MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[Mark Gobell]

John

Your previous post indicated that you thought it possible that there might be an exit wound between floors 82 and 84

We can see that area in tact here.

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

I'm beginning to realise why I've read about the WTC2 hit being debunked.

Maybe all this means is that the projectile pic is fake?

[John White]

[scar]

Thats very interesting fellas. Ian Crane spoke of this 'missile' in his talk last night actually. speculating perhaps it 'might have hit building 7' also noting the white trail as a sig of DU. Yet no hole there that i can see. Certainly not big enough for the 'engine' to pass through. Weird stuff.
Dont usually go on the Loose Change forum but was havin a browse this morning, few related threads with some good arguments and a LOT of flaming:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=108 64
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=645 3&st=0
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=115 35

Im sure many here will have followed the drama... for those who havent tho...
I must say the heavy/aggressive gatekeeping served to make me even more intrigued.
Interesting how the 'podders' attack the np theorists with the same venom they have received. Npt if true destroys the already discredited pod anyway. Hence the venom perhaps.
This find of no exit hole also does in a way as the 'missile' could be said to be that of the pod...
hmmmmmmmm

[andrewwatson]

but don't you see, Mark. this is mega.

We have established beyond reasonable doubt that the projectile picture is a fake. Once we know that. the whole bloody can of worms comes wriggling into view. It's inescapable , whether we like it or not, and I wish some of those ****** over on 911blogger.com, where Killtown and I have been trying for days to get this fact across, could see what is 'in plain sight'.

I question their commitment to the truth. And they can quote me on that.

[John White]

Andrew, do you have a link for the projectile pic handy? happy to search, but if its on hand....

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

I've always had my doubts about that engine pic.

The convenient street sign being the seed.

[James C]

[andrewwatson]

Judge for yourselves where the exit hole should be.

http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-4.html

[John White]

Well the diagrams clearly show the exit path being actually on the corner...very hard to determine, the structure certainly seems intact on the north face of the corner...though there must have been some extra force behind there to bow it out

Looking at Andrew's link Im not even sure anything exited the North face...well that was'nt fragmentised or ignited fuel

[Mark Gobell]

James

I am not dismissing anything, just expressing doubt as to the authenticity of this picture, given the conveniently situated and eminently readable Murray Street sign providing context.

The engine has already prompted a response in April 2005 if this Rense article is genuine. According to this it is not a 767 engine, but a 737 engine. http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

Boeing 767-200 specs are here:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

[Mark Gobell]

[James C]

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

James, do you think something did physically exit WTC2 ?

If so we'd have a hole in the north face wouldn't we ?

[James C]

[Mark Gobell]

This picture provides a much clearer view of the probable exit wound.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm

[James C]

[andrewwatson]

Yes that could be it. Doesn't look in the right place though.

[Mark Gobell]

Andrew

Scroll down the Serendipity page to the two small pics side by side with the engine pic on the right.

This pic clearly shows the NE corner better than the Killtown pics.

The metal skin is bowing out.

The trajectory I've seen from three sources all agree the NE corner is the exit wound and not the North face.

[Mark Gobell]

So, if indeed that NE hole is where something exited WTC2 then that means that something exited WTC2.

I have seen the site below many moons ago and it seems to be a comprehensive evaluation of all the stills and video available for UA175 or whatever it may have been and a record of eye witnesses.

It's referred to as the Ghost Gun site I believe.

I searched the forum before I posted this link and got 4 hits.

I haven't had time to look at it all so I'm not pushing it as it were just posting for those who are interested.

Last updated Sept 2006

There is this summary called A Plane Huggers Worst Nightmare - 7 Irrefutable Proofs of the WTC2 Media Hoax

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/7proofs/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

The home page has all the links likewise for AA11 and has a good bash at Salter to boot.

Enjoy !

PS - Don't shoot the messenger. Please.

[TonyGosling]

What is the point of debating the unprovable?

I'll tell you what I believe the point is, to detract from the fact that we have plenty of hard facts about 911 which we need to be getting out to the unbelievers, the ill informed and the frightened.

All this squabbling over unprovable points does absolutely nothing to move the matter onward and outward.

It only sucks out our souls.

IMHO real planes made of metal did hit the towers and not any kind of clever experimental or illusory planes.

That doesn't mean they were the same scheduled airliners that took off that morning - and that may be something we can prove through stills and frame grabs of video shot on the day.

All the in depth discussion of ballistics and the behaviour of big chunks of metal travelling at several hundred miles per hour must be subject to scrutiny or peer review in journals to have any credibility whatsoever rendering, in my opinion, this whole thread a waste of time and energy.

And who does that serve?

[Ally]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I find it strange that we have universal agreement that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition (because of visual evidence and the laws of physics)

Yet the pro planers still believe that these planes could defy the laws of phyics by passing through a solid object and meet no resistance - with visual evidence that no plane parts rebounded off the side of the building and fell to the ground.

Anyway maybe somebody can expand on this thread

Aviation experts say it would be extremely difficult and dangerous to fly passenger jets at between 500 and 600 mph (the extimated speed of whatever it was) at such a low height.

THE PRO PLANERS HAVE YET TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION ON THIS - I'M STILL WAITING

So what sort of plane can safely fly at those speeds at low altitude?

Graphic's favoured theory is a smaller plane that generated a hologram of a bigger plane around itself - however this smaller plane would not be able to pass through the building without meeting resistance - the only thing that could pass straight through would be a missile - so as we are allowed to do (change our minds) I now favour just a missile shrouded by a hologram (projected from somewhere - itself, a helicopter or building 7)

Your thoughts?

[James C]

I certainly don't like no-plane/no 7x7's theory. I am a plane hugger.

However, this is a forum and by definition it is a debating chamber to discuss the evidence. I might not agree with Ally and THETRUTHWILLSETU3 or with anyone else who claims the planes were fake but I cannot remove their right to promote their theories - even if it does anger me sometimes. Whether I agree or not on any subject on this forum, I always end up learning somthing new from these debates and that can only be a good thing.

Contrary to what I might say in the heat of the moment, I can't see anything wrong with discussing this subject - this is probably the best place to do so. But it does worry me that certain individuals are doing lectures promoting this stuff publicly as if judge and jury has already established this theory as fact when this thread highlights that the evidence for no-plane theory is certainly not conclusive.

[Ally]

How come those in fieriest opposition to analysing the physical evidence from 911 are also obsessed with peak oil and ranting on about it at every chance?

mikeruppert anybody?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

James said

this thread highlights that the evidence for no-plane theory is certainly not conclusive.



James (as a no planer)

These are not the words of somebody 100% sure they are right - do I detect you are having a few doubts?

Please share them with us if you have any

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]