WHAT STRUCK THE TWIN TOWERS: REVISING MY OUTLOOK

0
1258

by James Perloff, JamesPerloff.com:

This is the fifth post I have written on 9/11. The most recent previous ones were:

• To 9/11 and Beyond, which examined evidence that the two explosions which ultimately decimated the Twin Towers were nuclear (a post I could not have written without technical advice from sources who preferred anonymity);
• 9/11 Simplified, which attempted to reconstruct the 9/11 events, regarding both the who and the how, and proposed a new take on the fate of the original passenger planes (that they were hijacked by Israeli special ops, and diverted over the Atlantic);
• Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11, an exchange with a highly experienced, active Airbus captain (his identity shielded as “Pilot A”), who helped clarify many technical aspects of 9/11, including elimination of electronic hijackings on that day.

Because in these posts I had to keep revising and refining my own understanding of 9/11, I felt that I should finally sum them all in a short book. But I tabled that idea because there was still one major 9/11 riddle that seemed impervious to a firm solution: what actually struck the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon and Shanksville).

In “9/11 Simplified” and “Conversations with an Airline Pilot,” I reviewed the evidence that it could not have been the original jetliners, as the official narrative claims. Without belaboring details here, this included:

• The planes reaching speeds unattainable by jetliners in the thickened air of low altitude, speeds that could have caused structural damage during flight, with pieces of wings, tail or fuselage breaking off;
• The demonstrable uncontrollability of planes at such speeds and altitudes, in a scenario where bullseye hits had to be guaranteed if the Twin Towers were to be demolished afterwards;
• The government’s failure to match a single aircraft part, found in wreckage, to any of the original 9/11 planes, a task that would be easy by comparing serial numbers to logbook records;
• The impossible physics seen in footage of Flight 175 hitting the South (second) Tower, its aluminum frame slicing through massive 14-inch steel columns, whereas there are many examples of jetliners shattering upon hitting water, having their noses bashed in by bird collisions, etc.;
• The three-dimensional, missile-shaped object visible on the underside of “Flight 175,” which could not have been missed at Logan Airport by the maintenance crew or by the pilots during their mandatory preflight inspection of the aircraft.

So what did hit the targets on 9/11? In the earlier posts, we narrowed this down to two basic optionscloaked missile or drone.

The cloaked missile is a variation of the “no planes” paradigm, and though it is often ridiculed, had much going for it:

• Missiles can precisely hit targets at high speed; they would not have been subject to the strong “G-forces” facing the alleged jetliners;
• Unlike airliner noses, a missile’s nose is hardened for penetration;
• By the 1990s, for strategic purposes, the Air Force had developed holographic technology capable of simulating three-dimensional images of aircraft in broad daylight;
• Israel—suspect number one for 9/11—had commissioned its first cruise missile-firing submarines in 1999, and began test-firing missiles from them in 2000; it had also been working on stealth technology since the 1980s;
• A holographic image might explain the “impossible physics” of a plane gliding through steel, as well as other strange phenomena, such as Flight 175’s nose appearing to emerge from the other side of the South Tower, observable in footage from multiple angles.

However, a cloaked missile could not account for the airliner debris found in the World Trade Center vicinity (such as the famous engine remnant on Murray Street), even though this debris was limited in quantity, and has never been matched by serial numbers to flights 11 or 175. This meant the debris would have had to be planted, which seemed very improbable. However, given the obvious planting of other evidence (such as a Koran together with a flight manual in a car at Logan airport), and the fact that the “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems, which possessed the trucks and manpower to dump off some wreckage during 9/11’s smoke and confusion, this option seemed worth considering.

The alternative to the missile hypothesis was a drone, an idea with its own strong points:

• Drones are consistent with the prototype of Operation Northwoods, a real-life 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It called for swapping a drone, disguised as a jetliner, midair for a passenger plane. The passenger plane would be landed safely at a military base, while the drone would be exploded by remote control over Cuba after it sent a fake radio message that Cuban MiGs were attacking it.
• A drone could account for the aircraft wreckage;
• It would avoid any risks that holographic cloaking might fail; it wouldn’t just resemble a plane, it would be a plane.

However, the drone presented its own difficulties. How could a “substitute jetliner” overcome the risks posed by G-forces on a regular jetliner, at high speed and low altitude? How could it be controlled with such precision, and be immune to structural damage in flight? And how could a drone defy physics any more than other planes, sailing right through steel and concrete “like a hot knife through butter”?

After considerable discussion, Pilot A and I were both favoring the cloaked missile hypothesis over a drone, which seemed burdened with more problems.

Then, however, I sent Pilot A a picture I found on the Internet juxtaposing the gashes in the two Twin Towers. I asked him if he thought the nearly identical angles had significance.

Other observations, however, caught Pilot A’s attention. He replied:

Upon first glance the after-impact damage looks like the shape of an aircraft complete with a cutout of the wings all at an angle and looks convincing. I looked at a few more [pictures] and I’m starting to think that maybe it was an aeroplane as the damage pattern looks like I think it should, and not like a conventional military missile. I can see from the photos that some of the steel beams are bent inwards. Some of the weaker outer aluminum cladding is inwards and outwards, probably owing to the blast of the fireball. I do remain convinced it wasn’t suicidal hijackers that flew ordinary B767s into the WTC. But perhaps you should try and flush out some other possible scenarios, like maybe the planes were from a secret base somewhere, and had been specially kitted out to achieve high speeds and higher impact damage, etc.

Looking at the gash pictures myself, I couldn’t deny Pilot A’s conclusion. A missile could explain the holes in the middle of either photograph, but not the peripheral damage. Some of the steel bars do bend inward as if struck with tremendous force from outside. I realize that some in alternative media have suggested the gashes were cut-outs from planted charges. But to get the bars bending inward meant planting charges outside the building. True, the famed “Israeli art students” had occupied the North Tower’s 91st floor in the spring of 2000, and had even removed a window and erected a small balcony. But would they leave external charges in place for more than a year? And how could pre-planted explosives coordinate to create such a realistic impression? The weak, furthest tips of the wings, for example, have only dented the external aluminum cladding, as one would expect in a genuine collision.

Yet we still see improbable physics in these photos. In the North Tower gash, for example, part of the left wing has not merely damaged the external claddingit has sliced right through and shredded 14-inch steel. Even at high speed, what fragile aluminum wing could accomplish that?

This looks like neither a cloaked missile nor an ordinary aircraft.

At that point, I gave up. Until now.

Unfortunately, we do not have adequate historical examples of what happens when airliners slam into buildings. One can see footage of a telephone pole slicing off a jetliner wing; yet there is also a case of a Boeing wing cutting through a brick building. Variations in speed, wing construction, and the impacted material make comparison to the World Trade Center challenging. Even the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building does not help us much; in ways it contradicted the official 9/11 story (a wing was shorn off and landed in the street below; there was no collapse from “steel beams melting,” and the building was open for business just two days later). But in other ways it emulated 9/11 (an engine flew out the other side of the building, fuel set office workers on fire, and an elevator line was cut). The plane was traveling much slower than “Flight 175,” but the Empire State Building’s exterior was also quite distinct from that of the World Trade Center, which was a virtual steel wall.

After earnestly praying for the truth in the manner of an Orthodox Christian, conducting additional research, and consulting knowledgeable professionals, here is my conclusion. By the way, I’m aware that many divergent opinions exist regarding 9/11. I respect all people seeking the truth, including those who disagree with me. As always, what I present should be understood as a suggestion for consideration, not something I dogmatically insist on as fact. I remain open to further revising any views.

My New Take: Preliminaries

I’ll start by quoting an email I received last year, omitting the writer’s name:

I listened to you last night on “SGT Report” talk about 9/11 and I was very impressed with your research. But I want to tell you this, I am one of the few people, maybe the only one (who knows?) who watched the first plane hit the North Tower from West Broadway just above Houston Street. I was locking up a van I was driving at the time and heard the plane overhead—much louder than normal. I looked up and watched it fly over Washington Square Village and directly over my head. The plane seemed old, frankly. The plane then penetrated the top of the building. And I mean penetrated, the entire plane entered the building as if it was a hangar and did not explode until the rear fin was completely inside the building. I know what I saw. I’m just emailing you so that you don’t go down a blind alley in your research. The second plane I never saw. But the first plane was definitely a plane. And it tipped its wing slightly a few seconds before it hit as if it was being controlled. I wish you luck in your research and I think most of what you present is correct. But don’t fall for that holographic theory for the first plane. I saw that plane and watched it hit. But keep up the good work and I wish you luck.

OK, so this individual witnessed what he is convinced was a real plane, yet it did something no real plane should do—completely penetrate the Tower before exploding.

Actually, what he described is quite similar to the countless videos of the secondplane—which vanishes into the South Tower, seemingly laughing at physics, followed by an enormous explosion. Here it is in slow motion:

Next let’s consider the Pentagon. Something appears to have penetrated the first three of the Pentagon’s five concrete rings. The holes look too circular to have likely been from pre-planted bombs, and are too large to represent a missile’s bodythey’re closer to fuselage size, but an ordinary plane should have crumpled at the first concrete ring, which was heavily reinforced with steel and Kevlar.


Pentagon exit hole at the third interior ring

And let’s not forget Shanksville’s smoking hole, where (unlike innumerable other airplane crashes), no bodies were seenand only tiny bits of debris:

Sitting in with the Bad Guys

I found the best way to start analyzing this was to put myself in the shoes of 9/11’s architects. Suppose you were a black op specialist, code-named Druid, an evil sort of James Bond, and you were assigned to plan a compartmentalized detail of 9/11 by your boss, Mr. E. I’ll write the conversation in English, though it was very probably in a foreign language:

Mr. E: We have a new job for you, the biggest ever. There can be no failures with this. On September 11, 2001, four passenger planes are going to be hijacked. Simultaneously. Boeing 757s and 767s. In any case, nothing smaller than a 757. We are going to need unmanned planes built that can be put in the air and take the place of the originals, which will be diverted…

Read More @ Jamesperloff.com

Loading...