No Plane Theory Debate, split from Lear Interview Thread in Latest News Options

[7forever]

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. This woman literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice how the orb moves eastward and the cgi more north.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-926-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-927-morph_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwb11926.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwb927.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4...AE&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ...AE&index=34

[7forever]

WB11, a much smaller news affiliate was simply out of the loop by showing that their first plane morph came 24 minutes after the explosion. Even though the ABC morph is better, it has a faint left wing that's not above the engine but attached to it. The tail section lacks any real detail for positive identification of anything but fake imagery.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcliveabc.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcunitedleftwing.jpg)

This post has been edited by 7forever: Dec 12 2011, 08:37 PM

[7forever]

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1 while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka NBC.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/orb-wide_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/orb-cbs_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

[7forever]

She (WB11) first described it as what could be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. A chopper (From WB11) passed west after the orb came from the right/west side.

The orb was the orb, helicopters are helicopters and the computer generated imagery utilized on 911 was a failure. The camera zoom demonstrates how a distant object will show more character detail. The zoom on the orb shows no detail of a helicopter and is way too small to even be considered any type of plane.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-chopper_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/plane-zoom_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/very-close-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4...AE&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY...AE&index=95

[7forever]

This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/bomb-inside_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnorthtowerhole.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/north-tower-impact_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

[7forever]

Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was assinine. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the faux image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its first plane morph until 9:27 and the similarities between the two are profound. Only a cgi could have a fake left wing and no right wing.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/no-right-wing_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwb927.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwb11926.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_g7X7WFSwg...ture=plpp_video

[7forever]

This is a great copy of the north tower drone. You can see it has no wings before it makes impact. The clowns who shot this were only several blocks north of the towers. If flight 11 had really crashed in NY it would have looked much like this plane landing.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnorthtowerdrone.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/t1-hq_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/real-low-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5eFR97OX0...ture=plpp_video

[7forever]

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0

[7forever]

I took the work from September Clues and made it into something real instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/ny1-rewind_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg...ture=plpp_video

[7forever]

There were around 117 eyewitness accounts and only 20 percent saw a plane. Only 8% saw and heard a plane.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwitnesses.jpg)

[7forever]

As reported by the female reporter in Chopper 4, they were around 5 miles north of the towers when the orb was captured coming from over west.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html

WB11 (WPIX-TV) Metrocam YouTube 1, 2, & 3

Shot from the Empire State Building, like NY1 above, but from a different camera. It could be guessed that WB11 (now "WPIX Home of the CW") cropped the NY1 wide shot to create a zoomed view with better aesthetic balance... but no. Recently (July 2009) YougeneDebs used trig to discover the WB11 view "seems to be on the western half of the ESB at about the 88th storey. Notice the Staten Island shore line and structures there behind One Liberty Plaza, the old U.S. Steel building, the black building just to the left of center-frame for an estimate of the height of the perspective." The NY1 camera location is described above.

GM Building

This is the 3rd angle WCBS used on 9/11 to show the plane... all in 3 minutes. Here the plane passes the distance between the Empire State Building and the WTC in two successive playbacks (9:04 and 9:05). The full approach of "Flight 175" is shown from this angle later at 9:17 (and 9:22, abbreviated). That is, the tape starts from pause— with the plane in a circle.

The camera location: General Motors Building, aka FAO Schwartz, E 58th St at Madison Ave... 215 meters tall on ground elevated at 48 feet above sea level Lat 40.763595 Lon -73.972781 (Thanks, YougeneDebs)

Every distance would have produced a ledgible image of a 767 for either tower but no image has ever surfaced. The north tower blob compared to a decent fake of UA 175 compared to a real boeing 767. Flight 11 and 175 were both supposed to be 767's.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnorthtowernothing.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcblackzoom.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcperfect767.jpg)

[7forever]

There are two types of denialists wanting to cover up the truth that an orb really caused the small hole in T2 and created Hollywood explosions, which left little damage compared to T1. The first has been coined the untruther which is a poser that says the orb is fake because one clip showed the orb blurred out (not visible), most likely by the perps because they considered trying to hide it, but it was broadcast live, therefore wouldn't be possible to not have the original footage showing up because of all the vcr's recording after the first explosion. The perps adding a ball instead of fake imagery is idiotic. The others are government goons who don't believe the ball is a plane but say it is because it destroys the official 911 myth.

So, the only thing they (media and government) could do was call it the plane, which of course is bat shit crazy. No honest thinking person looking at all the footage would believe that lie because it was a slow floating ball with no wings or propeller. The media acknowledged the orb by calling it the plane and backed themselves into a corner of fantasy and fiction. No honest researcher would ever claim it was fake because the media crazies told an outright lie about what the orb could never be, a plane. That admission gives it the utmost credibility, proving that it was real and caused the superficial damage to the south tower. The untruthers are playing for the same team as the goons, essentially.

This live footage is perfectly clear, showing the orb and its shadow behind the towers. The second is the same footage but blurred, with the orb disappearing and no visible shadow after it gets behind the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY...ture=plpp_video
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/shadow-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/jfgfhvb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw1fy-rsqA8...ture=plpp_video[/

[7forever]

10 characteristics of Government Crapologists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are never fact-seekers, questioners, and will never consider a truth outside of official accounts. They simply accept the official version and never defend it against the least bit of scrutiny.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about disproven facts and pretend they are facts, no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simple fantasy.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning nothing from the government, it's no suprise they never answer direct questions of facts which disprove official claims.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is sometimes the government) is therefore impossible.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, government crapologists never acknowledge the gaping inconsistencies in the official accounts which are actually highlighted by enormous, gaping holes in logic, as is evidenced in the official Warren Commission Report that is laughed at in the modern day.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Crapologists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for visual facts provided by video footage. The fact that a claim has been made by the officials, or those covering for them is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that it is true no matter how implausible and ridiculous those claims are. While they do this, of course they will claim to have "open minds" but abuse and embarrass humanity with their endless denials of simple facts.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a crapologist admits that a claim that was made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to debunk it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by repeating the same lies over and over without ever supporting these proven lies with their own analysis.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Government crapologists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally correct without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this disqualifies them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Numerous inconsistencies in the account of an event, huge unanswered questions, endless problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account completely impossible and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary for a crapologist to prove anything one way or another. They simply repeat the same lies and without any supporting proof, because they are simply supporting an official account which was never proven in the first place.

9. It's never a cover-up. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are NO questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they turn off discrimination. They can tell a bullshit story from a good one, they can tell good evidence from bad evidence and they can tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always lie and pretend that the official story which was never proven, is the Bible truth.

10. A person who always says the same thing, with no supporting proof, and says it over and over again is commonly considered to be a government drone.