The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

[reel.deal]

.

[icarusinbound]

^ ^ ^ ...they look kinda more like aerial/antenna masts on an otherwise obscured building ?

Yes, they might well be ...

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
http://s15.postimage.org/xt8orzc7d/SIPA109.jpg

Winton Telephone Exchange, Wiki
(the fact that each of the 3 antenna pods in the two clusters visible in your picture can be seen as being slightly top-tilted away from the vertical is also a strong indiction that they're antennas- that's a cellphone area-coverage-control action)

...lucky all the strong-aluminum Flight 175 shredded FIBREGLASS INSULATION FOAM didnt catch on fire

This scattered insulation doesn't look anything like aerospace grade. It is not the compacted yellow-green rocksil-style dense/matted 'pro bats' used in aircraft construction. The orange colour seems more associated with the loose-lay kind used in domestic loft insulation or commercial coach-building. Nor is that flat aluminium panel like anything from any aircraft- it lacks any aeronautical rivets, curves/extrusions- it looks like part of a non-zonal domestic building fascia that's tumbled into view....an opinion supported by these straight angle-spars. Almost nothing on an aircraft is straight or flat...2D/3D curves are standard. It also looks too thick and flexible- aero-grade aluminium is thin/toughened, and tends to break in ragged edges, not bend in ripples. Also, the edge with some form of perforated/tack-jointing visible is totally-inconsistent with avation construction standards.

At most, this is architectural tumbleweed.

[SmokingGunII]

I found this image in the "Edited images: the proof" thread, searched the forum for the photographer's name, one Chao Soi Cheong, and came up with a blank; I wasn't overly sure how or where else to search for any research on this picture, but over the past couple weeks I haven't seen anything on it (if there is something addressed here in the forum that I've missed, I sincerely apologize).

I have to admit that I'm fairly confused by this image though, as it shows some damage to WTC1 at the time of the 'crash' of Flight 175 into WTC2. I really can't recall that I've ever seen reports of damage to WTC1 so far below the agreed-upon impact point of Flight 11, or that anything would have had time to travel from the explosion taking place on WTC2 and cause that kind of damage. I suppose if there really were anything that had done that sort of damage, there should be evidence in the form of, what, smoke or fire? Where's the smoke or fire?

Anyway, I hope this isn't too far off of the topic of this thread...... however, my question will be thus: which supposed plane part impacted WTC1 at that level, and from which plane, and has anyone been able to ascertain if that part ended up as part of the bogus evidentiary pile? Was that damage perhaps caused by what all of the actors reported as bombs?



The shaky circle and arrow were added by me; I downloaded the file from http://cryptome.org/info/ap-911/pict5.jpg and did nothing to it whatsoever to resize, darken, lighten or anything. Also, I plopped it in the Forensic Error Level Analysis site, and it didn't really show anything out of the ordinary or alarming that would make me think that it was some kind of copy/paste miscue on someone's part: http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/6fc9756/

So I ask again, what part of what supposed plane caused that structural damage to WTC1, was it a bomb, or is it just some other anomaly?

And please, go easy on the new guy..... not trying to derail or hijack this thread, it just didn't seem proper to resurrect the old thread after almost 4 months, and I'm unable to create a new thread yet (unless I'm not seeing the right button!).

Welcome to the board, Donovan - it must be quite daunting for newbies to navigate the raft of excellent research found here. It's probably best to concentrate on your main interest and work your way through each thread in its entirety over the course of a few weeks!

I think the damage you refer to is, as Reel Deal says, an obscured aerial, but I have to admit the squiggle shadow from the "explosion" made me chuckle.

[donovan70]

Welcome to the board, Donovan - it must be quite daunting for newbies to navigate the raft of excellent research found here. It's probably best to concentrate on your main interest and work your way through each thread in its entirety over the course of a few weeks!

I think the damage you refer to is, as Reel Deal says, an obscured aerial, but I have to admit the squiggle shadow from the "explosion" made me chuckle.

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks for the advice!

Now that I look at it some more, I think you guys are right.... and yes, that squiggle shadow had me laughing too, ridiculous!!!

[simonshack]

(if there is something addressed here in the forum that I've missed, I sincerely apologize).

No problem, Donovan - not to worry.

Let me take you through a few steps using one of three images credited to "Chao Soi Cheong/Associated Press" (and comparing it with a series of similar shots) which hopefully will clarify for you one basic fact: you are not looking at real images captured in the real world.

BTW, "Chao Soi Cheong/AP" is actually credited with a formidable series of 3 shots with fireball: http://www.google.it/search?q=Chao+Soi+ ... 67&bih=516 )

But before we go any further, please check out this post of mine in the SIMCITY thread:
"PERP-SPECTIVES" > http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p2363482

Here is a frame from a newscast aired on CBS:


And here I have cropped one of "Chao Soi Cheong's (Associated Press)" images:


And here is another shot (allegedly of the start of the WTC2 collapse) credited to Amy Sancetta (Associated Press):


And here is "Amy Sancetta's shot" again (N°3) compared with two other shots (N°1 and N°2) credited to yet two more professional photo reporters, Thomas Nilsson (of the Norwegian tabloid VG) and Gulnara Samoilova (an alleged Associated Press photo-retoucher):


You may draw your own conclusion as to the plausibilty of ANY of the above images to be a real photograph. I could list a long series of reasons why I cannot believe ANY of them are real - but I prefer to let you make up your own mind about all this.

My working postulation is that there exist NO real/legit/authentic images of the tower collapses. Not one. (more about how this might have been achieved > here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=457 ). So what did people see in reality, as the towers collapsed? My best guess is that the WTC complex was simply enveloped in smoke (generated with miltary-grade smoke obscurants) as the demolition job started. Think about it: even if you had captured pictures of those moments in time yourself, you'd only have lots of smoke in your picture. You would then be left to prove that you had not fiddled with the timestamp data of your camera yourself. People would just say: "Duh, you're just confused, dude! You must have snapped these pictures AFTER the towers collapsed!"

[pov603]

I found this image in the "Edited images: the proof" thread, searched the forum for the photographer's name, one Chao Soi Cheong, and came up with a blank; I wasn't overly sure how or where else to search for any research on this picture, but over the past couple weeks I haven't seen anything on it (if there is something addressed here in the forum that I've missed, I sincerely apologize).

I have to admit that I'm fairly confused by this image though, as it shows some damage to WTC1 at the time of the 'crash' of Flight 175 into WTC2. I really can't recall that I've ever seen reports of damage to WTC1 so far below the agreed-upon impact point of Flight 11, or that anything would have had time to travel from the explosion taking place on WTC2 and cause that kind of damage. I suppose if there really were anything that had done that sort of damage, there should be evidence in the form of, what, smoke or fire? Where's the smoke or fire?

Anyway, I hope this isn't too far off of the topic of this thread...... however, my question will be thus: which supposed plane part impacted WTC1 at that level, and from which plane, and has anyone been able to ascertain if that part ended up as part of the bogus evidentiary pile? Was that damage perhaps caused by what all of the actors reported as bombs?



The shaky circle and arrow were added by me; I downloaded the file from http://cryptome.org/info/ap-911/pict5.jpg and did nothing to it whatsoever to resize, darken, lighten or anything. Also, I plopped it in the Forensic Error Level Analysis site, and it didn't really show anything out of the ordinary or alarming that would make me think that it was some kind of copy/paste miscue on someone's part: http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/6fc9756/

So I ask again, what part of what supposed plane caused that structural damage to WTC1, was it a bomb, or is it just some other anomaly?

And please, go easy on the new guy..... not trying to derail or hijack this thread, it just didn't seem proper to resurrect the old thread after almost 4 months, and I'm unable to create a new thread yet (unless I'm not seeing the right button!).

I'm sure someone somewhere else may have commented on this photo but doesn't it seem strange that there is no shadow cast by the large black building in the foreground though the 'squiggly' line casts one?

[Equinox]

If it can help everyone's observations and measurements, it is possible to load onto google earth a scale model of the twin towers at the moment of the "attacks" (after flight 11 and just before flight 175).



The kmz file is available on this page.

Alternatively, a complete model of the old WTC complex for google earth can be downloaded here:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ ... 5aa1d88a7a






This second file seems to be more accurate as to the exact position, height and shape of the towers.

This second file seems to be more accurate as to the exact position, height and shape of the towers.

I trialed both..Yes I agree 2nd is the best.

[burlington]

Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.
They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...

But of course all planes that crash are going really, really fast. Do you mind if I post photos of a different plane crash for comparison sake? This DC-8 (Flight 621) also flipped over (because it lost 2 engines and most of one wing) and hit the ground going very fast, nose pointed almost straight down by the time it reached the earth (according to a farmer and two golfers). The wreckage and bodies scattered over the farmer's field in an area described as being "the size of half a city block". Pieces of all passengers were located, identified. The black box was found and transcribed. Nothing was missing. Nothing vaporized.


