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
Post Reply
SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:55 pm

I would like to extend a welcome to some of our newer members that have joined this thread and hope they can contribute to other parts of the 9/11 hoax. However, my one concern is that this thread "Why they didn't use planes", is becoming "How did the engine part land at Church & Murray?".

This subject was discussed mnay moons ago over at Perpitout (Pumpitout for the newbies) much to the amusement of many longer standing memebers on here. You see, Jeff Hill and his cohorts have to create these diversionary threads to maintain the lie and convince the layman that planes were involved.

Next, we will be discussing how singed passports and boarding passes came to rest or why pristine red bandanas were found at Shanksville in a crash that was so violent it destroyed any evidence of human remains? Come on, let's not regress 9 years, please.

Admin - perhaps the posts referring to the location of the engine part can be moved to its own thread?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:44 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:
Admin - perhaps the posts referring to the location of the engine part can be moved to its own thread?
Done!
Thanks for the good idea, Smokey. :)

Gary-Welz
Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:21 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Gary-Welz » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:07 pm

simonshack wrote:*

Here is its exact location - (I have inserted the "FLIGHT 175 engine part" onto a current Google Maps view) :
Image
Is that a recent snapshot from Street-view? The red-coloured "roofing" (still?) shows up green on my end.

Green or red?
Image

9/11
Image

It are obviously different pictures so google Street-view differs depending the region you're in - the new pictures might have yet to be included in my neck of the woods.

*Edit

Issue 'solved'
Last edited by Gary-Welz on Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:22 pm

Gary-Welz wrote:
Is that a recent snapshot from Street-view? The red-coloured "roofing" (still?) shows up green on my end.
Yes, you'll have to go here : http://maps.google.com/maps/place?um=1& ... 4567319947

...and click on the image(at bottom right on that page) featuring the INSIDE VIEW of the Star Pizza joint. Then 'walk out' of the Star Pizza place and look down Church street.

Gary-Welz
Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:21 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Gary-Welz » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:37 pm

simonshack wrote:
Gary-Welz wrote:
Is that a recent snapshot from Street-view? The red-coloured "roofing" (still?) shows up green on my end.
Yes, you'll have to go here : http://maps.google.com/maps/place?um=1& ... 4567319947

...and click on the image(at bottom right on that page) featuring the INSIDE VIEW of the Star Pizza joint. Then 'walk out' of the Star Pizza place and look down Church street.
Got it, it now turns up red too when 'walking out' of the pizza joint.

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:40 pm

Gary-Welz wrote:
Is that a recent snapshot from Street-view? The red-coloured "roofing" (still?) shows up green on my end.
The green and red "overhangs" are on different buildings.

Gary-Welz
Banned
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:21 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Gary-Welz » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:41 pm

HonestlyNow wrote:
Gary-Welz wrote:
Is that a recent snapshot from Street-view? The red-coloured "roofing" (still?) shows up green on my end.
The green and red "overhangs" are on different buildings.
No they are not, take a better look.

*EDIT

Actually, I'm not so sure any more. You might be right... :rolleyes:

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:52 am

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).

Image

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

Image

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

icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by icarusinbound » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:03 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:
I estimate that it is 340 m on the ground from WTC2 to the crash site for the engine.

So Here is my equation relating height (h) and radius (r) which is the horizontal distance from the WTC.

I also looked into terminal velocity and for a heavy metal object this speed would be >100 m/s. With the projected trajectory the maximum vertical velocity is 77.5 m/s.

The angle of the launch is considered to be zero degrees so we have the following:

h = ho - g / (2 vo^2) * R^2

ho = height of WTC at impact zone = 300 m
g = 9.8 m/s^2
vo = 43 m/s (since the distance to the crash is 340 m) (I got this from R = vo * sqrt (2 h / g).)

h = 300 - 2.65 * 10^-3 * R^2

So we can estimate projectile height from any distance R from the launch site.
Sounds good, whatsgoingon....
Image
Appending names to the three cardinal spot-heights visible from simon's track...'Fed Off', '100 Church', 'EQUINOX'....

