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
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6938
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:46 pm

*
"FUSELAGE PORTION ON TOP OF WTC5"

This is an old FEMA image - with this caption:
"New York City, October 25, 2001 -- A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. FEMA Photo/Gene Corley"
Image

I have long wondered what the deal was with the odd, 'grid-like' top sections of those 2 buildings in the backdrop.
(There are a host of other oddities in this (in)famous image - but let's focus on those backdrop buildings for now.)

In this silly video, the top of the two backdrop buildings have been cropped (at 1:00). I wonder why?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSWjgqpxE3w

It turns out that the building at right is meant to be the Amex building - as seen in other recently released 9/11 imagery (see image at left in below comparison). I'll let you decide for yourself whether that 'grid-like' top section ( "?") looks real or not: Image

The "fuselage portion" FEMA image must be part of an early batch of poorly rendered 9/11 simcity imagery. Not that the more recent servings of 9/11 imagery are much better - but at least they show more realistic-looking buildings. This brings me back to a little observation I made some time ago - over at our "FAKING THE RUBBLE" thread: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2346266
Image

If you have a rational explanation for the left half of the Amex building being chalk white (overexposure caused by sunlight???) in the above image, please let me know!
Image

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:05 pm

lol @ the curled-up USA flags.

Oof! We've been hit! :rolleyes:

These look really bizarre Simon, and I don't think they can be real at all.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by lux » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:02 am

Looks like a model from the set of a Godzilla movie.

Image

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:49 pm

Simon - the UA175 plane part photo has always fascinated me. How did it get to its final location place from WTC2? Did it spew out of the building with the engine part & wheel found at Murray & Church or like those items was it placed there? ;)

Below, I have put together a quick study of why we shouldn't believe one single piece of video or photographic evidence.

Image

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:00 pm

Reel - Is that supposed to be "another" engine part that's smashed through the sidewalk? :lol:

donovan70
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:38 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by donovan70 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:42 pm

Those shoes look like brand new..... where's the dust, fire trauma, or, heaven forbid, blood?? :unsure:

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:19 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:Reel - Is that supposed to be "another" engine part that's smashed through the sidewalk? :lol:
Seriously- is it??? At what purported location?

Image

The photographer looks up, at the... WTC....?

The sidewalk paving slab is gone completely. A missing horizontal plane...as it were.

What vertical edge is visible, bounded by the two down-arrows? The paving stone thickness is too deep to be a cast concrete artifice, so is it an edging stone? There is a suggestion that the sidewalk slab behind the engine-impacted one is also missing. Or is it meant to be a square manhole cover? An impact trajectory towards us would have displaced the slabs in front of it, in a ripple. Assuming earth or sand under the slabs, where is the ejected material?

Where was the jeans-walker's previous step-pace starting-point for his right foot? His gait is wrong- a natural swing is always limb-opposed, left arm with right leg, right arm with left jeg. And this would be explained by him carrying cases...is that really a pair of caseless handles he's got in each hand...and isn't his right leg 'edged' by a missing something? (see my dotted vertical leg-line)

How can this picture be so...oddly flawed? Is it a deliberate misdirection?

I cannot tolerate being lied to ineffectvely- I want the reality that's being sold to me to be realistic fgs! There's nothing worse than patronising propaganda....

(ps also...are these orphan shoes *never* in pairs???? I did think the two on the street, bounded by the white line, might have been brother+sister....but maybe not..)

(pps also.....the green 'man-bag' slung over the officer's pistol holster...what??)

[edit]WAIT- no, tell me I'm wrong... the relative location of this debris....it's just like the one at Murray+Church!

Say 15m up from a street junction. Close to the sidewalk edge. Beside/impacting a pedestrian crossing.....!?!

Where did this picture come from? What is the stated location?? [/edit]
Last edited by icarusinbound on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

donovan70
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:38 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by donovan70 » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:14 am

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? :blink:

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?

Image

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!).

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:36 am

reel.deal wrote:^ ^ ^ ...they look kinda more like aerial/antenna masts on an otherwise obscured building ?
Yes, they might well be ...
Image
Image
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)
reel.deal wrote:...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.
Last edited by icarusinbound on Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by SmokingGunII » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:32 am

donovan70 wrote: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? :blink:

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?

Image

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. :lol: ;) :P

donovan70
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:38 am

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by donovan70 » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:13 pm

SmokingGunII wrote: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. :lol: ;) :P
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!!! :lol:

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6938
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:43 pm

donovan70 wrote: (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:
Image

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

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

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):
Image

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
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by pov603 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:52 am

donovan70 wrote: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? :blink:

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?

Image

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by Equinox » Mon May 07, 2012 3:13 pm

nonhocapito wrote: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.




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
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:03 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by burlington » Sun May 13, 2012 12:27 am

Equinox wrote: 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.

Image
By losarahk at 2012-05-12

Image
By losarahk at 2012-05-12

Image
By losarahk at 2012-05-12

Image
By losarahk at 2012-05-12

Post Reply