By losarahk at 2012-05-12


By losarahk at 2012-05-12


By losarahk at 2012-05-12


By losarahk at 2012-05-12

[Equinox]

Pieces of all passengers were located, identified. The black box was found and transcribed. Nothing was missing. Nothing vaporized.

Dr. Michael Baden, the state's chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, said in September that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires had not reached the 3,200 degree (F), 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body.

"Recovered tissues will likely be identified," Baden said, because "bodies are not cremated — or burnt beyond the ability to be identified — in the type of fire that occurred at the World Trade Center. The cremation of a body requires a temperature of over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit for close to half an hour... and that did not occur when the airplanes struck the World Trade Center."
To put things in perspective, the temperature of a normal house fire is about 1700 degrees (F); jet fuel burns at a temperature a little lower than that. In a normal house fire of 1700 degrees, the body is charred on the outside but remains intact on the inside; it is not reduced to ashes," he said.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FCsqayKrSM

When a plane crashes the tail section usually survives.


Sometimes fully.


Sometimes partially.


And even in very violent crashes where nothing looks to be left...

► Uncontrolled Descent and Collision With Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585
"The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder were in the impact crater, damaged severely by impact and fire.
The horizontal stabilizer was in the crater, in pieces and severely burned. The horizontal stabilizer parts were located at the top of the pile of destroyed airplane debris." – NTST

B


the tail still survives.




On a Boeing 757, the tail section is HUGE.



Well so much for the samuri theory.



Between the four airplanes which allegedly crashed on 911 there should be
approximately 9 million parts. 3 million parts each for the 767 and 1.5
million parts for the 757. In addition to the parts there should be 60 miles
of wiring for each 757 or 120 miles for both. There is 90 miles of wiring
on each 767 which makes 180 miles for both 767's. Wiring is stamped every 12
inches or so with data which includes where it is going, where it is coming
from and its maximum load capacity. The reason for this is that wiring is
braided into bundles of up to one hundred wires and when you are tracing
down a problem you have to know quickly which wire you are looking for and
identify it.


Every single part on a Transport Category airplane which means it is
certificated to the standards of CFR14 (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 25
of the U.S. Federal Air Regulations and to be certificated either it has to
be made by the factory (Boeing) itself or subcontracted to another parts
maker. If it is made by another parts maker that parts maker has to be
inspected by the FAA and given PMA Parts Manufacturer Authority.


There should be At least 1 million parts scattered in that crash site.
There should be body parts at least of 37 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants.


NONE.

[MrSinclair]

Equinox, that is a really excellent post and it just points to the utter absurdity of that pathetic hole in the ground. Of all the staged aspects of this media event that has to be perhaps the most laughable.

[Maat]

Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.
They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...

But of course all planes that crash are going really, really fast. Do you mind if I post photos of a different plane crash for comparison sake? This DC-8 (Flight 621) also flipped over (because it lost 2 engines and most of one wing) and hit the ground going very fast, nose pointed almost straight down by the time it reached the earth (according to a farmer and two golfers). The wreckage and bodies scattered over the farmer's field in an area described as being "the size of half a city block". Pieces of all passengers were located, identified. The black box was found and transcribed. Nothing was missing. Nothing vaporized.

Burlington, I must ask you (and as a general reminder for all) to please provide your reference sources for quotes with links to the original sites of photos etc. when posting images. Researchers need verifiable information to work with (it also saves everyone time pasting image urls into Google's image finder to source them.) Thanks e.g.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20100703/600_cp_acflight621crash.jpg

@ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100703/plane_crash_memorial_100703/20100703/NFL

Also ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621

[Equinox]

Equinox, that is a really excellent post and it just points to the utter absurdity of that pathetic hole in the ground. Of all the staged aspects of this media event that has to be perhaps the most laughable.

Thanks Buddy, All research is free and dedicated to those who have lost thier lives as a result of 9/11.

Yes UA 93 is what I first researched before I got into fakery...

It is def a major smoking gun...

Full Post here...
When a plane crashes the tail section usually survives.


Sometimes fully.


Sometimes partially.


And even in very violent crashes where nothing looks to be left...



the tail still survives.




