Here is an actual file photo of N612UA - the aircraft alleged to have impacted the South Tower (Flight 175):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/L/
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York - John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA - New York, April 28, 2001
N612UA

Please take a look at the following comparisons:





We will observe that the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

The NIST frames of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1

In other words, A is greater than B. Therefore, this plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-222.

A more in-depth analysis can be found here:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

Below is N612UA (image flipped horizontally) and the aircraft that hit the South Tower:





I don't want to speculate here, however, unless this is an erroneous registration, then we are looking at two completely different aircraft.

Yeah, I remember!

From Robert (SunZoo)'s interesting theory.
- Posted: Mar 4 2006, 07:08 PM - exactly 1year ago!
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...wtopic=611&st=0

He was systematically attacked by Killtown, until he unregistered.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=611&st=90


Was that ONE full year ago???
Unbelievable

I remembered that too, and went browsing the old LC Forum (I was getting all nostalgic for the old days!) Doesn't time fly!

I was also looking at the pictures of the 300 series 767 aircraft you posted in that thread... These look more like the aircraft that struck the South Tower:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1038372/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1040514/L/

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that this cannot be N612UA that impacted the Tower!

another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

Phil Jayhan talks about a member of his forum buying that and a second pic from a newspaper, but I don't know which paper or the photographer. it sems like it would be tougher to fake an image with resolution that high, but I'm no expert on photoshopping.

Looking closely at the high resolution picture, I cannot see any sign of digital editing as the grain is consistent throughout. However, having closely studied the proportions of the aircraft, I am also adamant that there is no way that this was N612UA that stuck the South Tower.

In fact, there is no soild evidence to support the claim that either N612UA, or any of these other airctaft crashed on 9/11. In the case of N612UA, neither the CVR nor FDR were recovered, nor have any of the parts alleged to have originated from this aircraft been identified against maintenance logs etc.

Furthermore, the transponder of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower squawked a completely different code. To claim that this was merely due to the hijackers changing codes appears to be overly speculative to me. Someone who knows how to change codes certainly knows how to turn off a transponder. Furthermore, someone who knows how to turn off a transponder certainly knows that to do so is a pointless excercise, as their aircraft will still be visible to primary radar, and in the absense of a transponder identification, will stick out like a sore thumb!

Considering these points, and the fact that Flight 175's transponder changed just after it passed over Stewart AFB (Flight 11's transponder was shut off just prior to passing over Schenectady Airport) then we could be looking at a plane swap scenario as per Operation Northwoods. Possible reasons for a plane swap could be:

1. Remote controlled aircraft would pick up the flight pattern (The botched trajectory of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower is consistent with a remote operation, where the operator will need to take into consideration factors such as a time delay).

2. The drone aircraft could be loaded with thermite to be ignited upon impact. This is the most logical method of delivery and to ensure the structure of the Towers would be heavily compromised at the point of impact. Therefore, only a minimal number of explosives would be required to initiate the collapse (Note that the breaking point at the South Tower was around the upper sky lobby, therefore the impact zone could be anywhere above this point).

Of course, such a scenario raises the question of what became of the passengers, and even who they really were. Due to the sensitive nature of this question, I'd rather not speculate, and instead stick to facts.

The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.

I do agree with you. Taking into consideration these irregularities and the possiblility that the aircraft that impacted the South Tower was not Flight 175 (looking at the dimensions of the aircraft that impacted, it is clearly a different plane) then we have to question the true identities of the passengers.

In no way am I suggesting that 9/11 was a carbon copy of Northwoods, however, if we consider who the passengers would have been under the proposed scenario, then it proves that such claims are not at all far fetched. In fact, this is highly probable in the case of 9/11. The opportunity for a plane swap was certainly there for all four flights. Furthermore, due to the emotional gravity of these attacks, many people would find this scenario so offensive, that if it were true, no one would believe it.

Can you imagine the situation if Northwoods had gone ahead? We'd be finding ourselves in exactly the same position as we are with 9/11. We'd be asking: Who were the passengers and what became of them?

I have a question about this photo.

