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.
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.
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.
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.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion