The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Postby simonshack on November 27th, 2011, 3:50 pm

*

"PLANE ENGINE EVIDENCE" FOUND ON MURRAY STREET

Believe it or not - but there are still planehuggers out there (on forums such as this: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=145679&page=2 ) who seek to prove that planes crashed into the towers - by presenting pictures of that ridiculous 'jet engine' which allegedly landed on a sidewalk on Murray Street. No matter what you point out to such people (it is NOT any known part of a Boeing 767 - it was lying under a scaffolding - it had not punched as much as a crack in the sidewalk - etc) they'll just keep arguing ad nauseam that this "jet engine part" constitutes solid proof of planes crashing in Manhattan that morning...

Now, let me just ask another question to the planehuggers - hopefully plain common sense will prevail...

If the image below shows (as its caption says) the "aircraft engine part (...) PRIOR to the collapse of WTC2"...
Image

...why then is the MURRAY streetsign in this image as clean as a whistle - whereas the "engine" itself is covered in dust?
Image

Can you say 'staged'? If you can't - you'd have to argue/theorize that someone carefully cleaned the MURRAY streetsign prior to snapping the above picture. Good luck with that, planehuggers!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on November 28th, 2011, 4:04 am

simonshack wrote:*

"PLANE ENGINE EVIDENCE" FOUND ON MURRAY STREET

Believe it or not - but there are still planehuggers out there (on forums such as this: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=145679&page=2 ) who seek to prove that planes crashed into the towers -


Simon, Im in to help this research for good. I probably could do a whole heap more, but I do work two jobs and only have limited time. But yes Im going to get the archivng finished in the next few weeks and start russling some feathers where ever I can Im sure it will work.
I am going to be polite to people in other forums.. but in saying that my patience has totally worn thin after years of people still believing there were planes when there are more than enough ways to see the footage is faked.


http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=11 ... ost1108113 :lol:

It appears the photo was taken using a flash. That could explain the brilliance of the street sign. In my community they're highly reflective so it's probably a safe bet they are reflective in other cities as well.
Image
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby icarusinbound on November 28th, 2011, 11:58 am

simonshack wrote:*
Image

Can you say 'staged'? If you can't - you'd have to argue/theorize that someone carefully cleaned the MURRAY streetsign prior to snapping the above picture. Good luck with that, planehuggers!


Cleaned, for sure: and although there is quite a lot of splash-back from the retroreflective surface of the street-sign (indicating an almost front-on flash shot), the constant curved shadow around the cowling ring hints to a camera angle down and to the right of the viewed perspective. We also see what looks in the centre of the still-life what looks like perhaps two sections of mesh matting, some universal A4 paper scattered with moon-dust, and a Snapple juice bottle....as well as what looks like a pristine alloy camshaft element (of automotive or other piston engine origin) half-under the street-sign.

But most worrying of all...is that curious radiocommunications headset. It's a David Clark aviation-style headset, complete with a short curly-cord (you know, like on a telephone handset?). It has what appears to be a massive noise-cancelling boom-mike curving from the right-hand earpiece, and it begs the question: is it actually meant to have survivably come from the flight-deck of the source aircraft? This piece of heavyweight avionics kit, more at home in a Cessna than a 767, has managed to make the trip down from on high, aparently unaffected by the heat or impact. And I *think* it's sitting at an unlikely/implausible angle...the way a paste-in would make it look, almost, rather than a set-dresser's fancy.

Surely someone else must have commented on this headset before?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on November 28th, 2011, 3:22 pm

Staged Plane Wreckage.

Image 1
Image
Alleged Plane wreckage shot with a clean Murray St sign

Image 2 –
Image
Alleged Plane wreckage shot with a thick dust coating on the wreckage and also a thick dust coating on the surrounding street and sidewalk. There is also a headset which appears in the photo.

The dust cloud allegedly covered the whole south Manhattan.
Image
Although the shot is fake... I am using it as a demonstration of what appears to be consistent with the dust covering lower Manhattan after the demolition of the 6 buildings of the WTC.

With all the dust surrounding the pavement, street and alleged wreckage debris in expert opinion it would defiantly have coated the sign. There is no dust coating whatsoever. It appears to have been wiped or moved at the very least. That is defiantly tampering with evidence, but above all of this leads to definite acknowledgement that it is staged.

There is another Exhibit of staging in this shot. As I mentioned in the Image 2 caption there is a Headset that appears in the nighttime/dark Image.

This post collapse night shot is the only one that features this Headset. As you can see in the analysis.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


A totally sealed FBI area and a pilot headset is staged into the shot.

Image
[img]
http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF ... aysign.gif[/img]
Last edited by Equinox on December 5th, 2011, 12:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 28th, 2011, 5:05 pm

*
Image

The stage-props manager/supervisor of the "9/11 Reality-Movie-for-TV" was an inept nerd. Simple as that. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby SmokingGunII on November 28th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Yes, Simon, I remember discussing this with you on another thread before.

The road appears to be wet - perhaps this was airline fuel? ;) Shadows changing direction & chinos being hit by the sunlight whilst in the shade! :blink:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 28th, 2011, 6:23 pm

I don't understand why people can't get this simple idea: it is in no way whatsoever the part of a giant 767 engine.

It does, by its size and pristine ground alone, cause enough harm to the official story that it should be case closed for 9/11 being a hoax and a set-up by very large media powers.

Yet planehumpers still parade this around as "proof" and "evidence" of the (non-existent) 767 declared by the official story to be "the second plane" shown on television.

It's absurd. It's madness. It cannot be stood for as rational behavior.

On top of it all, most of the scenes look less than "staged" and more like complete virtual fabrications.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby icarusinbound on November 28th, 2011, 7:11 pm

(With apologies to Equinox for the adaptation of his/her imagery).

This looks stranger and stranger the more I look at it. So the building is shown bounded by perimeter scaffolding, which must must be supporting a raised access workers platform, for some maintenance or building work. It extends out over most of the width of the pavement sidewalk. Therefore: how did the engine assembly pass through it, vertically, as falling debris, without causing the scaffolding to collapse ?

Image

And note the relative positions of the cross-braced platform, in the left of the picture, compared with the main large engine assembly over to the right (it's partly obscured by the 'CHOOSE SUCCESS' advertising display and the large grey-leg). To clarify what I mean, look at this marked-up zoom:
Image

Consider what happens when a picture is taken from the perspective of someone standing on the sidewalk looking towards the main large engine assembly (almost as if that guy above wearing pale trousers and a dark sports jacket turned 180degrees and took the picture...)

Image

The elements now appear to be transposed! The cross-braced platform instead of being to left of the rear of the main large engine assembly moves over to the right (it is faint in the unmarked-up picture, but the angled sections can clearly be seen).

And the main engine assembly itself appears to turn through 90degrees, in one shot- instead of the cowling slant angle being roughly parallel to the main axis of the scaffolding, it seems to turn away from the large grey-leg and the 'SUCCESS' leg of the advertising display.

Or am I misreading the whole picture? In any case, surely the main engine assembly is tight, UNDER that pre-existing scaffolding??.

Notice also that the mesh wastebin (shown behind the main engine assembly picture, in the shot with the added oval-cornered yellow rectangle) disappears, then perhaps is commandeered to be the crime scene tie-up point in the middle of the road for the yellow 'DO NOT CROSS' tape...except it seems to have become transparent, and loses it's mesh construction?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: November 28th, 2011, 9:49 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 28th, 2011, 10:24 pm

*

Allow me to just laugh out loud, folks. It's good for my lungs.

Here's the supposed path of the stray "FLIGHT175 jet engine part"... :lol:

Image

And sorry for the "unscientific", cartoonish graphic work...I just can't bother with making slick graphics for this shit anymore. Anyway...anyone who still thinks that alleged FLIGHT 175 jet engine could have landed in that spot is free to do so. I personally believe that some idiot Hollywood scriptwriter of the 9/11 HOAX is responsible for concocting this inane scenario.

Does anyone wonder why they were so stupid? Have you ever seen a movie-crew at work? I sure have - ( I have even rented my own big old romantic house to 2 movie crews over the last years - and I can just tell you these sort of people are fecking stoopid, sloppy - and rude). "Why did they do such a poor job of the 9/11 fakery", you ask me? BECAUSE THIS SORT OF MOVIE PEOPLE ARE FECKING STOOPID!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 28th, 2011, 11:11 pm

*
And--- you ain't gonna believe it, but...

"MARRIOTT SURVIVORS .ORG" http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/index.php

still has this graphic posted on their website!


An EAST-WEST planecrash scenario ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image

PLEASE CHECK IT OUT - RIGHT NOW !!!
http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/ ... mage24.php
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby HonestlyNow on November 28th, 2011, 11:46 pm

Thank you, Simon. I was lately getting confused about the orientation of the scenario, and was about to look into it. It's that East-West that I've been picturing in my head all this time.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 365
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 29th, 2011, 1:34 am

Good,

So what I really would like to get out of the way is this old, tiresome question:

"WHY DID THEY MAKE SUCH A POOR JOB OF IT?"

Good Heavens - WHY do we have to entertain the idea that the 9/11 perps were infallible - and that all the technology in their hands would have ensured a perfect hoax? Of course they had all sorts of technology and willing technicians to help them - but they were simply NOT UP TO THE JOB! The people behind the 9/11 HOAX are mostly geriatric rats - and had no idea of how to supervise and control their own fantasy shag.

Get it?


***************************************************************************************************************************************************

And to answer our new member "icarusinbound", here's a website where the headphones are mentioned...
http://www.dailypaul.com/144782/did-anyone-die-on-9-11
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 29th, 2011, 2:19 am

*
Besides, the stage-prop manager wasn't even up to the job of finding a REAL Boeing 767 engine! He found some old 747 part in some aviation scrapyard !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please read this good article about the subject:
http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_kin ... -time.html
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on November 29th, 2011, 5:54 am

I really like your maths evaluation... Nice work, yes I placed your comment in an answer to some whining about the blue line here.. http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=1108380&postcount=71
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on November 29th, 2011, 1:24 pm

Fact,

At 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, a large bomb decimated the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Times for 2nd impact, on 9/11.

CBS- 9:02.58.
ABC- 9:02.59.
WNYW- 9:02.54.
FOX Archives- 9:02

9.02 AM

Murrah
Image
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Next

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests