Please give your opinions on the flight 175 oddities in this article

[spooked911]

"Ghost Gun UA175-- Holograms, Whistleblowers and the 9-11 Media Hoax"

http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm


This "Ghost Gun" article has stuck in my head because the findings are so weird but I think they are onto something important. They do an extremely rigorous job of analyzing all the different videos and photos of flight 175. In my opinion, they find some inexplicable things.

Here is a list of the various abnormalities they point out in the pictures and photos of flight 175:
1) abnormally dark lighting on the plane in some shots
2) strange lack of color on the plane in other shots-- the dark blue UA livery should be very prominent but it just isn't there
3) one wing or one tail disappearing for a few frames in many different videos
4) the "pod" under the left wing
5) the orange flash that appears just as the plane meets the tower
6) the lack of detail on the wings in some shots that have other good detail
7) how the plane looks different from video to video-- each shot angle shows different abnormalities
8) the extreme bending of the port wing
9) a huge upper wing root distention in one shot
10) how the plane melts easily into the building without plane slowing or any part breaking off.

These are all serious problems, and together strongly suggest to me that several of the videos and photos were touched up or faked. The theory that what is observed of flight 175 is a hologram of a 767 cloaking another flying object can't be proven but does help explain things like the pod and the orange flash and some of the other aberrations.

The major drawback of the whole piece is that they rely quite a bit on a computer animation of what flight 175 (a United 767-200) should look like. The computer model is extremely realistic and may well accurately depict a 767-200-- but it is hard to have complete confidence that the computer model is accurate in every way.

Any comments or crticisms?

[Borg]

1. I´m not sure

but the pictures seems to be unreal.
A danish research team are showing more interesting details, for example a video loop:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit7/

[spooked911]

2. I can't read Danish. What do you mean by "video loop"?

I agree the pictures are unreal, but do you blame the article for poor pictures or do you think the actual Flight 175 flight was "unreal"?

[Borg]

6. of course a fake product

The danish website analyzes the clouds of smoke in the short video clip. The formation of smoke clouds is accidental, a repeatition is nearly impossible. We remark the same clouds as we have seen a few seconds before. This kind of repeatition is only possible in a film production like hollywood.
The conclusion is, that there is the same video sequence without and with a approaching plane. In comparison to a computer programm (with loops) I characterized it as a "video-loop".

It would be helpful to find someone who`s able to translate the danish words.

[DrDebug]

3. There are too many eyewitnesses to the second crash

I think this is just a weird disinformation attempt. There are pictures of the hole the planes left. There are videos and photographs and there are 1000s of people who have looked at the plane crashing into WTC2.

I highly doubt this story. Of course some of the footage and material which we have shown was touched up or faked, but I don't doubt that it was a real plane. Whether it was really Flight 175 or some other plane is question, but that it was real was pretty clear

[spooked911]

5. Actually, it is absolutely true that some witnesses described expolsions

without seeing a plane and other witnesses said there were missiles being fired from the Woolworth building. This can't be denied. It is in the original police reports from 9/11.

I would like to hear from a witness who clearly saw flight 175 hit with his own eyes and not on TV, which ios the way most people saw it.

I agree that there was probably a real plane that hit the tower-- I think it would be too hard to fake the scar. But I also think some of the photos and videos were altered-- perhaps to make the plane look more like a 767. And some of the shots that show the plane going into the tower look amazingly fake.

I know this sounds crazy but I wonder if this isn't part of the genius of the whole thing-- to produce such an outrageous lie about the plane hitting that to doubt it makes one automatically a nut.

[Sweet Pea]

4. Well...

That webpage has certainly got to be the wackiest whack job I've seen yet.

Rockets being fired from and near the Woolworth Building into the World Trade Center?

Holograms?

whatzits?

holographically cloaked hack job missile?

Flight Simulator 2004.....perhaps he can use an Etch-a-Sketch to diagram his conclusions, and maybe a slinky to illustrate how the buildings fell down, "similar to a slinky walking down stairs".

Seriously, guys...the farther away you can get from this sort of lunacy the better off you'll be.