 19:11

original poster

Does anyone have a picture of a close up of the entry hole AFTER the WTC2 hit? It's unimportant to me whether the plane is in the picture.

I'd like to count columns there as well to see what we can see. Please post several of these images if you have them. Much thanks.

What about flight 800! 02.Jun.2004 19:50

Bird dog

How are the government trolls going to debunk 200 people that saw the tracer from the ground to air missle.


And What about the G8 Summit this weekend.
Sixth month
Sixth day


Topic: TWA Flight 800
Flight 800 Investigation Update (Report #5) Repost

Citizen Investigator
October 21, 1998 Richard Hirsch

This is the fifth of a series of reports written to bring the general public up to date on what has been happening with the investigation of the TWA Flight 800 disaster which occurred off Long Island during the evening of July 17, 1996. A total of 230 lives were lost as a result of that aircraft crash.

Last night I was notified by Howard Mann's group that they would be releasing some important new information about Flight 800's flight data recorder. I was immediately interested in looking at the new information and did so. Howard Mann is the independent investigator who discovered the Flight Data Recorder evidence of what was happening to Flight 800 at the last instant before it began to breakup and crash into the Atlantic Ocean.

Howard Mann also known as Captain Mann retired from TWA after a career as mechanic, flight engineer, check engineer, 727 co-pilot and captain. He was also involved in crash investigation.

The first part of this story starts right after the NTSB hearings in Baltimore last December 1997. The NTSB released an exhibit (Exhibit 10A) containing all the data that was contained on the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 800. I received all the exhibits of the hearing on a CD which was sent to me by the NTSB after I requested it. Exhibit 10 A was included on my CD. The information contained on exhibit 10 A turned out to be very revealing. In fact too revealing, because the NTSB keeps trying to change the data presentation on the page showing the last seconds of data taken from the FDR.

Before I go further I need to stop and give a little information about what a FDR is and how it works. A FDR is basically an eight track tape recorder which constantly records information about the aircraft in which it is installed. Data about the general flight conditions in and around the aircraft are constantly being recorded. On Flight 800 the FDR can record up to 25 hours of flight data before it starts erasing the old data of previous flights and then starts recording the current flight data in the newly erased area on the tape.

The FDR on Flight 800 uses 43 "words" to keep track of the various parameters important to the aircraft industry. Nine of those words are used for keeping the data in sync, so 34 words are available to keep track of the important aircraft flight parameters. Each word can tell a short story about what's happening to the aircraft at the time the information for that word is collected by the FDR system. For instance, one of the important parameters of the aircraft's flight which needs to be recorded is the aircraft's altitude. It take two words to record the altitude data. One of the words tells which 5,000 foot zone the aircraft is in, and the second word gives the altitude within that 5,000 foot zone.

All 34 words gather data on engine settings, magnetic course angle, rudder angle, elevator angles, and so on. The time it takes for one collection of the 43 words is a little less than .7 seconds. So approximately every .7 seconds the aircraft is checked to see if everything is OK. This collection and storing of flight data goes on the entire time the aircraft is in the air. There are also some technical safeguards built into the FDR to protect the accuracy and readability of the data.

The FDR quit recording a little after 00:31:12. I think the raw data shows some data until 00:31:20. The important aspect of making an analysis of the last few seconds of Flight 800's flight is to determine how much of the data shown in data frame 00:31:12 is Flight 800's data and what the data in the data frames after 00:31:12 mean. Before you can say anything conclusive about the FDR data you first have to know what each piece of data means and to which aircraft it belongs to.

This is the part of the story that reveals the importance of doing thorough detective work. Howard Mann knew that the FDR tape could record 25 hours of data before it started all over recording the new data over the old. So Howard did the logical thing. He checked back and found the flight times of Flight 800 in previous flights. By doing that he found that in several long flights the aircraft that was to become Flight 800 (#119) had used up a 25 hour block of time. The previous day the aircraft was known as Flight 803 having flown from Paris to New York. The FDR of Flight 800 was recording over a section of the FDR tape previously used for Flight 803.

Howard Mann now could use the known flight parameters of Flight 803 and compare those parameters still left on the tape near the area where the last second of flight data from Flight 800 was being recorded. With a little study he was able to identify which data was from Flight 800 and which data was from Flight 803 of the previous day. For instance it is known that the magnetic course angle that Flight 800 was flying at 00:31:12 was 82 degrees magnetic. It was also known that Flight 803 which flew from Paris back to New York the previous day flew on a magnetic course angle of 276 degrees, exactly what the data showed in the area just ahead of the data for Flight 800.

Now that all of the data was properly identified, it was again time to examine the last data frame of the Flight 800 FDR record. An aircraft has an instrument to determine its altitude based on the air pressure at the aircraft's altitude, a barometric altimeter. Looking at the FDR altitude data for Flight 800 at 00:31:11 (one second before the initial event) it was seen that Flight 800 was flying at 13,772 feet. At 00:31:12, Flight 800's altitude was registered by the FDR as 10,127 feet! It's obvious that Flight 800 didn't drop over 3,600 feet in less than a second. The answer is there was a change in the outside air pressure around Flight 800. The change was quite large.

The reason for the large change in air pressure was an external explosion caused by a missile warhead exploding causing a pressure wave which increased the local air pressure by about 1.32 pounds per square inch. The altimeter for a brief moment thought it was at 10,127 feet. Another data parameter, the forward speed of the aircraft was shown to be at 298 knots at 00:31:11 and less than a second later its air speed was being recorded as 100 knots. The instrument that measures the forward air speed of the aircraft is also affected by changes in local air pressure. It's obvious that Flight 800 didn't slow from 298 knots to 100 knots in less than one second. The change in the air speed data was caused by the same explosion that affected the altitude data.

When a 747 is flying, its wings are at an angle of about 3 degrees to the air stream passing around the wing. That angle is called the angle of attack. In normal flight that angle of attack is always maintained for a number of reasons. At 00:31:11 that's what the data showed the angle of attack to be for Flight 800. Less than a second later the FDR data showed the angle of attack to be 106 degrees! And a split second later the angle of attack was 30 degrees. Flight 800 didn't go through those changes in pitch, but its angle of attack sensor was knocked senseless by the explosive pressure wave moving past its location.

There were several other pressure sensing instruments on Flight 800 all of which were dramatically affected by the explosive pressure wave.

The strength of the pressure wave was many times larger than could be produced by an exploding center wing tank. The pressure wave was produced by a large explosion outside the fuselage of Flight 800. The explosion was caused by a warhead of a missile. Whose missile was involved is still in question.

This new information further strengthens the view that a missile was the cause of the Flight 800 crash. I don't know whether the US Navy, a private Navy contractor, or a terrorist group caused the disaster. I do know that the NTSB needs to open up the evidence in the Calverton hangar to inspection by independent investigators. The idea that investigators outside the government couldn't possibly have the expertise to properly analyze the evidence is empty headed thinking.

Howard Mann's efforts have already surpassed the NTSB's in looking for the answers to the crash of Flight 800. Maybe the government isn't trying hard enough.

Richard Hirsch

Copyright 1998 All Rights reserved

fine 03.Jun.2004 00:39


You win. my post was hasty. you care a lot more about this issue than I do and have obviously done way more research. (I choose to leave it at "massive government crime" and make decisions accordingly.)

being that we're all in this together, let's not fight this debate out based on conclusions. ;)

back 03.Jun.2004 01:13

original poster

"let's not fight this debate out based on conclusions. ;)"

funny, and I think well said! I'll have to remember that turn of phrase.

more thought on WTC1; same thought on WTC2 03.Jun.2004 22:44

original poster


What I measured above was a direct width across, or 43 poles across the holes, at 3 per 10 ft is 43/3*10 = 143.33 ft for the longest right angle side of the triangle. That is different than the hypotenuse of this triangle which will be a bit longer. How much longer? Getting self critical--

Remember some math: hypotenuse equals the overall square root of a sum of the squares of the opposite two sides. OK.

