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
Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:23 am

Officials said that Flight 93's flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) were recovered at Shanksville.
They said the FDR was recovered 15ft underground at 4:45 pm on 9/13 and the CVR was found 25ft underground at 8:25 pm on 9/14.
Image

“The black boxes were 15ft and 25ft into the ground.”

If Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville, then these black boxes must have been planted.
Some will be skeptical and will ask for evidence that the boxes were planted.

The photos of Flight 93's alleged black boxes were released in April 2006 after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended.
Image

Were these photos that crucial to the prosecution’s case that we had to wait four long years to see them???

The website these photos are posted at lists the “squared-shaped” box as the CVR...
Image

and the “cylinder-shaped” one as the FDR...
Image

However, when the NTSB released their data analysis on the FDR, they show the FDR as the squared-shaped one, not the cylinder-shaped one as the Moussaoui site has it.
Image

(NTSB shows the squared-shaped box as the FDR.)
Image

(Moussaoui site shows the cylinder-shaped one as the FDR.)

So either the Moussaoui site, or the NTSB have the pictures of the FDR and CVR mixed.

The day before the first black box was allegedly found, investigators and U.S. Rep. John Murtha said that one or both of the boxes might have been crushed by the impact or incinerated by the jet fuel-fed inferno.

Wait a minute?

What inferno???
Image

And how does fire exist under a sealed crater?
Image

The plane also supposedly crashed into dirt that was described as "soft" and "spongy".
So doesn't it seem a tad strange that they would comment that the black boxes might have been destroyed by impacting “soft soil” or burning up in a non-existent inferno?

The CVR was supposedly found 10ft deeper in the ground the day after the FDR was.
How did the CVR manage to burrow so much deeper when both boxes are located next to each other in the tail section?
Image


So with officials saying the boxes might have been destroyed by “soft dirt” or an inferno that didn’t exist and the CVR which allegedly recorded the terrorist’s voices found a day later because it burrowed so much deeper, kinda makes you wonder about these “recovered” black boxes, huh?

Take a look at the black boxes themselves…
How do we know that a pair of black boxes weren’t taken from a previous plane crash and those were used to stage these photos?

Image

Now take a close look at the squared-shaped black box…

Did you notice how it was propped up nicely on a piece of metal to be level for the shot?
Image

And notice all the wires around it too…
Image

Kinda makes the photo look more convincing, doesn’t it?!
By the way, this would be the ONLY photo from the scene that shows any wires from the alleged plane crash.
Also, did you notice that only the labeled part of the black box was photographed?
Image

The photo wouldn't have quite the same effect if just the other half was shown...
Image

So what happened to the rest of the built-to-last black box? Surely it didn't just disappear.
And what's with this piece of wood in the crater???
Image

Now take a look at the cylinder-shaped black box…
How do we know it wasn't put on the ground at some other location and photographed?
Notice how it was placed by some rocks along with a small piece of twisted metal nicely tucked underneath...
Image

Is that twisted piece of metal aluminum from a plane, or just a piece of tin?
Image

So was it placed by some rocks with a piece of scrap metal tucked underneath too again, make the photo look more convincing?
As with the squared box, notice that only the main labeled part was photographed...
Image


So it just a coincidence that BOTH bottom sections of the boxes are missing and only the labeled parts are photographed to make the photos look all the more dramatic?
Image

Also, have you ever seen black boxes from a crash scene photographed like these were?

We were told that Flight 93 crashed at a whopping 580mph and burrowed down deep into “soft dirt”…
Image

Well if that’s so, then why isn’t there any dirt on the black boxes after they supposedly burrowed so far through dirt?

Image
Did you notice there is no fire damage either?

One last thing...
After the alleged FDR was sent back to the NTSB for analysis their report mentions the manufacturer of the FDR: Allied-Signal
Image


You can also tell it's an Allied-Signal because you can still make out one of the letters on its damaged label...
Image

The NTSB released the transcript from Flight 93's alleged CVR, but never mentioned who the manufacturer was.
United Airlines Flight 93 went into service in 1996.

The CVR from Flight 93 should be by the same maker as the FDR: Allied-Signal
Image

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:45 am

When a plane crashes the tail section usually survives.
Image

Sometimes fully.
Image

Sometimes partially.
Image

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


the tail still survives.
Image



► 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.
Image

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


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

that caused the plane to plow mostly underground...
Image
"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.
Image
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?!
Image
Image


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...
Image
Image



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


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?
Image
Image
Image
Image

Image
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?
Image
Image


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



Well so much for the Samurai sword theory.
Image

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?
Image

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?
Image
Image
Image
Image



Of course that begs yet another question:

Did Flight 93 suffer from "taco neck"?
Image
Image


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.
Image


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

The ground!
Image
Image



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


Yet only leave this:
Image
Image

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:30 am

The one thing missing from Killtown's analysis you show, Equinox, is the fact that a plane allegedly travellling at the speeds it was, at sea level would have broken up long before it hit the ground. We know from other plane crashes that a fuselage will normally break into sections when colliding with the ground, which is why the tail fin normally survives in some shape or form.

Out of the three crash locations, Shanksville is the easiest one to convince the non-researcher of duplicity. Strangely, in the UK, many people are still unaware of this plane crash, despite the efforts of Hollywood to promote the myth. :P

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:00 pm

The one thing missing from Killtown's analysis you show, Equinox, is the fact that a plane allegedly travellling at the speeds it was, at sea level would have broken up long before it hit the ground. We know from other plane crashes that a fuselage will normally break into sections when colliding with the ground, which is why the tail fin normally survives in some shape or form.
Yes I have a long time tried to find the actual factual proof of the sea level speeds, something that actually show what really would happen. I think Simon put it very well in his movie... "would Boeing let us know?" ..... well I did send a proper letter to Boeing tech deparment about 3 months ago and suprise suprise .. still no answer.
Out of the three crash locations, Shanksville is the easiest one to convince the non-researcher of duplicity. Strangely, in the UK, many people are still unaware of this plane crash, despite the efforts of Hollywood to promote the myth. :P
Yes the above analysis by KT was what first got me into the 9/11 no plane, stuff about half a year before I watched sept/clues, ( I placed it up here with re- uploaded photos for a historical reference in case his site ever stopped)

UA 93 is def a great smoking gun, Another classic example of why building 7 is a distraction for them... Not many people in UK no about it? no way! here in australia everyone knows about it
mind you the BBC archives do not show much on UA 93 that morning.

Now we have covered flights 175,11, 93 we should get a couple of posts up of flight 77 wreckage . Just a suggestion :)

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:05 pm

reel can you link the posts on the burnt out cars you did, you know the ones with the same cop car! :)

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 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:53 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:22 pm

Yeah, one day I tried to see if that lady matched this other dual-role actor. Sure is damn close, . . .
Image

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Heiwa » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:21 pm

reel.deal wrote: No ...just planted parts.
:rolleyes:
Yes, you are 100% right. Thanks! :)

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 11, 2011 5:02 pm

LOL, RD - even the "shadow" of the flying piece of debris doesn't match on the North tower! :lol: :D :P

I'm pleased this subject was given its own thread. If newcomers can't see through this charade, then God help us all!

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 11, 2011 5:05 pm

reel.deal wrote:Image

Not a scratch ! no 'fire damage', no 'serrated jagged edges'; ...no nothing !!!
:blink:
'This' 'Flight 175' 'part' just 'reamed right thru' 'Tower 2' ...what a joke !!! ;)
Great SFX !!!
:P

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


What is that circular mirror type thing lying to the right of the FP(fake photo) -1 case? :blink:

CryptoAnarchist
Banned
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:07 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by CryptoAnarchist » Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:10 pm

I'm sure as time goes on more and more plane part pictures will 'surface'. They're just gonna keep cranking them out and eventually, they'll have ones that ARE completely un-debunkable. Then I guess people will have to just accept that the official story is true :blink:

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:01 am

Reel Deal - thanks to the sharp shooting of Carmen Taylor, we get another perspective of the exiting plane part. :)

First, I want to congratulate Carmen on her skill in capturing both shots within a split second, something the camera she allegedly used was incapable of, whilst keeping the towers nicely vertical within the viewfinder. Nerves of steel. ;)

Image

The exiting debris appears to have travelled upwards a few floors? I can only guess that it hit something like Stanley Prainmath's indestructible desk and ricocheted through 3 or 4 concrete floors, without losing any momentum, before exiting. In fact, to accomplish this and come out at the angle it did, it would have to have accelerated whilst performing the manouevre.

Poor old Newton really didn't know what he was talking about. :blink:

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Heiwa » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:25 pm

reel.deal wrote:'Flight 175' must have
decided to skim 'straight' across the 80th or whatever floor, while it was busy'exploding'... :P
You have misunderstood a little.Flight 175 arriving at 500 mph completely stopped inside WTC2 within 2 seconds (after slicing throught south steel columns wall)... and THEN exploded inside tower in all directions. Only right engine + bit of right (or left?) landing rubber wheel didn't stop inside WTC2 but continued - followed by a smoke trail??? - all the way to Murray Street unless put there by assistance, e.g. from a truck (more probable). Actually it was all amateurish CGI that professionals like FBI, NTSB or FEMA should have found out ... unless they were part of the show. :rolleyes:

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:33 pm

Wow, nice work!! you have done really well here Image
PARRALAXATIVE -- :lol:
Those guys and there parralax, They go to sooooo much effort with the Parralax, that they end up looking like the biggest shills on the market. PERP-SPECTIVE

Image
(Lol btw I found a heaps cool cheeky smiley face reminded me of you.)

Nice work again, Reel and smokey, Im going to go through read through it all again shortly, Just a quick Important one though. Im hoping to do some stuff on the difference of explosions and smoke in the impacts and collapse shots soon, are these two different pics? From the same shooter?

Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:02 am

Equinox wrote: PARRALAXATIVE -- :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

(These lols are dedicated to the old and withered "parallax" debunking efforts of September Clues by entities such as "Yougene Debs", "Achimspok" and "Anthony Lawson".)

Post Reply