The Second Hit was Faked

[spooked911]

First, look at this video clip of the plane going into the south tower:
http://webfairy.org/2hit/ghostplane.htm
Notice how easily the plane glides in. There is no change in speed as the plane's nose or wings hits the wall. Nothing breaks off from the plane.

Now, look at the "entry" hole for the south tower:



How did a 767 pass through this occluded hole?

How could a large jet pass into this wall so neatly? There is major debris blocking the path.

It honestly makes no sense.

The only explanation is that it was faked, I think.

[LARED]

1. Have you considered the possibility that

stuff fell down after the plane hit. I know it's a big stretch of the imagination :evilgrin:

[spooked911]

8. Of course I considered it, but it doesn't explain the debris.

The debris blocking the hole looks like shredded wall from where something punched the outside wall. Not floor material that dropped down.

And you haven't explained why the plane went in so smoothly without any part breaking off.

I suppose you didn't even look at the video.

[LARED]

13. I've seen the video hundreds of times by now

The plane went smoothly into the tower because it was moving somewhere around 400 to 500 mph. I assume when you say parts, you mean large parts like pieces of the wing or fuselage. I cannot fathom why people expect a jet moving that fast to break into pieces, stop and fall to earth. Do you get it? The jet was of course breaking up as it passed through the building, but the pieces were still moving forward. It really is as simple as that.

Also the material blocking the hole is something from inside. It has to be. The whole notion of a ghost plane borders on the insane. Hundreds of thousands of people saw it happen. Dozens of videos were taken. Are you suggesting all video is faked? All eye witnesses are under mind control? What processes you to post such dribble?

[spooked911]

44. The plane's wings hit over four concrete floors because of the angle

are you telling me that metal and thick concrete slabs are not going to cause thin wingtips to break off?

And did hundreds of thousands really see the PLANE? Or did they see the explosion?

[LARED]

56. What I am telling you is that

the wingtips broke off, the entire wing was shred to small pieces; but they continued to move in the forward direction. There was a guy named Newton, that has thoroughly investigated this phenomena.

[spooked911]

62. That's not what the video showed

"the wingtips broke off, the entire wing was shred to small pieces; but they continued to move in the forward direction."

That's not what the video showed-- there was no shredding that I could see.

And what happened to the tail? It seemed to vanish into a puff of smoke without making a hole in the wall.

[StrafingMoose]

64. re...

"I cannot fathom why people expect a jet moving that fast to break into pieces, stop and fall to earth"

Isn't that one of the talking points explaining why not much of Fl. 77 was found at the Pentagon? Like "it broke in many pieces and melt into a puddle of jet fuel?"

[ryan_cats]

59. The debris looks like 3 1/3 pieces of the perimeter columns

The debris looks like 3 1/2 pieces of the perimeter columns I think.

Let's assume it wasn't a 767, what was it? I saw the video live and numerous times and I'd bet a dollar that it WAS a 767. Whether it was a United Airlines or a remotely piloted 767 I don't know but it sure as heck looked like a real, full sized 767. Its behavior as it struck the building makes sense to me, it was going over 500mph.

If anyone has an alternate theory that is actually possible using today's technology, I'd be willing to listen.

The problem is there's so many eyewitnesses and different videos that documented the crash that I have no trouble believing it was a 767 and makes faking it to me, seem almost impossible. Nevertheless, if someone has a theory based in reality, I will listen.

The theory will have to account for:
1) Sound of the plane.
2) How multiple witnesses and videos saw the same thing.
3) The instantaneous 767 outlined hole in the WTC.
4) The fireball.
5) The parts that went through the building and ejected out the other side.
6) Where are the people and where is the actual plane from that flight?

Not all of those are hard to fake but #2, 3 and 6 have to be accounted for too and no doubt more that I haven't thought of.

Like I mentioned before, seeing that F4 Phantom literally turn to dust in a program I saw on the Discovery channel makes it all the more believable. In the F4 crash, it was on a track with what was I believe a rocket pushing it along. It hit that cement block and turned to dust, it was pretty amazing. I'm sure a lot of people here have seen it. I believe it was a program on plane crashes or how plane crashes are analyzed. I've seen it several times too so it's not a phantom program.

[Make7]

73. "Phantom videos"

You mean this?

Quicktime 2.8MB
MPEG 2.3MB

I can't agree with you on point six. I mean, how hard can it be to make a plane disappear? Didn't David Copperfield do that once?

-Make7

[ryan_cats]

96. That's the video alright. EOM.

[ryan_cats]

2. It is hard to believe.

It is hard to believe, especially since in your diagram, the plane hit the concrete floor of the WTC dead on. Nevertheless, I do believe it was a 767 and it did happen exactly as we saw. We don't really have a history of things like this happening to compare it to but I do remember a military test where they flew (shot?) an F4 Phantom at a solid concrete block and it seemed to just turn to dust. The block wasn't injured but it was kind of like the WTC crash except the WTC crash had the plane go into the wall.

I remember the first time I saw it, it was so shocking, I felt like I'd been punched and really didn't comprehend what happened until I saw it several times. Later on, they found parts of the plane such as the engine on the street. Unfortunately, neither plane's black boxes survived (how convenient) but Atta's (I think it was his) passport survived, very strange. I guess they could have planted the parts on the street but I'm reasonably confident it happened as it appeared. That's the simplest solution since I have no idea where to start to explain how they faked it. Now I'm not saying that the plane WASN'T under remote control or was not the actual commercial flight, I'm just saying that I'm very confident we saw a 767 fly into that building.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

3. I can't believe somebody's giving webfairy credence

I remember her mad obsession with holograms & other nonsense waaay back browsing cia-drugs yahoo group. The only person who supported her had just undergone trepanation which, I think, says it all.

[ryan_cats]

4. Trepanation?

Trepanation? Isn't that when someone gets a hole bored into their head???

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. yup! And very proud of it his was, too!

[ryan_cats]

6. Truly bizarre N/T

[menschmaam]

9. Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

This daisy is just jealous because despite three years trying, nobody was able to debunk Webfairy's work.

Every time they do try debunking Webfairy, it just introduces more people to her slow motion full motion video enlargements of the hoaxed footage shown that day.
http://thewebfairy.com/911
http://missilegate.com
http://missilegate.com/blob11
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig

It was hard to believe at first, but since the "whatzit"
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit

we have been treated to Animated Osama, a pre-election character animated like Polar Express, Fat Osama, the Berg Beheading, the plump American puppy Gassed by Terrorists, and uncountable other fictions presented as fact.

[spooked911]

7. I'm only linking to her video. I'm not backing up everything she says.

In any case, please explain how the plane melted into this building, when there was debris blocking the path.

[Informed Citizen]

10. Are you kidding?

Spooked,

Crap info is just as bad as conservative info. This post is just as bad as Lared, or Christophera at their most confusing. Your credibility is in question. No one gets back to the webfairy anymore. You should know better. But evidently you don't. I wonder why. What's your motive. Why did you write this post. Defend your priorities.
By the way, I'm riding you hard because I thought that you were one of the people in here with a head on your shoulders. What's this melting plane s**t? No!!!! 9/11 truth is about evidence. Not naive speculation. Do better!

- I.C.

[seatnineb]

12. NO stone should be left unturned......get that?......NO stone.

Whether you believe the official 9/11 story or the many alternatives...9/11 is about looking at the evidence.

And that is what Spooked is doing.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Got any evidence that no one gets back to the web fairy.

Did not think so.

[menschmaam]

16. Webfairy doesn't matter.

There are plenty of other sites that have independently backed up Webfairy's work and even her most incredible contentions. If she got hit by a train tomorrow her work would go on without interruption.

http://iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
Gerard Holmgren proves Flights 11 and 77 didn't exist using the Bureau of Transportation Safety Database.

http://911hoax.com
Easy to understand snippets from much faked footage.

http://terrorize.dk/911/
An archive of the footage we were fed as fact

http://team8plus.org
Research on the wargames and terror drills that were used as excuse for creating the 911 footage in advance

http://orbwar.com
Other "whatzit" sightings

http://911closeup.com
writings by Gerard Holmgren

http://911.brad.com
A cell phone engineer's comprehensive site

http://911foreknowledge.com
Exposing the Naudet Snuff Film

And the Granny of them All,
http://thewebfairy.com/911

[seatnineb]

17. Nice links!

:toast:

[Informed Citizen]

22. You work for someone? WingTV? (n/t)

[seatnineb]

37. No I do not work for wing TV.......but do you do any work at all?!

It is a shame....

Because you seem to be quite an articulate fellow.

And I do agree with some of your analysis....e.g your views regarding the protocols of zion film.

But it is pointless for you to come on these boards and try and "arbiter" which 9/11 evidence or which 9/11 speculation/scenario is viable and which is not.

In the absence of a definitive scenario...everyone is going to have their own personal opinion of how the events of 9/11 unfolded.

And everyone's opinion....from LARED's,Make7's,Mercutio's and co.... to mine and yours is worth analizing and debating about.

Your undoubted intelligence is better served by engaging in analysis of the said evidence ....not summarily dismissing it BEFORE it has a chance to be analized.

And.....

Seeing as you are from Brooklyn.......why not give us an account of your experience on 9/11.

[Informed Citizen]

68. Wasn't talking to you, and I do plenty

You assume too many things.

[MercutioATC]

100. Your very first link is complete and utter bullshit.

It's factually incorrect and misleading. I realize you're new here, but PLEASE look at some of the older 9/11 Forum posts that debunk garbage like this. I hate to see people who have built their beliefs on the misrepresentations of others.

I'll go through your first link to show you what I mean if you're interested.

[LARED]

14. My guess is that spooked missed me

He knew posting this idiocy would entice me to respond. I hope that was not too confusing.

[spooked911]

39. Yeah, I thought you would bite!

:)

Truth be told, I did want to stir up some controversy here, it was getting a little stale.

However, I notice, no one YET has been able to rebut my two key claims:
1) the plane melted into the building without any change in speed or course, despite the fact that it impacted scores of thick steel beams as well as several concrete floors
2) there is debris blocking the "entry" hole, which doesn't really match a 767 profile very well anyway. The debris doesn't seem to have fallen down from above. Also, the momentum of the plane would strongly push debris OUT of the path, not leave debris behind. :P

[LARED]

40. Rebut your key claims?

No offense, but rebutting your ignorance in this matter is not a job I'm willing to continually address. Perhaps others will.

It's on par with trying to rebut alien abduction stories. People will believe what they want to.

[spooked911]

42. I thought rebutting me was your job.

;)

Thanks for the quick reply, by the way!

[spooked911]

41. Sorry to disappoint you, but here is some explanation:

First of all, the physical evidence speaks for itself.

Second, did I write a purposefully controversial title for the post? Yes, I did. I was trying to stir things up a little here. I wanted to bring in an idea we hadn't discussed much.

Third, I think it is quite odd they way the plane went in and the way the entry hole is blocked by debris. I seriously wonder if there is some other explanation for what happened than a 767 going in. If you think I am full of shit for questioning this, so be it.

Fourth, I don't know what happened, I find a special hologram-cloaked plane, or the media putting out fake footage or something like that hard to believe. But I still think there are anomalies here and I really don't like people telling me to not look at the physicial evidence.

[menschmaam]

11. Eric Salter Proves No Plane

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion

This one shows the wing being hidden by a building in the background, proof it is a layered animation.


These images are from stabilized Second Hit Ghostplane footage as prepared by Eric Salter, the Webfairy debunker who got his cummupance in the Salter Debates.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=67
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=68
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=69
It is quite hilarious, actually.

[seatnineb]

19. Agreed!....Do you remember FOX's one -winged flight 175?

[menschmaam]

21. "Plane" In, Missile Out

http://investigate911.batcave.net/nose.html




Some people think that the "plane" that didn't bother to explode on contact just plowed through the ButterCreme WTC emerging intact on the other side.
Conversely, I have heard from supposedly grown adults that the "plane" practiced karate chops with it's wings.
In this footage it has vulture wings, and nothing near a karate stance:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/missileout/index.htm



More footage shot from approximately the same location:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bird

[philb]

51. apparently may have been missile in; plane in; missile out

see later posts on this

[sabbat hunter]

15. i had friends there

it was a freaking plane that hit the tower!

the plane didnt "melt" into the tower!


stories and posts like this delegitimtize any true discussion of what happened that day

[seatnineb]

18. Who?

Care to elaborate.

[sabbat hunter]

20. friends who

went to NYU and had a perfect view of the airplane hitting. another friend at the empire state building who was looking right at the buildings.


do you think airplanes didnt hit the WTC?

