World Trade Centre Hit By Anti Gravity Balls, Groundbreaking research from Richard D Hall Options

[SeaPigeon]

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

[SanderO]

The so called camera position and computations that this fellow makes had to be in a helicopter because there are no buildings to mount a fixed camera ABOVE the height of the WTC towers. You can see that the angle in some of the footage shows NJ and Staten Island is there for taken from an elevation well above the towers. But the same view can be made from say the NBC studios at Rockefeller center and that would show the background as sky and the buildings would look similar, but not exact. However, unless the helicopter was fixed and not moving it's unlikely to compute any trajectory at all.

The ball doesn't seem to grow in size as it approaches either.

I am not convinced.

[lunk]

i thought it was a rather good analysis.
Though i don't agree with no planes,
i could see the possibility,
of something else, hitting them.

Though, the impact, and resulting fire ball, and internal fires,
could not have demolished the tower(s), alone.

There must have been preparations made,
in those three building, at least,
before 9/11.

[KP50]

I enjoyed it, if only because it is a new theory and after all these years a new theory is rare. The fact he even managed to incorporate the pod into his ball was ingenious.

It would be churlish and a waste of time to point out the holes in his theory although I am sure others will.

[amazed!]

That is a fascinating and well presented piece of work. Certainly the man has a point. And of course he comes to the proper conclusion.

But I still say that from the perspective of the perps, if the story to be advanced is that airliners crashed into the buildings, why not have a real airliner crash into the building?

Regarding the first airplane into the North Tower, Hall seems to have missed a brief video I saw years ago. Taken from some sort of parking lot camera like the one at the Pentagon, it is very brief but does show some kind of flying object strike the tower. Can't tell what type of aircraft it was, but it did appear to be an aircraft and not a ball.

Hall's point about the object in the NBC video is most interesting.

[Obwon]

<snip>
But I still say that from the perspective of the perps, if the story to be advanced is that airliners crashed into the buildings, why not have a real airliner crash into the building?
<snip>

The idea behind why it was necessary to not have real planes crash into the buildings was:

Inside the buildings there would need to be an intricate web of explosives. Some with
detonators, while others would not have detonators themselves, but would detonate using
the compression waves of the ones that are detonated.

Therefore, using real planes, which would have unpredictable results, might
damage or alter the explosives web designs.

So, from the planners position at the planing table, it makes sense to consider
an alternate method of creating the damage to the building, such that it would
appear to have been a plane crash, without actually using real planes.

In the aftermath, we see that the absence of plane debris are accounted for by
several methods. It is claimed that the planes vaporised on impact. It is claimed
that they penetrated entirely into the buildings. Some debris is made available to
help confirm that real planes were destroyed by the impacts. Finally videos showing
planes impacting the buildings are played on national tv.

As flawed, impossible, and/or improbable as these alternatives were, we see that
they have actually worked.

Obwon

[amazed!]

I guess the question becomes "do airplanes always give unpredictable results?"

In which case the answer is no.

They had technology that allows transport category aircraft to approach and land on autopilot back in the 70's.

From my perspective, with the proper equipment employed, getting a drone to fly into an 1100' tall building would be pretty easy, though there is always room for error.