Does it look to any of you like the engines on the right (top) is forward of the other one? If you look closely at the wings, they look symmetrical as far as the three lines* on each wing, so I don't think it's a matter of the plane being turned more to one side or another (*please don't laugh; I don't know technical terms for anything on a plane except wings and nose....and I can find the bathroom when I'm in one...LOL). Again, not being a pilot but knowing a tiny bit about physics and aerodynamics (at least enough to fill the head of a pin!) I would think engines would have to be balanced exactly symmetrical. Any thoughts on this, or is it somehow a trick of the eye due to angle? Could this be another type of plane which allows for such asymmetrical engine placement?

There is a refutation of "The Wrong Plane" by Eric Salter, See:

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


"The authors of the following claim that the size of the plane that hit the WTC is not the size of a 200 series 767, which flight 175 was, and instead is closer to a 300 series 767, which has a longer fuselage:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This simply isn't true as the following graphic illustrates. I've overlaid the 767 schematics they provided on the Fairbanks footage. It is clear that the 200 series is a near perfect fit and the 300 series fuselage is too long.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podi...175sizecomp.jpg

So why did they get it wrong? Notice in the graphic that they used, that the midline of their line diagram is on the side of the fuselage and not the center, allowing it to be scaled down smaller than it should be and still match up with the clearly visible right wingtip.

I should take a moment to note that some researchers have found other non-visual forms of evidence which might suggest that a plane "substitution" could have taken place in the 9/11 plot, such as discrepancies in official flight records, anomalies in the FAA and military response to the alleged hijackings, suspicious military war games occurring on the same morning, and so forth. I am not implying any opposition to these areas of inquiry; in fact, I believe they are quite worthy areas for continued investigation (and, for the record, the fact that I have been mentioning "flight 175" does not imply that I have ruled out these substitution possibilities). For now, I am just analyzing the visual record to determine what it can or cannot tell us reliably.

Which is the relevance of this refutation?

Thanks, tit2 -- and by the way, welcome to our forum.

Somebody here at PFT has uncovered the various roles of Dov Zakheim in the events of the day. Apparently he sold a batch of 32 Boeing 767 variant to the USAF for tankers. Perhaps that explains the irregularities AND some of those photos showing a fuselage with certain pods and appendages.

This possibility of aircraft substitution by carefully prepared drones occurred to me as I watched TV live over here in the UK, being ill at the time I had unusually the time to watch through the day so am aware of how things went and were originally reported with all manner of noises and comment from witnesses which the media has since tried to bury, not least the squibs first before collapse of WTC7. But I digress , just thought that background would illuminate my point of view.

Being ex naval aviation myself I have maintained an interest in aviation and was thus aware that a drones could have been worked from tankers which I knew would be being developed to replace elderly KC-135s.

I have pondered the sheer size of the fireball on WTC2 and consider a tanker a strong possibility. The under fuselage reflections in the area in front of the position where the leading edge of the mainplanes joins the fuselage are dismissed by official believers as being the fairings housing the undercarriage. I find this difficult to swallow as the reflection appears to me to be forward of the leading edge and indicates a more pronounced bulge than that which is normal here.

Further there is the odd reflection on the nose.

I have downloaded the large image pointed to by waterdancer and checked it over in PS.

I would include a crop (at the original resolution of the image) and a version of that crop with an emboss filter applied, both under 160KB in size and would post them here if I knew how.

I have done quite a bit of aviation photography in my time and spend some time processing images for publication. Thus I am well aware of the limits of 'shopping and of enlarging distant objects in a 'photo (I laugh every time I see one of those spook movies or TV dramas where they enhance grainy CCTV images beyond belief). I can see no evidence of this image being tampered with as the grain extends uninterrupted and with little change (other than that always caused by a difference in gamma) from sky to aircraft.

In some videos there is a flash, or two, from the aircraft which seems to originate from these positions. Now I am not sure if these were real events or doctored images.

If we take the position that the towers were rigged for CD then one explanation for these flashes could be to initiate the detonation of specially prepared devices (explosive and or thermobaric but probably a too early a phase for that latter, they came later) in the tower to ease the penetration of the aircraft through the external steel columns. The flash (laser or some such) could also easily be reflected back to the aircraft to a detector which would initiate the detonation of some special device in the aircraft, say a special tank of napalm, to ensure the fireball is produced.

That the target area for both aircraft was above the upper sky lobby, and given that the aircraft would be more or less accurately flown by remote control (by somebody in a suitably equipped other aircraft during the final stages) then it would be known which areas to specially prepare. This idea has support when the remarks of Scott Forbes, Senior Database Administrator, Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor WRT noises above on 98 and of dust and debris around on the mornings of the week prior are considered – some of the final preperation.

In the NISTAR 1 document NIST writes about 'unusually large fires'. Is this because they knew something that we were not supposed to i.e., that there was an unusual amount of fuel aboard these planes. NIST also try to claim that building regulations did not require consideration of fuel laden aircraft colliding with tall buildings. Are we expected to believe that in an area like downtown Manhattan, with no less than three major airports in the vicinity, that the many aircraft flying into and out of these airports would do so without using fuel! This I believe is contrary to the documented design philosophy of Skilling. Note Robertson's, a very junior member of the design team, obfuscation on this point in post 9/11 interviews. Whatever, the quantity of fuel was for effect i.e., to make belief in the illusion being perpetrated more certain.

Sorry for this ramble, if this has been discussed here before then I apologies, I have been searching for awhile and not found any discussion on the main point concerning laser triggered detonations.

It would be so easy.

Seem unable to edit that post of mine, not sure why being logged in. However I have discovered a way which should work.





I have used embossed filter because I do not have alternatives in PS Elements.

The unaltered crop shows no sign of being tampered with.

There does appear to be a logo on the fin which looks the correct shape for United, although that in no way means that this is an actual United Airlines flight.

On the flashes I have had other thoughts.

If they did happen then they could be photoflashes.

The type of SLR camera system I use has a very clever, and not commonly known, wireless flash capability. The remotes can be triggered by the camera’s pop-up flash or an attached compatible gun with the camera and flash units flash mode set to Wireless. To avoid interference from nearby photographers using the same system the wireless flash channel can be set to one of four alternatives and a pre-flash flash sequence is used to differentiate between channels by variety in the frequency of the small bursts within the pre-flash sequence.

Further the sensor on each slave flash unit does not have to be in direct line of sight for the sensor to detect its signal, a reflection will do.

The point is that such a system, the technology of which pre-dates the events in question, could be used from one direction e.g. the aircraft, to produce two flashes each controlling distinct events with one signal being reflected from windows back to the aircraft.

Hello O892,

I'm sorry to say that I'm growing increasingly weary of all the infighting, self-censorship, and "pet" theories in the 9/11 Truth Movement. My background in science, welding, aerospace/defence engineering, military aircraft and military strategy (was an US AFA Candidate way back when but narrowly missed my 800 meter time due to bronchitis) has led to the following concepts that I believe played much of the part in the WTC attack and "War on Terror":

1. "Softening the target"- use multiple and varied attacks to progressively weaken a structure or enemy fortification. This idea goes back until at least the Great Wall of China (but I never finished reading Sun Tzu).

2. Misdirection. Create a lot of noise and dust away from where the much more covert or clandestine "action" is. This applies to media coverage and public opinion as well.

3. PsyOps. Use every trick in the disinfo and propaganda toolkit to discredit, distract, and divide your intended audience/target. (If you can get the target to do the same to themselves and to self-censor, so much the better). Demonize some "patsy" and your oppostion to control public opinon. Here's where the oft-accused "COINTELPRO agent" works UNDERNEATH the scenes. Subliminal effects and careful wording is used here too. See also Karl Rove's resume and "Bush's Brain".

4. Compartmentalized information, secrecy, and "need to know"- self explanatory.
Binding oaths, blackmail, intimidation, and career "pressure" have all been used as effective "persuaders" here. See Richard Perle's resume.

5. Stonewalling and Obfuscation- see Dick Cheney's resume, the Warren Commission, Watergate, and the 9/11 Commission and FEMA reports. If you control the evidence and the investigation, then you pretty effectively control the outcome/conclusion.

6. Rhetoric. If the "official explanation" finds opposition, use all the little tricks of debate manipulation: ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, guilt by association. Sadly, We don't need to look far to find this in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

7. Patience. Erode the oppostion bit by bit, taking tiny, unnoticed bites. This is "war of attrition" (and perception).

8. Emotion. Get people waving the flag, have parades, watch "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel.

9. Media Control. See Rupert Murdoch's resume, "Outfoxed," "Weapons of Mass Deception," "War is $ell," Operation Mockingbird/Mighty Wurlitzer. FAIR and Sourcewatch are my preferred websites about this.

With all this said, I'll finally refer your question over to a post about Ryan Mackay's paper at 911blogger.com:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11016

Tony Szamboti and I addressed the Skilling issue fairly well, I think. Tony is an aerospace engineer also (although he gives me the impression that he can't tell us everything he knows for professional reasons.)

I wish you well in your quest, sir. I will likely be keeping a much smaller online profile and spending more time on personal matters.

Good luck,
dMole

EDIT: I should add that I think we are wrong to look for one "magic bullet" explanation. This was a very complex geopolitical event that is still evolving to this day and well into the future, I suspect. I don't feel that any one source is 0% or 100% credible, but I've likely seen too much quantum physics- credibility should be a "weighted average" IMHO. I do however think there are some sources that I would rate in the negative credibility if KNOWN disinfo, but this word has been thrown around a lot recently.

Great post dMole.

This is a very good point. Has anyone bothered looking for some gate agents or airport employees that were working early morning at Boston Logan or the other "originating" airports and might have actually seen 80-200 people board the respective flights?

I doubt even Cheney is thorough enough to cover up the "common man" working hourly airport wages...

dMole

The controversy about gate assignments at BOS can be found here at Pilots. Back in some of those "pinned" threads. Some of them cannot be posted on, but I think they can all be read.

Yes, the passengers is the most curious angle for me. My bet is they were not even boarded. We know Securacom did "security" at WTC, and for United, and for IAD if I'm not mistaken. That allows for many irregularities. Throw in the "training exercise" part, and ordinary and unwitting employees become like putty in their hands.

Hypothetical situation:

1. Someone very highly placed (NSA, National Security Council, Vice-Presidential and/or Executive Staff, DIA, DoD, etc.) reads the Northwoods and PNAC documents (or had a hand in drafting one or both).

2. This highly-placed person or persons implements plans to foment a false flag "New Pearl Harbor" "War on Terror" and also is interested in demolishing the WTC in a quicker, dirtier, cheaper way.

3. A handful of ultra-secret memos are drafted and distributed to the appropriate agency/organization directors on a "need to know, eyes only" basis.

4. A computer generated list of "victims'" names is generated, and nearly a score of Saudi and Egyptian "persons of interest" that the FBI has been observing is sprinkled in with some very grainy photos, so the "official" story will hold water (believed to be permanently by the planners of steps 1-3).

5. Very small demolitions crews are brought into WTC 1, 2, & 7 under the watchful eye of Securacom, directed by Neil Bush, over a period of weeks or months pre-9/11/2001.

6. The rest of the "technical details" are set into motion (Boeings of some flavor are procured, IgNORAD is put on DefCON "ineffectual," telecommunications and FAA channels are disrupted, "altered" flight recorders are installed somewhere on some kind of flying machinery, etc.)

7. "Anonymously" warn a few key individuals that you don't want getting caught in the "collateral damage" not to fly or go to work on Tues. 9/11/2001.

8. Send George W. Bush off to Florida for a photo-op, and bring FEMA into NYC on the night of Sept. 10, 2001.

9. Have Cheney at the "undisclosed" command/control center early on Tuesday morning.

10. Give the secret orders, throw the switches, and let the machinery churn.

11. Watch it happen on CNN, MSNBC, and FNC. You will need to maintain a barrage of media coverage to "shock and awe" the minds and hearts of the American population.

I ask, is this a far-fetched scenario or not? Please keep in mind that there are several levels of government security clearance above "Top Secret"- that's more for Hollywood action movies, you know.

No, that's not ridiculous. It is probably a variation on the central theme. We can only speculate as to the details, but it is obvious that the entire system was spoofed that day by somebody who knew very well what they were doing.

I am sorry if I have aroused your ire but I was only speculating on a possible answer for one of the phenomena seen on that day, unless of course it has been proven that the highlights were simply sun reflections, one which could help explain how the a/c sliced so easily through the outer steel columns of the tower and then produced a large fireball.

It is not exactly a pet theory of mine more a point for discussion and not intended to promote any infighting etc.

Now that 800 meter time apart (and being from UK I am not sure what that is) I also have a background in science, welding (fitting, turning, sheet metal working and more) and military aviation (naval) only lacking formal studies in military strategy. However being widely read on many such topics and WRT that latter I could probably vie with Clausewitz and his naval counterparts.


On naval studies I have quite a library around the days of naval fighting sail, not that such battles would occur again as climate change is killing the trade winds.

Judging by the content of your post, and your later one, it seems that we agree on much.

I have taken time before replying to study that 911 Blogger page that you cited and to fetch and read the MacKey document, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

I began reading it and to be honest at first only got as far as the quote of Robertson (page 8) and smelt a rat so decided to then have a look at the comments by yourself, Tony Zamboti and others. Indeed Tony pins it to the wall very well. Any comparison between a 707 and what hit the WTC goes against anything that NIST tries to prove, or rather obfuscate over. In short Griffin is right and this counter Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a parody. mcfrandy also makes a very good point that such attempts at undermining the work of those trying to get to the truth should be considered, understood and replied to when cited.

Many things bothered me about the NIST report not least the emotive language often used in what is supposed to be a scientific report. It should be a scientific report and not a tabloid newspaper article. I find those who try to shut me up often use emotive language and accuse me of having little respect for those that died that day. This is far from the case.

Yes, IMO, this picture has been photoshopped. Using digital photo editing software, you can get in to the image and modify on a pixel by pixel basis. This offers all kinds of possibilities to skilled digital 'retouchers', so of course such image modification of hi res images is possible and more importantly: undetectable.

The only real clues as to whether or not a digital image is fake are those relative to the image's content. In this example, the fact that the plane has the wrong dimensions for its specified type is a BIG clue that the image of the plane has been added.

My two cents.


How could the a/c slice so easily through steel columns, not to mention steel spandrel plates along with steel and concrete floors?

Simple answer: IMO, it couldn't.

The planes were added digitally to footage of penetrator missile events. The flash seen in the videos, if this is what you are referring to, is typically released by the Depleted Uranium tip of such missiles going pyrophoric as they impact and begin to penetrate their targets. Also note in the videos the exit of the glowing white pyrophoric D.U. tip from the resulting explosions, which is also characteristic of penetrator missile events.

My four cents.

The guys who did this followed Goebbels advice about going for the whole thing if you're going to go at all. If you're going to defraud, do it on a massive scale.

Mission Acccomplished!

Hello again O892,

Thank you for your astute observations, and I assure you that MOST of the problems that I referenced are on THIS side of the "pond." It would be interesting for a British fellow like you and a mountain/desert creature like myself (both having similar backgrounds) to compare notes.

Sincerely,
d

Thank you dMole.

I am still looking into details of WTC construction. I walked passed them whilst briefly in NY in 1972 before they were finished and have 35mm transparencies taken looking downtown towards then from the Empire State and others from inside the head of the Statue of Liberty.

I have found useful pic's and diagrams on:

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/index.php

including a diagram of the lift (sorry elevator) arrangements, but only a side elevation which gives no clue as to which corner, or corners had shuttle and freight elevators. This would be useful in judging how fuel could descend to the lower floors. Further the diagram found there appears to finish at the ground floor with no clue as to lift arrangements through to the basement levels.

I know this question is away from what hit but I asked here as I have not yet found such information elsewhere on P4T.

Sorry but IMHO there is no way that this can have been 'shopped. Have you looked at the crop I posted at the images natural resolution?

By looking at this, and I have enlarged to 1000 per cent on screen, I can see that this is typical of images of distant aircraft, I have enough similar shots of my own, where the edges become fuzzy. There is no hint of pixel messing which would show. The grain, as blobs of dye in a film image, extends smoothly from sky across the a/c.

One thing that makes me think that the bright spots are not reflections of the sun is that one would expect a similar reflection from the starboard engine who’s shape can be made out just outboard of the near wing root bright spot.



Nah! I go with drone aircraft, aircraft much modified perhaps with specially modified wing leading edges amongst other things.

That object that is seen exiting the south side of WTC2 would most likely be that starboard engine. After all we are talking about a sizeable chunk of machinery here made of harder, heat resistant materials.

OK WRT the orientation of the cores of WTC1 & 2 I have found the answer at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

where if one changes from Medium resolution as found to Original or High something unexpected happens. Instead of looking at one tower in cross section one gets a plan of the whole complex at B3 level.

The core layouts are as I recalled by their rectangles long sides being at 90 degrees to each other, the core of the north tower running east-west and that of the south tower running north-south.

Also of course the elevator side elevation drawing at

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/index.php

is incorrect as no lift shafts were at the extreme corners of the buildings, being all within the core, unless I am missing something.

The core orientation means that each aircraft was aimed at a face such that the cores resistance to movement was least and being presented with the largest target area.

And then WTC2 a/c managed to achieve an angle of entry whereby much more of the a/c structure missed the core, most certainly the starboard engine.

O892,

If you are referring to the lobby and lower floor damage, the fuel should have been burning on its way across the impact floors and on the way down the elevator/lift shafts, if we buy the Kean-Hamilton, FEMA, and NIST "explanations." Already-burning fuel will be very hot, but should NOT have "blast" effects IMHO. Plus, diesel and JP4 aren't all that volatile, compared to things like gasoline/petrol and nitro-glycerine (and nitro's solid cousins). And the fact that it appeared much of the fuel combusted OUTSIDE the South Tower, where the starboard engine most probably (in the probability sense) should have ended up post-impact due to its kinetic energy and collision dynamics...

The lobby damage bears clear evidence of brisance and blast/shock waves IMHO.

$0.02 USD please.

I am with you all the way there. After all I have more than a nodding aquaintance with the effects of both fuel fires and HE.

To be sure most of the fuel combusted outside of the tower. Indeed watching that recently posted video sequence:

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Trut...&#entry10230587

there is no blast back at the time of impact so all the fuel did shoot forwards and mostly out of the building.

Interesting white reflection on the building face at about 3:43 in that video.

I have felt the effect of flash-over, well in the open air.

We had a problem with our F4Ks Spey engines when throttles were slammed open through to max-AB. There would be an over-fuel into the vapour gutters and a huge cloud of unburned but vaporised fuel would build up around the rear of the aircraft, and blow forwards if the wind changed to up the pipes, until an ignition point was reached and then the whole lot would blow at once.


RR managed to solve this, except that it would still sometimes happen if a boundary layer control sensing unit got stuck (dissimilar metals in a salt water atmosphere) and caused an over-fuel condition when rapid reheat (afterburner to you) was selected with half-flap and a quick accel' was carried out from about 85pc. Quite exciting in the cockpit too when this happened.

This WAS shopped, IMO. The capability to produce undetectable modification of such images definitely exists and has done for some time, it merely demands the right software and expertise of application.

The white hot object seen exiting the South Tower HAD to have been pyrophoric Depleted Uranium, IMO. The white hot glow indicates that the object was pyrophoric and pyrophoric potential is particular of Depleted Uranium and not of steel or titanium.

FfG
Having looked around a bit in the meantime and amongst other articles read your post at:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...99&mesg_id=6254

I am now wondering what did hit WTCs 1 & 2, and the Pentagon too for that matter and understand better where you are comming from.

If it was Penetrators, or a more advanced weapon, this raises a number of questions. How were the fireballs engineered. Ask Hollywood Stunt managers, or Bruce Willis - they may have an idea or two.

Also the NIST arguments WRT massive fuel fires relies upon such pantomime except panto's have a funny side.

As for the planes, I have to say that I was watching it on TV as it unfolded 'live' and distinctly recall seeing an a/c fly in from the opposite side to that which was impacted and fly behind the south tower before seeing an object come in fast from the left followed by the fireball.

I am now very puzzled by that phot' which I have studied closely and can not see how it could have been tampered with.

I believe that the missiles used would have been able to produce the fireballs. In fact the explosions look very much like missile explosions, but there was undoubtedly supplementary explosions to fake the plane like "entry" holes.

The so called live shots were achieved by utilizing a broadcast delay to modify the feed with superimpositions of fake plane images. None of the live shots showed the plane impacting the north facade which made the work of the computer graphics technicians easier as all they had to do was set the software up to cover over the missile with their plane model.

Photo retouch is a skill and there are people who are masters of this skill. Digital technology allows for thoroughly succesful modification of images. Just like with the tower demolitions, skilled technicians were obviously utilized.

Well I have just been looking over some of the video shot that day and in What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse? at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0

I spotted something interesting at between 1:07 to 1:09 where if you look at the bottom of the picture at the sky area just left of the south tower a dark aircraft-like shape appears. What is extraordinary about this is that besides its shape and colour, a dark sea grey, is what looks to be about a 70 degree angle of bank which is quickly reduced before it vanishes from sight. The photograph posted above in this thread shows no such extreme angle and neither does other video.

The lady was right, ‘That was no American Airlines, That was no American Airlines...’

Dang! Your hyperlink didn't work. Maybe the URL wasn't entered completely?

Sorry about that try this:

What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?

I see what your saying about the banking angle being reduced just before it is obscured by the tower. It's almost as if the plane wing flashes at that point, becoming larger and considerably lighter: indeed very odd, and overall, quite unacceptable as a representation of a real plane, IMO!

There was definitely some sloppy Computer Graphics work going on with the production of these modified videos. Whether that was because the technicians were rushed or for some other reason, is anybody's guess. My "half a hunch" feeling is that the perps purposefully put out sloppy work to create a climate of confusion, fooling the people who don't know better and mind-screwing with the people who do.

At the time flight 175 flew over Stewart Airport, I was eight miles directly off the end of the run way. I can't say for sure if it was 175, but I was awoke by a high speed low flying screamer approaching from the West on the same pattern as the C5A's doing touch and goes. This was no C5A. It was not concerned, as are the practicing pilots of the C5A's, about their approach. You see they are supposed to approach at a higher altitude, from the South because of noise issues. This thing screamed, must have been really low and sounded nothing like any of the military planes, C5A, C130 cargo, Harrier and several other small fighters that fly out of Stewart from time to time. Much more like the sound of a pushed commercial jet.
When I jumped out of bed to look, it was already behind the trees, so I couldn't get a visual. I turned on the TV and made some Tea... you can guess the rest.
I always wondered about this as I have heard several times about this Stewart overflight. It was even suggested the planes nearly collided.
I don't know what this adds to this conversation, if anything.

Welcome to the forums tekh...

Feel free to email me if you would like to expand on your story further...

You can find my email by clicking the button below this post or on the bottom of every page at pilotsfor911truth.org.

Once again.. welcome!

FfG said:

"The so called live shots were achieved by utilizing a broadcast delay to modify the feed with superimpositions of fake plane images."

Is your hypothesis similar or different to the argument in September Clues?

To utilize the plural "live shots" is not apropriate, there was just ONE liveshot of something like a jetliner discernable.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...opic=9911&st=33
Don't ask the FfG, he has been exposed to do the distracting propaganda with his untrue "Mach 1 exceeded" allegations in case of the "UA175" and so he is no longer among us - at least not under the nick Factfinder General.

The other pictures in the post have been taken down so i dont get so see what the comparisons were...but if you take a look at the plane in the above link...and then take a look at This then its clear that its not the same plane. the AA175 has a blue belly..the plane in the entering the building has a silver belly.

No matter what the resolution, the clear blue sky makes it very easy to insert objects into the original image. The photoshopped images below only took a few minutes to make and would have been even easier, if I had the original cut out for the plane. Instead I had to pop out the plane from the rest of the picture and since I didn't want to spend a lot of time cleaning it up, my edges aren't exactly perfect, but they're close enough for government work.




Then I flattened the whole thing and embossed it. Neat effect but it doesn't prove if the plane in the original image was real or not. Once you flatten an image, it makes it very hard to tell whether or not something was added.



Unfortunately, I had to reduce the images a lot to be able to upload them to Photobucket. If anyone is interested I can provide copies of the doctored images that are at the original resolution. Even with zooming in, you can't tell the difference between the plane in the original and the ones I created.

PS: This doesn't not mean I support anyone else's assertions about what did or did not hit WTC 2. I'm just trying to show how easy it was for the originial image to be faked.

Of course it's easy. It will be much harder to fake it in a way that you can take 2 different shots from about the same perspective to build a red-blue-3D-image. It works fine for UA175.

Can you show me what you're talking about?

I remember someone doing something like that, with some pics from the southside of the Towers?

9/11 No Plane Manifesto - 100% Proof - Part1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElG-J3RlEs

about at 7:10

but you should read the information on the right of the video first!

I feel I should say it straight:
The title of the above video is misleading on purpose.
It's a parody (of the titles and styles) of so called "no plane" videos. The "manifesto" takes a lot of claims (e.g. from "September Clues" and similar) and shows the nonsense behind that.