[menschmaam]

23. Somebody had to do it

I've found it more likely the missiles came from the Woolworth building,
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/
but if you say your friends "saw the plane" (wink wink) from the Empire State Building, maybe that's where the Global Hawk system was guided from.

The longer life goes on, the more I am becoming convinced that only the timy coterie with direct involvement in the 911 Hoax would be heartless enough to try to convince people that somehow slavish devotion to what media told us was the same thing as truth.

[LARED]

24. Wink, wink, my ass

I know a dozen people that watched the jet fly over their heads on the Jersey side in Bayonne. It was not a missile, it was a commercial airplane.

[menschmaam]

27. Spooker "friends" saw the "plane" ohyeah

We were just talking tonite about Lared, DU's most successful Project Daisy Committee.
If there were anybody able to "see the plane" it would sure be members of "Lared" the 24 hour 911 Debunkery Service.

[LARED]

35. Project Daisy Committee?

Are you feeling OK? Does that have something to do with trepanation?

[izzy911]

102. Sure they did (wink, wink) (n/t)

[LARED]

121. Hey izzy911

Pound sand. I don't appreciate being called a liar

[spooked911]

144. How far up was the plane? Really, I just am trying to figure out

the flight path.

[sabbat hunter]

25. take off the tin hat

it wasnt a freaking missle from the woolworth building!

it was a god damn plane !! take of the fraggin tin hat!

it isnt what the media told us about planes. it is eyewitnesses!

anyone who believes it was a missle or just a hologram needs to take off the tin hats!

[menschmaam]

26. Quit staring at your bellyscreen

The webfairy used to believe that the second hit was a hologram, since real planes do not vanish like a ghost, exploding on the other side of the building before at the alleged impact.
This was back when she was under the impression that there had been thousands of witnesses, or at least hundreds, or dozens, or at least one or two who weren't related to some spooker.

Nada. Either your "eyewitnesses" don't exist, or they are perps running the show, and good enough at lying to keep themselves useful to the coup for a while yet.

Planes do not vanish into buildings like ghosts walking thru walls.
Flight Simulator Animations do tho.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/marcus/perspective

[sabbat hunter]

28. just go to this link

and hopefully it will stop your foolish 'no plane no plane'

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

[menschmaam]

29. Salter Nonsense

Teehee.
Maybe enough time has passed he forgot the beating he took in the Salter Debates. They went off squealing like little piggies, eager to hide silently behind their veil of disinformation.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html
DID BIG PLANES REALLY HIT THE WTC ON SEPTEMBER 11 2001 ?
A PLANE HUGGERS NIGHTMARE : TWO DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL STORY GET HOPLELESSLY TANGLED IN THEIR OWN CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS

Their claim that

is a plane, when it looks like a flying pig,
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig


was that cameras couldn't see planes, cos they were moving.
So Gerard Holmgren took his $200 digital camera with movie mode, and took mjpegs of planes.
http://911closeup.com/planes/
He proved that flying planes were perfectly visable from any distance even with his cheapie camera that uses jpeg compression.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html
VIDEO PROOF THAT NO HIJACKED PASSENGER JET HIT THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE

This is when the Salters decided they better take a powder.

[menschmaam]

31. Salters made up their mind

This is from their 767 or whatzit article:


They seem to have decided that it was the right engine and left wing they were seeing in their latest drivel.


It's hard to tell when wings and engines are the same size and shape, teehee. Guess they flipped a coin.

Salters

[seatnineb]

36. Did your friends see the plane or just the subsequent explosion?

Many say that they saw the plane hit......when in fact all they saw was the explosion:


It was at that point that I witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. It looked like a large bomb exploded in the building. I didn't see the plane, because I was about 6 blocks north of the complex.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/KennyPliska.htm

[sabbat hunter]

46. they saw

the plane coming in over battery city park, turn, hit the building.

[seatnineb]

52. Cos' these firemen saw it approach OVER brooklyn.

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, “It sounded like a freight train,” he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2. When he arrived on Liberty Street, “It was like a war zone when we got there. There were body parts all over the street.”
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426

[sabbat hunter]

53. if you know the layout of manhattan

then you would know that brooklyn lies off of battery city hence the brooklyn battery tunnel

[seatnineb]

57. But the plane supposedly flew over the statue of liberty............

Rick saw the WTC disaster from his bicycle on West Side H/way. He saw the second plane coming for some moments, coming over the Statue of Liberty and people ran, screaming. This made me think that stampede I saw was caused by the sight of the second jet’s approach.
http://www.newcleanwars.com/firstday

If the plane flies OVER the statue of liberty......then it is NOT flying OVER Brooklyn!

There is something anomolouse about this plane's trajectory.

[LARED]

60. The flight path took

the plane over Bayonne, NJ, passing the Statue of Liberty, then into lower Manhattan. Brooklyn is to the East by only a mile or two. Very easy to see the wtc'er.

See this map.

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPData=WvB3Svhyzy3yA5.aUtZzAsas7EDSYT1LkZbN2m8SKIZG7CilTr9gV8eGqzIU1fF2BjfQcNA44SXEVjIi9ddBn.z0oNqR0ejK2kDR5iii6BIdEOE-

[seatnineb]

78. Sure.......but something flew OVER Brooklyn..................

I heard a plane fly overhead," said Park Foreman, 37, an Internet security consultant. "Then I looked out the window and saw the first tower on fire. I saw another airplane approaching from the south. I put my camera on it and followed it straight into the building. It looked like it went right through.
http://www.inspironetworks.com/solupress/solupress/news/articles/article48.asp

[LARED]

80. From the south is

where the flight came from. The plane flew from the Bayonne area (just to the west of Brooklyn). It was overhead. As the crow flies Bayonne and Brooklyn are about a mile apart.

Mr. Foreman's description is completely consistent with the actual flight of the jet.

Look again

http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPData=WvB3Svhyzy3yA5.aUtZzAsas7EDSYT1LkZbN2m8SKIZG7CilTr9gV8eGqzIU1fF2BjfQcNA44SXEVjIi9ddBn.z0oNqR0ejK2kDR5iii6BIdEOE-

[seatnineb]

81. This Bayonne witness said she saw the plane do a U-turn.............

At this point I was still under the impression that this was an accident and after watching and filming this other plane make a U turn and head back towards the towers nothing in the world could have prepared me for what would happen next.I dont recall that feeling I got when I filmed that plane hitting the second tower,but the screams from the people around me and the anguish and tears in the eyes of the shocked man standing next to me is something I will never forget.

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jsp?forum=121&thread=58174&start=440&msRange=40

But this same u-turn as described by the official account seems to take place very far away from lower manhattan......

[LARED]

82. Can you post the correct link for your Bayonne witness? (n/t)

[seatnineb]

95. Right here:

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=58174&start=200

Scroll down to the 5th post..........

The name of the poster/witness is cashelclan


Turns out....he saw the 1st plane too....or so he says....

After dropping my son off at School,I did my usual morning things and started heading to work. Just as I was driving across the 185 connection between Bayonne and Jersey City I saw the first plane hit the tower

[spooked911]

87. Great point. It is amazing how little we know about the exact path that

plane is supposed to have taken.

[seatnineb]

90. Cheers!.here is another witness who saw the U-turn from Manhatten

A witness who is no less than FBI genius Barry Mawn.....yep.... the same Barry Mawn who declared that a passport of one of the hijackers had been found near the WTC!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-16-Sun-2001/news/17011253.html

But apart from finding that all elusive indestructible passport..our Barry is blessed with X-Ray vision that could put Superman in the shade!..........


We were observing the evacuation when we actually saw the second plane come down, flying NORTH TO SOUTH, actually turn around. And then we lost it momentarily behind the buildings, and then the next time we saw it, it was headed straight for the south tower
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/18/lt.17.html

How could Barry see this U-Turn:



....from downtown New York!

[LARED]

93. Perhaps you put too much faith in your image

http://www.public-action.com/911/4flights.html

Has this warning about your image

DO NOT USE THIS ANIMATION TO STUDY THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE PLANES OR PATH CROSSINGS.

[seatnineb]

94. But the 9/11 commission has UA175's u-turn even further away!

But we have witnesses seeing the same U-turn from the STREETS of Manhattan itself!..........

She briefly told us that she was working in her office when she saw the second plane hit one of the Towers. Being a few blocks away from the site, Ms. Russell said she saw the second plane fly by, TURN AROUND, then hit the other tower. She put her arms up to shield her face from flying glass shards, but her arms were cut, nonetheless

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5734620&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475621&rfi=6.


How could Ms Russell see this U-Turn(as visualized by the 9/11 Commission):



.....from downtown Manhattan!

Now either these witnesses are full of shit.....or the diagrams depicting the U-Turn are full of shit.....

Take your pick....

[spooked911]

126. I say both are full of it.

[spooked911]

111. I like how they have what looks to be a 747 hitting the wtc in that

newspaper photo/graphic!

[menschmaam]

70. Brooklyn Battery Tunnel

So-Called Alleged "Pavel" footage was SHOT FROM A FIRETRUCK at the approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, standing in line BEFORE THE FIRST HIT.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

The Official Story says this footage was caught from a black SUV,
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel/officialstory.htm

But a Black SUV would not reflect a firetruck in the cars ahead.



There is also no explanation why "an immigrant czech worker" just happens to have the name of a recently dead Czech glass artist.

Also no explanation of why a Czech immigrant would be using an expensive video doucmentary camera with the same aspect ratio as the cameras the Naudet film crew used.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/presentation

[petgoat]

63. Interesting about overflying Brooklyn.

According to this clip allegedly from KTLA Channel 5 in Los Angeles
http://a911.g.akamai.net/f/911/960/60m/www.latimes.com/media/quicktime/2001-09/634740.mov
the WTC plane had taken off from La Guardia for Los Angeles and 114
people were aboard.

The clip is at that danish site:

http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/

[philb]

49. The video does make it appear the plane melted into the building

So perhaps there is a technical explanation of why this is the case.
Are you saying the video doesn't give this impression to you? To many it does?
Can you explain it?

Its clear that there were lots of witnesses who saw a plane. But the details of what plane it was and how it got there aren't clear.
And whether the plane was the real deal or a sideshow?

[izzy911]

103. ***A GIANT COKE CAN GOING 400 MPH

Guys, if you've ever scrunched an empty can of Coke, or used kitchen sissors to cut one up, you gotta picture this---

you've gotta picture a very large EMPTY 12 oz Coke can travelling at 400+ mph into a massive concrete and steel bldg. built to withstand all sorts of mayham;, and wham!

Which wins, the thin sided Coka can or the concrete and Steel?


izzy

[spooked911]

141. welcome to DU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[petgoat]

147. It would be interesting to slam a defunct airplane into a

simulated WTC facade at 500 mph (the combing effect of which makes the
concrete wall a poor model).

Unfortunately my back yard isn't big enough. :)

[spooked911]

148. Well, I actually tried slamming some little airplane-like things into my

steel rabbit fencing thing using a sling-shot.

I couldn't get any penetration. The best I got was breaking one of the wires.

But it is hard to know how meaningful this is.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

54. Maybe this is the plane your friends saw.

Test Run?

Video here: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/

[sabbat hunter]

55. incorrect

they saw the damn plane come over battery park (which once again lies off of brooklyn) and slam into WTC 2.

sheesh.

[seatnineb]

58. Were your friends able to decipher anything on the plane?n/t

[sabbat hunter]

61. at 400 mph?

not really, other than it was a large passenger jet.

[seatnineb]

76. That 400mph speed did not stop this witness from identifying it!

We were so close that I knew that it was a United Airlines plane.
http://www.wheaton.edu/front/911/eyewitness.html

The above witness was on the 19th floor of the world financial center.....

Why should I believe her?......or your anonymouse friends for that matter?

[philb]

65. There were a lot of witnesses who saw a plane; but much less who

saw the plane actually hit the building. but I think there were some. Though none I've seen who could provide a clear description- other than one. And that one was much later, after news coverage,etc.

[sabbat hunter]

66. very hard

if near impossible to see something clearly when it is moving at 400 mph.

[izzy911]

104. IN YOUR DREAMS!

Come on, Sabbat!

Since when does questioning the honest government's version and our outstanding media "delegitmize"??? anything? :-)

[sabbat hunter]

105. because

it is one thing to question how the terrorists did this and another to say there were no planes when there clearly were. people saw and heard the planes fly overhead or nearby them. this hologram stuff is absolute crap.

no planes? please.

this thread is a joke.

[philb]

30. The imprint on the towers seem to imply big planes; but the witnesses

had extremely mixed stories of what they saw- lots thought military plane or even small plane hit WTC1 or 737; and no firm evidence or documentation of what hit either provided by anyone that I'm aware of. And lots of strange coincidences and anomolies. The imprints seem to match 767 better than other options; but some witnesses claim to have also seen and heard missiles(firemen and policemen) also and lots of witnesses saw and heard other explosions in the towers. http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
And why the big coverup?
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[philb]

32. What exited WTC2 when the plane hit the tower?

Several things exited through WTC2 when the plane hit the tower.
An engine(that many says was too small for 767)
http://911review.org/Wiki/WTCPlaneEngine.shtml
ended up on Church and Murray Streets, and fuselage on WTC5?, and something shot over WTC7. But there was one picture that showed an object that looked like a missile that was propeled and kept going a long way, could an engine still be getting fuel and fly off on its own?
Anyone have a URL for that picture?

[menschmaam]

33. inside911/jetcrash

http://thewebfairy.com/911/inside911/jetcrash
This is slow motion (10 fps) footage from the recent National Geographic Special.

http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/jetcrash


http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/collected/singleshot.avi
is the long version of this footage.

Also featured at
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit6/

Quote from Nico:
This video is a good example on how easily you can deceive people.
What do we really see?

We see an alleged aircraft and we see an explosion.
We DON'T see a plane hitting a building.

We see a plane passing one building and then we see an explosion.
That's all we see.

[philb]

34. Here are some URLs I found by google search for wtc, missile

Missiles at WTC
http://www.911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=58131
www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index. php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=16 - 85k

two of them show the object exiting WTC2 that I was asking about and the other makes a suggestion about what the object is.

I haven't had time to check them out much yet; but its already past my bedtime so will post and check them out more when I get more time.

[philb]

45. In the 911review pictures, anyone have more likely explanation than missle

could an engine keep flying like this apparently does? Is the apparent vapor trail really a vapor trail of some type of engine? How far did it go? where did it land?

Is there a relation between the object and the explosive cloud it comes out of?

[philb]

47. In the pictures on second URL, what is happening on the neighboring roof?

[philb]

50. 3rd URL got split by computer; it shows videos that some say show missile

fired by the plane that hit WTC2; and that some say is what exited in the other pictures from the previous URLs.
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php

There is something strange on several pictures and videos. Is there a technical issue that explains it on all of them? or if not
what is the explanation of what is seen?

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php


note that firemen and policemen at WTC reported seeing missiles that day. the URLs have been posted before

[menschmaam]

69. Roadrunner makes a Roadrunner Shape Hole

The "Plane Shape Hole" is one of the most cartoonie features.



In the real world, an object looks bigger when it is closer.
If there had been a plane in the footage, it would have looked larger than the plane shape hole when it was nearer to the camera.
The Plane Shape Hole represents the SMALLEST the "Plane" would have appeared, if there were a plane there.

[Frederik]

92. Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage

[Frederik]

38. Oh fer cryin' out load

The more of these theories I read, the more I'm becoming convinced that what happened on 9/11 was the following:

1. Four airliners were hijacked
2. The hijackers flew two of the planes into the WTC towers, and one into the Pentagon
3. The WTC towers then collapsed as a result of the damage from the impact and explosion + the ensuing fires.

[philb]

43. Methinks your problem is you don't look at the evidence and documentation

and try to figure out based on the evidence what is accurate and what is not. Its a matter of record that the official version of what happened isn't accurate. That is well documented in a lot of sources such as testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Paul Thompson's timeline and book, Dr. D.R. Griffin's books, my web page, etc.
Its also a matter of record that there has been a huge coverup of what happened. Lots of prior knowledge and complicity seem well documented. So it would appear that your simplistic view isn't an accurate reflection of what happened.

What you seem to be focusing on are attempts to investigate and explain obvious anomolies in the official version. These attempts are investigatory, not suggested by many as proven. But if there is no credible documentation of what happened and there are obvious anomolies and coverups, the only way to try to figure out what really happened is to investigate the evidence and discuss possible explanations, even some that aren't likely. This is especially true since most involved in the discussion do not have technical background or expertise in many of the issues being discussed. It would be beneficial if more with more background were more involved in the discussion. The fact that they aren't is not because the official story is credible. I think the majority of experts know that there are problems with it but don't want to go there.

[Frederik]

72. Post-modernist revisionism

Coverup - sure. I'm a big fan of Paul Thompson, I think he's timeline is an indispensable tool for anyone who is actually interested in knowing more about the circumstances surronding 9/11, as opposed to constructing fanciful revisionist theories about what physically transpired.

"Lots of prior knowledge and complicity seem well documented"

I agree.

"What you seem to be focusing on are attempts to investigate and explain obvious anomolies in the official version. These attempts are investigatory, not suggested by many as proven"

Look, there's no "obvious anomaly" here. The plane crashed into the building. End of story.

"It would be beneficial if more with more background were more involved in the discussion"

I couldn't agree more.

"The fact that they aren't is not because the official story is credible. I think the majority of experts know that there are problems with it but don't want to go there."

It's not all or nothing. The "official story", if a unified "official story" even exists, is not either all true or all a lie. Some of it is true - quite a lot of it, no doubt - some is not.

[menschmaam]

75. Planted Unburned Foreknowledge

Somehow a tire landed under a construction canopy on the same street where somebody knew in advance to have a camera rolling for a reaction shot to the first hit.

http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

Notice the axle is broken off clean, or more likely it's cut.
Somehow one wheel landed in New York and the other in Washington.
This is quite a feat.

Most likely the wheel is preplanted, disguised as construction debris, like they did at the Pentagon.

You can see the construction tape in the Brave New World clip, and the canopy legs too. You can see another piece of "wreckage" currently disguised with a trashbin in the street.

[petgoat]

77. They're standing on the shady side of the street--E or S.

http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=&csz=New+York%2C+NY&state=NY&uzip=10007&ds=n&name=&desc=&lat=40.71463&lon=-74.005806&mlt=40.71463&mln=-74.005806&zoomin=yes&BFKey=&resize=l&trf=0&mag=2

On a north-south street like Broadway (a NNE street), I think the south
sides of the buildings would be lit up. So I'm guessing it's an
east-west street.

It's hard to tell because of the camera movement, but I'm not sure Mr.
T-Shirt and Mr. Briefcase are looking at the same thing.

Notice the complete lack of traffic. Have the police moved the
cars out of the area?

[RayUbinger]

97. 1st Hit Reaction Shot

aka First Moment of a Brave New World,
discovered by me on June 30, 2004,
lurking within the Naudet-FDNY snuff film,
was shot along the east gutter of Church St.
looking north and west
toward the Church-Murray intersection
in the block immediately south of Murray.

Lack of traffic is explained by the fact that the street was blocked to the south of (behind) the cameraman (evidently Gedeon Naudet, even though the narration has him blocks away, back at the Duane St. firehouse). This street blocking is established elsewhere in the movie. The movie has at least four snippets of footage from the Church-Murray vicinity.

The morning sun in the east is coming from the right, roughly. Church is a N-S (roughly) street. Some reflections of sunlight off of the Emigrants Bank windows (EB is the bldg in left foreground) are being cast eastward and down into the middle of the street.

As for whether Mr. T-Shirt and Mr. Briefcase are looking at the same thing, remember the action was very high up, and, we're only shown approximately the first second of their reaction. (The fact that the movie presents it in slow motion disguises this fact.) I figure one or both of them were still figuring out exactly where to look. There is also a third person turning to look, the possible Condi Rice lookalike in the mid background. Her head twirl is in sync with and facing the same direction as Mr. Briefcase's.

I maintain this is an authentic unstaged live pedestrian reaction shot at the instant of the 1st Hit, shot so the terrorists could have a snuff film of our (the victims') first wince of pain and fear and shock.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."

[spooked911]

88. Hey, great catch! I didn't notice that before!

[Frederik]

91. I'm sure it's a nice

hobby to have. Just don't call it "truthseeking", because it's not. In fact, it's bordering on mental illness.

[spooked911]

48. Somebody please explain what happened to the vertical stabilizer

In the video, it clearly disappears into the building. It doesn't break off, it doesn't bend or distort. It seems to go cleanly into the building.


In fact, in the video, there is a puff of smoke on the wall where the vertical stabilizer went in.


Yet there is no hole in the wall where it went.

How did that happen?

[menschmaam]

71. Exactly what happens in Flight Simulator

In a Flight Simulator Animation, the "plane" -- any sort of plane flying at any angle can be specified -- vanished into the building like a ghost.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/marcus/perspective
shows some examples.

This is one of the stabilized Ghostplane images by Eric Salter.
Somebody PLEASE notice how preposterous this is!!

[spooked911]

86. what's that funny round thing under the fuselage?

looks like an engine but in the wrong place...

Plus, I gotta say that Cheney hit simulation is eerily similar to the "real" video

[petgoat]

79. Frankly, spooked, in your photo I think I see the track of the

stabilizer (tail). DU won't let me see your OP pictures right now, but
if I remember right if you look at the highest fire in the picture,
underneath it the two columns bracketing the fire it appear to be sliced
at the stabilizer's angle.

I wasn't going to bring this up except that it strikes me as really
strange if the stabilizer at WTC2 sliced through the perimeter columns
but the stabilizer at the Pentagon didn't even leave a mark on the wall.

[MrSammo1]

84. You can see

the mark the vertical stabilizer made.

[spooked911]

89. Thanks-- that mark was not so clear on the picture I had.

Is the tail supposed to have gone in through that crack or hit there and broken off?

[MrSammo1]

107. It appears

that the momentum of the jets sent most of it into the Towers. Which is to be expected considering the speed involved. We did see some blow back in both cases.

Faking the jet crashes would be impossible. There are just too many cameras trained on the second Tower.

Now whether they were indeed passenger jets..........that's a different story.

The photo that I posted shows beyond a shadow of doubt that no jet hit the Pentagon. Always keep that in mind.

Another telling photo......

[spooked911]

112. Here's the thing:

I would never doubt that 767's hit the WTC except for the fact that it is very clear that the flight 77 and flight 93 crashes were faked.

[MrSammo1]

136. Exactly Spooked

Why consider any part of the 911 to be true?

[philb]

67. Seems no one is attempting to answer the many questions raised here

why have a discussion if no one is attempting to resolve unanswered questions and anomolies that are pointed out?

[menschmaam]

74. All insults all the time

The only answers they have involve ALL CAPS, lots of Exclamation marks!!!!!!! generic insults, and if the thread goes on long enough, the daisy gonzocons turn to intimidation and threats.

They don't have any common sense.
Pretty soon they have to resort to butterplanes than melt, karate chopping with their wings, and toothpaste.

Some of these planehuggers claim to be against the war, even.

It seems that the FACT we went to WAR over CARTOONS would be an excellent reason for stopping the infernal "war on terror" and coming home, cos the real terrorists work for Rummy.


It seems people would be relieved to know that checking checking Granny's underwear and making her leave her knitting needles at home wasn't gonna stop Government Connected Corporate Public Relations Firms from making up some fresh terror with some fresh excuse.

This being Halloween, we should revisit costumed Halloween Terrorist Adam Pearlman
http://thewebfairy.com/911/halloween

[MrSammo1]

83. Actually........

It's what is to be expected. Considering the kinetic energy involved.
Those two holes in the towers point directly to the lies told at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

[MercutioATC]

85. And you wonder why DU buries this Forum...

:tinfoilhat:

GOD! Not this hologram shit again!

I couldn't bring myself to read each and every post...have we gotten to the "pods" and "fuel sprayers" yet?

[MrSammo1]

98. Question.........

Is there anything that happened on 911 that you have a problem with?

[MercutioATC]

99. Haven't we been through this a few times before?

Of course I have issues with some of what happened. That's a far cry from buying into the holograms/pods/fuel sprayers/missiles/plane replacement stuff that gets spewed in here.

This whole hologram thing is just very silly.

[izzy911]

101. Hologram mention = cointelpro tactic

The exploring of hologram use was dropped more than a year ago. The only ones that continue to bring it up (deparately, I might add) are people who are pro-bush administration.......you don't hear researchers even mentioning it--just disinfos.

[MercutioATC]

109. The original post claimed the second crash was "faked".

How else do you fake a plane hitting a building?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

113. How about this as a possibility?

How else do you fake a plane hitting a building?

Hmmm, on a day with a clear, bright, blue, cloudless sky?



What is Blue Screen Imaging?

The magic of bluescreen effects starts with the foreground subject videographed in front of an evenly lit monochromatic (blue or green) background. The compositing process replaces all the selected background hue in the picture with another background image.

Our Equipment

Our Blue Screen composites are made electronically for live video, and we use non-linear digital editing on a RAID configured computer.

We have a modular blue screen, which can be as large as 30 ft wide, and 20 feet tall. Other colors can be used, green and sometimes red for special purposes, depending upon your project. A double height heated studio 24 x 30 feet is set and ready to shoot with broadcast quality videocams, microphones, amplifiers, speakers and three monitors.

http://www.film.bc.ca/bluescreen/index.htm

If you watch Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, you will notice that R2-D2 has black parts (in Luke's X-wing) instead of the proper blue, this was caused by the 'blue screen' filming. You can also see that some parts of the Snow Speeders in the battle against the AT-ATs are see through, again this was a side effect of using the blue screen method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluescreen

[MercutioATC]

114. They blue-screened the sky while scores of people were watching?

There are any number of techniques to alter video...altering an outdoor setting in realtime with witnesses, though?

Foubtful.

...and that's what it all comes down to. There were scores of actual eyewitnesses who both saw and HEARD the planes hit the buildings.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

116. No, just the television footage,

as I wasn't a witness in NYC, I can't say exactly what those people saw or thought they saw. My own view is that the eyewitnesses saw the jet that turned away from the WTC (CameraPlanet clip in a previous post) and that they just assumed that it hit the South Tower due to seeing the explosion and the plane in realtively close proximity to each other.

Watch a high quality clip of the Evan Fairbanks video, even he says the plane disappeared like a 'bad special effect'. Also note that the person in the video doesn't react to hearing a plane flying overhead, but reacts once the explosion has started. Ever wonder why this video was always shown in slow motion and hence without audio?

I have several clips in which there is NO sound of a plane engine just prior to the explosion at the South Tower and even a live broadcast that clearly states that there has been an explosion at the South Tower but no mention of a plane at all and those reporters were looking at the towers at the time.

[MercutioATC]

119. There were actually witnesses who SAW the plane hit the tower.

That aside, I'd ask two questions:

1) What idiot would assume they could "fake" a crash by having the plane fly by the building while setting off explosives when all of lower Manhattan was watching? There were definitely a LOT of people looking at the North tower, because it was on fire. Might that not make it very difficult to fake anything (hundreds of eyewitnesses observing from hundreds of different vantage points)?

2) If you're going to actually crash a plane into the North tower, why "fake" a crash at the South tower?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

120. and there were witnesses that saw the snipers in 2002...

driving a white van, yet when they were arrested they were in a dark blue 2-door car. You know how dark blue and white are nearly the same colors. Just like vans and cars are nearly the same.

On the other hand, the more traumatic impact an event has on someone, the more likely they are going to make mistakes in their recollections of that event. I think anyone standing in downtown NY watching the WTC explosion could be said to have been traumitized by what they were seeing at the time, therefore making it nearly impossible for them to be objective witnesses.

P.S. There is another 'smoking' gun clue of forgery in the footage of the second impact, regardless of angle of view, I'm just waiting to see if anyone else notices it. I had thought the 'Die Hard' researchers would have picked up on it be now, but C'est la vie.

[MercutioATC]

125. Hundreds of people made the same "mistake"?

Unlikely.

Do you really believe that the second hit was faked? Why would anybody do that?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

129. Considering that eyewitnesses reported...

several different kinds of planes, from a small Cessna type to a Lear jet to commercial aircraft without windows, then yes I would say many were mistaken about what they think they saw.

Yes I do really believe that the second hit was faked, as was the first, Flight 93 'crash' and the Pentagon 'hit'.

There are hundreds of reasons why somebody would do this, though 'hating us for our freedom' is probably not among them.

Maybe if you spent more time critically examining the so called evidence of All-CIA-Duh's guilt, you would spend less time criticizing those of us that have done OUR own research.

As I pointed out in a prior post, there is a smoking gun reason that shows the videos of the South Tower impact were faked, why not try watching several different videos of that event and figure out what that smoking gun is? Maybe you, LARED, VVL & Bolo can work on it together, like a class project. Or would you rather spend the time trying to ridicule me for having beliefs that I arrived at on my own?

Two very important questions that every person should ask themself:

1. Why do I have the beliefs that I have?
   
2. Who benefits from me having these beliefs?
   

P.S. Read my signature (once they are enabled again) and you may begin to understand.

[MercutioATC]

135. O.K., a couple of points I'd like to make clear...

1) Perspective is a bitch. Put any plane against a building the size of one of the WTC towers and it looks small. Eyewitnesses (and the media) reported a "small" plane hitting the North tower, too.

2) Name just ONE of the "hundreds of reasons" that somebody would crash a REAL plane into a building and then, in front of even MORE witnesses, try to FAKE a plane crash into a building right next to it.

3) Contrary to what you and some of the now-banned (Abe, Dulce, etc.) seem to believe, LARED, Vincent, Bolo, AZCat, and I have never (to the best of my knowledge) met or collaborated on any posts (and I apologize if I left anybody out).

4) If you have some "smoking gun", just explain it. Your "Where's Waldo" approach is silly.

That'll do for now. I'm trying to keep things reasonably concise so we can keep the dialog going.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

138. Maybe you should stick to Pushing Tin.

If you have some "smoking gun", just explain it. Your "Where's Waldo" approach is silly.

I guess me having the nerve to suggest that you do your own research WAS silly, as that is something that you just can't bear to invest any time in doing, for it is much easier to ridicule those of us that hold different beliefs than yours.

Knowledge is power and I for one won't simply hand it over to people such as yourself that aren't motivated to even try to earn that power on their own.

Any particular reason that you brought up those people that were banned, other than trying to connect me to them?

[MercutioATC]

146. Don't like people who challenge your silly theories?

With all of the "research" you've done, I'm sure you'll have no problem answering this question:

If nothing actually hit the tower, why are are all of the outer steel columns bent IN instead of OUT? A "vacuum bomb" perhaps? :eyes:

I brought up those two particular people because they, too, picked and chose which evidence they were going to ignore and became irate when anybody dared mention that their theories just made no sense. Additionally, one of them also claimed to have "smoking gun" information which she always talked about but refused to divulge. I just thought the similarities between your chosen styles of "research" were interesting.

[spooked911]

127. Ooh ohh! Tell me what the clue is!

Pretty please!

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

130. Check your blog. N/T

[spooked911]

140. Thanks again!

[MrSammo1]

134. one of the things

that caught my eye was the darkness of the jet (Flight 175) Considing the time of day and the sun shining brightly on the side we are looking at.

[spooked911]

128. Can you give a link to that Camera Planet clip?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

131. Here you go.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/911.wtc.yet.another.plane.wmv

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/911.wtc.yet.another.plane.enl.slow.wmv

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.plane.circling.around.wmv

[spooked911]

139. Thanks.

I looked up that one last night but was unsure if that the same one you meant.

Oddly, that plane takes a path more like the official flight 175...

[sabbat hunter]

115. only problem

is that there were eyewitnesses on the spot that saw the plane fly overhead and smash into WTC 2

[MrSammo1]

106. Then

What are the problems as you see it?

[MercutioATC]

110. With the hologram theory or the entirety of the official version of 9/11?

If it's the latter, I doubt I'll be able to answer in one succint post.

[MrSammo1]

132. What about 911 as a whole........

What are the problems as you see them?

I ask this because I have never seen you agree with anything posted here?

I don't know anyone (in my personal life) who has seen the physical facts that doesn't question something?

[MercutioATC]

137. You obviously haven't been paying attention, then.

Regardless, I'll give you a few (this isn't meant to be comprehensive, just representative).

I'm not a LIHOPper or MIHOPper. I believe that the events of 9/11 happened because this administration was incompetent. That said, I believe that the "lies" involved are designed to cover up incompetence, not some sinister plot.

I have a problem with the amount of evidence released. This includes such things as flight data and voice recorders and Pentagon cameras. There may be security issues involved with the Pentagon cameras and the flight data and voice recorders may really not have proved conclusive but this is a weak area.

I have a problem with the administration trying to sell the idea that this was unforseen. We know that there was intelligence strongly suggesting that a 9/11-type event was possible, if not probable. I believe that they discounted the intelligence and are now furiously trying to spin the situation to put them in a better light.

I have a problem with the flaws in the 9/11 Commission's report. Instead of attempting to truly investigate the events, they just compiled an overview of what happened...with some innacuracies. I wish they'd done a better job.


Also, you seem to view my posts as exhibiting a lack of "questioning" things on my part. I'm sorry if they give that impression. I've questioned almost everything about 9/11. I just haven't seen any real evidence that this was due to anything other than incompetence.

[philb]

149. You may be right; but there was a coverup going on from the start

at every site; and regarding the alleged hijackers as well; and we still don't know who half of the alleged hijackers were or what role they played;
except that most airline and military pilots don't think they flew the planes

[sabbat hunter]

122. that cannot be faked

you cannot fake a blue screen in front of hundreds if not thousand of witnesses standing on the street. the whole idea that it was trick photography is a joke. i personally know people that saw the plane hit WTC 2 and the tower explode in flames.

[MrSammo1]

133. I'm not

disagreeing with these facts.

I personally question whether the jets were in fact.........passenger jets.

The fact that we were so obviously lied to about the Pentagon and Shanksville, makes me question all parts of the government's 911 story.

[sabbat hunter]

145. if they werent

if they werent passenger jets, then where did all the passengers go that were on the flights in question go?

[Kevin Fenton]

108. Bag of crap

"Nothing breaks off from the plane."
Actually, debris can be seen breaking off from the plane in the video and there are multiple reports of it on the street below.

The quality of the webfairy's analysis is not high, for example:
"In every air crash footage I can find, the impact explosion begins within 2 frames. In this instance, there are more than 40 frames, almost two seconds, between the beginning of the impact and the beginning of ignition of the immediate area."
This is bullshit. Count the frames from when wing fuel tanks hit the building and when the explosion appears from the building. Then alter this number to take account of the fact that the explosion was initially inside the building and will have taken a couple of frames to become visible. Then go to webfairy's comparison and check whether it really only takes 2 frames for the explosion to become visible after impact. The difference isn't 38 frames, it's more like 3.

Also, given that the film has almost 30 frames a second, 40 frames are not "almost 2 seconds". If her arguments are so good, why does she have to add on another 40% to beef them up?

Next time you're bored, do us all a favour and go see a movie - anything but posting crap like this.

[spooked911]

117. Which video shows debris breaking off the plane?

And note, I am not backing up all of webfairy's claims. But I think there is something odd about this crash.

[Kevin Fenton]

118. Debris

Debris are clearly visible in the segment captioned "Notice the plane still vanishes..."
We can see the plane, we can see the debris breaking off it, we have photos and eyewitness accounts of the debris on the streets around the WTC. This is what most people call stone-cold cast-iron sure-fire 100% conclusive proof.

You think there is something odd about everything, including a plane approaching a building supposedly defended by automatic missiles by flying under the radar. Progressive collapse, that's odd, roving engine too. The crash sites look just the way I would expect them.

[spooked911]

123. what debris do you clearly see breaking off there?

I see some clouds of dust come out, but no clear debris.

In fact, there are remarkably few pictures of plane debris in the streets. One engine piece, one tire, and one little bracket that says Boeing on it.

The eyewitness statements are always problematic. No one believes them when they say bombs went off, so why should we believe them about plane debris? :)

But after the explosion, a lot of shit came out of the building, and just like at the pentagon, it's far from clear in most cases what is plane debris and what is building debris.

And, yes, I think many aspects of 9/11 are damn odd. The flight 93 crash site makes no sense, for starters. The pentagon hit has many problems. If they faked those, as seems likely to me, then perhaps they faked the WTC hits too.

[Kevin Fenton]

124. When I look at the video

(the resolution is not very good) I see little bits of plane come back off the tower. As for the "dust", most of the plane is lightweight aluminium, it's no wonder it turns to "dust" when it hits steel.

I neither believe nor disbelieve the eyewitnesses who say bombs went off, as there may be another explanation. I can't think of another explanation for the firemen who say they see bits of plane. Philb has collected some of what the firemen said about this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x53612

"And, yes, I think many aspects of 9/11 are damn odd. The flight 93 crash site makes no sense, for starters. The pentagon hit has many problems. If they faked those, as seems likely to me, then perhaps they faked the WTC hits too."
(1) The Pentagon makes perfect sense, what's wrong there?
(2) We can turn that around - if the WTC impacts were real, then perhaps the other 2 were too.

[spooked911]

142. Oddly, when I look at the Evan Fairbanks video, it looks a bit like

the engines come off as the plane goes in-- but then they get lost in the smoke puff that forms.

http://webfairy.org/insane/index.htm

[spooked911]

143. Oddly, when I look at the Evan Fairbanks video, it looks a bit like

the engines come off as the plane goes in-- but then they get lost in the smoke puffs that form.

http://webfairy.org/insane/index.htm