Next, it is variously claimed that the height of the scar is around 5 floors. That's the other side of the triangle here.

From the tragic pictures of people standing on floors, and from pictures of smoke damage at ceilings in the area of the hits, I can guage that it was about 5 floors that experienced the hit of whatever it was as it came crashing down from a high angle into the building, pushing what appears to be some of the external steel skin of the building into the hole--pushing it down one floor.

Overall, the height(s) of the WTCs were 411 meters, or around 1348.425 ft. The number of floors in the towers were 110. That makes 411/100 = 3.74 or so meters per floor. That is around 12.27 ft per floor if equally distributed. Elsewhere I found data for each floor's height to be around 12.47 per floor because of the large initial lobby. I take a workable average at around 12.37 ft per floor then between these two.

So: right angle sides of the triangle here are 143.33 ft and 61.85 ft. [5*(12.37) ft]

The triangle's scar/hypotenuse damage from the hit after some calculation comes to 156.11 ft, which accords with wingspan for a 767 sized plane (see original article above).

So perhaps they did risk using a 767 instead of the 'architect recommended' 707 sized plane. HOWEVER, there is still the interesting 'flash' it produces that is puzzling that seems to occur immediately before the hit though, which implies a substitution somewhere, and which implies that they could have lessened the fuel as another variable if they wanted. The seismographs of the hit record around 10 seconds of activity during the hit. From other data I have seen about demolitions in the basement [eyewitness turns to talk to his friend worker in the basement areas--sees that door is chock full of rubble to the ceiling. Screams for his friend though nothing for a response.] So, at this moment as well, we are perhaps getting lots of various explosions going off disguised as the hit. I am pretty sure that across the top two floors one can see smoke expanding out of the west and south sides of the building dozens of floors above the hits within SECONDS-even before the smoke rises that many floors.

So, still it was detonations that took down the towers [nice summary of a handful of different kinds of data here--]

Evidence of Controlled Demolition

--though it seems that a 767 sized plane hits the WTC1 regardless of the substitution issue at WTC1. That's all I pretty much had to say about it at this stage. Like the WTC2, I still think there was a substitution on the WTC1 hit, because people who were closer reported some corporate sized jet hitting the building instead of a 767, and because since the planes like I argued above were meant to be perfect cover stories it would be unimportant if the actual 767's hit them if substitutions are evident I feel in all four planes that day.

In the case of WTC2, there was definiately a plane substitution, so that makes me feel that there was likely one at WTC1 as well. That, plus the issue of the flash at WTC1 immediately before entry is very odd. What makes this flash odder to me and relatively important is that someone decided to remove that flash digitally. Thus, for these various rationales I would put the substitution of planes on WTC1, though something as wide as a 767, though perhaps hardly anything like a 767, or something capable of firing something or a laser plane of somekind (which were a fully operational technology as of June 2000).


Given the pod issue on the WTC2-hit-plane, it makes plane substitution for WTC2 at least required sometime after the transponder goes off on UAL175. This would be between 8:42 and 9:02/3 a.m.

Transponders on UAL175 go off at: 8:42 a.m., when ATC says UAL-175 heading south without transponder or response, already off course, and before it does it's total turn around to approach NYC.

On the WTC2 hit because of the substitution to the pod plane, this means the potential of a low fuel WTC2 hit or a plane with explosives as well like I suggested above. All I am saying is that they had the opportunity to plan for anything with this second plane and could tailor the pyrotechnics or risk to the stability of the WTCs accordingly. Perhaps they were using total fuel perhaps otherwise. The point is that the substitution here to get the pod plane to the WTC2 was already planned beforehand, and they could have planned to minimize the fuel. However, if they were going to risk 767 sized planes here anyway, that would be debatable of course. These are only additional variables to consider.

According to some, there is a claim that there was nothing left of this WTC2-hit-plane. However, there are indeed pictures or what people have claimed to be pictures of an airline and subsequently claim to be part of that WTC2-hit-plane. Some of these claims are here:


WTC1 and WTC2

This fails to mean that I am assuing that it was the official 767 that hit WTC1, only that the hole that whatever it was made something as long as they hypotenuse of this triangle.

I am claiming that there is little way that that pod-attached 767-sized planes could have hit WTC2 without a substitution--taking place in the minutes after 8:42 before it hits at 9:02/3 a.m.--just the period when NORAD is still stalling until 8:46 to go after the first plane only. So for WTC2: Twenty minutes to do a switch. Perhaps another way to look into this would be to see what military bases such a substitution came from in the area.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: a BIG U.S. based group conducted a well thought out military coup on 9-11 against the Constitution of the U.S.

From 8:42, there are TWO known planes in this situation/direction--reported to NORAD from FAA at 8:43. Still NORAD sits (it has its own way to observe airspace anyway domestically) and waits until 8:46 to launch an alibi 'response'. However, their alibi is crafted to only go after the unknown blip they were calling AA11. A blip they wait until it is only about 30 seconds from its (known) destination, conveniently--thus they wait to respond, and respond only when they are assured of total failure to respond. And they fail to bother with getting to the other unknown blip (substitution going on) in the vicinity of UAL175 as it readies to hit the WTC2. It turns directly toward the WTC2 it is claimed at 8:50 a.m.

Note: typically within 20 minutes at the outside F-15s are alredy flying wing to wing beside any off course uncommunicative or distressed plane, simply to investigate and see what is going on. This is done hundreds of times a year. Except the day of this coup.

The military standdown of NORAD is only one part of it all. This part however allowed the symbolic cover story substitution hits to get to the towers (and the Pentagon and likely almost the Capitol). In the case of the towers, the dual hits provide the alibi for the controlled demolitions that are so widely documented. In the case of the Pentagon, the lack of response provide the alibi and allows the smallish thing that fires a missle at the wall of the Pentagon to get there. The damage to that wall of the Pentagon itself is a cover alibi for the an "inverse-Kristalknacht" within the Pentagon--where anti-Zionists and anti-Bushees were killed off by pro-Zionists and pro-Bushees. This has been described by Carol Valentine as a long term assassination of a select coterie of people, and a long term mop up of survivors who were killed intentionally instead of a rescue operation.

Pentagon RESCUE? Open, Bloody, Questions . . .

Historically, they've thought, planned, typed out, and approved details for killing U.S. people in their own state terror hits before of course. Project Northwoods for instance. Even earlier, in WWII< the first nuclear bomb explosion on people was conducted on Black American stevedores at Port Chicago. I hope you history professors out there learn to integrate that story into their story about nuclear weapons.

For any criminal government it is always safer to conduct crimes against humanity at home than abroad in all cases, because at home the control of the judicial system and propoganda system allows you to escape punishment or even widespread knowledge about the crime itself. Abroad, people just might attempt to stop you or have somthing a bit more accurate to say about it.

However, regardless of Northwoods analogies or Port Chicago analogies folks, in this case, it was over 26 minutes before NORAD even budges to even give their FIRST scramble order (from FAA late notification--about 30 minutes of a wait if they are watching themselves like they can from around 8:14 a.m.. Then, they scramble for only one plane at 8:46, stricly symbolic. And scramble for only one of the two that they have been notified about.

FAA should have almost immediately notified around 8:14, though they wait until 8:20 to tell NORAD. So FAA delays and from 8:20 late handoff to NORAD, NORAD delays, and watches state terror mature.

Later, an FAA officer destroys those 9-11 ATC interview tapes so NO ONE can have contradictory evidence to a straight lie.

8:46: NORAD only responds to a mere one of the two planes that are already without transponders and way off course. The response to one of them only is a strictly symbolic and cosmetic response for public relations instead of a military response. UAL175 at 8:43 notification was THE SECOND plane in this situation already been reported to them (late), and still they wait three more minutes. And once it hits, MAKING THIS TWO DIFFERENT HITS SO FAR, then they keep claiming lack of information even though from 8:59 the third plane goes through the same motions from Dulles and heads back to the Pentagon to hit it at around 9:37. Once more, little response. Originally the (sic) response was to go to NYC once more with the Langley AFB response, even though both planes had already hit the towers by then. In other words, more cosmetic response. More flying around in NYC around already hit buildings. (Some of the secret service out of the state terror loop supposedly calls in and tells them to reroute to the White House)

And let's remember that there are open-lines from 8:46 when the first hit goes through from Cheney to everyone important in the military and the FAA. Still they let the ALREADY known other plane heading for WTC2 go there without any response, hiting at 9:02/3. Still they let the ALREADY known (from 8:59) turnaround to the Pentagon hit it.

