SEPTEMBER CLUES (NEW) second half

FACT - aluminium doesnt penetrate solid steel.

So how did they crash planes into the WTC's?

Answer: They didnt.

What they did do however is fire missiles into the buildings and superimpose plane images over the top with computer animation (this explains all the contrast and weird images of planes and blobs entering and exiting buildings) & replay this on prime time TV to a trusting & easily fooled non-questioning public.

The faked and pre-recorded hijackings? All a LIE.

Ever wonder why many of the 'eye-witnesses' on 9/11 just happened to be vice-presidents and executives of major TV networks? The mainstream media had foreknowledge and was directly involved and complicate in the lie. I'd bet the payoff was probably the trillions of dollars Rumsfeld later was unable to account for, spread amongst the media..(I mean who could resist such an offer with the govt covering your ass..?).

blip.tv...





[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

A good example of media payoff is a matter of public record in the passing of the WTO treaty "non-treaty". Built into the bill was huge amounts of money given with no explanation to each of the TV networks. This was for the nice work of the news companies propagating the false idea that this was some sort of non-binding agreement that we could get out of at some future date if we decided we did not like it. Of course when it got passed, they started calling it a treaty and that we were stuck with it. A lot of the so-called 9/11 witnesses were actors and it was obviously pre-arranged.
I have to disagree somewhat with the OP in that there were planes of some sort that hit the towers. The problem comes in that what we are allowed to see is only the video that does not show exactly what kind of planes they were. What I saw was a plane with no markings and was a flat gray color that you would expect to see on a military plane. Now, the sad thing is that I can not produce a video to show you and I think that if I had one, it would have been confiscated by the FBI or somebody. Does it seem strange at all that of all the cameras that must have been at work that morning, all we have is the most unclear sort of images and the ones that we do have do not seem to show an ordinary looking commercial airliner.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

I have to disagree somewhat with the OP in that there were planes of some sort that hit the towers. The problem comes in that what we are allowed to see is only the video that does not show exactly what kind of planes they were. What I saw was a plane with no markings and was a flat gray color that you would expect to see on a military plane.

So at best we have a plane, albeit a military plane. This is corroborated by other witnesses. So could we have a missile made to look like a plane? With markings and all?

Im not convinced either way atm. I wasnt there. Some people say they saw a plane some say they didnt. But what concerns me the most is the footage taken on the day. Why does it raise more questions than it answers? I find that odd. Much of the footage appears doctored. Fade ins and fade outs, often at critical moments. And if its a real plane it doesnt penetrate a steel building and point its aluminium nose out the other side. Its obvious the tiny hole and destruction of the Pentagon facade wasnt caused by a plane, and no plane parts were found at Shanksville. So whats going on? I mean in a real life plane crash its not that hard to find EVIDENCE.

I call bs on planes being involved in 9/11 without concrete evidence & Im comfortable with that.

I know what hollywood can do with animations and special effects and I know how well the mass media can hoodwink the general public.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Nonchalant
FACT - aluminium doesnt penetrate solid steel.

That is not a fact. Anything can penetrate anything else with the right velocity. One could say a wood 2x4 couldn't go through a steel car door, but add 300mph winds from a tornado and it goes right through like butter. This just has to do with a simple comprehension of physics.

The planes didn't even penetrate the outer steel columns, nor caused them to fail. The connectors that connected the columns together are what failed. Besides, a much slower, smaller and lighter B-25 Bomber caused a similar hole in the side of the Empire State building in 1945. Was that tv fakery also? Oh wait, they didn't have tv's in 1945:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Nonchalant
What they did do however is fire missiles into the buildings and superimpose plane images over the top with computer animation

Yeah, false again. Do you have any idea how small, light and very fast missiles are compared to large, heavy, slow planes? Cruise missiles weigh between 3000-13,000 pounds. The 767-200 that slammed into the buildings weighs around 350,000 pounds.

If you look at the damage, you can see something large and heavy hit that pushed massive chunks of building IN:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d2e38bfc13e.jpg[/atsimg]

A tiny missile wouldn't come close to causing that large of a hole and pushing those massive chunks of building IN, let alone have a 150-foot wingspan.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
So could we have a missile made to look like a plane? With markings and all?

Again, missiles don't even come close to the size, weight or speed of a large jetliner. See above.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Much of the footage appears doctored.

Below is a YouTube link to a video with all known angles (43) of the second plane. There are video clips from major media, independent journalists, AND home videos from private citizens. Saying that the media faked the planes is one thing, but saying independent journalists or even private citizens' home videos are faked also? It's an understatement to say that's a bit of a stretch:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Fade ins and fade outs, often at critical moments.

The debunk of "September Clues" explains everything:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Nonchalant
And if its a real plane it doesnt penetrate a steel building and point its aluminium nose out the other side.

Yet another false and unresearched statement. The real nose didn't come out the other side of the south tower and neither did a fake nose. Let's take a look....

