The first parts of this update and the next two have been deleted due to they being old news, and to bring a more-important matter to topic.
Re-Visting the Boston Marathon and 9-11
I had missed the following photos of three actors wearing fake, blown-off limbs. Apparently, they all are missing limbs so that the fakes are simply connected mechanically to the stubs of their real limbs, which is exactly what was done to Jeff Bauman, the one who faked losing his legs at the Boston Marathon. He's the one who "identified" the Chechen brothers as the bombers because one of them happened to be one foot away from him when reportedly dropping a pressure cooker at his feet. In other words, if you are convinced that Jeff was a fake because, for one, his legs, like the ones you see below, were not dripping blood, then you also know that the FBI accused the Chechen brothers wrongly, but more importantly that the marathon bombing was a faked, pre-planned inside job.
There were some 250 reported injuries that day to exaggerate the event, and the extent of injuries was also greatly exagerrated, for in all the images of the aftermath of the explosion site, one could see only a couple of dozen injuries (my approximation from recollection) at most, and they were all minor. Although it was reported that many lost limbs / needed amputations, I can't recall more than one (Jeff) who was shown missing even part of a limb, but he doesn't count because he was a fake. See Jeff's images here.
If interested, see my lengthy treatment of the marathon starting in the April 16 - 22 update:
The point of re-hashing this controversy is that the fakers got away with it with only a small percentage of the population willing to admit to a conspiracy. What sort of leaders play such tricks on their people, and just how Hell-bent are they? Or, if they do this at home, why not also in the battlefield...where the "art" and "science" of staged events were likely initiated?
My conclusion was that injury scenes were created partly: 1) by videos and/or snap shots of actors on the sidewalk on the day of the marathon; 2) by tampering with those images before releasing them to the public; 3) by preparing images before the marathon. I also felt that there were many Internet insiders whose job it was to counter the conspiracy claims.
The webpage below has some objections made by Joe Quinn, who says that we would have a problem explaining how Jeff could have faked his injury because, if true, all his friends, co-workers and close relatives would have known.
But wait. Confined, legless people don't usually keep a job; they may not have any friends at all; and there are people who live far from family. What if Jeff lost his legs in war just weeks or months before the marathon, and what if he was in another country all that time? Suppose further that he didn't communicate with his parents or siblings; there are people like that who don't get along. No one in America may have known that Jeff had lost his legs. But even if he was on speaking terms with family, I can imagine insiders gathering entire families to perform staged events because family members are apt to keep the secret for the sake of not selling out their own kin. The entire family is paid off, in other words, to partake in the hoax. I can't imagine 99 percent of families going along with this, but there are crazies out there who number about one percent, and I do think they know each other, and get along.
Joe Quinn then remarks that the too-bright blood color on the sidewalk can be explained where half the blood in the body is brighter than the other half. But wait. All blood goes darker when outside the body. Doesn't it? But even if we disregard the color, the blood was dry or smear-proof, not allowing any shoe or foot prints to form off the stain. How can we explain that from fresh-spilled blood?
Look at the third picture in the webpage above, where the large blood stain is beside Jeff, where Jeff appears to be a "painting" or computer-created image pasted into the scene. I make that assertion because his face doesn't quite look like face of the man in the wheelchair, and because his sleeve doesn't have the large number of creases as it does in the wheelchair, even though the arms in both images are bent by the very same amount.
Just look at that big red stain. It doesn't look real, not just the color, but the conglomeration of shapes. Plus, as you can see in the fourth image, the hooded man (in grey) is just inches away from the bone protruding from Jeff's leg, and yet in the third picture he has moved to quite a distance from Jeff's leg, yet there is not one smear of blood from his butt or legs or feet sliding along the floor. The part of the blood that touches his leg is not, in my opinion, a smear from his leg dragged along. A smear has a certain look to it, but this image shows no such thing. There is no indication whatsoever in the blood stain that the hooded man was upon the blood stain, suggesting either that the stain was dry at the time, or that it was added to the scene by computer artists. The blood, if it were real, should not have been dry at that time, less than two minutes after the explosion.
Why is no one attending to Jeff, since he's the one who needs tending more than anyone else? Because, he wasn't really there at the scene (the man in a cowboy hat was an insider lying when he claimed to pick Jeff up off the sidewalk). And if Jeff was pasted in, then why not also the blood stain? One argument in opposition to a pasted blood stain is that the blood looks so fake. A paste job would have been able to achieve a much better impression of real blood. A paste job could have used a real blood stain from a police file, and could have added a few shoe prints / smears, and the shape wouldn't look so obviously faked. But if someone spilled / spread red substance at the sidewalk earlier in the day, then, with only one chance to get it on the pavement, it can explain why it was a rather poor job of reflecting a reality.