Everyone you see on a television has blood on their hands--from the media itself for perpetuating the lies and for constructing war propoganda for Afghanistan and Iraq, to the whole Bush administration born of a judicial coup, to a coterie of traitors in the military who would rather serve some Likudnik/Sharon Axis than the United States.

You want names to blame? Try Eberhart, promoted afterwards from NORAD to NORTHCOM. Try Myers, promoted afterwards to Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Try whoever rigged the buildings with explosives. Try whoever capitalizied on the towers destruction in any capacity. Try Bush for sitting there from after 9:03, leaving the stage set of his alibi around 9:35 only right as the Pentagon hit was assured.

There are dozens more to blame in various other capacities, particularly Cheney and Bush and Rice, Andrews Air Force base, etc. Cheney only decides to go after the UAL93 because it gets late.

Two separate planes are in the air off course and heading near NYC by 8:43. They are notified. What do they do? NORAD wants them to move closer, and only bothers to scramble one set of f-15s to go after the assumed AA11/WTC1 hit, that, only at the moment, it to smack into WTC1 in less than 30 seconds.

Anyway, that's Amerika for you. And avoid lambasting people you might think are working on something 'inconsequencial' or lateral to the issue you may think is predominant. Its lateral bits that allow the whole lie to shine through. Challenging people on stories is good and healthy, if you have something evidential to add to the building funeral pyre of the Bush administration.

Bush Finds a Lawyer to Use if Called in C.I.A. Leak Case

June 3, 2004

WASHINGTON, June 2 - President Bush has met with a private
lawyer whom he intends to hire to represent him if he is
questioned as part of a grand jury investigation into the
public disclosure of a C.I.A. undercover officer's
identity, the White House said Wednesday.

Mr. Bush met recently with the Washington lawyer, Jim
Sharp, to consult with him about the case, the White House
spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, confirming a report on
"CBS Evening News.''

"The president has had discussions with Mr. Sharp, and in
the event he would need his advice, the president would
likely retain him," Mr. McClellan said in a telephone

"The president has stated on numerous occasions that he
wants the White House to fully cooperate, and that would
include himself," he added. "He wants the investigation to
come to a successful conclusion."

Federal prosecutors are seeking to determine who disclosed
the identity of Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. officer, to the
syndicated columnist Robert Novak for a column he wrote
last summer. Disclosure of the identity of an undercover
officer for the Central Intelligence Agency can be a
federal crime.

It was unclear on Wednesday night why Mr. Bush waited until
what appears to be the last stages of the investigation
into the leak before he consulted with a lawyer. One
administration official speculated that the president must
have had some indication that investigators now want to
question him.

The case unfolded after Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph C.
Wilson IV, a former ambassador, publicly questioned the
president's assertion in the 2003 State of the Union
address that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium
in Africa. Mr. Wilson's statements led to a White House
admission that the evidence behind the statement was
insufficient, and probably wrong, and that the C.I.A. had
successfully cautioned the White House against making such
statements in another speech the president had given in the
fall of 2002.

Mr. Wilson and some Democrats have charged that the White
House leaked Ms. Plame's identity as a way of retaliating
against Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Bush's decision to consider hiring his own lawyer in
the case surprised many law enforcement officials and
political figures who have followed the politically charged
case for months.

While Mr. Wilson has mentioned several prominent White
House advisers - including Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby and
Elliott Abrams - as possible sources of the leak, the
president himself has not been seen as a potential target
of the investigation.

He could, however, become a witness if prosecutors believe
he had information about the events that led to the
disclosure of Ms. Plame's name or if he had personal
records that might aid in the inquiry.

Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Patrick Fitzgerald, the
United States attorney in Chicago who is acting as a
special counsel in the investigation, declined to comment
on the developments.

Mr. Sharp, who represented Gen. Richard V. Secord of the
Air Force in the Iran-contra affair but is not widely known
in Washington legal circles, could not be reached for
comment late Wednesday.

The Justice Department named Mr. Fitzgerald to lead the
investigation last December when Attorney General John
Ashcroft withdrew from oversight of the case after
Democrats charged for months that his close ties to the
White House posed a conflict of interest.

The developments on Wednesday came at a time when Mr.
Fitzgerald's investigation has shown signs of movement. The
grand jury recently subpoenaed journalists from NBC and
Time magazine to testify about the leak - a move that
lawyers for the journalists said they would fight. Mr.
Fitzgerald has kept a tight seal on the progress of his
investigation, and legal observers are split over whether
the subpoenas signal that he may be nearing an indictment
or whether the investigation has hit a wall and he is
seeking information from reporters as a last resort.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has
led the calls for an aggressive investigation into the
leak, said after word of Mr. Bush's legal consultation:
"I've always said we should find the wrongdoers no matter
who is implicated. I have confidence that Special Counsel
Fitzgerald will follow the path no matter where it leads."

 link to www.nytimes.com

the "no plane at WTC" is blatant disinformation designed to discredit 08.Jun.2004 01:29

muddying the waters

New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

from "Painful Questions" by Eric Hufschmid, page 20
regarding a "blob" seen in some WTC photos that supposedly showed another plane overhead when the second tower was hit

"It is also possible that the blob is just an 'artifact' caused by the software that compressed the video. However, I suspect the person who posted the images deliberately created the blob to make fun of conspiracy theories or to fool people ... the best policy is to ignore theories that are based on compressed images. Demand the original, high resolution images."

Disinformation masquerading as 9/11 Truth exposure

In addition to phony evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory, there is also the problem of bogus material pretending to be investigative journalism that does not bother to present even a scintilla of credible evidence. A few fringe 9/11 websites are now claiming that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include physics911.org, letsroll911.org, 911hoax.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org Oilempire.us doesn't provide direct links to these sites, which are a mix of accurate material and disinformation -- but they are easy enough to find.

The "webfairy" theories claim that no planes hit the World Trade Center, it was done with missiles and high-tech hologram, and uses video clips that supposedly prove these arguments. The "letsroll911" site claims that a missile was fired at the South tower just before the plane crashed into it, and also uses poor quality photos to "prove" this argument. However, blurry low resolution photos that magically appear two years later are not evidence of alternative views of what happened, they are only evidence of people's unfamiliarity with photo editing software and their gullibility. The "physical evidence" clearly shows that large jets hit the towers - the hole in the side of the North tower (which was hit first) is the size of a 767. And the idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit makes no sense, since there was no "need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers, since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack immediately prior to 9/11).

The "missile pod at the WTC," "no plane at the WTC" and "plane plus missile" theory are toxic to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is a sign that our political efforts are having an effect -- that these "theories" (unsupported by any credible evidence) are being distributed to "muddy the waters" to make those who seek to expose the lies of 9/11 as crackpots who have no idea what we are talking about.

There was no extra "pod" that was used to fire a missile from the 767. A quick search on the web will show several sites with photos of 767's with a structure under the plane to hold the wings together. It is sad that 9/11 truth exposers are forced to waste our time dealing with this. There are NO photos with high resolution that show an extra "pod," there is no credible theory to suggest the need for any alleged pod.

The same thing happened during the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge that turned out to be psychotic ravings. One particularly memorable occurrence was during the Jim Garrison prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy - the film JFK covers this episode very well. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.


re: "no plane at WTC" attack is blatant lack of reading 08.Jun.2004 17:29


You are the one 'muddying the waters' because no where above was there a claim that there was 'no plane' at the WTC1. Have a great day as Peter Gabriel once said "in your one way world."

The question is which plane or what plane was at the WTCs?