Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
By now everythings so buried in here, and it sucks we can't give your primo analysis ( ) votes

Thank you. But I'm more concerned with truth than attention.

Well it was 2 pronged, as it would get a mound of analysis front and center attention, instead of digging thru pages and pages of rhetoric to synthecize the raw material. People on defense will often do their best to drag out your intel acrosss vast space to make it harder for you to be heard.

Originally posted by piacenza
That window its pretty big. Do you realize how big that oject is? its 1/4 of the plane.

It wasn't just one window. Perhaps the column of gas, dust and smoke was expelled from a cluster of windows whose glass had been blown out by the shockwave of the explosion inside the tower? My proposal still stands.

Hmm I guess that if he finds the High res image he can study it a little better. Plus the red line were carefully outlined to differenciate the shape from the original footage (in a deception way). Anyway if you cannot see the nosecone out what can I say, its an illusion.

I believe it was on part -2, they were talking about the plane being a different color (darker) then in another shot (whitish).

I noticed that too Talisman.I just can't seem to believe what these folks are trying say.Example,They brought up the sound of a missile,the sound I heard did indeed sound like a low flying jet.When I was in the Navy,I was at NAS Memphis in Millington,Tenn.and would here the sound of low flying jets all day.

piacenza

I think most of us agree that there is something sticking out of the South Tower, that part we agree on. At least according to the film WebFairy posted on youtube.

You really ought to ask yourself who webfairy is? Do you honestly believe her to be a grandmother from Chicago who worked in Textiles and suddenly realized soon after 9/11 that the footage was hoaxed? She was on the Jim Fetzer show.

She is responsible for a lot of this stuff going around.


Leaving that aside, yes I agree something is sticking out of the tower and I don't believe it to be smoke. I think it looks like a solid object. I also believe we are not getting a full view of the damage on the area in question in the South Tower to see if there is a hole. We do get a small picture, but not enough of the area.

So something came out. The question is what. Now you can safely say that it isn't CGI. This is the nail in the coffin for that. The fact is your seeing something coming out of the Tower from Both the Helicopter and from a totally different angle supposedly a Japanese NEWS crew.

So the CGI mistake wouldn't be happening from totally two different places at the same time.

So what are we left with?

At this point we have to wait. See if we can get a better quality video of this and then make some guesses.

Do you know what I am thinking though> I am thinking it is the very back of the plane. I know that might sound wrong but I am thinking we are seeing the tail end after the fins came off. Recall the plane banked before hitting the tower, it was tilted. I am only guessing but I think that is what we are seeing.

I need to see something of quality before making a proper guess though.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Except that the only one saying that is Rense, and I'd take anything from his page with a BIG grain of salt. I've seen other pages where people do an analysis and come up with something different, but it's difficult to do with the amount of damage done to that engine.

Thanks Danx,this is what I think is being mistaken as the "nose cone".pieces of the plane broke off on impact and exited the opposite side of the building.There is pictures of this debris on the net.I'm almost positive there is a overhead map of where these parts landed.I will see if I can find it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At the time of 9/11 and just before, airlines were using 767s and 757s because it was a better plane for the flight. The 737s of the time could make the same flight, but they couldn't carry the same number of people that the 757/67 could. The 737-800 was the first that came close to carrying the same number of people as a 757-200. The first delivery of the -800 was in 1998.

Yes, I thought it was something to do with passenger capacity, but I thought it was also interesting that it could be flown without using 767/757. Still, i don't know of anything except a 737 that uses that sort of engine. And as was stated, it can't be easy to work out what sort of engine it was after it went through a building. It's probably never been done before as usually everything apart from what caused a crash is known anyway.

As per the wishes of the moderators, i would either try to scrounge a pre-existing thread about this issue up or make a new thread. This thread is in response to the "no-plane" theory and it's plausability.

I will say though, nice job on the cautionary approach to rense.

I think it's very important that the following observation is made:

The extensive internal damage to the Pentagon strongly suggests the use of a 'Bunker Buster' type of ordinance IMHO. The nose out at the WTC could also be attributed to this same genre of weapons. Whether or not the aforementioned has the ability to appear as a jumbo jet is not important. First, we must use our heads for something besides a hat rack, and realize that the nose out at the WTC DOES NOT FIT the official story.

Perhaps the footage of the Pentagon 'attack' has been witheld because of glaring anomalous similarities? Apparently the producers of 9/11 did not like the asthetics of how the outer wall was penetrated. I would not expect the 'director's cut' to be released anytime soon.

I am not the least bit surprised at the verocity with which the OP is being pursued. The video doesn't lie. Do you?

For god's sake.

I tried to explain as simply as i am capable several pages ago (go back a few pages if you are remotely interested).

If this mythical realtime CGI operator made the mistake the film claims they made you would see something completely different in the film.

NO PLANES is a ridiculous theory. Who first came up with it?

I know for sure it wasn't someone there but an armchair theorist.