The Daily Mail review of 9/11 Revealed

[Justme]

Hello, I'm not a newbie to 9/11 & 7/7 research but I am a newbie here.

I expect you will have saved the pages out of the Daily Mail and have the picture which is the accompaniment to the article. You may also have seen a picture on the web titled "missile_out" this shows what can only be described as a missile travelling through the second tower and it can be seen emerging from the corner of the opposite side.

You will have all seen on your TV screens the dramatic explosion of "175" emerging from the adjacent side of the second tower.

If you take a look at the picture in the Daily Mail you will see damage to the corner of the second tower.

My question is why isn't that huge explosion out of the adjacent side of the tower seen in the pictures of "missile_out" (all that is seen in this picture is the white puffs of smoke showing the path of the missile inside the tower) nor shown in the Daily Mail picture.

Also, how can large chunks of plane fuselage, intact and undamaged land on top of a nearby building given that it was supposed to have crashed through the tower, given that aluminium cannot stand any impact without being damaged or crushed.

I will be interested in receiving your thoughts.

[Seb]

[brian]

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century

by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.97, Aug 21, 2005

A critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[Justme]

Seb, you don't don't see the missile exit hole in the Daily Mail picture - extraordinary. But then, Webster Tarpley infers that it is the radome of flight 175 even though it is still in prestine condition and despite looking remarkable unlike the cockpit/radome of a 767. Why have you "authenticated", by posting, a picture of "missile_out" which is obviously faked? The "plane", with half a wing missing, doesn't belong in this picture and a child could see that. The genuine picture is out there, probably used by Webster Tarpley although his is a cropped version.

It's quite amazing that a few years ago if one mentioned "missile" in relation to the twin towers people would have looked at you and thought you a loon. But now the word "missile" can be used and no one bats an eye-lid. Well, it's not surprising because pictures can't lie, at least the genuine one's don't.

The research into the twin towers has come a long way and whilst it was an area where no expert structural engineer wanted to speak out, after Romaro changed his opinion, there have been so many witness statements that bombs were going off, particularly in the basement area which totally pulvarized the central cores that 9/11 researchers do not have to rely on structural engineers for their evidence.

The debate in respect of the Pentagon attack has been exhausted and if one takes notice of the first reports witnesses spoke of bombs and a circling helicopter, both of which were heard no more. And then the story of the 757 was introduced. It is surprising that those who were claiming it was bombs and a helicopter didn't claim that a monster 757 passenegr jet had crashed into the Pentagon. It also seems to have snuck in passed two CNN correspondents.

Whereas the research in respect of the twin towers has come along way over the years I think it is the Pentagon attack which is "their" Achilles Heel. You see, as with most genuine plane crashes the media go after the pictures and there is no mistake when a plane has crashed - flights 587 and 1303 for instance but there is no front page picture of "flight 77". There is nothing of "flight 93". So there is a consistency with two 9/11 "flights". No plane debris. And the public find that very, very curious.

[hampton]

911review.org
informationclearinghouse.info
911timeline.net
9112001.net
bilderberg.org
freemasonrywatch.org
lovearth.net
cooperativeresearch.org
911review.org
infowars.com

[Seb]

[Justme]

Seb, click on the first graphic to enlarge it and there clear as day is the damage to the corner of the second tower.

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

The graphic showing missile_out (that is the genuine one found on Webfairy's site) together with the above is evidence of a cover up. The problem is Webster Tarply in his attack on the NIST report claims that the warhead emerging from the second tower is 175.

Upon impact of 175 a huge explosion emerged from the adjacent side of the tower. In the missile_out picture we see an adjacent side of the tower. This picture was taken before any impact of any plane because it does not show any huge explosion. Nor does it show on the other adjacent side any huge explosion.

Therefore what you see in missile_out is not 175.

So, with simply three pictures 1. missile_out (the genuine one) 2, the picture in the Daily Mail (showing minimal damage) 3. the picture of the huge explosion - the most guillible of the British public should see something is not right.

Some amateur using graphics editing software added a "cartoon" plane to your posted picture. A huge explosion is difficult to fake but as your picture shows, but rather badly, it is not too difficult to put a Flight Simulator plane into a video film and certainly not difficult to paste one into the famous clip of 175 with the controversial "pod" slung underneath the starboard wing. (I use this simply to identify the picture and not to raise any dispute over the authenticity regarding the "pod").

So the amateur faker has brought to light the real possibility that 175 is a software creation. It is noteworthy that the few witnesses who say they saw something that flew into the second tower were from a distance away from the twin towers and even one of those witnesses states what he saw was a turbo-prop. plane. There is no mistaking a turbo-prop. There are other witnesses who report it had no windows and another who said it was not an American airlines plane (meaning not a plane operated by any American airline company).

And this should pave the way for the case for controlled demolitions.

[Justme]

I haven't seen any British reaction to the documentary "The Man Who Predicted 9/11" shown on C4 Monday 5/9.

Rick Rescoria must have been the only American citizen to have recognised that the US could not continue their blackops around the globe without things coming home to roost. One feels that he did not like America's foreign policy which may have grown out of the Vietnam War and his time in the 7th Cavalry. He was saying as much in camera in 1998.

It was with some surprise to me that he ruled out another attack from the ground and being fanatical that another attack would be made he concluded it would be from the sky and of course be with planes and accordingly had used Flight Simulator to demonstrate how that second attack would be made that he was so sure would come.

I believe it was the first time showing on TV that the camera remained on the two towers to capture "Flight 175" coming in from the right and the view of the exit out of the corner edge of the second tower. This same footage was shown yesterday on the Geography Channel after a reconstruction of a hijacking of a French plane in Algeria. It was shown at the end of this recontruction and was out of context.

What this footage actually showed ought to have been spotted by 9/11 researchers. I wonder how many noticed it.