IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Explosion Recorded On A Camera Before The Tower Is Struck

roscoe
post Jan 3 2014, 04:49 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



Just in case you're not aware of this.

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 3 2014, 05:40 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 3 2014, 06:19 PM) *
Just in case you're not aware of this.

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.


Dear 'roscoe'

Well done.

Did you notice the lady in the background also reacted at the same time.

That would have had to have been as the result of the percussion of an explosion, as she didn't appear to be particularly concerned about the sound of the aircraft going over head.

Perhaps we are all beginning to see why the aircraft entered the building: without totally dismantling itself on the face of the Tower.

It is highly likely the same technique was used with the South Tower, hence the strange greying out effect on the face of the South Tower, and the similar effect on the face of the North Tower.

Again Well done.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 3 2014, 08:03 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 3 2014, 08:49 PM) *
Just in case you're not aware of this.

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.


This video was yet another example of the vast number of vids still-being-forced onto our attention by Insider-Job elements bent on continuing the 9/11 Effor-Fraud for another 12 years... or until we finally all wake up.

The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.

Check the huge volume of evidence that all 4 Boeings were/still are fakes of one kind and another, and evidence of the rest of your 9/11 false flag can be rejected as garbage. "No Planes" is key to the whole sad false flag.

There were NO BOEINGS ... you ain't the first person with a credibility problem... I spent all year 2002 before I finally knew for certain there were NO PLANES. The "No-Planes" position has been totally researched to finality...it's not rocket science... understand that, figure it out from all the evidence, and you will spot every single one of the vast numbers of vids currently being posted which are ALL paid for by perpeTRAITORs who cocked-up badly on the day.... and more fool US for being anything the idiots ever say/said.

The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks

BTW The official BTS website was down for days while various obviously-fraudulent attempts were made to cover-up the "error" but these false tries only underscored the fact that some entities were acting illegally to fudge the data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 3 2014, 08:33 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 4 2014, 12:03 AM) *
The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks


All 3 of the Twin Towers were demolished, Building 7 was brought down by computer-Controlled Demolition ...but the other 2 buildings were NOT simple whole-building demolitions of the controlled kind.... they were both turned to dust by a process of the highest-military-engineering order. The demolition of WTC2 and WTC1 is still a top-secret military operation about which my lips would be sealed. Both buildings turned to dust....solid steel ended up as dust.... solid concrete turned to dust in the air over the whole of Manhattan.... you CAN still see it in the vids, but you MUST consciously tell your brain to TELL your eyes where and how to look, or you will miss the crucial evidence in the exact-same way you WILL miss seeing your entire screen being recolored in front of your eyes in Prof Wiseman's clever quirkology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE

Grab the full psychological implications of Richard's cunning presentation of the Color Changing Card Trick here ....and your view of 9/11 (and Shady Hoax too) will never be the same again...


That much I promise


This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 3 2014, 08:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 3 2014, 08:51 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 09:33 PM) *
The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.


Dear 'MikeR'

Probably about one of the few pieces of truth about 9/11 is that AA11 did not impact the North tower.

You are far from the only person who has looked at the flight history of the aircraft involved in the terrible events of 9/11.

There is certainly a tremendous amount of confusion generated by those records, which most likely leads to a conclusion that the two flights from Boston were not by the aircraft claimed, or at least did not take the routes that have been claimed.

Can I suggest you have another look at the video in question.

The camera does look to be at a strange angle at the time of the aircraft flying over: certainly the sound of the aircraft does not sound like that of a Boeing 767 200 at the altitude involved: but do you feel that the video has been staged; if so why not dub in the sound of a real Boeing 767 200.

The explosion could have been dubbed too, but that would mean that the whole presentation was very elaborate: as if you look between the guys legs, a woman in a reddish garment, who does not look to have been part of any planned production walks along, without any concern about the aircraft noise: but her reaction when the explosion occurs seems to be very genuine, in fact not even looking in the direction of the tower but more to her right and rearwards.

Other people in the background appear to have been affected by the explosion too.

So going on what appears to be your thesis, are we to believe that somebody dubbed an aircraft whining over head into the video at the time of the explosion, to cover up that there was an explosion at Tower one.

This does not particularly make a lot of sense: but it certainly conflicts with the immediate spontaneous reports of people who reported that they observed a 'smallish' aircraft fly into the North Tower.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 3 2014, 11:24 AM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 4 2014, 12:51 AM) *
Can I suggest you have another look at the video in question.


Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.

I won't begin the tedious tale all over, if you haven't discovered after 12 years
why it was that the Pentagon was left 99.99% untouched, intact and tautologically unscathed
after NOT being hit by the Airforce transport plane (NOT flying on Route AA77 BTW)
was given suitable cover by the Military Magician's Hollywood Fireball, so that it could
skim over the Pentagon rooftop ...

if I had a copy of the watchtower audio, the only thing I could add
would be the MM's unprintable language as she discovered that the Navy Seals'
dynamite was too damp to detonate under the Pentagon's foundations
as the military transport plane flew safely over the building, without which
facade collapse, the MM's illusion wasn't gonna fool a kid in the front row
of the audience, let alone give David Copperfiled any insider magic tips he didn't
already have heaps in abundance....


The building therefore remained totally intact until one single charge went off.
But that was mistimed at 54 minutes AFTER the Big Bang, and it completely
failed to rock the Pentagon Universe.

Given that egregious Pentagon Plane LIE, we MUST assume that the next shred of
911 evidence MUST also be equally suspect if not downright fraudulent, and
given the LIE, why should I take an eleventeenth view of any of the
post 9/11 revised-as-in-cooked-as-in-faked videos?

If anything, after 12 years of post-9/11 Insider-Job fraud, we MUST regard
every major headlined incidental event with extreme suspicion.

Indeed, when we FIRST check the London 7/7 Tube Bombing, when we
look at the Aurora shooting, the Shady Hoax shooting, the Boston Bombing ...
every broadcast scene is suspicious, every close-up shot yields clear evidence
of yet more fraud, more fakery.

How far can we take this search? How much do the perpeTRAITORs rely on
the average video/tellywatcher seeming to believe whatever LIE the perps
throw at the screen?

What if we throw caution to the winds and assume that the false flags
are being flown higher and wider than the Pearl Harbor Perp ever imagined?
False-flag Deepwater Horizon?
Looked like an accident ... till the first few whistleblower tales
turned into a Corexit torrent
Phony Fukushima?
Surely not: so how come ALL the Japanese Seismographs record a quake
100 TIMES less than the false figure the USGS publicized?
What about Hurricane Sandy?
Surely they won't get away with faking weather now: yet it was indisputable
enhances and re-engineered by non-natural forces...
Chemtrails?
Only shows they CAN get away with the jet-exhaust condensation-trail LIE
Climate warming?
Look closely at the politics, and the algorian stench becomes unbearable

I'll let you check jimstonefreelance.com for all the blatant in-yer-face fakery
that was still ongoing cover-up of the Fukushima event (which will kill us
all even yet)

In order to get back on-topic 9/11, I seriously suggest that we check
Hurricane Sandy's link with NWO Criminality is way-y-y more than the
name in common with Sandy Hook being way-y-y more-than-coincidental

Hurricane Sandy 2012 revealed pathological similarities
in common with Hurricane Erin 2001:

Hurricane Erin is yet another 9/11 event that we must explain along
with the 4 Boeings that did not fly in 2001.

Hurricane Erin took 7 days to fly up the Atlantic from Bermuda,.
By the morning of 9/11/2001, the massive Katrina-sized Hurricane Erin
was just hours off totally devastating New York.

Yet for all of those 7 days, none but NONE of the the weather maps
so much as hinted at the looming problem storm...

Absolutely no mention of any problem, let alone any warning issued.

Katrina was dead-beeline aimed square on New York.... and not a word?


Why?

Doncha think that question isn't a million time$ more significant than some vague
query about what mini-seismic foot-stomping might've tripped the Naudet's
phony camera obscura?

We MUST explain all the 9/11 evidence.... and "No Planes" is just a smart choice.

We have a helluva long list of insider jobs since 9/11, and without investigations
from alternative bloggery, each one risks a popular vote ultimately letting
the treasonous perpeTRAITORs off the hangman's noose

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 3 2014, 11:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datars
post Jan 3 2014, 01:13 PM
Post #7


New Terrorist in Town


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 14-August 06
From: S.F. Bay Area
Member No.: 6



Thanks for the share, I'll send this off to Richard Gage
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 3 2014, 10:49 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 10:24 AM) *
Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.


MikeR I'm with you on various aspects of 9/11, including the all-important Pentagon.

However, despite being a no-planer for a certain period of time, I had to ultimately reject
that hypothesis.

The scheduled flights hitting the towers? No way. But there were planes involved.

I have more than enough proof to satisfy me.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 03:41 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 08:03 AM) *
This video was yet another example of the vast number of vids still-being-forced onto our attention by Insider-Job elements bent on continuing the 9/11 Effor-Fraud for another 12 years... or until we finally all wake up.

The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.

Check the huge volume of evidence that all 4 Boeings were/still are fakes of one kind and another, and evidence of the rest of your 9/11 false flag can be rejected as garbage. "No Planes" is key to the whole sad false flag.

There were NO BOEINGS ... you ain't the first person with a credibility problem... I spent all year 2002 before I finally knew for certain there were NO PLANES. The "No-Planes" position has been totally researched to finality...it's not rocket science... understand that, figure it out from all the evidence, and you will spot every single one of the vast numbers of vids currently being posted which are ALL paid for by perpeTRAITORs who cocked-up badly on the day.... and more fool US for being anything the idiots ever say/said.

The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks

BTW The official BTS website was down for days while various obviously-fraudulent attempts were made to cover-up the "error" but these false tries only underscored the fact that some entities were acting illegally to fudge the data.


Firstly I'm well aware that persons who on the face of it appear to be on the side of getting to the truth are in fact planted to divert investigation away from the correct line of inquiry. It's not the first time this has been done, even prior to 911.

However.

There is no suggestion that this is American Airlines Flight 11, in fact it very likely isn't.

I am prepared until someone shows me different (with supporting evidence) that AN AIRCRAFT hit the North Tower here. Holograms etc are far too complicated and in danger of being exposed. Just use a real aircraft and go from there.

By the way I'm aware of all the shills, I can only assume from the quality of the opposition that it doesn't pay well.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 4 2014, 03:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 04:03 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 3 2014, 05:40 AM) *
Dear 'roscoe'

Well done.

Did you notice the lady in the background also reacted at the same time.

That would have had to have been as the result of the percussion of an explosion, as she didn't appear to be particularly concerned about the sound of the aircraft going over head.

Perhaps we are all beginning to see why the aircraft entered the building: without totally dismantling itself on the face of the Tower.

It is highly likely the same technique was used with the South Tower, hence the strange greying out effect on the face of the South Tower, and the similar effect on the face of the North Tower.

Again Well done.

Robert S


Well the first thing I would say to people is make sure this is cloned everywhere before T.H.E.Y. remove it.

Looking at this and comparing it with the audio tape that also shows two explosions there is a discrepancy of the timings. In reality the gap would be greater, this is because sound will travel through a fluid (Air) faster than through the ground. Hence the time difference. In the audio tape both sounds are travelling through air.

I'm not of the NO PLANER fraternity, it's too complicated not to use a real aircraft and fraught with problems. There's a lot of people in New York and there would be hundreds of people now saying that they saw no aircraft, this is not the case.

It is clear that whatever plane it was, it WASN'T AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 4 2014, 04:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 04:09 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 08:33 AM) *
All 3 of the Twin Towers were demolished, Building 7 was brought down by computer-Controlled Demolition ...but the other 2 buildings were NOT simple whole-building demolitions of the controlled kind.... they were both turned to dust by a process of the highest-military-engineering order. The demolition of WTC2 and WTC1 is still a top-secret military operation about which my lips would be sealed. Both buildings turned to dust....solid steel ended up as dust.... solid concrete turned to dust in the air over the whole of Manhattan.... you CAN still see it in the vids, but you MUST consciously tell your brain to TELL your eyes where and how to look, or you will miss the crucial evidence in the exact-same way you WILL miss seeing your entire screen being recolored in front of your eyes in Prof Wiseman's clever quirkology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE

Grab the full psychological implications of Richard's cunning presentation of the Color Changing Card Trick here ....and your view of 9/11 (and Shady Hoax too) will never be the same again...


That much I promise


I've seen the lecture by DR Judy Wood and to be honest I think it's a crock. At the end she calls Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin GATEKEEPERS. I think this is a double bluff it's her who is the GATEKEEPER thrown in to divert the inquiry, watch it they're everywhere.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 4 2014, 04:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 04:19 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 3 2014, 10:49 PM) *
MikeR I'm with you on various aspects of 9/11, including the all-important Pentagon.

However, despite being a no-planer for a certain period of time, I had to ultimately reject
that hypothesis.

The scheduled flights hitting the towers? No way. But there were planes involved.

I have more than enough proof to satisfy me.


I cannot bring myself to believe that T.H.E.Y. decided not to use a real plane. NO, it's just too complicated.

There was a plane that crashed into each tower. They just weren't the ones they said they were.

In fact they don't have any hard evidence that they were.

Scheduled flights hitting the towers? Absolutely not. Even that plan could have gone pear shaped on them.

No my current working hypothesis is that these planes were remote controlled drones. Guided in to a discreet distance by someone on the ground and then the last few hundred feet guided to where the explosion was to be by a laser coming out of the tower itself.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 4 2014, 04:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 04:36 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 11:24 AM) *
Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.

I won't begin the tedious tale all over, if you haven't discovered after 12 years
why it was that the Pentagon was left 99.99% untouched, intact and tautologically unscathed
after NOT being hit by the Airforce transport plane (NOT flying on Route AA77 BTW)
was given suitable cover by the Military Magician's Hollywood Fireball, so that it could
skim over the Pentagon rooftop ...

if I had a copy of the watchtower audio, the only thing I could add
would be the MM's unprintable language as she discovered that the Navy Seals'
dynamite was too damp to detonate under the Pentagon's foundations
as the military transport plane flew safely over the building, without which
facade collapse, the MM's illusion wasn't gonna fool a kid in the front row
of the audience, let alone give David Copperfiled any insider magic tips he didn't
already have heaps in abundance....


The building therefore remained totally intact until one single charge went off.
But that was mistimed at 54 minutes AFTER the Big Bang, and it completely
failed to rock the Pentagon Universe.

Given that egregious Pentagon Plane LIE, we MUST assume that the next shred of
911 evidence MUST also be equally suspect if not downright fraudulent, and
given the LIE, why should I take an eleventeenth view of any of the
post 9/11 revised-as-in-cooked-as-in-faked videos?


I hear what you're saying.

I just posted this because by speculating we could all end up disappearing up our own rhetoric. Only hard evidence is useful now. Yes it's fun to speculate but where has it gotten us?

Eyewitness reports, video evidence is all we have. Occasionally we catch them lying. It's an inquiry we need. Stop offering your theories it allows them to call you a Conspiracy Theorist. Stop lumping in everything else not associated with 911, it gives them ammunition. Merely offer your QUESTIONS and say that intelligent unbiased inquiry is all you have and remind the detractors that this is what they should be doing in a democracy.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 4 2014, 04:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 4 2014, 04:44 AM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



QUOTE (datars @ Jan 3 2014, 01:13 PM) *
Thanks for the share, I'll send this off to Richard Gage


Thanks.

Just let me say that I don't think this is set up.

If you play it again you can here the fear in guys voice. It's happening in front of his eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 4 2014, 09:15 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 05:33 PM) *
Well the first thing I would say to people is make sure this is cloned everywhere before T.H.E.Y. remove it.

Looking at this and comparing it with the audio tape that also shows two explosions there is a discrepancy of the timings. In reality the gap would be greater, this is because sound will travel through a fluid (Air) faster than through the ground. Hence the time difference. In the audio tape both sounds are travelling through air.

I'm not of the NO PLANER fraternity, it's too complicated not to use a real aircraft and fraught with problems. There's a lot of people in New York and there would be hundreds of people now saying that they saw no aircraft, this is not the case.

It is clear that whatever plane it was, it WASN'T AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.


Dear 'roscoe'

Immediately prior to the lady in the red garment coming into view, there was another lady in a light garment walking a little in front of her.

The aircraft noise can be heard at this point of time, which it appears had attracted the first ladies's attention: as she is looking upwards in the direction over the fence that is immediately beside her as she walked along.

By the time of the explosion noise, the first lady had almost gone out of camera view, so it is hard to gauge her further reaction.

The lady in the red garment meantime had just reached the guys legs that were in the foreground.

As she goes to go behind his left leg, she can be seen to give a slight jump of surprise which becomes obscured by the guys left leg.

This occurred at the exact time as the start of the noise of the explosion, which rumbled for a further time; causing the lady in the red jumper as she emerged between the guys legs to pause and turn her head to the right, looking up at the sky over the fence.

It appears nobody in the view finder of the camera had a view of the aircraft that went overhead, but the first lady appears to know which direction it was heading.

To be able to determine exactly where the explosion was would have been very difficult, but the camera people "male" obviously connected: low aircraft -- knowledge that the towers were in its path, and close proximity of the towers.

There does not seem to be anything staged in the actions and reactions of all of these people; and most certainly the smoke that then appeared was not staged.

I have been an aircraft 'buff' all of my life, of in a few days 72 years: the aircraft noise in the video did not sound like that of a Boeing 767 200 to me.

No authority at all on explosion noise, but if it is compared with the sound captured at the "naudet" location, there definitely seems to be some similarity.

Robert S







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 4 2014, 09:29 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 03:36 AM) *
Eyewitness reports, video evidence is all we have. Occasionally we catch them lying. It's an inquiry we need. Stop offering your theories it allows them to call you a Conspiracy Theorist. Stop lumping in everything else not associated with 911, it gives them ammunition. Merely offer your QUESTIONS and say that intelligent unbiased inquiry is all you have and remind the detractors that this is what they should be doing in a democracy.



It's refreshing to read this Roscoe.
So seldom do people on 9/11 discussion boards get to the heart of the matter, what really counts.
An unbiased inquiry, nothing more, nothing less.

But simply stating this is not enough.
Concerted ACTION needs to be taken by all truther groups to ensure this occurs.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 5 2014, 12:21 AM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 07:41 PM) *
Holograms etc are far too complicated and in danger of being exposed. Just use a real aircraft and go from there.


If there was a real aircraft (not AA11) hitting WTC1, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy?
Why then is the Hollywood cutout in the glass facade (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?

If that was ANY real aircraft hitting WTC2, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy in that utterly-
unconvincing plane-into-building dissolve?
Why is the Hollywood cutout (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?
Why no shattered airplane parts falling?
Where are all the tons of glass and steel facade filling out the screen at the moment of (zero) impact?
If the image seen approaching Tower 2 was a real plane, how did the arab-boxcutting flight-school dropout
pilot manage for the first time in aviation history to avoid inevitable total disintegrastion of the airframe,
at a still-measurable 150 MPH in excess of the maximum speed Boeing specifies for a 757?
Why were other images of the exact-same plane flying at the exact-same time in the exact-same airspace
flying at various different speeds but all less than half the speed of the top shot?

(You don't think the explanation could possibly have far more to do with the failure of various video
fakers to co-ordinate their efforts in the 5 hours the perpeTRAITOR paid them to get the shot$ on the
midday news? And nothing to do with what plane it was if it wasn't the plane they said it was?)

If it it as obvious to you as it is to many other sharp-eyed plane spotters that no Boeing-sized
airplane could possibly have hit the Pentagon, there is one plane that was a real jetliner:
obviously it was not flying on the regular route AA77.... that was officially canceled.
Clearly the interloping (Airforce Transport?) airplane was faked to fly a closed-circuit pattern, shooting
through the Hollywood fireball and continuing on its regular AirFlightTraining route at an altitude of
Pentagon roof +15 feet -zero ...

It wasn't UA93 which crashed at Shanksville, do we really need some other real airplane to form
the ground crater visible since year 1995 in USGS photos available online for no fee, in order to
create what sort of illusion of a faked plane crash in the same crater in year 2001? IYCWIM

4 faked airplanes but in only one case do we need a real plane as stand-in: no need to speculate
on how the military-secret version of David Copperfield might have arranged for the other
disappearing airplane illusions which were eye-witnessed

YES I will join in ongoing calls for an inquiry, but let's remember the excellent efforts of the
Toronto Inquiry.... even if the illuminati do want to suppress all scurrilous theory which detracts from
the perpeTRAITORs' quasi-religious insistence on preaching the Torrid Tale from Dubya's
revised version of the Apocrypha: the Story of the Goat and the Eleventeen Arab-Box-Cutters

In particular, before we let on about not understanding holographic projection (top-classified,
my lips are sealed) let's check once again Richard D Hall's very credi(ta)ble reconstruction of
the radar track of some unidentified device flying 400m away from, and parallel to, the
APPARENT flightpath of UA175

http://richplanet.net/911.php

MikeR
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 5 2014, 01:14 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Hi Mike. I'll attempt to answer as many questions as I can.

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 4 2014, 11:21 PM) *
If there was a real aircraft (not AA11) hitting WTC1, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy?
Why then is the Hollywood cutout in the glass facade (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?


The image was so fuzzy because the image was so far away!
It's not like he was shooting from 100 feet away!
What would you expect from that distance?
Do you know exactly how many feet away he was?

QUOTE
If that was ANY real aircraft hitting WTC2, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy in that utterly-
unconvincing plane-into-building dissolve?
Why is the Hollywood cutout (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?


Again, I would imagine it was because of the distance involved.
I know the distance of Naudet from WTC1.
I don't know the distance of the cameraman from WTC2 when he shot that.
Do you?

The cutout is clear because the TV media shooting the hole were just a few hundred feet away!


QUOTE
Why no shattered airplane parts falling?
Where are all the tons of glass and steel facade filling out the screen at the moment of (zero) impact?


IF, and that's a big IF, the planes struck an unmodified WTC1/2, then yes, plane parts would be expected to fall to the ground.
It is my contention that WTC1/2 were modified before 9/11 to allow the planes to enter as if through butter.


QUOTE
If the image seen approaching Tower 2 was a real plane, how did the arab-boxcutting flight-school dropout pilot manage for the first time in aviation history to avoid inevitable total disintegrastion of the airframe, at a still-measurable 150 MPH in excess of the maximum speed Boeing specifies for a 757?


Real plane. Not the scheduled flight. No Arabs or any people in the plane. Special drone that could fly at those speeds.

QUOTE
Why were other images of the exact-same plane flying at the exact-same time in the exact-same airspace
flying at various different speeds but all less than half the speed of the top shot?


You would have to point out those videos and show how you know their speeds.


QUOTE
If it it as obvious to you as it is to many other sharp-eyed plane spotters that no Boeing-sized
airplane could possibly have hit the Pentagon, there is one plane that was a real jetliner:
obviously it was not flying on the regular route AA77.... that was officially canceled.
Clearly the interloping (Airforce Transport?) airplane was faked to fly a closed-circuit pattern, shooting
through the Hollywood fireball and continuing on its regular AirFlightTraining route at an altitude of
Pentagon roof +15 feet -zero ...


I read the above paragraph but couldn't see any questions.

QUOTE
It wasn't UA93 which crashed at Shanksville, do we really need some other real airplane to form
the ground crater visible since year 1995 in USGS photos available online for no fee, in order to
create what sort of illusion of a faked plane crash in the same crater in year 2001? IYCWIM


I agree. The crater was already there. Smart move by the perps!

QUOTE
In particular, before we let on about not understanding holographic projection (top-classified,
my lips are sealed) let's check once again Richard D Hall's very credi(ta)ble reconstruction of
the radar track of some unidentified device flying 400m away from, and parallel to, the
APPARENT flightpath of UA175

MikeR


Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.
At first I was impressed with Richard Hall's research.
However recently for a few reasons, I had to jump Richard's ship.

For the time being I will just say I have evidence that a plane hit WTC2, not the typical evidence.

Richard's hologram theory falls apart on this simple point:

He contends there are two sets of radar readings.
The one to the left the civil readings, the one to the right the military readings.
He contends that there was a military stealth drone flying along the radar path to the right and beaming a hologram of a Boeing aircraft to its left.

As Lieutenant Columbo used to say,
"Oh sir, just one more thing... why is it that the RADES radar readings to the right, stop at just the exact moment of impact of the plane into the tower?"

That is quite some coincidence! smile.gif



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 5 2014, 05:13 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



I've said my piece on this.

Not to use real planes is just too complicated and fraught with potential problems.

A drone is a much more plausible explanation and we know that technology capable of this type does exist.

These two explosions are consistent with Willy Rodriguez testimony of an underground explosion prior to the first plane hitting.

We need to make this no more complicated than that.

Any further PLANER/NO PLANER arguments just gives the ones suffering from Cognitive Dissonance an excuse not to look at this.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 5 2014, 05:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 5 2014, 01:44 PM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 5 2014, 05:14 PM) *
Hi Mike. I'll attempt to answer as many questions as I can.


The image was so fuzzy because the image was so far away! Camera construction was quite technically advanced in Y2001 ...
in another shot from the same video, the Twin Towers were sharp enough when viewed in a moving chopper
from 5 miles away, as the videographer was preparing the next fake, seconds before the "UA175 lookalike" GGI appeared


It's not like he was shooting from 100 feet away!
What would you expect from that distance? I'd expect the plane to be at least as sharp as the sharp fireball
Do you know exactly how many feet away he was?


Again, I would imagine it was because of the distance involved.
I know the distance of Naudet from WTC1.
I don't know the distance of the cameraman from WTC2 when he shot that.
Do you?
The lack of clarity has nothing to do with distance, nothing....
trust me.... I am a photographer as well as an architect :-)


The cutout is clear because the TV media shooting the hole were just a few hundred feet away!


IF, and that's a big IF, the planes struck an unmodified WTC1/2, then yes, plane parts would be expected to fall to the ground.
It is my contention that WTC1/2 were modified before 9/11 to allow the planes to enter as if through butter. The WTC1/2 were indeed modified,
but ONLY to the extent needed to cut through the columns in order to fake those profile cutouts



Real plane. Not the scheduled flight. No Arabs or any people in the plane. Special drone that could fly at those speeds.


You would have to point out those videos and show how you know their speeds.
Nah ... The easiest and most convincing resolution would be do it yourself, it's not difficult ...
many people have done it, the calcs are not rocket science you know.
Instructions are hardly needed, but if guidance is helpful, try it yourself, get some Youtube video tips.
The astronomical accuracy of a Rolex Oyster Chronograph is not needed I can assure you.

Check the series of videos starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM
for an Inside Job look at what we are up against with questions about the true ID if any of U"UA175"

http://911logic.blogspot.co.nz/2006/10/911...eing-wtc-2.html isn't exactly the webpage
I was searching for but it gives a few more hints.... work from any video which allegedly shows the faked UA175 flying towards WTC2>
Time the distance the plane travels in 1 2 or 3 seconds.... yeah, core curriculum math probably isn't up to
the job, you'll need to go to University-level long multiplication with carry-over columns and all that other good
arithmetic crap we got taught before we were able e.g. to manually count the number of
electronic calculators on teacher's desk....

The 202-foot width of WTC1 and 2 is your constant dimension, your watch can even remain on your wrist
if that helps maintain a grip on the ale glass. Speeds of between 225 mph and 579 mph are clearly measured,
same plane, same few seconds of an alleged flight path, in the same airspace.

How many more times do we have to repeat the test, for you to be able to spell "IMPOSSIBLE"?

It's more than merely improbable, and it is ONLY possible if the thing to which our eyes are wide shut,
is in fact some sort of computer-generated image



I read the above paragraph but couldn't see any questions.


I agree. The crater was already there. Smart move by the perps!


Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.
At first I was impressed with Richard Hall's research.
However recently for a few reasons, I had to jump Richard's ship.

For the time being I will just say I have evidence that a plane hit WTC2, not the typical evidence.

Richard's hologram theory falls apart on this simple point:

He contends there are two sets of radar readings.
The one to the left the civil readings, the one to the right the military readings.
He contends that there was a military stealth drone flying along the radar path to the right and beaming a hologram of a Boeing aircraft to its left.
Maybe I missed a point there... I was under the impression Mr Hall studiously refrained
from speculating about anything stuff which would be at risk of being classified under
the Military Secrets Act of 1873 Revised 2012 ...


As Lieutenant Columbo used to say,
"Oh sir, just one more thing... why is it that the RADES radar readings to the right, stop at just the exact moment of impact of the plane into the tower?"

That is quite some coincidence! smile.gif

Peter Falk's smart literary predecessor, Sherlock Holmes, was once asked by
Scotland Yard's Chief-Inspector Gregory (hired by Ealing Studios to cover 9/11 fallout)
"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the fluctuation in the Whole-Earth magnetometer readout,
each spike being contemporaneous with the destruction of each Tower"
Gregory: "But the magnetometer was located 4000 miles away in Alaska?"
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

To which Dr Judy would quizzically add "Why was a huge hurricane the size of Katrina, hidden
from US Telly screens all week? What was Erin doing parked within landfall of New York
the very morning of 9/11/2001?
....and how was Erin steered 120 degrees off her course-to-disaster when she was
heading straight for Manhattan?

I suggest those last 2 paragraphs go a very long way to justify the huge importance
we should place on the Directed Energy Weapon that Judy so rightly insists on.
But Do NOT get distracted by asking what the DEW might have been:
the military will guard that secret to the death....

More than anything else, it is the faked airplanes that have distracted all of us
from asking the right questions


PS Incidentally, I did say MAGNETOMETER not seismometer.... the question is to do\
with a major shift in World Magnetism, not just a blip on an earthquake chart....


This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 5 2014, 01:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2019 - 04:08 PM