MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[John White]

[Ally]

what drivel john

1) - less than 30 'amatuer cameras' caught something hitting the WTC, most appears fake, i.e. pods, missiles, disappearing wings, titanium nose cones etc. The witnesses flat out contradict each other too.

2) plane debris on roof is uncharred, the engine under the tarplin was placed there and didn't land there from impact as it managed to get through the tiny gap in the scaffolding and tarpalin. The engine parts have never been identified so we have no idea if it came from 11 or 175.

3) why still peddling holo-memes? Any witnesses see a global hawk?


4) can't comments on the rantings of the misinformed.

[John White]

[Snowygrouch]

Global Hawk is a system rather than a description of the craft itself.

Its a software and avionics collaboration that allows a human being at a remote location to have access to the fly-by-wire systems of a suitably modified aircraft.

It was suggested in US press less than 2 weeks after 9/11 by corporate cheifs that this was the excuse needed to install global hawk systems in all airliners to avoid the possibility of hijacking (well hijackiing by arabs anyway....)

Aircraft parts thrown from an impact are also rather unlikely to be "charred" as they were not sitting in the inferno but lying on a roof.

Nobody knows if the plane parts were from the exact flights claimed, however the fact is that two large planes of a similar type to large commercial airliners hit the buildings. To deny this is odd behavior.

If even 9/11 truth people are unable to accept no-planes how exactly do you ever imaging the populace could take such ideas seriously?

They cant, wont, wouldnt and any no-planer who has a hard think know it.

Its a blind alley that will never and cannot every produce useful results for 9.11 truth.

I cant believe people are even still talking about th.....................*gone*

[Ally]

round and round the mulberry bush we go john, get back to me when you've read all this and are capable of refuting it please.

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

[Ally]

[John White]

Ive already spun once around this mulberry bush, and what Ive found is some folk adddicted to spinning around

Why should I bother when Ive got a perfectly credible CD theory to pawn 911 with?

Every single plane image has to be fake for "No Planes" to work: every single one: equally every single eyewitness has to be either lying or deluded

why not admit that Ally?

Its what Sherlock Holmes is left with when he gets his Coke dosage wrong and decides everything BUT the impossible is impossible in a mind addled funk

[Ally]

All the footage of 175 has been MANIPULATED, there I said it, feel better now john?

The witnesses CONTRADICT each other so who do you believe?

Now back to Marcus, what u reckon?

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

[John White]

I felt fine in the first place Ally, though thanks for your concern

its hardly an astounding revelation, but I do find it helpful to be clear on what we are discussing here, as you say, that:

[John White]

[Snowygrouch]

Newbie?

Yep, Whatever

If you look at the aircraft impact speed study from NTSB (Oooh wonder WHO got that before anyone else did direct from Washington DC, errr ME the Noob) you see the way the report calculates the speed is to estimate the position of the plane in various frames.

No ultra high tech wizardry, just a bloke and a screen.

So your page saying the differing speeds for impact as proof of fakery is very naive and not well researched. You see the NTSB report admits this technique is open to human error and the quality of available footage. They say that the speeds are fairly rougly calculated and that a prescice figure is impossible to obtain. Differences are because they speeds are estimates. This is not proof of anything but what happens when you ask several different people to analyse the same vague data in their own way.

Watch who you call Noob.

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Below is the summary of one of Ally's attachements if you read all of this you might have a better understanding of where the no planers are cominf from.


Conclusion

Having looked over films and photographs of the UA175 aircraft and considered Boeing 767-200 performance issues I can safely say that the UA175 aircraft was not a production model Boeing 767-200 manufactured in Seattle or any other kind of conventional aircraft. After studying the witness reports it would appear that the real WTC2 strike operation consisted of 2 elements:

Element 1 - The Airborne Illusion

According to the witness reports an aircraft of some sort was seen to collide with, and subsequently vanish inside of, the WTC2 tower. This is a physical impossibility for a real aeroplane. The effect could have been achieved by some sort of airborne illusion that would fool witnesses into believing a real aircraft had collided with the WTC2 tower.

Element 2 - The Media Hoax

There is sufficient evidence contained in this article to identify the second element of the WTC2 operation which is the media hoax. One of the purposes of this media hoax was to provide specific images of a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with and vanish inside the WTC2 tower and perhaps conceal any visual weaknesses of the existing optical illusion. The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission / reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200. The UA175 aircraft may have been added any given photograph to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200.

The reason for this "two pronged" modus operandi would have been because while planning the 911 atrocities the Perpetrators realised that flying a real jet into the WTC2 tower was not going cause enough damage to publicly justify the collapse of the structure using the 'burning jet fuel' theory. As the Perpetrators needed 911 and the eyes of the world were going to be focused on the Trade Towers something that looked believably like a Boeing 767-200 had to be deployed and seen to be flying into the tower. The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display.

The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn't get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to 'plug the gap' and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event. The media hoax also concealed the type of aircraft, its livery and its trajectory.

This media hoax element however, was not 100% successful for 3 reasons. Firstly, the witness reports didn't add up. Some did see something that resembled a passenger jet flying into WTC2 but couldn't positively identify it as a Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. Secondly, someone or some group inside the media fabrication operation blew the whistle by producing defective fakes that could easily be discerned from the legitimate fakes and then mixed them in with the remaining media. Under close scrutiny these deliberate fakes can be exposed, but to the layman they remain invisible. Thirdly, some of the fake film and photographs were not of a sufficient quality and could be detected by a discerning eye or the process of photographic analysis.






Afterward



Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this. Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing, lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting, descent path angle and airframe attitude.

Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.

It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.

So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows". The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

There was only the illusion of an aeroplane plane colliding with, and subsequently vanishing inside of, the tower. It is this illusion that is the foundation for the Hologram Theory along with the physics of aircraft impacts which tells us that a Boeing 767-200 could not have penetrated the tower so completely and vanished inside. It should have crumpled up on the towers facade and exploded.

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Well John

Please tell us what your theory of went on that day with the alleged flights

[John White]

A Plane hit one building. Anyone on board was killed, and lots of folks in the immediate area of the impact Then, after a little while, a Plane hit another building. Again, anyone on board was killed, and lots of folks in the immediate area of the impact. There were some fires 'n that in both buildings, not too hot, controllable. Lots of confusion and running around. Then some b****** murdered everybody still inside with explosives, and many more outside hit by debris, plus many many more still being murdered today by the effects of the toxic pulverised dust. The same b****** have since killed a stack load more people since too

And why is that theory hard for you TWSY3?

[Ally]

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

John

I can see you have a sense of humour hiding somewhere - you must have because you are depicting yourself as Wurzel Gummidge

[John White]

No mate, thats the other actor

Facts are pesky things, arnt they?

[scar]

[catfish]

This from ten years ago, the rest of the site is mostly classified:

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm

I found this bit very interesting:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm

You can even buy a little one for £200:

http://www.laser-magic.com/holographicprojection.html

Holograms are real, just 'cos you haven't got one doesn't mean they're not! Get over it!

[scar]

[John White]

[catfish]

I know, I like the war of the worlds theory myself

[John White]

[catfish]

The red light on top of the ufo could also be a laser death ray. The enormous grey mechanical arm must be for smashing and picking stuff up.

I think the shiny bit on the bottom is the viewing window so they have full 360 degree vision.

[LBC]

The day's natural light is reflected off the planes accurately. To state these planes are 'holograms' would be hilarious if it didn't undermine so much good research on the matter.

So, are we to actually believe these 'projections' actually were set up with the days natural light bouncing off them? Are we to believe that these projected simulations were actually pre-programmed based on exactly where the sun was at at that time? No matter what angle you see these planes from, no matter how far out, the light reflection is correct. And what if some cloud had come out? What then? We'd've had planes bouncing pre-programmed light even though the sun had become obscured behind cloud.

These were real planes which scattered real debris, which people captured on their digital cameras, their video cameras; real planes which cause real damage; planes which move so fast when striking a building that you cannot compare it to a truck hitting a wall.

Funny, no one seems to mention these planes which struck the buildings making no sound whatsoever (because they did) - out of all those people who were below, no one ever mentions that (and you'd still need a majority saying that to convince) - but because there's a bit of video footage with a plane going overhead and you can't really hear it the conclusion is suddenly jumped to that it must then be a hologram.

The No Planes theory is absolutely totally absurd. Pure Sci-Fi without Buck Rogers to the rescue.

A solid object, correctly reflecting the day's light, shadows, etc:

[James C]

[Leiff]

Thanks for this thread - it has convinced me!

That is - convinced me that the 'No Planes at the WTC' theory is total disinformation.