What hit the WTC?

The kooky absurdity of the holographic airplanes theory impinges on the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement for the reasons I explained in my blog; and because the planes are clearly seen and heard from multiple vantages.

James Perloff wrote:

When Chris Bollyn was on his 9/11 speaking tour this summer, I asked his opinion of the “no planes” theory. Chris said that on images of Flight 175’s underside, you can see a missile; its nose lights up when it meets the building. (This is much discussed in the 9/11 movement.) Chris asked: if it was only a hologram, why would they bother including a missile image? Chris’s conclusion was that missile-carrying drones hit the Towers.

Thus, I must make some corrections to Perloff’s blog which quotes “Pilot A”:

[…] rogue military pilot ignoring orders to buzz off somewhere else might actually shoot the planes down … and on and on it goes.

What’s better than planes flying into buildings? The illusion of planes flying into buildings.

The implausible rogue military pilot wouldn’t have known which airplanes were hijacked and where until it was too late. The perpetrators had control over whom was seeing which blips on their radar via their inside control over the systems such as via Ptech which I mentioned in my blog.

What’s better (for the perpetrators) are remote guided drone planes flying into buildings. One shudders to think what was their plan B if for example one of the planes missed the target and crashed landed in NYC. Set off a small nuke to obliterate the evidence and/or as an excuse to declare martial law? Or hijack one of their own military weapons? (foreshadowing the next false-flag coming in the Second American Civil War?)

Yet the planes are seen entirely entering the building which seems implausible as Perloff has explained in his blogs. I agree with Perloff’s conjecture:

I believe one can safely conjecture that the explosives inside these drones were intended […] to demolish the drones themselves, so much that they would become virtually impossible to identify. I think this is the true reason for the dearth of plane wreckage at all locations, rather than there being “no planes at all.”

However, I disagree with Perloff’s conjecture of explosives planted only in a hardened nose because it wouldn’t guarantee total destruction of the rear of the plane nor the slicing of the steel fascia by the far-flung aluminum wings. Also we don’t see such a concentrated explosion while the plane is slicing into the building.

Nevertheless, in addition to a rigid nose, I think it worth considering if the architects utilized an alloy of titanium, Kevlar, or some other hardening substance as the leading edge of the wings and tails to ensure full penetration.

Agreed. The leading edges (and perhaps the entire skin and/or subframe) were coated with some heavy metal material that both slices or fractures steel at those speeds and possibly also vaporizes aluminum. Perhaps a specially coated depleted uranium (DU) which is more than double the density of steel and specifically employed to penetrate the armor of tanks on the battlefield. DU burns in air presumably if not coated.

Also most people don’t realize that aluminum in dust form is highly combustible and not a stable metal above certain temperatures. So if the impact turns the aluminum into dust per the F4 Phanton experiment, then the aluminum could perhaps burn.

Chris Bollyn wrote:

When the DU penetrator hits an object it breaks up and causes secondary explosions, Rokke said. “It's way beyond a dirty bomb,” Rokke said, referring to the terror weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.

Note the lack of identifiable aluminum debris could be the due to the fact that aluminum would probably vaporize at those impact speeds per the oft-cited F4 Phantom fighter jet experiment. It’s the near the “wing tip” slit in the steel fascia of the tower and lack of debris cloud at the impact with the steel fascia (before the explosion) in the videos that’s difficult to explain by that cited experiment.

I agree with the rest of Perloff’s excellent conjecture and research citing the plausibility of a customized 767 refueling tanker and the Israeli-Mossad-Zionist cabal connection.

Perloff quoted the anonymous Pilot A:

I wouldn’t say the engine is too small because it looks about the right size for the internal core part. I think people are comparing the size to what you see from the outside, but once you strip away the cowlings, shrouds and other stuff, the internal core is quite small. This clip indicates it is the wrong engine for the B767. However, Pratt and Whitney’s own website says that these engines were fitted to B767.

Nonetheless, I asked, isn’t the engine too big and heavy for someone to have dropped off?

Firstly, when the engine weight of 8000 Lbs is mentioned, this is generally a complete engine including Big Fan at the front, the multiple compressor stages and turbines complete with blades, various pumps, pipes and so much more like the pics I’ve attached for you or the video in the link. It is quite a large mass of hardware, but what we see in that Murray Street image is only a small portion of the engine, the rear or hot section where the turbines are. There is no big fan, compressor stages or ancillary components, so I think its weight looks closer to about a tonne. If that was a solid lump (which it isn’t) of titanium alloy, then based upon its size relative to the Murray Street sign I would put in the ball-park of between 750-1500kg, which a small 4 wheel box-van with a few big guys could roll off the back of in a few seconds after maneuvering the truck into position.

Jim Fetzer (aka James H. Fetzer) noted video of a suspicious van that may have been unloading something very heavy in the vicinity of where the above turbine engine core was found on the sidewalk:

Note however Perloff’s blog has other errors:

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

I linked in my blog to blogs which explain that shaped charges are capable of and have made circular “punch out” holes.

Black op #3: High velocity. . . tiny wings, so minimal G-forces.

G-forces are caused by the level of acceleration or deceleration, not by the size of the wings. I think what he meant to write is that the wing structure would be less vulnerable to failure due to high G-forces.

However, listening objectively, I felt his points were reasonable, and that there’s little denying that something wider than a missile struck the Pentagon‘s first floor (note the broad damage at the extreme bottom of the photograph, taken before the building collapse) […] Drones also resolve a tricky Pentagon-related issue. Although the lawn in front of the impact location remained pristine, five light poles were knocked over.:

As this blog of mine explains, nothing hit the Pentagon except for pre-planted explosives. And CIT has clearly proven that the downed light poles were pre-staged. They even have the taxi cab driver on video admitting it.

A drone with a missile-hardened nose, packed with explosives, would also account for the Shanksville hole.

The distinctive slit-shaped Shanksville hole was there long before 9/11 as seen on aerial photos perhaps and man-made because it’s an abandoned mine site. An explosive may have also been set off in the preexisting hole.

I also found another logic error in another of Perloff’s blogs:

I now believe, based on the collective phone calls, that there really was a “let’s roll” attempt to recover the cockpit, but with one difference: they were not retaking it from Muslim terrorists, but from Israeli special ops. Indications are that the passengers overwhelmed the terrorist guarding the cockpit and had begun breaching it. Remember, the flight attendants had a key of their own […] Let’s conjecture what possible scenario might have unfolded had 93 not been destroyed: the cockpit is retaken; the hijackers are subdued. One of the passengers, Donald Greene, was a licensed pilot. Let’s say Greene and the flight attendants, with coaching from air traffic controllers, were able to make a rough but successful landing.

On the one hand Perloff argues that the Israeli special ops “hijackers” would have had a copy of the master key to overpower the pilots. All 767 cockpits could be opened with same master key before 9/11. Then he posits they would leave themselves vulnerable to another copy of the key that the flight attendants have. That doesn’t make any sense. The Israeli special ops are utmost experts in their craft and they would have insured that the passengers can’t retake the cockpit. Also my blog cites “woody” who discovered evidence that the rogue pilots were inside the cockpit while boarding the passengers at the gate. Apparently no witnesses who saw the pilots who were officially supposed to be flying the planes.

(Note: one reason I believe the 9/11 planes were physically—not electronically— hijacked, is Flight 93’s behavior. When the passengers revolted, the plane began left-right, up-down motions to knock them off their feet. This sounds much more like a live pilot at the controls than a remote system.)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim that a real pilot would do herky-jerky vertical movements instead to cause the passengers to lose their footing. The barrel roll rotations aren’t sufficient to cause the passengers to lose footing.

The infamous Shanksville “hole” may have been from the discarded missile or drone that had been intended to attack the White House, the real plane wreckage being widely scattered.

Oh my, that kooky nonsense again. I do hope James will read my blogs and realize that nothing hit nor was intended to hit the Pentagon other than the pre-planted explosives.

(2) explosives planted by the “Israeli art students” at the level of the “airplane strikes”;

Cripes. More kooky nonsense psyops. The planting of explosives via the elevator shafts is well documented and I covered that in my blogs.

Regarding another matter James Perloff wrote:

However, there is a valid complaint often voiced in the Truth Movement, which runs like this: “I really don’t care how 9/11 was done and I’m tired of all the infighting about this. What really matters is, we know the government’s story is bogus, so we need to focus on identifying the criminals and bringing them to justice.”

I consider this a very legitimate grievance. But I don’t think we can separate “who” from “how.” When a prosecutor presents his case in a courtroom, he doesn’t name a crime’s perpetrator without describing how the crime was carried out. Nor does he present the jury with the crime’s details and methodology without identifying the suspect(s).

Writers in the truth movement need to appeal not only to the converted, but also to the skeptical. Thus as I have done in this blog, we need to be thorough and also debunk all the other possibilities that have been presented by doubters and disinformation agents.

Someone needs to write a very thorough book — a masterpiece treatise — that slamdunks the 9/11 truth. I hope my blog herein is an inspiration for someone to do so.

As an expert computer programmer, my talents are best utilized to code a way for such a talented and inspired writer to produce and distribute a multimedia book that can also include embedded playable video that is perpetually archived.

---

Why would they want to demolish the WTC?

Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. Its the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under tenanted and beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal and financial time bomb. And of course, they couldn't be demolished because of all the asbestos dust that would go into the air of NY. The NYPA had been trying to sell the buildings for years, and understandably, nobody was interested. In early 2001, the NYPA went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance company to pay for asbestos renovations. The case was thrown out. This should have made the buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this, Manhattan property developer Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of Westfield America, stepped in with a consortium worth $US3.2 billion for a 99 year lease on the site. Westfield Australia directly contributed $A840 million for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein insured himself for $US3.5 billion per terrorist attack, and Westfield insured itself against terrorism and loss of rental income.

Not long after, when the WTC conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack - along with building 7 of the complex - it solved the asbestos problem, leaving Silverstein with a clean building site on the best real estate in the world, and Westfield with a rental income which probably would have been unsustainable in a real trading environment, and no law suits over all the asbestos dust released into the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's insurer has agreed to the $3.5 billion pay out, but Silverstein is claiming that it was two terrorist attacks and wants $ 7 billion, which is currently the subject of a court case. (source)

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller explained that at the behest of former Presidents Bush and Obama, the FBI prioritized to counter-terrorism away from criminal detective work and prosecution. He said the leadership was prioritized to those who were in national security. IOW, it was a CIA (aka mafia) coup of the FBI.