Where did all that blood come from beside Jeff? The only possibility is from Jeff, because the hooded man and the black woman (her face can be seen) between he and Jeff suffered only scratches / scrapes. But then why does Joe Quinn argue that we shouldn't expect any blood from those legs? He says, "I've spoken to several practicing doctors, all of whom have experience of serious trauma victims" Really, SEVERAL doctors? Where did he get access to speak on this matter from several doctors?
He goes on: "Not one of [the doctors] were surprised that there was not a large amount of blood squirting from Bauman's wounds. What most of them did say was that they had been surprised at the lack of blood when they first encountered trauma victims early in their careers, but that they were quickly able to understand it based on their prior knowledge of human anatomy, and that since then, they're never surprised at a lack of blood loss in trauma patients." What garbage, for we all know that pools of blood form from serious injuries, and there on the sidewalk even the fakers thought that they should add a pool of blood. So, who are these several doctors all of whom say that there shouldn't be much blood coming out the leg??? There looks to be about a quart of blood on the sidewalk beside Jeff.
Joe then turns on the medical jargon:
Even in the case that his femoral artery had been severed, arteries are sphincteral, that is to say, they spasm and contract when severed. This appears to be a natural life-preserving function of the body to prevent blood loss. When arteries are compromised, coagulation factors are also released that facilitate the formation of thrombi which minimize blood loss. Just like the formation of a scab over a wound. It is such an effective system that blood thinner drugs are often given to prevent the formation of these thrombi during surgery on an artery.
I'm no medical expert, but even I know that, unless a victim ties a severed limb hard with a cord or similar item, he will likely die very soon due to blood flow to the outside. We've all been told that as school children. Therefore, why is Joe taking you, or himself, for a fool? Jeff was portrayed upon the sidewalk fully conscious for about three or more minutes before anyone attended to him. The timeclock, visible in some of the images, suggested that Jeff remained unattended for at least the first two minutes...though in reality he was not there at all.
By the time that we see that big red stain, the black woman who was sandwiched between the hooded man and Jeff (in the 4th image) is gone. Who picked her up? She was shown in another image lying flat on a stretcher. But why are her shoe prints, or the shoe prints of any medic attending to her, not shown leaving the "blood" stain??? Or, why would the medic assist her, though she shows little blood on her person, and no obvious injury to speak of, yet leave Jeff writhing alone like that in his dire condition??? It's not reality, my dear confused ones. It's the devil's sons playing tricks on you.
Joe thinks it impossible for Jeff to start connecting, as soon as the bomb went off, the faked-injured legs to what little he had left of his real legs. I would agree. But, Joe is seemingly oblivious to the possibility that Jeff was pasted into the scene. Until we start to accept paste jobs as part of the trick, it will all be a very difficult thing to understand.
Joe thinks the bomb was real and powerful. I can't understand why he wouldn't allow for a smoke-bomb possibility. The evidence is such that the "bomb" was probably not capable of shearing limbs, and in truth EVERYONE at the scene may have been an actor, including many who entered the scene after the smoke cleared. Simply put, it is possible that insiders alone were permitted into the bomb-site stage, with the street controlled by certain authorities, and that the "bomb" was merely smoke and noise. The sidewalk where it happened was protected from the general public by construction-type scaffolding, and a wood-slat fence to boot. No non-insider could enter the area until after the "bomb" went off. The actors could have been ready-dressed while huddled inside the Lenscrafters store. The glass of that store front went outward, toward the street -- toward the bomb, that is -- rather than being blown away from the bomb, into the store; that in itself is a major problem for the creators of this hoax.
The difficulty I had with an everyone-was-an-actor scenario is the faking of hospital records and hospital stays. That would have required the wink from a hospital leadership, as well as various doctors and nurses acting their parts knowing full well that there were no injuries. At first, I decided to reject the all-actor theory for that reason, going instead with a bomb capable of doing some damage to human tissue. In this theory, only some of the people at the scene were actors; others were innocent non-insiders. The fact that there is a significant problem with that view is a good thing, because the process of elimination can help to arrive to the solutions.
If some of the people on the explosion site were non-insiders, they would have seen the actors spreading blood, or coming out the Lenscrafters store with ripped clothes, or getting undressed, or whatever. It would have been too risky. That caused me to wonder whether much of the blood was simply added to the scenes, with only a bit of it spilled and spread on the spot, and with some real blood from the slightly-injured victims. Later, but before the images were released to the public, all the blood could have been made the same color with a few clicks of a mouse. The possibility is that the actors were all in the Lenscrafters store when the real but minor bomb went off, to assure that none were hit by shrapnel.
