Hunt the Boeing II

[Veronica]

Faux out-foxed.

You see? Once you understand that ‘UA 175’ was faked … a Computer-Generated Insert (Image) … there are loads of things like this to be found.

And so much, of course, for the eye-witnesses.

[s1e9a8n5]

Okay... it's obvious that it's a fake... right? So are we saying the 2nd plane never hit the WTC? or are we saying that the plane came in from behind the building where we cant see it and this footage was obviously touched up, to make it look like they caught it on a different angle?

What about the first plane? Do you think that was a fake to?

This one is obviously fake... at least, thats what it looks like but the woman tells us that she saw the first one... so unless she was actress just like the news reporters etc, then there obviously were no planes in the beginning.

Did we even get anyone saying they even saw a plane actually come and hit the building, a true person? Or did they just hear the impact and look up?

Because its obvious the footage was touched. Its fake. And its like the camera guy is zooming in on purpose, or at least thats what it looks like.

But Im guessing people had to have been looking at the building from the first one to be able to notice a second plane going in... Im so confused lol. Not that this changes my mind. Planes or not, it was still deliberate and planned.

[Snowygrouch]

All,
Sorry this is very dubious analysis that does not baffle or amaze me one jot. A 15 foot discrepancy in length taken from a fuzzy TV frame hundreds of meters away is a total non event.

As for the impact speed of about 550mph being "crazy" its actually almost exactly the same as that recorded by the NTSB in their report "video data impact speed study" and "Radar data impact speed study"; both done by Senior Aerospace Engineer Daniel Bower PhD.

He also finds the speeds to be between 500 and 550 mph and finds this perfectly acceptable. If you want REAL information why not contact Jonh Doe on this forum (as I did) who's an ex TWA airlines pilot with thousands of hours in big jet aircraft.

This fakery stuff is a one way ticket to a big cold dark blind alley. I hope most of us can concur on this.

I have dozens of reports from firefighters, medics, police, doctors etc who ALL saw the jets heading for the towers.

There are DOZENS of photos of hundreds of aeroplane parts on the roof of adjacent buildings after the impact.

Maybe it was NOT flight 175 but it WAS a large jetliner probably of the same model as claimed.

HOW on earth you would simultanously fake dozens of live feeds AND fake all the amateur tape footage AND scatter plane parts everywhere is quite the REAL tin foil hat stuff.

God alone knows what any first time 9/11'ers think of this forum when they read this stuff.

This stuff aint MY bag folks.

C.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Can you please show the photos of the plane parts on the roof

Thank you

[s1e9a8n5]

Sorry for the double post.

[s1e9a8n5]

[Dogsmilk]

Yeah, I can't be bothered to find the link, but there are plenty of witness statements from people who were actually in the towers who survived describing how they saw the planes approach. Chek put up a link to it in an unrelated thread a while ago.

[Fallious]

Just out of interest, does this theory note WHY it's advantageous to fake the plane entirely?

Most of my understanding of 9/11 is based on the tenants of criminal involvement such as motive, opportunity and so on

At a glance I can't see any reason why NOT to use aeroplanes. This was suppose to be a terrorist attack after all...

Everyone is welcome to his view, but I know when something rings true for me, and this theory doesn't seem to have any logical grounding whatsoever.

From my experience with post production - I'm a 3D artist, mainly focused on video games. Having the planes, super imposed is quite bizarre. If the plane was super imposed, and the lighting was even slightly off, it would be incredibly obvious.. This kind of colour correction can not be done in real time, it requires a human eye to balance. Then take into account reflections on the plane, shadows, etc and you have a scene which Hollywood would find difficult to fake. Indeed, the recent 'Towers' movie only uses real archive footage...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[s1e9a8n5]

True...

If there were no planes, then everyone would know 100% that it was planned.

[Snowygrouch]

TWSU3,
The photos were posted on the Loose Change forum by a clenup worker from his digital camera. Most of his photos (there are ALOT) are just firemen with their search dogs looking dispondant but there are alot of plane parts scattered everywhere.

You will have to give me some time to locate the link or you can just search if you prefer.

I dont have the photos on my PC.

Will get back to you on the link tomorrow.

C.

[Snowygrouch]

Found it.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=498 &st=0

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3526&postdays=0&post order=asc&highlight=parts&start=15

[Rabbie McM]

[Fallious]

So you are willing to disregard photographic evidence, and eye witness reports because they may be planted evidence... What evidence do you accept?

Honestly, I hadn't heard much about this theory before reading here.. But the more I think about and look at the websites posted in these 'no plane' discussions the more shocked I am that anyone would take this theory seriously. It's preposterous, plane and simple.

Regardless of the independent video's, eye/ear witnesses, radar data...

- Why create the paper trail of edited video and media staff 'in the loop' about the production of this material?
- Why spend huge time and money rigging a specially shaped blast hole in the twin towers?
- Why take the HUGE risk that some aspect of the stunt would fail, incorrect lighting etc? As 'no plane' articles sites claim to show, unconvincingly, I might add.
- Why take the risk of planting the evidence, plane parts, bribing citizens to say they saw planes?
- Why pretend it was planes anyway, surely it would be easier to make the conspiracy into: 'Terrorists set of bombs in the Twin Towers"?

Why not just crash real planes into the towers?

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

You repeatedly ask us to provide evidence that planes crashed into the towers? Well, here's the video, here's the parts, here's the manifest, here's the audio, here's the witnesses, here's the radar data, here are two towers with vast gasoline explosions and plane shaped destruction.

Now you show me a video, or an eyewitness, or some audio that demonstrates NO plane going into the towers.. because of all the hundreds of cameras pointed at that building that day, there isn't one image that tells your story.

And now, when the media introduces a 9/11 truth segment. Every time they list that range of theories we share, they can preface the strong and clear evidence we present for controlled demolition and incriminating paper trails by mentioning how we also believe that no planes crashed into the twin towers, and people across the country will switch off. How sad.

[HERA]

[Bowery Boy]

" Well, here's the video, here's the parts, here's the manifest, here's the audio, here's the witnesses, here's the radar data, here are two towers with vast gasoline explosions and plane shaped destruction. "

Where?

" ... hundreds of cameras pointed at that building that day ... "

How many ?

[Snowygrouch]

All,
The testimonies are available to anyone; there are over 500 (all of which I have in full on my PC).
Some can be viewed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met _WTC_histories_01.html

It is my opinion that no-planes is very much a case of fitting facts around a theory.

Whereas we all know we SHOULD be fitting our theories to fit the available evidence best.

Like it or not the fact is the weight of evidence is NOT in favour of no planes.

Also I do not wish to appear offensive but if we are going to start using anagrams to prove 9/11 we should all give up NOW.

It is important that we do not attach to much importance to any theory so that if evidence emerges to the contraty we can feel free to change our minds.

This is very much what DIDNT happen to the no-planes theory which is almost fanatically proposed by its main advocates. Hence when evidence is presented such as plane parts, testimonies, radar & the biggest and most blatant of all the PLANE shaped hole in the WTC's the persons affiliating themselves with this train of thought are unwiling to accept that the evidence for no-planes JUST ISNT THERE except apparently on some websites analysing blurry news footage.

I`ve looked at most of them during conversations with ALLY on these forums and I`ve never seen anything that has struck me as any sort of proof at all.

Lets have a brief rundown of what this theory is up against.

1: Fooling thousands of eye witnesses simultainiously possibly with holograms (that are transparent and need enourmous computing power to generate even on a tiny scale; made with lazers dude!)
2: Fooling all the air traffic controllers
3: Doing multi feed real time broadcast quality false moving imagery
4: Somehow using star trek technology to alter the video images on multiple amateur video camers real time
5: The same to alter potentially hundreds of SLR and phone camera stills.
6: Carrying twenty thousand gallons of Kerosine into the 80th floor of the WTC in invisible barrells and igniting it at the right moment. (unlike the explosives which were probably in the core of the building).
7: Planting amazing explosive charges that managed to blow out two holes in the WTC exactly the same size and shape of the plane.
8: These amazing explosives managed to pull beams INWARDS (while exploding from the inside) to simulate an object hitting externally.
9: Scattering hundreds of plane parts everywhere including pushing a smouldering jet engine out the back of a van with nobody noticing anything.
10: Somehow inserting false radar blips SIMULTAINOUSLY into all the Military AND civilian radar systems AND ensure they all corrorborated with eachother.

I could go on, as has been said; it would have been FAR safer just to use REAL jets!

Of course they aren't necessarily Flight 175 and AA11 but there WERE two large passenger type jets that flew into WTC1 &2.

The evidence is just too comprehesive.

Or we can start using anagrams and holograms as our campaign slogans.
I know where my money is, if even I dont believe this stuff how ON EARTH do you imagine you`re going to convice a BBC newsplanner or your local MP!!!!!!

Please think about it......

C.

As for "where?", HERE!

If anyone wants the radar studies, the witness reports, the analysis of the jet fuel explosions or pretty much ANYTHING that has been mentioned above or previously then PM me and I will email you them.

[chek]

[Patrick Brown]

Yes that theory is a pure shill creation to try and undermine the publics demands for an international investigation.

Nobody here buys it and such posts should be removed when and as they appear. They can only do this forum damage. Let's stick to evidence, facts and intelligent speculation when and where needed.

[Bowery Boy]

Nobody is saying you should not believe the US govt./
radar watchers/"eye witness" reports etc but that it has no place on this site.
In times of dispute science-based argument comes into place.
Aluminium tubes do not go into steel/concrete buildings as though they were butter.

[chek]

[alwun]

But they may easily, with enough momentum, go through steel and glass grids like a carrot through a shredder.

except they did not go through like a corrot in a shredder. At WTC the carrot shredded the shredder. The 'plane' we see on the vids shredded the shredder without losing a shred of momentum. Them just as it fully enters the building, the invincible carrot stops just short of exit. Truly a remarkable carrot.

There is a lot of foaming at the mouth beginning to appear here.

cheers Al

[Fallious]

Although this is utterly pointless.. What do you think it WOULD look like if a plane crashed into a the tower? That's not rhetorical, but here's my own answer...


Bomber crashes into Empire State building.

A much smaller plane, flying far slower, yet structural steel is destroyed, and feet of concrete are crushed. This is pretty much exactly the same pattern of damage but on a smaller scale.

[Briaman]

[chek]

The major difference being that the WTC was not a concrete building but steel columns with glass between.

But your photo does a good job of showing how a B-25 with half the speed and a tenth of the weight of a Boeing can still damage a heavier construction.

Amazing how questioning something is portrayed as 'foaming'.

[alwun]

uh oh. - chek - I did not mean to say that you were foaming. Some other poster was talking about removing posts as and when they appear and so on. Next we'll be shaving the heads and tarring and feathering these effing heretics I suppose. lamposts up from string ing. G chambers anyone?

and..

no offense to anyone at all.
cheers Al

[chek]

[alwun]

I'm relieved, chek. I'm somebody who needs to learn to reign in his tongue. I've recently started on volume II of my Collected Apologies.

cheers Al.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Snowygrouch]

TTWSU3,
I did not claim they did.

What I did claim was that they showed numerous aircraft parts scattered everwhere; which they DO.

Do you EXPECT to find an intact wing or similar?

As for the engine, here it is and where it was found.

C.