As you can see in the following picture, there is no hole for a real nose to have exited:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]

And the "nose in/nose out" from "September Clues" doesn't even match in shape or size to have been a faked nose accidentally moved past the tower like "September Clues" likes to falsely state:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c29f00c94c6.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f1744371cf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Its obvious the tiny hole and destruction of the Pentagon facade wasnt caused by a plane, and no plane parts were found at Shanksville.

There were some plane parts found at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but not enough to suggest a large plane crashed at either place. The evidence suggests no planes crashed at either the Pentagon and Shanksville by the lack of plane debris and damage. But the evidence at the WTC is plainly obvious by the several dozen videos, and the damage to the towers.

It is one thing to say planes didn't crash at the Pentagon or Shanksville because the evidence supports that, but it's a total other thing to say no planes crashed at the WTC because the evidence says otherwise.

reply to post by Nonchalant

I would not say that there were no missiles involved, but no matter how many missiles hit the towers, you still end up with at least one real plane. The 911 plot is an exercise in overkill, in my opinion. They were not about to leave anything to chance. Not only did they have explosives planted in the buildings and a plane loaded with who knows what, but they had missiles coming in from several directions. On top of that, I suspect that there was at least one other plane ready to hit, just in case the first one missed. What I see from looking at the videos is missiles going at very high speed that were able to miss the building by a few feet, but could have been directed into the buildings if needed. Lucky for them, the plane hit well enough to be convincing, so the couple of larger missiles just went by. This is my explanation of the blackouts and other things that obscured what was going on at the critical times. What they could not hide are the trails left behind in the smoke and fire, from the wake of the missiles.
Notice how these photos of the holes in the towers do not have pieces of plane parts dangling here and there? Something good to watch is the end of the High 5 chopper video (the "nose-out" video) and the wind creating a big vortex on the down-wind side of tower 2. All the debris from the plane gets caught up in the swirl, below where the plane had hit. That's the plane, just ground up into dust. Once the plane hits and makes a nice dent in the building and creates a cover, the small missiles hit inside the weakened area and cause more damage. Once things settle down, you have this wonderful hole for people to look at and think, "Wow, that plane really caused some serious damage to that building!"

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's some of the most deluded claims I've ever heard. I guess the hole at the Empire State building was caused by missiles after the B-25 Bomber hit it also?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Take a close look at the "Satan Face" in the Battery Park Video. What do you think it is exactly? It is the aluminum dust that is left of the pulverized plane. Why does it look like a face? Because after the plane turns into a sheet of dust, small fast missiles punch through it and leave holes. That is one example of what I am talking about in my earlier post. You can count nine holes that get punched right through the fireball in that video. When you watch the videos taken on the ground on West St. you can see the group of smaller explosions that pop out, and show themselves coming up through the main initial fireball on the South facing wall of the tower.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Why does it look like a face?

Why do clouds look like faces? Why do rock formations look like faces with the correct shading and lighting? You're grasping for something that isn't there.

This must be what you're referring to:

www.psychics.co.uk...

Light and shadows...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
When you watch the videos taken on the ground on West St. you can see the group of smaller explosions that pop out, and show themselves coming up through the main initial fireball on the South facing wall of the tower.

Most everyone knows there were explosives in the towers that were detonated during both plane impacts, so this is nothing new. But missiles? Not a chance of proving that!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Besides, a much slower, smaller and lighter B-25 Bomber caused a similar hole in the side of the Empire State building in 1945. Was that tv fakery also? Oh wait, they didn't have tv's in 1945

True, however you conveniently fail to mention the B-25 Bomber smashed into the outer stone wall (8 inch thick indiana limestone) of the Empire State Building and its wings immediately sheared off. Only the cast iron engines and heavy landing assembly completely penetrated the building. The fuselage was stopped by the steel I-beams of the building's frame. Wreckage fell to the street and onto the building setbacks on the 5th floor below, with the remainder of the wreckage remaining stuck in the side of the building.

Still, you have started an interesting discussion, & I will be happy to respond to your other statements later on when I have time

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

reply to post by Nonchalant


Something you also fail to realize is that plane was coming in for a landing. A B-25's approach speed is somewhere between 110mph and 140mph. It was probably flying around 150mph to 180mph. Now can you imagine the damage that would've been done to the ESB had the B-25 been going 500-550mph? Had the 767's on 9/11 been doing around 150-180, we would've seen the same thing. Many parts falling to the ground the plane sticking part-way out.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

A B-25's approach speed is somewhere between 110mph and 140mph. It was probably flying around 150mph to 180mph. Now can you imagine the damage that would've been done to the ESB had the B-25 been going 500-550mph? Had the 767's on 9/11 been doing around 150-180, we would've seen the same thing. Many parts falling to the ground the plane sticking part-way out.

Ah yes, but again the 'planes' weren't travelling 550mph now where they? Not at that altitude. But being a so-called member of A&E for 9/11 truth Im sure you already knew that.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
but again the 'planes' weren't travelling 550mph now where they? Not at that altitude.

It gets really frustrating when you guys don't do any research before making claims like the above. No a 767 cannot take off, ascend to an altitude of 1000 feet and reach 550mph. It's engines aren't powerful enough. A 767 CAN come down from a higher altitude, without engines even, and easily reach 550mph. It's called gravity. The 767 that hit the south tower was coming down from altitude and didn't level out until the last 3 or 4 seconds before impact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c83323b4df6e.gif[/atsimg]

I have to agree with bonez above, on the speed thing.The plane is at the end of a long and continuous descent when it gets down to the WTC. It starts off over a hundred miles away, at over 40,000 feet. At full throttle and keeping the rate of altitude drop fairly constant, according to my flight simulator program I am running, the plane can get up to over 600 miles per hour. That is not really a safe speed to try the high banking maneuver necessary to turn into the South facing wall of tower 2, so I think the pilot actually backed of a little bit, to not overshoot the target.
Let me add a note on the video you are running at the bottom of your post. You can find those smoke stacks at Monmouth and Christopher Columbus and they are the old Crucible plant where they made the graphite for Ticonderoga pencils. You can also find the exact spot, within 6 inches or so, of where the camera was that took the video. You can do this precisely by lining up all the buildings using Virtual Earth. (the buiding at the southeast corner of Colgate and Third) If you use these points to calculate the speed of the plane, you end up with something over 800 miles per hour. So, obviously the networks were fudging when they aired this video and they had to have known it.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


Just as a side note, the animated images I posted are sped up for effect. I have many countless hours flying in flight simulators over the past 10 years or so. It's easy for pilots to comprehend flight dynamics and know how their aircraft behaves. But for an armchair debunker or disinfo artist to make a claim without any knowledge of flight dynamics at all is just plain asinine.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Oh sure, I did not mean your graphic. What I meant was the one that went on tv, all over the world. I wondered if it was something wrong with my copy but all the versions I could find were running at this high speed. The speed was something that was manipulated before it ever got to the broadcast studios, which happened pretty quickly. It seems to have gotten up on the same day.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Just as a side note, the animated images I posted are sped up for effect. I have many countless hours flying in flight simulators over the past 10 years or so. It's easy for pilots to comprehend flight dynamics and know how their aircraft behaves. But for an armchair debunker or disinfo artist to make a claim without any knowledge of flight dynamics at all is just plain asinine.

as if you're more qualified than aviation engineers from the FAA or Boeing and even John Lear, to answer such technical questions about speed etc they've already deemed impossible on 9/11.

talk about assinine armchair debunkers



[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Just as a side note, the animated images I posted are sped up for effect. I have many countless hours flying in flight simulators over the past 10 years or so. It's easy for pilots to comprehend flight dynamics and know how their aircraft behaves. But for an armchair debunker or disinfo artist to make a claim without any knowledge of flight dynamics at all is just plain asinine.

as if you're more qualified than aviation engineers from the FAA or Boeing and even John Lear, to answer such technical questions about speed etc they've already deemed impossible on 9/11.

talk about assinine armchair debunkers

[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Links please

Originally posted by Grimstad

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Just as a side note, the animated images I posted are sped up for effect. I have many countless hours flying in flight simulators over the past 10 years or so. It's easy for pilots to comprehend flight dynamics and know how their aircraft behaves. But for an armchair debunker or disinfo artist to make a claim without any knowledge of flight dynamics at all is just plain asinine.

as if you're more qualified than aviation engineers from the FAA or Boeing and even John Lear, to answer such technical questions about speed etc they've already deemed impossible on 9/11.

talk about assinine armchair debunkers

[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Links please

for starters...

nice exchange and interviews starting @ 30:25m here as well as throughout this vid...
video.google.com...

www.drjudywood.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Not similar at all, half that bomber ended up on the sidewalk directly next to the side of the Empire state building.

It's made a small hole, (concrete with crack, the empire state wasn't even as strong as the twin towers) and didn't even make it deeper that the first office room it entered.

Again half the plane tumbled to the ground, and the Empire state building didnt burn for hours, and there was no pools of molten metal in the sub basements for months after the crash.

The empire state crash, is what a "Real" plane crashing into a concrete and steel building would end up looking like.

Thank you for posting the picture, of the minimal damage a B2 BOMBER would do to a building that is somewhat similiar to WTC, but yet, even weaker actually. It really drives home how unbelievably huge the WTC explosions were.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
as if you're more qualified than aviation engineers from the FAA or Boeing and even John Lear, to answer such technical questions about speed etc they've already deemed impossible on 9/11.

Originally posted by Grimstad
Links please

Here's one of the links he provided in another thread:

www.youtube.com...

By the way, that link that HE posted in another thread, debunks what I quoted him saying above. In otherwords, HE provided HIS OWN debunk! Anyway, here's my detailed post pointing out how:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You know, matrix, when you peddle the same lines over and over that have already been debunked, that's the true definition of disinfo artist. Especially when you post something that debunks yourself and you don't even realize it!