But then, if some were actors, why not all? Why not just prepare the sidewalk with blood before the explosion, while no one can see from the street due to other actors standing along the fence? Those that were playing the part of injured victims with torn clothes, faked scrapes and blood stains, would come out from the Lenscrafters store, while others in normal clothes (there were quite a few whose clothes looked just fine) lined up along the fence to hide the others when getting into position and playing their parts for the cameras.
For the scrapes, cuts, scratches and small gouges, which may have been real in some victims but not formed by a bomb, real blood may have been used, spread by a brush or Q-tip or whatever. They would have been paid well for the pain suffered in creating the injuries. They would have helped the problematic issue at the hospitals because they had real "injuries." But even so, it required that hospitals were part of the hoax, though I don't think this is an insurmountable difficulty where the military and CIA are involved, for these organizations know a lot of people in all areas of life. They know their own kind.
Joe's article shares a link to a New York Times piece wherein we discover the FBI as the very cause of would-be terror acts inside the US. That is, undercover FBI officers pose as terrorists, and coerce (with money) Americans to commit a terror act in order to "sting" them i.e. arrest them. The very same can be done, not for the purpose of arrest, but for the purpose of furthering the war on terror with insider-created hoaxes.
In the Times article, the FBI is said to provide the victims with fake bombs. The Underwear Bomber is a good example of such a plot. The victims are not true terrorists as much as they are suckers for big money. "Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 [at least] were developed in sting operations."
Just because the FBI or CIA do not admit to the remaining eight cases does not necessarily mean that they didn't cause them too. In other words, there really are no al-Qaeda terrorists to speak of inside the United States; the whole of it is a scare perpetrated by the government, and the marathon is proof. The evil of the marathon is not to be overly minimized if it turns out that no one was injured, because pulling off such deception is for the purpose of taking (stealing) the peoples tax dollars for a global mission that they would not fund if only they knew the real reasons behind it. If you think the CIA and U.S. military are after a peaceful world in its globalist operations, think again. It is highly likely that the CIA pulls off Middle-East events identical to a sting operation, only in these cases real bombs are provided, and of course the "victims" are no longer such (i.e. they are not arrested), but used over and over again, if possible.
If the suicide bomber's family is paid off handsomely, it's possible to recruit suicide bombers using undercover CIA people to pose as terrorists. In case the NY Times article disappears, here is some of what it says:
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years -- or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naively played their parts until they were arrested.
It would be simple to pull off the marathon "bombing" using such a scheme if instead of using a dummy bomb, something a little different was chosen. The greater difficulty would be in providing the faked injuries, and manipulating (and spying on) them so that they don't blow the whistle. The danger is that, with a completely evil government, the "better" approach would be to use real bombs, especially after too much of the public becomes aware that government is faking terror plots. Short of a whistle blower involved in the plot, no one would know that the bombs were provided by FBI agents posing as terrorists. Another danger is that the FBI and/or CIA could become free radicals, conducting such plots without White-House approval / knowledge.
It is a simple thing for real terrorists to bomb American locations, if only the jihadists would offer sufficient money to Americans to conduct terror acts. In some cases, Americans would be willing to do it for free for Allah. Again, it is a simple thing to bomb or gas an American location. It is a simple matter to plan it inside the U.S. without tipping off the FBI. It is a simple matter to conduct a terror act inside the U.S. without using the telephone or internet in the planning; just meet and discuss the plot in person. The point is, there is no terror problem in the Unites States at this time, and there has not been a problem in the past, which explains why such things as the Underwear Bomber and the Boston Marathon were faked.
It is clear that 9-11 was a real-injury fake job. The massiveness of that event serves to show how utterly wicked the insiders have become, which is important for Christians who will come to be persecuted by the same people. Those same people are also the spies in the current spy scandals.
Perhaps the simplest way to explain 9-11 is where insiders simply paid the families of real terrorists to crash planes into the towers, etc., and in the meantime assure that they don't get caught boarding the planes and overpowering the pilots. Whatever happens after that point, in the media and in public opinion, would not jeopardize the non-Arab plotters unless it could be proven that they paid off the families. However, the evidence suggested that the 9-11 scheme was not conducted with suicide bombers. It is clear that the buildings were crumbled to the ground by insider demolition teams, begging the question of whether planes struck the buildings at all.
When I investigated this event, it was discovered that, prior to it, the city of New York effectively condemned the towers, requiring a massive (and expensive) repair or overhaul of the beam structure. There was much more to this affair that was leaking out; suffice to say that the towers were sold shortly before the disaster to a Larry Silverstein who must have been privy to the plot of demolishing the buildings in a faked terror plot; he successfully collected the insurance afterward. This solution, we can assume, was deemed a "better" way to deal with the structural problem than to fix it, but in the meantime, the demolition was conducted with an alternative motive: to start a war in the Middle East.
If you can imagine how many people had to be in collusion for carrying out such a plot, then you can begin to understand the scope of the rats who lead the American nation. It has the markings of Nazi mentality. It is too difficult to believe that a demolition team was not privy to the terror plot, but to minimize the risks, only a select few were chosen to do the work.
I do have a problem believing that the insiders paid off the families of some 20 hijackers without one very-troublesome leak from the Arab world. The flight 93 that supposedly went down in Pennsylvania was so-obviously faked (i.e. there was no downed plane at the scene, just a big smoking hole in the ground) as to prove without a doubt that there was not the full number of hijackers reported to us. Moreover, it became obvious that no plane struck the Pentagon, begging the question of whether any planes struck the World Trade towers. If not, then the task of recruiting 20 suicide bombers is a non-issue. The trick would more-simply be to hide / kill the 19 or 20 men who were listed as hijackers.
But then there was the problem of what to do with the four planes that were supposedly used in the crashes. It has got to be impossible to fabricate hundreds of American passengers who do not exist. Chances are high that all passengers were killed, aside from a few trusted insiders, when the planes came down at an undisclosed location(s). That picture is too difficult for some to believe because it requires collusion on the part of the Boeing airlines and at least one airport. Boeing would have needed to "hide" the planes afterward.
It is a simple matter to provide, to the public via news outlets, videos of planes crashing into the towers when in fact no planes crashed. The greater difficulty would be in creating holes in the towers with the shape of a plane entry. The round hole in the Pentagon wall was easily shown to be a fake using an explosive devise. It begins to show who exactly was involved in this hoax: the military establishment. It begins to show the lengths that they were willing to go in providing an excuse to enter the Middle East.
Could the demolition team in the Trade towers have provided explosives in a long line on an outer wall of a tower, so as to fake the entry of plane wings? I suppose so. The claim is not original from me. Others have supposed the same.
In my opinion, a plane flying at 500 miles per hour, regardless of being loaded with fuel, should not penetrate fully into a steel skyscraper. The main wing structure is a heavy steel I-beam with the "I" in the vertical position, meaning that the beam is far weaker when forces are applied to it in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction. As wings strike the columns (positioned vertically) of a skyscraper, the prediction is that a wing beam (can be viewed as one beam from wing tip to wing tip) will bend back toward the tail as the plane's main / center beam slips through into the building. It is not reality in my mind that a wing beam should slice though several dozens of skyscraper columns apart from suffering critical destruction itself in the process.
I would like to see a professional report on the extent of bending back predicted in a pair of wings while striking the skyscraper columns in successive poundings (the columns in the towers were rectangular tubing of known dimensions). The wings will begin to bend back on the initial pounding, upon the first skyscraper columns, but the leverage / torque force applied upon the wings increases manifold with distance out from the main / center beam ((let's call it the spine) of the plane, running from tail to cockpit. As the wings bend back, the distance between wing tip to wing tip decreases rapidly because the wings are on a significant angle to begin with. The two wings combined have nearly a V-shape to begin with, but the V will tend to close all the more when the wings pound against the columns.
The wings should eventually bend back such a degree that the holes in the tower walls should not be anywhere near the full factory distance from wing tip to wing tip. However, the distance from one end of a hole to the other can be measured knowing that the columns in the towers were 40 inches apart. Clearly, the holes in the buildings are long enough that they do not reflect any bending back of the wing beams, which, for me, is evidence that no passenger planes crashed into the buildings. I'll get into some details for the rest of this article.
It's difficult to find airplane information online that can be used to create doubt on 9-11. I know, I've tried. But I eventually found (webpage below) an excellent photo of a wing beam on a Boeing passenger jet. This beam is technically called a spar. At the webpage below there is a factory photo of the spar in production for a Boeing 777-300ER model. This spar is essentially an I-beam looking to be about 24 inches tall with top and bottom ends of about eight or ten inches. However, as the 777-300ER is longer and nearly twice as heavy as the ones that reportedly crashed into the towers, I would assume that the spars in the latter are of significantly-lower dimensions.
The section that looks to be about 24 inches is called the "web." See the I-beam article below where the "web" is defined as the part intended to take the load. However, in a situation where an airliner strikes a skyscraper, it's not the web of the spars, but the so-called "flanges" (the 8- or 10-inch sections) that take the force of the pounding. It's hard to say exactly, but the top and bottom parts of the spar above look to be less than a half-inch thick, or, safe to say, the flanges in the spars of a 767 will not be more than a half-inch thick.
Note that Wikipedia fails to show wing spars for commercial jets in its spar article. Why? Is there a black-out on info useful for showing 9-11 to be a hoax?
It is important to note, before going on, that the spars in the Wikipedia photo are connected with minimal metal bracing (ribs) not intended to handle the force of a plane crashing into a skyscraper. This bracing would have been demolished immediately upon contact with the New York towers so that the spar on the front of the wing would have been left un-reinforced by a spar further back. This situation would make the front spar more susceptible to snapping at the main/central beam of the plane, afterwhich the spar behind it could be predicted to snap off too. But we did not see the wings snap off in the images presented to us of 9-11. Instead, the wings were shown slicing through all columns with ease; no sections of the wings fell to the streets.
Have aircraft engineers concluded that the wings should not have snapped off at 9-11? Fine, but this doesn't mean the wings shouldn't have bent back considerably while resisting a snap. I'm very disappointed that there are no engineer reports, that I could find, speaking on this issue. Have they all been paid off or threatened?
The planes used in the 9-11 hoax were Boeing 757's and 767s, smaller than the 747. The operating empty weight of the 747 is about twice that of the 767-200ER Boeing used to crash into the first tower (the latter plane has an empty operating weight of 181,600 pounds, or about 90 American tons). Therefore, the spars in the planes striking the towers must have been significantly smaller in dimensions than the spar seen above for the 777-300ER. Plane design is always as light as possible so that using more metal in the spars than necessary is not logical.
Next, I must guess the number of spars (per wing) in the 767s. The following statement tends to argue for only two spars, for saving weight and costs: "Doubling the depth of a rectangular spar increases the [resistance to failure] by a factor of eight, which allows the spar to carry four times the [load] for the same maximum stress. Thus; halving the depth of the wing will require four times the number of spars to support the same total [load]." The reason for using many spars per wing, as are used in military jets, is to reduce the depth of wings, but in passenger jets, I'll assume that overall weight trumps maneuverability or other needs of fighter jets, wherefore I'll assume just two spars per wing in passenger jets. In an article on a Boeing 737, we find: "The wings are an aluminum alloy, dual-path, fail-safe, two-spar structure. Shear loads are carried by the front and rear spars, bending loads are carried by the upper and lower skin panels." There we go: just two spars.
Now, try to imagine a steel I-beam about 20 inches tall with top and bottom flanges eight inches (or less) wide -- and just 3/8 of an inch thick -- striking at 500 mph into several skyscraper columns, each of which were probably far stronger than a single spar. Do we think the wing beam is going to bend easily and drastically, perhaps to the point of snapping off completely, then stopping dead in its tracks against the tower columns, and falling to the New York street?? It wouldn't be an illogical thought. The situation seems to demand it. Where are the structural engineers who speak to this issue???
The skyscraper columns were likely no less than one inch thick at the height that the planes supposedly struck them. Those tower columns were 14 inches deep as a certainty, and from that information, they appear in photos to be about 10 inches wide.
If a baseball bat strikes an identical bat extremely hard, with both bats making contact at the same location along their lengths, the prediction is that both bats will snap in two. You will not be able to use the same bat to snap 20 other bats while the one remains unsnapped. In the same way, if a wing spar with y resistance to breakage strikes a column with equal resistance to breakage, the spar should be cut through if the column is cut through. Yet, in the case of the New York towers, we are to believe that each wing plowed through some 20 columns, breaking each one, without suffering any bending, let alone snapping itself. Is that reality to you? No, it cannot be the reality if the columns were stronger than the spars. And that's why no one online seems to know how thick the column steel was at the "crash" site, because it is a well-guarded secret.
Someone might argue that the tower columns were not sliced through so much as the bolts gave way where one column connected to another. However, I've seen the construction of the Trade-tower columns; the bottom end of one slips into the top end of another socket-style, a very strong construction method as compared to the flange-and-bolt method. Besides, in pictures of the towers, one can clearly see some of the columns sliced through in middle locations i.e. where the columns did not connect to one another. You should be very suspicious with that picture if you've got a good sense of building materials.
The other plane out of Boston, the one that struck the second or south tower, was likewise a Boeing 767 having the the same dimensions and total weight as the airliner that struck the north tower.
At the webpage below, see the hole in the north tower spreading across a width of 42 or 43 columns, but then the hole is not perfectly horizontal so that, if indeed the airliner created it, its wing span was more like 46 beams across. As there were 40 inches between columns, the math (46 x 40 inches) works out to a hole measuring about 153 feet long, almost exactly the 156-foot wing span of the plane that reportedly crashed there. We are therefore to believe that the wings did not bend back whatsoever.
If you are not understanding me, let me explain. The insiders made sure to create a hole in the tower exactly as long as the wing span of a 767-200 model. The insiders thus look like simpletons, not considering that the wings should bend back until the wing-tip-to-wing-tip distance was significantly less than 156 feet. If they were not simpletons, they were banking on the public being so.
If you are unsure of the math that gets 153 feet above, here is how I know the 40-inch distance between columns:
The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007 [the insiders withheld / hid / burned that data for six years]...
...For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.
The article above suggests that the thickness of the tower columns, at the height of the airplane holes, was at least one inch thick:
Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick. The top figure in the illustration to the right is a cross-section of one of the smaller core columns from about half-way up a tower, where the steel was about two inches thick...
Again, let me put this to you so that you see the potential for a monumental fake job. The wing spars were probably no more than a half-inch thick, probably less than half as thick as the tower columns. On each side of the plane, the two wing spars (approximately 10" x 20"), when acting back to back as one force, were probably less strong than one tower column (14" x 10"). If it can be proven that each wing was weaker than one column, then I think we have a serious case for fraud. And that's why the needed information is so hard to find, for one, because Boeing isn't allowing anyone to have the dimensions of the spars on the 767s. But someone out there knows the answer. Even a lowly Boeing mechanic should know. Perhaps Boeing has left the image out there of the spar on a 747 hoping that we would assume the same size spar for the 767.
Spars may be bolted to the spine of the plane. Some spars are continuous (one piece) from wing to wing, but others are bolted between wings. The continuous spar may in some cases penetrate through the I-beam that I call a spine (shows my ignorance on the topic), though the spine is said to sit on top of the spars in other cases. If the spar is continuous, then they have a bend at the middle to as much as a 65-degree angle (= the V-shape). Correct me if I'm wrong, but once a beam has been bent that much, it is susceptible to further bending with more ease.
At the page below, the direction of the 14-inch section of the columns is shown in a photo near the bottom of the page. The columns were designed so that the strongest resistance to force (i.e. the 14-inch part) was streetward, meaning that an aircraft wing would go, not against 10-inch resistance, but against the 14-inch section with TWO, not just one, 14-inch "webs" (I don't know the technical terms for the parts of rectangular columns).
Flight TWA-834 suffered a broken wing spar after merely striking the runway once, perhaps twice. I can't imagine 20 poundings against the runway, anyway. The plane was a Lockheed L-1011, having a wing span of 155.3 feet, almost exactly that of the planes that hit the Trade towers, but weighing much more:
On July 30, 1992, the captain of TWA Flight 843 aborted the takeoff shortly after liftoff from JFK, in response to a false stall warning. The aircraft landed too hard, breaking a wing spar and starting a fire. All 292 passengers and crew evacuated safely, with only 10 minor injuries.
Consider how slow that plane must have been moving in comparison to a suicide mission against the Trade towers? Naturally, its wing must have come down against the pavement with the web of the spar in resistance to breakage, and yet it broke. Consider how much easier that spar would have broken if coming against the skyscraper with only the flanges of the spar in resistance to breakage. Clearly, planes did not strike the towers.
The remaining question is whether the wings should have ceased penetrating the buildings at some point during entry, thus falling to the streets below. An engineer might be able to figure that the spars (or even then entire plane frame) should have come to a halt before all 42 beams were struck. I think this would be a fairly simply calculation for a typical structural engineer, if he knew the dimensions and type of steel used in the spars and columns.
To boot, the hole in the 1st tower was at such an angle that the wings struck three floors, meaning that they also plowed into the re-inforced concrete floors. This too would have had the effect of slowing the wings. Now, look again at the hole in tower one, and spot the woman highlighted in the red rectangle (my heart sinks when I see her, and her blood cries out). The wing spar would have been about as high as her knee from her feet. Then look to the far left, where there are gaps in the beams of about two feet wide. It suggests that spars at the wing tip, the last part of the wing to penetrate after much plane energy was absorbed, just sliced though those beams like a hot knife through butter. Is that reality, or the fabrication of fakers? Shouldn't the wing tips have bent toward the tail rather than slicing through like that??? Of course.