► Uncontrolled Descent and Collision With Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585
"The size of the impact crater measured approximately 39 feet by 24 feet and was about 15 feet deep.
The vertical stabilizer and rudder were in the impact crater, damaged severely by impact and fire.
The horizontal stabilizer was in the crater, in pieces and severely burned. The horizontal stabilizer parts were located at the top of the pile of destroyed airplane debris." – NTSB


On a Boeing 757, the tail section is HUGE.


So that begs the question:
What happened to Flight 93's tail section???



Some official story-huggers think they know the answer.
They say that since Flight 93 flipped and crashed going really, really fast...



that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...

"80% of the plane was in the crater."
- UA93 Memorial ambassador

in which the tail struck the ground really, really hard, thereby causing it to shatter into a million little pieces too small to be seen from a distance.

Wow!
Can you imagine what the ground that was described as:

► On Hallowed Ground
"To the casual eye, it looked like solid, consolidated ground but in reality the reclaimed expanse was loose and uncompacted. When flight 93 hit the ground..." - The Age (09/09/02)

Is a massive Boeing 757'tail shattering against the ground going to look like a fragile wine glass dropped on a hard surface?!




You would think that a huge visible mark would be left in the "loose and uncompacted" soil just like the marks the wings supposedly made...





and not some perfect imprint of itself like you see in the cartoons.



I mean that would just be ridiculous to believe!
So that begs another question:

Why IS there a "Wile E. Coyote" tail imprint in the ground?






WTF???
Who would have thought that a Boeing 757's tail would leave a near-exact impression of itself after striking loose dirt so hard that it was essentially obliterated by it?

Maybe its tail acted like a Samurai sword instead and sliced cleanly through the ground like we are supposed to believe Flight 175's tail did through the South WTC Tower's steel facade?




Well apparently not because whatever made that "tail imprint" in that Shanksville field didn't even penetrate through the ground!





Well so much for the Samurai sword theory.


So how in the world could Flight 93's tail slam down so hard against loose soil that it shatters against it like a dropped wine glass, but looks as if it was just lowered down on its edge thereby leaving a faint impression of itself in the grass from its own weight?


Could it be that this "tail imprint" is something else and just by chance looks like a tail imprint?
Well I suppose, but is it just another coincidence that there is another imprint in the ground that looks to have come from the left horizontal stabilizer?







Of course that begs yet another question:

Did Flight 93 suffer from "taco neck"?




Maybe Flight 93 kept spinning on its right-side as it burrowed into the ground causing the right tail to strike in the imprint created by the right wing?
Well not according to the NTSB’s flight path animation as it shows Flight 93 spinning slightly back to the left before it supposedly hit.



But something else really proves that the right tail didn't strike inside the right wing's imprint.

The ground!





So we have quite a mystery here.
How can Flight 93's tail section do this:



Yet only leave this:

[burlington]

Burlington, I must ask you (and as a general reminder for all) to please provide your reference sources for quotes with links to the original sites of photos etc. when posting images. Researchers need verifiable information to work with (it also saves everyone time pasting image urls into Google's image finder to source them.) Thanks e.g.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20100703/600_cp_acflight621crash.jpg

@ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100703/plane_crash_memorial_100703/20100703/NFL

Also ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621

Sorry, you've had to tell me that twice now, Maat. I'll try to be more careful in future. That particular accident happened when I lived 8 miles from Toronto Airport, and I've known the details for so long I was forgetting I need to cite my post.

[Anonymouse]

I think "ridiculous" is an understatement by the look of that so-called debris field. It's almost as if they didn't have a single "Air Crash Investigation" fan in their planning circle.

However, I am. Zomigosh...so absurd!

However I should point out the above picture isn't the best for comparison, since that was from the Helios flight featured on the "Ghost Plane" episode of Air Crash Investigation, which had essentially no fuel at the time of impact. I know that it doesn't invalidate your point at all, only that it's an example that is subject to such a rebuttal.

[Maat]

I think "ridiculous" is an understatement by the look of that so-called debris field. It's almost as if they didn't have a single "Air Crash Investigation" fan in their planning circle.

However, I am. Zomigosh...so absurd!

However I should point out the above picture isn't the best for comparison, since that was from the Helios flight featured on the "Ghost Plane" episode of Air Crash Investigation, which had essentially no fuel at the time of impact. I know that it doesn't invalidate your point at all, only that it's an example that is subject to such a rebuttal.

Yes, good point, Anonymouse. Nonhocapito recently added a reminder above the post submit button re source links so everything we post can be verified and compared accordingly.

i.e. Greek Helios Airways Flt 522 in 2005:
@ http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displ ... r=8&kind=C

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050814-0

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522