South tower impact - evidence of aircraft guidance?

Sorry if this has already been posted, but it may be significant.

I find it interesting to consider 9/11 from the perspective of the team who carried out the operation. It seems unlikely that they would have been content with the aircraft striking the towers randomly. If the buildings were to be damaged randomly, they could risk losing control of the ensuing meticulously timed demolition.

If they did select locations for aircraft strike, how would they control the collision? One plausible explanation may be that the target was 'painted' by laser targetting tool, in a similar fashion to how missile strikes can be directed.

The following film suggests that the target was 'painted' by a flying object, with the reflection appearing on an adjacent building.

I wonder if this video is genuine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

Theory Similar To Space Weaponry & Mini-Nukes

What is claimed to be a laser point obscured by smoke is apparently a rotating piece of airborne paper or similar object, that is visible across the field of view for WTC 2, then against the explosive fireball and finally against a building in the near foreground.

Its unchanging rate of motion with respect to background objects of differing distance demonstrates convincingly that the object is not a light projecting across the said background objects. The rate of travel from left to right would be higher for the closer background objects.

Clearly a floating object in the near foreground moving from left to right.

The 9/11 attacks were within the capability of the aircraft's autopilot systems under GPS guidance.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18414

no room for error in operation

I agree that it's important not to be sidetracked in our debate; speculation about sci-fi weaponry really doesn't help. On the other hand, I see no harm in considering a possibility which is within the bounds of readily available technology, if the video images suggest it.

We may be looking at different parts of the film.. I agree that the object passing in front of the building to the right of the South tower after the impact looks like a piece of airborne debris. What I was referring to starts at around 2:37 into the film. Before the aircraft impact, there is the appearance of a reflection on the building with the steeple. It appears to travel across that building in correspondence with the spot's travel across the South tower. Did you watch that part? What do you think? Of course, that could also be debris, but is less obviously so.

I checked out your highly interesting post on GPS guidance and I find it convincing. Returning to the planning of the operation however, given how much was at stake, they would have tried to minimise possibility of error. Wouldn't they try to mitigate the risk of freak cloud cover / momentary effect on GPS reading?

If the aircraft were to strike only a glancing blow to the tower, the demolition could not be carried out. The tower may be searched later and demolition materials detected... alternatively, the aircraft remains may have come to rest in the street or in another building, one which wasn't set for demolition.... and it could therefore have been scrutinised. The budget for this operation would have been exorbitant... they would have over-engineered everything, without fear of overspend. That includes aircraft guidance.

I don't wish to force the point - this video indeed may be a false lead, but I don't think the core idea is too fantastic. What do you think?

windspeed

Of course, if the object which passes the South tower and that which passes the building with the spire are simply debris, then their speeds would be comparable... they would be carried at similar windspeeds...

Motion Of Object Would Make It Unreliable Targeting Aid

For conversations sake, I tend to think that were the object in fact a targeting aid, its motion would make it unreliable.

In any event, it bears all of the characteristics of a very light object coasting across the field of view.

I have spent a great deal of time searching for a method by which the 9/11 aircraft attacks could have been carried out without pilot control and thus far, the only method apparently available is GPS guided auto-pilot control.

I tend to think any other method would require extra-ordinary research and development that would either be covered in aviation publications or create an evidence trail.

The auto-pilot/GPS method could be performed discretely. The 9/11 planes contained flight systems that allow them to fly virtually by themselves. The augmented GPS guidance provided extremely accurate and sufficient aircraft placement.

movement and angle would probably be unhelpful...

Yes and the beam's angle of incidence could possibly reduce effectiveness also...

As I understand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guidance), missiles either follow the incident beam onto the target (so called 'beam riding') or run counter to beams reflected from the target (so called 'semi-active radar homing').

Though I'm not an expert, I would guess that in the former case, the trajectory of the aircraft would be quite far off the beam's sight line, so may be of limited use. In the latter case, the angle of incidence would be so large, that the perpendicular component of the reflected beam may not be received by the aircraft's radar until just before impact (possibly too late to make use of the information)?

I am speculating..... in any case, your research looks solid and you're probably right. Thanks for your excellent contributions.

Evidence Suggests Targeted Floors Were Prepped.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 5:13pm.
NIST report | wtc

There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

Bingo

The common upgrade floors/impact floors/failure floors "coincidence" is probably the strongest circumstantial evidence of foul play.

It almost certainly proves that the buildings were targeted by precisely guided aircraft in such a way as to create an appearance of failure caused by jet impacts.

Remarkably calculated mass murder?

Yes, it's very powerful evidence

I would guess the probability of occurrence without design would be extremely low..

I have always wondered

I have always wondered why John O'Neil was summoned to that area on that day.

My only thought was that those areas had begun to be weakened, for better penetration by the planes, by a few of the thermite cutters and there was an unusual smell.
___________________
Together in Truth!

What justification was given for upgrading only a dozen floors?

Certainly is odd to upgrade only certain floors, unless there is some reason those floors are more prone to fire.

Do the upgraded floors correspond to the sites of impact?

Funny how we're always hearing, that if work were being done, someone would have noticed something. I have worked in many an office building where I heard odd noises, hammering, drilling, etc, but just ignored it, as did everyone else. Most people have a job to do, not enough time to do it, and can't be bothered with tracing the sources of extraneous noises.

upgraded floors / impact sites

They correspond perfectly for WTC1 and quite closely for WTC2.. see K Ryan's post, mentioned above by Joe.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

It's a staggeringly improbable coincidence.