Ordnance blowback precedes fuel fireball at WTC2

[demodewd]

Notice the difference in fireball coloration from the ordnance blowback created by a missile(to the left) and the fuel generated fireball. Having a missile detonate just prior to the fuel detonation created a powerful buffer area prohibiting the fuel fireball from admixing with ordance explosion( the greyish fireball to the left). Without the initial missile detonation,one would expect to see little if any contrast of coloration throughout the entire fireball photograph.

[Ready4Change]

1. Here's my problem with the "a missile, not an airliner" theory.

It's not necessary, and it adds complexity, which introduces more ways for things to go wrong.

If it was a missile striking WTC2, then someone needs to have hijacked the original airliner, flown it someplace, and some how gotten rid of it and all of it's passengers without leaving a trace. At the same time you need to guide in this special airliner shaped missile.

However, since you're hijacking a heavily fuel laden plane anyway, why not just fly that fully fueled plane into WTC2? No need to dispose of incriminating evidence, the passengers will never talk, get washed ashore or be found and dug up. All you really need is some suicidal fanatics willing to learn the basics of flying an already airborn airliner. Even prior to GulfWar2 the world was full of those.

Why invent a complicated conspiracy when a simple one will do the job just as effectively, and have less chance of going awry?

[OneBlueSky]

3. well . . . here's one explanation . . .

not saying I'm buying that this is what actually happened . . . only that there are explanations out there . . . this is one of the more interesting I've seen . . .

Flight of the Bumble Planes
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

[enfield collector]

5. yes, when you hear hoofbeats think of horses, not zebras.

[Ready4Change]

6. Depends on what continent I'm on.

However, when I hear hoofbeats I'll look around to avoid getting trampled by WHATEVER is making the hoofbeats. Cows, Bison, Zebras, Giraffes, Horses, Goats...

So I read whatever I can about this, time allowing. I just haven't seen anything that convinces me that it wasn't the actual flights hitting the towers.

[demodewd]

7. re: simple job

Is "the simple job" really that simple? Flying a commercial airline at 590mph at near ground level and making a radical bank before angling it in at the corner of WTC2 as to what could have been a near miss? If you are at least LIHOP...why would you allow the human possibilty of error "hijack" your effort? Is it completely assurable that the hijackers would successfully take over the plane?

If it was a missile striking WTC2, then someone needs to have hijacked the original airliner, flown it someplace, and some how gotten rid of it and all of it's passengers without leaving a trace. At the same time you need to guide in this special airliner shaped missile.
Yes this is much simpler. It takes the human variable basically out of the equation. Landing the plane by remote interception at a secret and secured field and all the gory rest is actually much more precise and predictable. The greatest complexity is the human unpredictabilities associated with Arab hijackers, being cleared at the airport, being able to take control of the plane,and successfully guiding the craft into the target without interception.

[Ready4Change]

9. Because it's not just a question of doing the job.

You also have to get away with doing the job. That's much much easier if someone not directly under your control does it all. And if they fail, not only can't you be connected with the plot, but you can claim credit for your strong and decisive anti-terrorist measures. Your hands are clean, and you win, whether or not the operation succeeds.

However, if YOU do the job, you have to make sure no one involved talks. You have to cleanly hijack 4 planes full of people and dispose of it all, with no witnesses. You have to design, build, and operate at least 3 airliner shaped missile, with none of the builders talking. You have to cover the money trail of how it was all paid for and make sure none of that leads back to you. And if the mission fails you are completely and royally screwed.

[demodewd]

15. It's not enough

You also have to get away with doing the job. That's much much easier if someone not directly under your control does it all. And if they fail, not only can't you be connected with the plot, but you can claim credit for your strong and decisive anti-terrorist measures. Your hands are clean, and you win, whether or not the operation succeeds.

It's not enough. So the authorities who aren't in on it stop a terrorist ring at the airport or the passengers and crew abort a takeover in midair. What does that give claim to the globalist factions that want a sustained Middle East war for oil dominance? What is requisite is a fantastic horrible event that indelibly lays claim to the American body politic indefinitely. Who will forget the plane and its fireball at WTC2? War needs to become the accepted social norm here. War needs a crucial justification. 9-11 was it.

However, if YOU do the job, you have to make sure no one involved talks. You have to cleanly hijack 4 planes full of people and dispose of it all, with no witnesses. You have to design, build, and operate at least 3 airliner shaped missile, with none of the builders talking. You have to cover the money trail of how it was all paid for and make sure none of that leads back to you. And if the mission fails you are completely and royally screwed.

Those who be involved don't squeal...or else they forfeit their lives. How many CIA covert operations have been pulled off in the last 20 years? Probably lots...involving hundreds of people. How many people were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal? Those who be involved would feel entirely justified in their actions. After all they would be saving the American Republic by making it the hegemonic world enterprise in needs to be to save it from economic depression and severe political schisms. After all war is the great uniter and American world dominance is not only righteously justified but absolutely necessary.
The only way to guarantee success in the operation is to completely control it. Once the airlines have been grounded everything is controlled by remote from the WTC7(according to Michael Ruppert)Where has the 2 trillion plus gone from the DOD? How much money is laudered through the CIA on a yearly basis? I'm sure there were back up plans to cover any possible screwups. After all no matter what the outcome,it still would be blamed on the Arab patsies.

[MercutioATC]

12. Two words. Radar targets.

They just don't support what you claim.

[demodewd]

13. re: Mr Radar

Analyzing fireball colorations doesn't have anything to do with radar targets.

[MercutioATC]

14. Hey, it was your quote, not mine...

"Landing the plane by remote interception at a secret and secured field and all the gory rest is actually much more precise and predictable."

I directly responded to a claim YOU made. If you want to get pissy, "remote interception" doesn't have anything to do with fireballs, either.

[demodewd]

16. piss on this

Its a claim that has obvious logic to those of us who clearly understand that the plane that hit WTC2 was not #175. I know you can't see the pod or its piping,the flash, the impossibility of a commercial airliner going 590 mph in low altitudes,the laserlight,the unexplained greyish coloration of the explosion to the left of WTC2. So you can't evidently perceive these things...To me its obvious that you are wrong about radar because the photographic evidence is quite obvious. So you have RADAR explanation for everything. What's new?

[MercutioATC]

17. Nothing's "new". It's been a fact for some time.

Your "claim" is only logical if you choose to willfully ignore the preponderance of the facts.

Hey, if you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, it's your choice.

[demodewd]

18. ?

What facts? And don't say RADAR.

[MercutioATC]

19. The "pod" eliminates the starboard landing gear.

That's one.

Radar evidence. (Whether you like it or not, it's a fact).

That's two.

Your lack of an explanation as to what really happened to the "real" plane.

That's three.

The complete lack of a need for a "missile".

That's four.

The complete impossibility of "fuel sprayers".

That's five.


...how many do you need?

[demodewd]

20. Quicky quiz answers

1.It was retrofitted
2. radar doesn't account for elevation and precise location
3.the missile permitted the plane to enter the building in its entirety and created an instantaneous explosion
4. who knows?
5. the spray... could be ..but maybe no..I don't really know.

[MercutioATC]

21. Quicky response to "Quicky quiz answers"...

1) Great, gimme an aeronautical engineer who can explain how you "retrofit" a main landing gear on a commercial airliner and we'll discuss this.

2) True, but a 757 or 767 will leave a pretty clear radar target. If none were there, none were there. Elevation isn't an issue in this circumstance and location is relative. In the majority of cases if one target is mislocated by some degree, all targets in a close proximity are mislocated by the same factor. The point is that radar evidence doesn't show any possible "switch" targets.

3) A commercial airliner moving at 350+ knots doesn't have any problem "entering" an unreinforced building. As much as you tout the "instantanteous explosion" necessity, it still doesn't make any sense.

4) I do. They died when the planes they were riding on crashed.

5) You're the one who makes the "sprayer" claim. I'm simply pointing out that the existance of "fuel sprayers" as you've represented them 1) make no sense and 2) defy known laws of physics.



Antyhing else you'd like to discuss?

(on edit)

You reversed #3 and #4. Let's just continue with the order we have now.

[AZCat]

22. What is the "fuel sprayer" claim?

I searched the DU archives for "fuel sprayer", but only came up with four threads: this one and three others that have posts from you commenting on the "fuel sprayer" theory. Am I looking for the wrong thing - is there another name used to describe this - or are the arguments off site at some of the links provided by pro-CTers?

For the record, here are links to the previous threads containing the phrase "fuel sprayer":

Smear campaign against 9/11 scientists?

In defense of "Pod People"

"A small plane equipped with 5 missiles" crashed into Tower 1?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. The "fuel sprayer" claim

is that the wings of whatever hit the second tower were equiped with fuel sprayers that spread fuel in a fine mist in front of the speeding aircraft in order to produce a more spectacular explosion.

[MercutioATC]

26. ...said fuel being sprayed at a 90-degree angle to a plane that was

flying in excess of 350 knots...

...physically impossible.

[RH]

30. and having sprayed the mist

to achieve the spectacular explosion they also saw fit to use ordnace to reduce the spectacular effect, to give a grey fireball effect! (and thus of course to also give the game away)

:crazy:

[AZCat]

46. Ahh! Thanks for the clarification (all of you)

How in the world did a theory like that ever see the light of day?

I mean - I'm all for including all the wild theories when brainstorming possible explanations, but at some point you have to rule out the ones that clearly don't make sense, and this one is definitely a candidate for early dismissal.

[RH]

47. There is no "ruling out" around here

nor any qualification of any sort to prevent any sort with an ambition to be a bit, how shall we say, a bit more distinct from the run of the mill.

:puffpiece:

Nor with the possibility of anyonymous posting is there any practical sense of responsibility. That's the wonder of and the trouble with the Internet, the apotheosis of anarchy incarnate.

:nuke:

[AZCat]

48. The internet really is a 'false community'

I agree with your comments about the effect of anonymous posting on behavior of posters on forums. We create electronic communities like DU and fill them with the surface characteristics of real life communities, but there are certain elements missing from the virtual versions that damage (or eliminate) the system of checks and balances that exist in real life. I worry about our increased reliance on these communities and others such as television. What will the long-term effects be on our civilization?

[demodewd]

28. A good view

A good view of the pod and the laser flash recorded by a camera equipped with ir capacity...one of three cameras that picked up the laser image.

[reorg]

31. found a good picture of the three clouds

not as good as in the video "In Plane Sight", but clearly showing this phenomenon that I have not seen explained yet.

http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/ua175-10.html

[RH]

24. Do not have any idea

of just how absurd this is? :crazy:

If it is not possible for a commercial airliner to go at 590 mph do you have any explanation at all of how it is possible for anything else of the same size and shape to do so?

What's new?

Tell us about it.

Do you mean to infer a design especially developed for this one particular job or what? Can you show us anything else in the whole history of aviation to compare with your "pod"?

Obviously enough the plane that hit was a B767 or something remarkably similar. Without your imagination there is no pod. No witness saw pod. Every original photo image that I've seen (as opposed to a deceptively blurred enlargement) is consistent. Same shape and size. Same features. United Airlines livery.

[demodewd]

27. slow it down

Its impossible to see the pod at the plane's full speed. Shake it down frame for frame and it is "planely" there. Check out this photo showing the laser flash recorded from three different cameras with ir capacity.

[RH]

29. I see diatinct fringing effects,

the result of extreme image compression.

If you're not going to take that into account you may as well be dreaming. Video images are not absolute reproductions of reality. No photographic image ever is. They're an edited interpretation. The result depends upon the method.

"What does this look like" is the wrong question. The correct question is "what range of possibilities could give rise to this result". I have no doubt that a UA B767 could give rise to that result. End of story.

[demodewd]

32. re: "range of possibilities"

A UA 767 or a military tanker version of a 767(or something similar) with a retrofitted pod equipped with a laser. Certainly within your "range of possibilities".

You extend a "range of possibilities" and then narrow it down to only one.Your "possibility". The only that you will entertain irregardless of other "possibilities". You have betrayed your own statement.

[RH]

36. I don't extend anything.

The range of possiblities is a technical matter. It depends upon the resolution and the distortuon of an image, the lower the reolution and the greater the distorion then the greater the range of possibilities.

Having estimated that range of possibilities I do indeed narrow it down to only one, by considering all the other available evidence. If there wer no other evidence the range would stand until such time that it could be narrowed. Fortunately that is not the case.

Something wrong with that?

:shrug:

[LARED]

33. laser flash?

What is a laser flash? The only place I have every seen a laser create something that looks like the flash you refer to, is in the movies.

Typically in a poorly produced 'B' scifi flick. They are fun to watch of course, but every knows they are works of fiction.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Come on, Lared. Have you never seen

a laser light show with lasers cutting through the dry ice fog?

Obviously the laser flash is being enhanced by the fuel spray mist. This is something that the 9/11 planners overlooked during their fuel spray/simultaneous missile-shaped charges-remote-controlled airplane strike tests.

Modern technology is no match for the unexpected laser light show effect.

[RH]

44. I've seen laser shows,

after dark.

Against bright sunlight they don't compete.

So why then please would a "flash" not be caused by the sun?

[Proudlib]

41. 590 MPH???

Only the highest performing jet fighter can come close to that at low altitudes and that's with the afterburners lit and a clean undercarriage (no ordinance hanging off the wings or fuselage). A commerical airliner can only hit those speeds at their cruising altitudes between 30-35,000 feet were the air is much thinner. The plane that hit WTC2 was probably going around 250-300 knots at the most. Oh, and jet fuel has a nasty habit of exploding when it hits something solid at that speed.

The only known to any air force in the world non-rocket powered missles are long range cruise missles and they are much smaller than a 767. They are smaller than a fighter jet and can't hit mach 0.85 at 1000 feet. They travel at about 400 knots.

You're "It wasn't a United Airlines 767" theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

[Endangered Specie]

2. And just what makes you an expert of missiles and fireballs?

You try to use fancy terms, but, somehow, I doubt you know what you are talking about. I could be wrong, but hey, I could be right.

[RH]

11. I think its got something to do with

being blessed a retrofit imagination.

[RH]

4. greyish fireball ?

That is presumably dust and smoke.

:eyes:

[demodewd]

8. Okay

Okay I misspoke. But my contention still stands. Where's the mixed coloration of the fuel fire with this greyball mass?

[RH]

10. contention still stands?

"one would expect to see", that contention?

Personally, not yet having seen too many airliners hit high rise buildings I didn't know what to expect.

So according to what then would one be any smarter than that about it?

[LARED]

25. ordnance blowback???????

What in the world is an ordnance blowback?

I did a google search on it and found the following;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22ordnance+blowback%22&btnG=Google+Search

[k-robjoe]

34. Off topic

It is interesting to compare the picture in the original message with the surveillance camera pictures from the Pentagon crash.
What we see in the Pentagon picture must be exploding UPON impact. ( And not after it has punched through the wall. )
Notice how the fireball in the Pentagon pics is "stretched" over the roof. If it had exploded inside, it would look more like the "dust-ball" coming out of the impacthole in the WTC2 pic.

In the WTC2 crash the plane punched through the wall, and then there was kind of a tiny "suspencion" - just enough time to think ; "What?" - and then "Boom!".

[LARED]

35. Pentagon Camera Pictures can in no way

tell us whether the explosion occurred at impact or a some other time.


How do you arrive at the conclusion that the jet exploded precisely on impact?

[k-robjoe]

37. I think I explained

how what we see there is not an explosion from inside the building, like we see in the WTC2 pic.

[RH]

38. the fireball "stretched" over the roof

the same as the smoke streched over the roof,
because that was the way the wind blew.

[LARED]

40. Plus a plane traveling

create a bit of wind in its wake.

[demodewd]

42. I agree

I agree that the Pentagon crash was an immediate explosion upon impact due probably to shaped charges set off immediately inside the building or on the plane itself.

All one has to do is take note of the location of the central inferno.



If the plane were to have acted like the WTC2 explosion it may have penetrated 2-3 rings into the building before it exploded. It was probably planned the way it was to minimize the number of victims and to minimize the breadth of the fire and damage inside the building.

[RH]

43. Nope, that's not a "central inferno".

Sorry to have to burst the bubble once again but the conflagration in the photo happens to be just to the right of the cable spools, therefore significantly south of the central entry hole, exactly where the destroyed tree had stood, which is therefore presumably the cause, what was left of a tree drenched in aviation fuel.

:nopity:

[k-robjoe]

49. So the

starboard wing was actually sheared in two when hitting this tree.

Bigger pic : http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttack.shtml

Notice the damage on the wall. ( I have pic where you can see the damage clearer, but haven´t got the URL at hand. )

[RH]

50. sheared in two?

Yes, I'd have thought that the wing would rather shear the tree, but who knows? Maybe the tree was in fact the more resilient. Maybe the elasticity of wood is the crucial factor. The wing would also be affected when the engine on that side hit the generator

At any rate it accounts for the relatively slight damage to the Pentagon immediately behind the tree. I think it also explains why some parts of the fuselage would survive while others turned to confetti. If a branch of the tree sliced pieces from one side of the fuselage, it would buffer them from the eventual impact with the fatal masonry. The subsequent explosion would then scatter the parts every which way.

[k-robjoe]

51. Yes

> "I'd have thought that the wing would rather shear the tree, but who knows?"

If the tree is standing there burning well after impact, it seems pretty obvious that the wing didn´t shear it in two. But I agree; that´s what I would expect.

[MrSammo1]

53. The Pentagon Fireball?

Wasn't a jet. It's a gas main that's burning. You can see this clearly in the PBS video about the Pentagon!

[RH]

54. Gas? That's interesting.

I'd not heard it said before.

But how would a gas main be affected in that vicinity?

I had heard about oil drums and gas cylinders.

[MrSammo1]

56. Get the video

Well, that's because you never heard from me before.

get the video slow it down and you can see this clearly!
I taped it when it was on.....did you see the special?

[Endangered Specie]

45. Once again, I am asking for your credentials

in Fireball-ology.

[MrSammo1]

52. No wonder why?

All eyes were off the "pod" for so long! It was David Copperbush!

Add a few "Oh my Gods!" just at the right place in the audio(to cover up the explosion)....you have the show of the ages!

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

55. If you have a copy of the Naudet brother's DVD or VHS

I suggest watching the first impact in frame by frame mode and carefully watch the dark band just below the roofline. You will notice an anomaly that appears way above the impact point on two sides of the building.