The approximate 20-inch section of the spars are of virtually no use in exerting force when striking flat on their faces. If not for the flange section of the spars, the 20-inch section would bend like cardboard in this situation.
Total weight (of the plane with fuel and passengers) x the velocity = the momentum or force of the initial strike. That can be figured out very easily to a maximum figure at the maximum speed of the plane. The mystery question not so easy to answer: how much force would each tower column absorb when sliced through by the flat / blunt edge of the wing spar? If you're an engineer, please get me an answer based on the dimensions you might assign to the columns at the height of the holes. I'll publish your numbers.
There are some who think that the walls of the building were detonated by explosives at the very moment and location of plane impact, so as to allow the planes easier entry. This theory, I assume, is due to the reports of people seeing or hearing a plane(s). However, we should expect false witnesses by the scores in this hoax. It was required that the planes enter fully in order to cause the fires by which the insiders claimed the cause for the tower collapses. But the theory has a fatal flaw, unless I'm not seeing something. If the detonation of explosives opened the pathway through the columns for the plane to enter, then the pilots (may have been remote pilots) would have been like the gods in order to get both planes to enter through the thin slits that we see cut through the columns. I don't buy that. I would rather believe that there were no planes at all. Plane overflights, yes, possibly.
The "tornado effect," where pieces of straw, for example, pierce tree bark at high velocities, is sometimes used to explain how the planes went through the tower beams so easily. However, if a piece of straw struck the other way, along its side, it could of course not penetrate the trunk, let alone break the trunk in half.
A better example is a bat made of maple wood attempting to break a maple trunk twice as much in diameter, If the bats breaks in half when striking at 200 mph while the trunk doesn't break in half, one could argue that the bat, when brought to a velocity high enough to become more forceful than the force needed to break the trunk, would in fact break the trunk. Fine. The point is, however, the bat doesn't go unscathed in the process. The bat doesn't break the trunk and remain in one piece itself, no matter how fast the bat's flying. I'm right about that, I am sure.
In the same way, taking a wing spar and using it as a bat against a column that's stronger to begin will with prove to split the spar in half if the column itself is broken through. Right? Yes, I'm sure. It doesn't matter that the spar is in motion while the column is not; it doesn't give the spar a cutting-through advantage to be the object in motion.
I don't know what the marked or desired bending ability is either for skyscraper-column steel or wing-spar steel (no bending ability is likely dangerous in windy situations), but I've seen pictures of the aftermath of the 9-11 disaster with columns bent in full loops, in the shape of a 'U'. No breakage at all to that point. One might therefore expect that the columns at the holes in the towers should be bent back much more, rather than cut clean through without noticeable bending.
Admittedly, there is a physics property wherein a sharp or thin thing can slice through a bendable object when there is sufficient velocity. A fast machete cutting through a dangling rope, for example, will not bend the rope much. However, I don't think this property applies with an object so blunt as a 20-inch wing spar striking merely at 500 mph against an equally strong member. If a machete strikes another machete of equal properties, will only one be sliced through but not the other? I don't think so. In any case, I do not think that blunt objects such as jetliner spars and tower columns can cut clean though one another at merely 500 mph.
The videos presented to the world at the south tower were such that calculations of plane velocity reached about 600 mph, which can be expected of the fakers; they needed that fastest velocity possible in order to help their desperate case. Wikipedia lists the maximum cruise speed of the 767 as 567 mph.
I think that high-heat chemical, such as thermite, cut through the columns so as to give the appearance of wings cutting through them. It's a very logical claim. There are thermite experiments online that are done in relation to explaining 9-11.
One might argue that the two engines would have taken care of some of the 42 columns, yet, still, the engines are connected to the wings (I'm assuming to the spars) and would therefore transfer all impact forces to the spars.
In 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building, knocking a hole into it 18 feet wide and two stories high on the 79th floor. The plane was reportedly moving just 200 mph, and it weighed far less than Boeing 767s. Although the building is over 100 floors, yet this accident appears (from a photo below) to be about six floors from the top of a certain section, meaning that the steel columns were not required very thick at the crash location.
In this webpage, there is a photo showing the underside of an I-shaped column (just one web, not two as with the New York towers) in the hole; I would guess that the column (web and flanges) is about a half-inch thick. I see only one beam sheared in half in the approximate center of the 18-foot width. There may not have been another beam that was struck. Lower down the page, one can see that the plane struck smack between two closely-set windows, and, I think, there is a column running up between the windows; it looks like the only column that was damaged. The wings did not penetrate into the building, and must therefore have fallen to the ground.
No one here is saying that the full force of the 767, when the spine of the plane struck the first tower column, didn't break sheer through column. What I am saying is that, after the wing spars pounded a few columns in succession, somewhere along the way, the spars themselves would have broken drastically rather than the columns (assuming that the columns were weaker than the spars to begin with). The good news is that force is equal to weight x velocity, nothing more complicated than that. There is no square-ratio involved, just straight multiplication, meaning that twice the weight gets twice the force, and twice the velocity gets twice the force. With that in mind:
The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had "an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds" ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf ).
The plane that struck the Empire State Building was therefore seven to eight times less forceful due to weight, and about three times less forceful due to velocity, for a total of 20-25 times less forceful. It seems clear that the one column seen broken clear though by the B-25 was struck by the plane's central beam or spine. The weakest link were the bolts / welds that held the engines on, for both engines detached from the wings. I don't know whether the wing spars detached from the spine.
Now, the World Trade towers had rectangular columns (i.e. two resisting webs rather than one) as opposed to the I-beam at the ESB, which looks (in the photo) to be no more than 12-14 inches across. Where the WT columns were twice as thick as the I-beam, they resisted more than four times the force. Suddenly, where the potential to break through a column was 20-25 times greater for the 676s, the potential is now down to about five times. This means that, because the wings of the B-25 were not capable of breaking through one column, the 767s should not have been capable of breaking through more than five columns. To put it another way, after striking five columns, the total forward force of the 767s was reduced to the point equal to the full forward force of the B-25, the latter unable to break through half-inch, I-beam-configured columns with its wings.
There is yet another factor to consider: the fuel-tank explosion, which, according to the 9-11 videos, started at initial impact. I've read that fuel tanks in passenger jets are situated between the front and rear spars. If that's true in the case of the 767 Boeing, then I would expect that the explosion should have had the effect of bending (or at least trying to bend) the rear spar toward the tail while bending the front spar toward the building. When the explosion detached a front spar from a rear spar (remember, the spars are held together by light ribs), the rear spar was rendered of absolutely no assistance to the resistance capability of the front spar...which is yet another argument in favor of those who claim that the jets could not fully penetrate the buildings while slicing through a row of 42 or 43 columns.
The WT tower columns did not have free ends, but the spars did. The spars were therefore levers predicted to bend drastically where they connected to the spine...until they snapped off completely (unless the spar material was so "soft" that it could take that sort of bending). The holes in the towers are such that we are supposed to believe that even the very tips of the spars cut sheer slices though columns rather than bending back. In all honesty and impartiality, I can't accept that view under any predictable circumstances.
I can't recall which, whether increasing the distance from the fulcrum by two increases the leverage force by four or eight, but in any case leverage is a powerful force. Someone taking your outstretched arm and bending it back while holding your hand is far more powerful than when pushing the arm back while holding your elbow. In the same way, leverage on the spars increased drastically with distance away from the connection between the spar and spine, which connection is to be viewed as the fulcrum.
Let's focus on a spar striking only one column to show what would have taken place in that fast moment of time. At contact point, the part of the spar outward from the column (i.e. toward the wing tip) would continue moving forward, meaning that this section of the spar would start to bend forward, toward the tower. In the meantime, the part of the spar inward from the struck column would bend back away from the tower. The spar would therefore have started to take on a C-shape while starting to wrap itself around the column. With every successive strike upon a column, the C-shape would develop more deeply.
In the first few strikes, the bending toward the building of the long section of a spar would have been exceedingly more pronounced, due to the leverage principle, than the bending toward the tail of the short section of the spar. The prediction is that the longer section would have eventually come crashing perfectly parallel with all the columns in its path, which makes it exceedingly more difficult for that spar section to slice though all the columns.
It's one thing for a spar striking with the airplane's full force against one column at a time, but quite another thing for the full force to be shared by many columns all at once. The latter is the situation when the spar bends so far forward that it strikes parallel with a row of columns. This argument is where you can know for certain that the wings could not penetrate the towers.
What happens after the spars are perfectly parallel with the row of columns? As a spar is now incapable of slicing though the columns, it would bend backward from the fulcrum with all the remaining forward force (if it hasn't detached from the spine by that point). The plane may continue to enter the building, but only as long as the spars bend back. If they refused to bend back due to insufficient forward force remaining, the plane would reach zero velocity.
Especially for new or confused readers
MYTH CODES 101
shows where I'm coming from.
For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics
Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents