New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

piacenza

The nose? I don't 'nose' lol. Seriously, I am not sure what is happening there. Someone earlier did post a link where you can see the exit hole. I need to see it in high resolution. I ruled out CGI because it would be a double mistake.

When I look at the plane, I am thinking what could cause that? What part of the plane?




I really don't know at this point. This is my guess, and at this point it is only a guess. Its actually the back of the plane where it goes into a point.

I know this sounds wrong, but I think it is that part of the plane minus the fins with debri around it.

The reason I am thinking this is that the plane tilted before striking the Tower.

So I in my mind imagine that the front of the plane got caught in the building and as it broke the back end then flew with high speed and the torque caused it to spin and out the other side.

Of course the fins came off just as it exited.



[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Truth is, it the plane huggers who need extraordinary proof at this point, because all of the media and "amateur" footage is solid evidence, .... against their ridiculous claims.

Media mind control has all of your brains turned inside out.

Tell me, do you realise how complicated it would be to get those planes to land somewhere else in order for there to be no planes hitting the towers?

It has not yet been proved conclusively, that any of the flights purportedly involved even really existed, let alone having really taken off.

Now just presuming they did however, as some do presume, I imagine it would not be hard at all. One need only land them somewhere.

Such question do not really interest me however, because really they merely serve as a diversion away from the topic being discussed, .... and that topic is the video evidence of the computer graphic tech used to fake the media coverage.

Originally posted by apex

The idea that the footage is proof is like peeling just the skin off an apple to get to the core.

Would the video experts appearing in court, on your behalf, debunking the faked videos showing you having mad wild sex with an orangutan and then murdering the zookeeper for interrupting your pleasure, be by you so thought of?

Originally posted by apex

So tell me, were all the air traffic controllers bribed in order to get those planes to land at an undisclosed location in order for the planes to disappear?

Tell me, do you presume the following, to all be true?

The flights supposedly involved really existed?

The CIA or whomever, could not fool those flight controllers, IF THOSE FLIGHTS REALLY EXISTED, and therefor bribes were necessary?

Prove those flights existed.

Now prove that those flight controllers could not possibly have been fooled.

Originally posted by apex

Considering there is a separate controller for about every 15 minutes of the flight, particularly in busy airspace like that over the US. And after that, what happened to the planes and the people on them?

On a good day, when a multi billion dollar agency and several other foreign INTEL agencies, all working together, aren't trying to fool them?

Originally posted by apex

The planes would need to be destroyed, since the airlines and everyone else would know which planes were destroyed, so for them to show up at some strange location would be difficult to get away with.

You're right. If they existed they would need to be destroyed.

And so perhaps they were. The just weren't destroyed at the WTC, the Pentagon, or Shanksville.

Originally posted by apex

And what then happened to the passengers? Were they killed afterwards, as they could never be released since to do so would blow the story wide open.

You may have answered your own question.

Originally posted by apex

And if you say it would have been easy for the government to kill them, .....

Why, ..... would it not be?

Originally posted by apex

I think it would be easier to crash them into a building if the government were responsible.

Really? Why? Because bullets are too expensive, and they want to save them for the Iraqi civilians trying to repel the foreign invaders raping their country?

Originally posted by apex

And then, how did the wreckage get there in NY and in Pennsylvania, and Washington. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof after all.

Have you seen, the tiny bit of stuff, that they claim to be the wreckage of those planes?

All of the combined "wreckage", from the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville combined, is really a very tiny amount.

Where is all the plane wreckage? No one seems to know. Where are all the bodies?

New York was littered with literally tons of UNBURNED paper, wood and plastic, from the WTC. Yet all but a few of the bodies were burned to ashes, and the concrete and steel was somehow reduced to FREAKING DUSt that covered that whole area several inches deep.

That makes no sense at all, ..... unless ........

None of the flights existed, but the airlines were releasing comments about them? Why? If those flights didn't exist the airlines would be screaming about it, the ground crew would be screaming about it, the controllers would be screaming about it... There are a LOT of people that were quoted that day talking about the flights that would be really pissed about them using their names in a huge lie. It would be pretty easy to trip them up about the flights not existing. And if they were faking the people making the comments, THAT would be pretty easy to prove too. This conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger, which would make it harder to keep a secret.

Well I am having a harder time thinking its the back of the plane. By the way its 1/4 in leght of the plane itself. You wont find a high res picture of the exit hole I can assure you.The hole would need to be quite big in size. There are small holes but they are small. Anyway I would love if someone can point me out to a picture of the exit hole I have not seen any.

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonI say, prove your claim that you saw these things, because the real evidence says the media coverage is entirely BOGUS, and it remains a fact, that flimsy aluminum aircraft cannot fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings as if they are made of tissue paper.

tell you what, let's get a city of eye witnesses together with you and your wife and you try and explain how not one of us, none of the thousands who stood there watching in horror, saw that plane hit.

you have one of two agendas here. either you are trying to profit on this awful event or you are a disinfo or cointelpro agent of some sort who's sole purpose is to distract the people from the real issues at hand.

it amazes me that you can sleep at night because whichever one of the above is true (and one is), it is apalling and despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself for reaping profits and/or trying to cover up any wrongdoings, furthering the pain and agony of the people who lost firends and family members that die.

It takes a lot to make me upset. I can put up with all the hatred in the world. the racism, bigotry and cruelty that people inflict on eachother and on the world but what you do is beneath anything I could ever fathom. it must take a stone cold heart to wake up each day knowing you do what you do.

The fact that the exit hole is so small is what leads me to believe it's the engine going through. Engines are actually rather small in size behind the fan section.

This is one of the best pics I've seen of the exit side. Notice that there are two holes, and they're roughly the same width apart as the engines would be. (That's making an eyeball measurement, not any scientific one.)

I think this is the hole




Rense had the picture but it is consistent. To the right of the other damage.

The engine has the wrong color scheme though, but again if we get a good shot of it we might be able to judge better.

Anything coming through that hole isn't going to be intact. It's going to be shredded by the internal columns. So I seriously doubt we're looking at an intact piece of the aircraft that's going to be painted still.

Natasha_Thompson

prove your claim that you saw these things, because the real evidence says the media coverage is entirely BOGUS, and it remains a fact, that flimsy aluminum aircraft cannot fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings as if they are made of tissue paper.

Well, then how did a B-25 bomber going at a much slower rate of speed (200mph) and a lot lighter and smaller plow through the Empire State Building having its engine go out the other side?





www.withthecommand.com...

This crash caused extensive damage to the masonry exterior and the interior steel structure of the building. The 102-foot building was rocked by the impact. Many people who were in the street at the time saw flames shooting from the point of impact, which was at the 913-foot level. The impact was heard as far as two miles away. Flames and dense smoke obscured the top of the structure. Later on a wing was found on Madison Avenue, one block away.

This caused by a much lighter plane traveling at far less speed. The Empire State Building is an extremely strong building.

Originally posted by Crakeur
you have one of two agendas here. either you are trying to profit on this awful event or you are a disinfo or cointelpro agent of some sort who's sole purpose is to distract the people from the real issues at hand.

Or maybe, she is a person who thinks that no planes were used on that day based on her personal research and wants to tell her opinion about it but could be much much more polite about it...

For a moderator, I don't think you did a wise accusation to a member of ATS.

Alright, I just got done reviewing the Archives.org tapes.

The main thing I went looking for was the "FADE TO BLACK". It figures that I don't have the first minutes of the CNN tapes, because as you can see they never came up in the torrents:
conspiracycentral.net:6969...

The other fade to black newscast was FOX New York, and the archives.org tapes were the Washington broadcasts (I wish I could get the NY broadcasts in the same quality as the archives Wash tapes!).

The CNN full day video is available online via direct download at archive.org where somebody uploaded it. This footage was made available at the cnn.com website for the 911 5th anniversary for subscribers to their membership whatever (costs money), where somebody ripped it and then uploaded it to the torrent networks and archives.org. I don't yet have this video. It's like 2GB, and archives.org has slow upload. I've started it up on getright several times, and have some portions of it, but I just havent finished it as I usually only do big downloads when I leave the house, and bitorrent always comes before getright, and they don't run well together. Since it's the full day squeezed into 2GB, while my others are each 42mins at 1GB, it should be obvious where my priority has been.

The FOX5 Washington tapes don't show the initial impact from the helicopter 5 angle, live. The same goes for ABC7, CBS9 and NBC4. None have a perfect line of sight at the moment of impact.

However, the No Planers will surely enjoy hearing that in the case of NBC4, they have it pointed facing east, from a helicopter, and you can watch the plane flying in from the east, and it does in fact switch to another useless camera angle just a second before the plane actually impacts, and then after they promptly switch back and later show it in full several times.

Make of that what you will. I didn't notice any angles showing the "nosecones", so I'm unable to provide some nice blowups of it. I'm not about to scour dozens of hours of tapes looking for it. If anyone can give me times and channels to check i can go in, and then provide high quality blowups of the anomlie.

I have the full days worth of ABC footage, that is the low quality tapes with the white letter timestamps as used in the bsregistration "fake bridge" video. I have many high quality segments of ABC ala archives.org. I have most of the rest of the archives in the link above, finished already. I even have some Denver newscasts, but not during the live impacts. Haven't finished the CNN full day video that was 'stolen' from their website, which can be found here... er um, well I just tried finding that thing there but didn't see it. The partially downloaded file is on my other hard disk, and I'm not in the mood to shut down and switch it.

September 11 Television (Streaming-format) Archive
View the full streams for yourself. I was only willing to go thru the raw files that I possess.

MPEG-1 of impact collection Might be of interest to anyone on this case.

I'm officially done hassling with this case. Like I said, point me to some specific times / channels and I can bust out some analysis. I won't bother doing enlargement analysis on that guys grainy stepped-on streaming video.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Once agian, you are going for emotional appeal, rather than employing loigic or any facts to bolster your postition.

No, I'm not. You accused someone of a 'thinly veiled personal attack' based upon their rejection of the OP's proposition.

I said, that his referring to them as "deceptive vidographers", was a thinly veiled personal attack. Referring to them in that way was both unnecessary and uncalled for, and it is far more than merely rejecting their proposition.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Now I simply used your own logic to suggest that the OP was similarly guilty of thinly veiled personal attacks on those responsible for bringing us the images and eyewitness accounts, given that he/she has rejected their authenticity. You cannot have it both ways.

They come right out and say that they faked the whole thing. What is thinly veiled about that?

None of this is personal. They are not making presumptions regarding the motives of the media people involved. They are merely presenting evidence using the media's own original footage.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Sorry, but the evidence makes it very clear, that the media put us all on but good.

The evidence does not make it at all clear... yet. A number of sceptical contributors have invited the OP and others who support a similar position to provide better quality/source material for analysis.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree on that. I have seen enough to become convinced. Then again I thought it was fake from day one. These guys just showed me how they did it.

Originally posted by coughymachine
There is nothing conclusinve in the material that has been posted thus far.

That is your opinion, and I sincerely do respect it as such. No mean inferences or implications with that now. I just don't know how to say it any better.

Originally posted by coughymachine
That doesn't mean to say that some of it, upon further examination, won't warrant scrutiny, but we ain't there yet.

I am glad to see that you are open minded about this.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Furthermore, evidence of TV fakey does not automatically prove the no-plane theory. That is an unreasonable leap of logic and because of this, the two issues should be kept seperate.

Why, would the media create an illusion of planes impacting the towers, if planes really did hit the towers though?

Please explain why. I just don't get it.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
Place your outrage where it really belongs, and that is upon those who use the media as a weapon, .... against all of us daily.

I am as keen to uncover any wrongdoing as the next person, ....

I want you to know that I do not doubt that to be true.

Originally posted by coughymachine
.... but I am not going to allow myself to become wedded to a theory that, at this stage, is commanding attention not because its merit has been demonstrated but because those pushing it are extraodinarily determined.

And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.

Can you show me one example of that occurring other than the fake 911 footage?

I am just asking politely. Is it possible, that you are just not yet able, to shake off media conditioning?

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
To say we dare not question the LIES fed to us, "less we offend somebody", is just absolutely ridiculous.

Similarly, to dare say that we not question the OP and his/her (or you) theories 'lest we offend' him/her is absolutely ridiculous.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by coughymachine]

I agree completely.

Hate to ask again. It's embarrassing to me.

What the heck does OP mean? I figure the P stands for plane, but the O eludes me. I am new at this.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Hate to ask again. It's embarrassing to me.

What the heck does OP mean? I figure the P stands for plane, but the O eludes me. I am new at this.

Original Post, Original Poster, Opening Post

Hope that provides a better understanding.

 

OP=Original Poster

As for the planes penetrating the buildings, first of all, the framework of the plane is actually rather strong. The "thin aluminum" is the outer skin.

Secondly, you're talking about somewhere around 200,000 pounds moving at 500mph impacting the building. Please, tell us exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen? There's no WAY a steel building is going to keep that plane from penetrating. It was figured out that at impact it was something on the order of 1 kiloton of force. There isn't a steel building in the world that could possibly have kept that plane from penetrating.

Here is a site that shoots some nice holes in this no plane theory.Pretty interesting stuff and it makes perfect sense.I would like to hear what the folks who support the no plane theory have to say in response to this mans analysis.

Originally posted by selflessfor a moderator, I don't think you did a wise accusation to a member of ATS.

I'm posting as a member. not moderating this thread. It is impossible to do both so I posted and won't moderate here. My opinions are mine, not the sites, if that helps.

looks to me like the member in question joined today and is one of a group of new members who's sole purpose is to push this ridiculous theory that there were no planes that hit the two towers. having seen the second plane hit first hand, live, without a tv but in front of my face, I can tell you without any conviction that the theory is b.s. and I can get you thousands of people who saw the same thing, from every angle around the city that the plane was visible from.

I stated this elsewhere but I will state it again. I have seen at least one airplane in the sky every day for as long as I can remember. I am damned sure I know what a plane looks like.

so, yeah, it might be a bit rude of me but I lost friends. I suffered, along with this fine city and I don't need to read someone's agenda to either make money or make money whilst deflecting our attention from the real issues.

Originally posted by Crakeur
I have seen at least one airplane in the sky every day for as long as I can remember. I am damned sure I know what a plane looks like.

There's a perfectly good answer for that... Those were all fake planes too. This conspiracy is beyond your wildest imagination

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

I say, prove your claim that you saw these things, because the real evidence says the media coverage is entirely BOGUS, and it remains a fact, that flimsy aluminum aircraft cannot fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings as if they are made of tissue paper.

tell you what, let's get a city of eye witnesses together with you and your wife and you try and explain how not one of us, none of the thousands who stood there watching in horror, saw that plane hit.

OK, you and your wife, can both tell me what you saw then.

I am not calling you a liar. I don't know what you saw. Heavens sake. I wasn't there with you. I am sure you saw something.

Please consider this.

There have been mass sightings of flying saucers. I don't mean just tiny lights in the sky which were interpreted as as space ships either. No I mean groups of a 100 or more people, all seeing the same thing, and that is crystal clear flying saucers close up. Like something right out of sci fi movie.

Now that would really make me wonder, but the thing is, the other couple of hundred people there saw nothing at all. Now if it was Woodstock and the good acid was going around, then I may say, aha, but it wasn't. It was at a beach in California before the days of acid.

This same thing happened to me years later, and I wasn't tripping I swear. Several people were looking right at a space ship, as big as a house right over head, and I among several others could not see it. I really wanted to see it too. Despite the fact that even one of our party, swore they saw it too, we could not.

So what the hell happened? What was really going on? I don't know. I wish I did, but I don't.

Originally posted by Crakeur
you have one of two agendas here. either you are trying to profit on this awful event or you are a disinfo or cointelpro agent of some sort who's sole purpose is to distract the people from the real issues at hand.

it amazes me that you can sleep at night because whichever one of the above is true (and one is), it is apalling and despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself for reaping profits and/or trying to cover up any wrongdoings, furthering the pain and agony of the people who lost firends and family members that die.

It takes a lot to make me upset. I can put up with all the hatred in the world. the racism, bigotry and cruelty that people inflict on eachother and on the world but what you do is beneath anything I could ever fathom. it must take a stone cold heart to wake up each day knowing you do what you do.

I guess I should have read the whole post before responding,

A clear case of projection IMO.

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson
And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.

So then please enlighten us all to what made the holes in the Towers?
If you can't answer that question then you don't have a leg to stand on, and should be very embarrassed for your thinking and ashamed for wasting everyones time. You might not care about time, but time is absolutely the most precious thing there is. I get quite offended when my time is wasted, and I'm sure plently of others do as well.

The towers weren't steel reinforced concrete.

Can you tell me how much Steel, Titanium and Depleted Uranium is inside Boeing's?

These are rather elementary dynamics, and if you don't understand them it's completely irrational to make such staunch convictions about the entire ordeal.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Hate to ask again. It's embarrassing to me.

What the heck does OP mean? I figure the P stands for plane, but the O eludes me. I am new at this.

Original Post, Original Poster, Opening Post

Hope that provides a better understanding.

 

OH! I was way off.

Thank you.