Image
And looking at the first, presumably-unchanged Federal Office Building, in a contemporary inclination shot from Googlemaps...

Image
Plus a perspective shot, also taken from Googlemaps, looking back along the purported track...so, roughly SSW (note the marker rose in the bottom-right of the grab). An inclinometer height could approximated for the current 100 Church building...estimates, anyone?

Image
And a context picture, showing supposed fall-of-shot superimposed upon the established modern-day setting..

Image
....Compared to the pictures that made me join the forum

Image

Image
And a modern-day view to the north, up Church, with a couple of example tracks...hmm

SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:42 pm

Indeed, RD. Perhaps the impact imparted "backspin" on the engine, much like a golf ball. :lol:

Someone has already correctly observed that it would be more likely for the engine part to have finished it's journey on its side not upright. This alone tells us that the part was placed there.



Icarusinbound: There are a few websites that are very useful in determining Manhattan building heights, 100 Church St is listed here:

http://www.emporis.com/building/100chur ... ity-ny-usa

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:48 pm

Jonathan wrote:IMHO it seems that the really significant comments get lost for it seems more fun (?) to discuss minor details of a scam:
hoi.polloi wrote: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.
...
... there it was - the 14-th page of this thread, November 28th ...
CRASH PHYSICS REALITY CHECK

Let me just say that I very much agree - in principle - with Jonathan and Hoi...

Father William of Ockham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor must be spinning in his grave at the present exercise being performed in this thread by our members Icarusbound and Whatsgoingon (and by yours truly, in fact...). But IMHO, and however futile it may seem, this exercise has its merits, were it only to highlight the perps' degree of arrogance - and their contempt for human intelligence and the most elementary laws of physics. Moreover, it may actually also help understanding why the perps went along with the cretinous idea of showing the Nose Out on Live TV.

In fact, a major hurdle for many people (including myself) confronted with the Nose Out evidence, is to even remotely consider that it was actually shown - "by design"! I am being serious, folks. Please consider for a minute that they purposely included the "Nose Out" (the entire, intact cockpit section exiting the other side of the tower ) in those inane airplane-crash animations - simply for shock-and-awe effect. As it is, a few TV anchormen (including Dan Rather) almost instantly commented that "it almost seemed as the plane went RIGHT THROUGH the tower".So was the Nose Out perhaps just part of their silly script?

To be sure, I don't think we need to debate anymore about how screamingly silly the official version of the 9/11 events is (what with Binladen and his 19 suicide-candidates). So why should we hold on to the idea that the perps must have behaved intelligently/rationally as they concocted the fake imagery (and all the rest)? Let me just remind everyone of what happens when a 200mph Indycar smashes head-on into a concrete wall:

Image
Image
Full video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBUFJ2O9nM8 (btw: sorry to show you this sad, fatal Indy accident)
(Let this be Gordon Smiley's priceless and posthumous contribution to 9/11 truth - R.I.P. Gordon!)
Need I say more? Does most of the Indycar (car & steel engine) bounce off the wall? Yes. Does any part pass through it? Nah.

Now, imagine a fast vehicle crashing into THIS structure:
Image
Would it matter much if it were bigger than an Indycar - or that it crashed at 500mph instead of 200mph? No. To believe that any piece/splinter of that vehicle would make it through the other side of the WTC tower - and just continue flying for 1700 ft at high speed by its own inertia - is just plain stoopid.

THERE - I said it: PLAIN STOOPID! I don't usually like to formulate my arguments by using such demeaning words - but I will do an exception for this utter bullcrap the 9/11 perps wished us to buy. And I tell you what: I'll send one million Mars chocolate bars to anyone who wishes to prove the contrary (Heiwa will help pay for them, hehe! :lol: )

Image

Since 'ridicule' seems to be the perps' weapon-of-choice to counter our work - I see no wrong in highlighting the ridiculousness of their own fables.

icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:57 pm

I can totally see why you feel this is sort of analysis is pointless, and initially I would have agreed with you regarding Occam's Razor.

But...

As I said at the outset, it was your excellent SC video that linked me to here, and the images that really hooked me on were these ones of the 'plane parts'. I'd been substantially insulated from any of the truth-seeking theories being pursued on the internet, until now, and simply harboured my own extremely-skeptical perspective on the whole saga. The factor which impressed me initially (and still does) about this group is it's attempt to rely upon the fundamental re-analysis of imagery, the revealing of an apparently-widespread use of modified images in general reporting worldwide, and the application of a good rigorous level of peer review within the forum overall.

This particular instance with the engine part seems special to me, partly because I'm very new to this, but also because it has to be a chunk of physical evidence that simply either did, or did not, succeed in making that journey (I am purely for the purposes of analysis not considering factors such as incompatible engine parts- that would simply be a corroboration of evidence showing a non-event). If there is one building within the path track that exceeds the height of the physical curve that the supposed engine part took, then the engine part cannot be where it is said to have been by virtue of flight.

I've started to let this get under my skin a little (which I suspect has been the case for you guys for a long time), but I just tried sticking Murray+Street+911 into Google, and got back a site by the name of http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/a ... artsnyc911....I don't know if anyone here is aware of it.

What someone's done there is just stuck up a TV News-style graphic, rather than a Mythbusters-level kitchen science dissection which I'd prefer. However, what it lacks (perhaps?) in parabolic accuracy, it certainly makes up for in content...
Image

What this really surprised me about is that there was claimed to be even more debris ejected from the twin impacts. I think it's possible that on UK television we may have seen footage shown of the Murray/Church supposed engine part, so it might have seemed slightly familiar when I deja vued-it, but I had no idea that there were also other alleged outer-area debris locations.

if there were to be any substance to the theory that the scaffolding at Church played some kind of a role in the locating of the engine assembly as a prop, is it is a curious coincidence that the debris at the southern extreme outer-area location also appears to have builders' scaffolding immediately beside the aircraft part? (note the green pole on the wooden skid)....

Image

This aside from the observation that the (unscorched) landing gear would have been retracted, therefore not subject to transverse damage on impact, and also located within the wing sections, which surely within the officially-understood version of events did not exit the building (or is there an implication that as well as having melted into the building, they also melted out of it?).

I'm in no way wanting to simply repeat what has perhaps been said many times before in other settings, but I (hopefully like most others here) believe that properly analysing images with some basis science and common-sense is by far and away the best antidote to falsehood.

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by reel.deal » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:37 pm

Re: The re-used planted plane parts props

"HEY BUDDY, IS THAT YOUR WALLET ? YOU JUST MISSED THAT DOG SHIT !"

Image
:P

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8&start=30
;)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:54 pm

Dear Icarusbound,

Regarding that "Landing Gear", an even 'funnier' series of images has been released. Here we go:


Firstly, please take a good look at the shoe of that woman in black trousers standing next to it - in the image you posted. Does it look right? Next, note the position of the tip of that pole ("P") in this image:
Image


Here we see "P" in another image. Some joker appears to have displaced the landing gear towards left!
Duh! So much for proper forensic crime evidence procedures!
Image

Here is a shot of the landing gear at night (extracted from a TV news broadcast video):
Image

And here's another night shot of the landing gear. But wait...is it the tire actually rimless? :huh: :rolleyes:
Image

icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:32 am

simonshack wrote: Image
Image
Good grief...these almost look like two different-but-similar locations...purportedly pre/post collapse??

Upper 'Marsh' shot...no moon dust, no diagonal cross-braced or horizontal bar, 'invisible' nested plates on axle, no torn tread surface
on Lower pic, presence of brown spray-paint on sidewalk (set marker?), curious flat zero-height kerb.....intriguingly-similar position viz the street corner, and the 'engine parts'

Lower 'Yellowtaped' shot....strewn with debris, no sidewalk curve-away kerb....(wait, is a common reference that hole in the sidewalk pavement?? hmm not sure), potential scale issue (in that the space between the kerb and scaffold seems so much less in the top picture, yet the wheel assembly still...fits). And the fractured axle, short in the upper 'Marsh' picture, extends out and rests on the kerb in the 'Tape' shot.
Last edited by icarusinbound on Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply