woman waving where the plane hit ..TV fakery again

[flamesong]

Err... no, I don't think I'll bother.

I've played this game with you before, Ally. Y'know, Go-Fetch™.

You want to prove a point, you get the evidence.

As far as the David Copperfield did it theories go, I kept my mind open long enough to see that every bit of evidence presented is flawed by a poverty of analysis. For me the case is closed.

[Ally]

fairynuff, but you know I keep rabbiting on about the nose of the plane emerging from the WTC intact on several shots, when you look at the South Tower exit wound there seems no evidence that's what happened which leads me to writing of those clips as fake.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm < compare that to >

[flamesong]

But, Ally, I don't find it at all surprising that remnants of the fuselage passed through the building, obviously between floors, and were then blown apart by the pursuing fireball. The close up in the video shows the 'exit' is to the left of the building's corner. The photo you uploaded does not, in my view, show enough detail to the left of the corner to disprove that remnants of the fuselage had 'exited' there.

[Ally]

Flight attendants remains found at Ground Zero 5 years on.

[telecasterisation]

[flamesong]

I don't see evidence for much more than blurred remnants in frames 100 to 103 of this much enlarged close-up. If you want to debate about what may be little more than a lump of wreckage, go ahead.

Incidentally, is it not likely that the nose cone was made of carbon fibre? A substance which, prior to kevlar, was used in bullet proof vests.

I was also reliably informed in a meeting with Dr. Piotr Bein , Ph.D., M.A.Sc., P.Eng, that depleted uranium has been used as ballast in many commercial planes - especially by Boeing. It was phased out in the 1980's but the 767-200 was launched in 1978. As depleted uranium is used to tip 'bunker busting' missiles, I don't think I need extrapolate on its credentials.

[Ally]

I'm sure you've seen the damage a bird can do to an aircraft -



Yet the inside WTC was plated with this -



you think the plane could penetrate multilayers of that steel case?

[flamesong]

So, what do you think should have happened if a plane hit the WTC, then?

Would it have bounced off and landed in a big shìtty heap on the ground?

Or stuck out like a paper dart sticking out of an air vent?

You make it sound like I am claiming the plane virtually flew through the building and out of the other side - that it patently not the case. But I believe that it is possible that a huge lump of it may have done - probably composed of bits which passed between the uprights and floors.

[telecasterisation]

Ally wrote;

[chek]

[mason-free party]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

There is one point you all appear to have overlooked

Ghost planes are very fuel efficient - there would be no explosion of jetfuel upon impact.

Therefore the fact there was no explosion of jet fuel on the impact side of WTC is consistent with a ghost plane

Simple Innit stating the Bl eeding obvious

[andrewwatson]

I agree with Ally about the exit wound being far too small to contain the large 'sausage' which shoots out of the south-east corner in several videos.

The problem is that the videos are remarkably consistent , which makes the idea of them having been faked seem less likely. It's weird.

[telecasterisation]

Don't we simply get a side view of the 'sausage', hence no guarantee it is circular or accurate dimensions.

In addition, there was the aircraft/jet engine that came down in Murray St - was this simply dropped off the back of a lorry in the confusion, or kicked out from underneath a hotdog stall, or taken up the WTC in pieces, reassembled and then fired out of the windows via a rocket propelled sled?

[andrewwatson]

The engine part was photographed underneath some scaffolding . It may well have been moved from its landing site by forensic experts , or alternatively it could have been planted there when the streets were relatively quiet in the early morning/night. I know Killtown believes it was planted.

This site has a fair bit about it:

http://www.911foreknowledge.com

as does this one:

http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Dear%20World%20Watcher.html

[telecasterisation]

As many will have seen from the earlier part of this thread, great focus was made of the comparison drawn between the bomber crashing and the WTC collision/s.

Having gone back and looked at the bomber crash, you will see from the attached image that the bomber's wing actually 'explodes' PRIOR to hitting the ground/runway. It very much seems to hit what appears to be possibly cabling raised above the ground - this could easily be high voltage cabling and tends to negate any direct comparisons drawn.

Until this aspect is disproved, I stand firmly by my belief that the WTC fireball appeared quite rightly only after the aircraft had entered the building.

[Snowygrouch]

I suppose nobody noticed 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in barrels sitting around in the office that morning?

[chek]

[Patrick Brown]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Snowygrouch]

Ah thats it!!!

Secretly the CIA had coca cola make a batch of 200,000 cans filled with kerosene, cunningly installed 2000 vending machines filled with said cans on the correct floors and positions and the rest is history!

Or..........................................not.

Come on guys!

[Patrick Brown]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

Andrew Johnson wrote;

[dry kleaner]

To me the B52 looks like it fell on to its fuel in the wing and then BANG!

Peace and love

DK

[Andrew Johnson]

TC - sorry - I didn't read all your post on this one. Apologies.

Electrical cabling - well - yes - we concur on that then. I don't think it makes the comparison any worse than I originally suggested in my 1st post with the video - but I still think it is a fair comparison - the "delayed fireball" is extremely obvious to me and I have noticed it in all 3 videos of the 2nd impact I have seen up to now.

Again sorry for my previous error.

[Bicnarok]

I don´t understand what some women waving or people standing in the hole of the tower have to do with a "no planes" theory.

It seems logical that if your trapped in a building in a disaster situation you will want to get out, a big hole in the bulding seems the logical possible way of escape. Maybe some helicopter can lower some cable or something to lift the person out.

Going to the roof wouldn´t be possible because heat rises and the roof would probably be well hot, if accessable at all. Going down seems an unlikely possibility seeing as the impact may have damaged the escape root, stairs (if there were and at all in the WTC?) So a big gaping hole seems like a good possibility of surviving.

[telecasterisation]

[mason-free party]

[telecasterisation]

I now think the woman waving was a fake shot...why didn;t they zoom in closer..the actual clip only lasted a few seconds i believe...very conveniently.

Can you elaborate as to why you believe it is fake? Is it just the length of the clip and the lack of zooming?