I read yesterday’s New York Times as we were waiting to leave Boston. This weekend, the Times did a feature on the second anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. It turns out some new footage has emerged which captures the moment the plane struck the North Tower, the first of the two to be targeted.
The story of this amazing footage is here, but what is really amazing is watching the footage itself. The Times site has a link to some narrated scenes from the video. It is something you don’t want to miss. If you’ve got Macromedia Flash, cue it up.
At the end of the montage, the clip zooms in on United Airlines Flight 175 as it barrels towards the South Tower. Take a careful look at the fuselage of the plane, underneath the right wing. There is something attached to the plane which should not be there, something almost the size of a jet engine.
A look at this aircraft’s history in photographs doesn’t show any engine-sized appendages. At some point, it was either added to the aircraft (where it would be impossible to hide), or the aircraft that crashed into the tower was not Flight 175 after all.
Also interesting to note is how the explosion of the first aircraft is entirely different from that of the second one. This is in spite of the aircraft being identical models, flying for the same amount of time, and therefore having the roughly the same amount of fuel onboard. Why then is the first impact not the fiery wreck of the second? Where is all the burning aviation fuel? It could be that the first plane was not a 767 at all but a smaller plane. Initial news reports told of a small private plane striking the tower, which may explain the different damage.
While I’m leery of every claim being made about the crashes, it seems to me that there is more going on here than we have been led to believe.
The video from the Times is unlikely to have been doctored. It provides a view from the opposite angle of that which we’ve seen over and over. Could this “offical view” have been set up with the intent of hiding that thing beneath the wing?
Anyway, watch the video. See for yourself. Is it a fake? Or are we viewing evidence that proves a gang of illiterate, boxcutter-weilding hijackers are not the whole story?
Click here to see the strange appendage.
definitely some interesting footage…I do believe there is a lot more to the story than we’ve been told.
I do, however, have some problems with their theories. They basically imply that our government set this whole thing up just to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. That our government willingly killed thousands of American lives. To coordinate this effort, so goes the theory, they used soldiers and other personnel. My problem is that there is no way that this wouldn’t have leaked at some point. It just takes too much for no one to notice. They basically play off the soldier as automaton and cold-blooded killer.
I know plenty of soldiers who wouldn’t have done anything this site claims yet they make seem as if every soldier could easily do this.
You’re not the only one who has problems with their theories. But let’s take a look at the evidence.
If this video frame is authentic (and I have every reason to believe it is), it proves two things:
1. That is no ordinary Boeing 767, and also…
2. No amount of boxcutters would get that thing attached to the aircraft.
You can draw your own conclusions as to how and why it got there. Personally, I have a very short list of potential groups who could have added it, and the U.S. military is absolutely on that list.
As for the U.S. willingly killing Americans, educate yourself about Operation Northwoods. There are actual declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff documents detailing just this idea. After reading them, the idea that the World Trade Center attacks were an “inside job” doesn’t sound so far-fetched.
the military could have done it. Of course they could have, they have access and capability. Doesn’t mean they did…
Anyway, my point wasn’t that the US couldn’t/wouldn’t but that with such a complicated scenario we would have heard about it from someone by now. Heck, we still might.
To me, this is the scarier scenario because it’s more plausible.
linky