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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by icarusinbound » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:43 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:Something I noticed. The Pizza Joint tells us that the photo with the green and cyan street labels is backwards. The street is Church that the projectile flew down. Murray is the cross-street. To get a reference you need to look at the pizza shop on Google Streetview today. It is a different pizza shop called, "Star." Yeah it is run by the Masons ;-) But that is the reference point -- the pizza shop. Starbucks is Catty-Corner (diagonal corner to the engine crash corner).

The engine crash corner is adjacent to the Pizza shop. Murray St runs between Pizza Shop and the crash site corner!
whatsgoingon wrote: The engine crash corner is adjacent to the Pizza shop. Murray St runs between Pizza Shop and the crash site corner!
Au contraire...my read of the present-day topology is that the crash-site is now a Dunkin' Donuts in Murray...facing south, of course, with right-hand-corner-to-Church. And 'Famous Pizza' facing west is now a nondescript 'Condiminiums' multiplex.

'Star' Pizza's not in the historical frame for the LZ, because when you make it right-hand-corner-to-Church, it's facing north...now that turbine sub-assembly's not very aerodynamic already, so a hairpin180 at the intersection is just too much...!-)

So that maintains the site of the present-day Starbucks/Equinox 60m multiblock, at 50-54 Murray, as having been the north-facing downhill slope of the canyon silo....

Stand at the intersection of Church+Murray, do a 360 with a nod south to WTC, advance west up Murray to just before the blue Ob-Gyn sign on the north sidewalk, do a plus/minus 120 looking back to the intersection, now tell me I'm wrong.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:06 pm

So - are we in agreement about this trajectory? Or is this sketchy red parabola of mine incorrect?
Image

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by icarusinbound » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:28 pm

Hmm...I do see what you mean too. But if it is that would surely place the classic impact point as being on Church, north of Murray??

However...
whatsgoingon wrote: So the math would be interesting to see if a parabola solution can intersect the trade center tower and the crash site in the same solution without hitting (passing through) the EQUINOX building
For sure...and always remembering that the drop-curve of the parabola must be descending...taking a zoom-in of Simon's end-of-track shot, look at the 'signature' set-back penthouse on top of the block (I am of course assuming that the source of this picture was taken <911....the presence of the WTC may not be signficant)

Image

And then what might just be the same set-back penthouse, if the Starbucks/EQUINOX building in the present-day is fundamentally unchanged, since it almost suffered a near-miss a decade ago...

Image

Significant changes to the canyon building's architectural design will be held by NYC municipal authorities, if there have been any major physical/zonal works carried out since it was first built.

Perhaps there's a simple solution to estimating the intercept point of the drop-curve....whatsgoingon , assuming that the descent began at height c300m, out from the north exit wound of WTC2, and ignoring the effects of tumbling along it's major axis, precession pitching, absence of aerodynamic snubbing on the...real...object.....suppose the projectile was a perfect sphere of the same mass, and the only forces acting upon it were the impetus of the initial excursion in the X-plane, and g in the Y-axis....? What square-law equation would graphically describe the path? (nb I do not have a solution to this yet....in the words of Young Caine- 'I seek not to know all the answers, but to understand the questions' ).

I wonder if even a spherical mass would theoretically clear that final c60m hurdle??


*************************************************************************************************************************************************
(PLEASE NOTE: I have since corrected the exact location of the "plane part": the 9/11 imagery shows it (lying under a scaffolding) on the sidewalk of CHURCH st - just before it intersects MURRAYst (not the other way round). /- simon)

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by icarusinbound » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:40 pm

Good grief......something that maybe does support your impression is the road surface colour....it's either anti-slip coating (applied to the main road, Church Street? do you do that in the US? We tend to sometimes have this in European/UK cities and town) or something similar.

Check out what I mean...pale-brown rectangle= Church, not Murray

I'd have wondered if it might have been a substantial re-instatement of tarmac following work on under-road services, but surely the street would have been totally resurfaced in a decade??

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by icarusinbound » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:00 pm

If the orientation of a south-facing view is correct, looking down Church towards the eternal Pizza Parlour, then, yes, the LZ must equate to being...the same location.... as the modern-day Condominium building?....but there's another big problem just being identified.

Slant angle.

If the impact landing site (as it were) was north of the intersection, on the east sidewalk of Church, that meant that all the scaffolding would have presented a tiny horizontal effective window for the landing end-point. You follow me? An interstitial forest of traffic light and scaffold-poles....Kryptonite apart ^_^

And in the pictures....the road feels to me as if it's Murray-wide (ie not very), as opposed to being Church-wide......the shocked citizens meander like they're on the cross-street, not the main drag. Also, what is that wraith forming in the street?

Comments?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
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 12:07 am

*

Ok - I have now taken a better look at the Google maps. I had erroneously placed the "FLIGHT 175 engine part" (seen in the 9/11 imagery) on Murray street. As of the 9/11 imagery, it was instead meant to be (under a scaffolding) on Church St (just before it intersects with Murray St).

Here is its exact location - (I have inserted the "FLIGHT 175 engine part" onto a current Google Maps view) :
Image

Compare with this 9/11 image (using x, y, z as reference points):
Image

So here's a more correct graphic of how it is meant to have gotten under that scaffolding - after exiting the North face of WTC2... :lol:
Image

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Jonathan » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:35 am

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 ...
Last edited by Jonathan on Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Jonathan » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:20 am

You are right IMO - both of you!

The point I saw was:

in the much lengthier discussion of impossible or - and there comes in the weakness - implausible details -
the main thing becomes almost invisible.

To someone fairly new on the subject, that is.

And less likely to be significant or important - as is the nature of secondary ... tertiary ... arguments.

I just wanted it to be present ;)

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:56 am

Image
I don't know why postimage.org is not giving me a code for the original size image. Click on image to see correct placement of the engine prop.

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Equinox » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:31 am

whatsgoingon wrote:
BTW. EQUINOX, eh you are on the building in block letters catty-corner to the place where the jet engine landed.
B)


I was little bit unsure of that meant, but I googled street viewed the corner of Church and Murray ….

I almost spat my morning coffee all over the computer screen.
And funnily enough yes I did see myself in bold letters, right next to a hot girl.

Image

My rare random name right on the corner! What are the odds of that? :blink: :o :D

Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Brutal Metal » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:06 am

simonshack wrote:*


So here's a more correct graphic of how it is meant to have gotten under that scaffolding - after exiting the North face of WTC2... :lol:
Image
maybe there was a large parachute attached to it :lol:

Makkonen
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Makkonen » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:32 am

Brutal Metal wrote:
simonshack wrote:*


So here's a more correct graphic of how it is meant to have gotten under that scaffolding - after exiting the North face of WTC2... :lol:
maybe there was a large parachute attached to it :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Mickey
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Mickey » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:03 am

Did they forget the engine detachment sequence from the CGI along with forgetting people getting knocked out of the building (holding hands of course :lol: :lol: ) after the impact ???

The simplest explanation I can think of why they didn't use planes - they didn't use planes because they didn't have to. The tomfoolery was enough to get it done on the vast TV audience.

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Equinox » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:51 am

A month ago I had the same problem... So I decided to upgrade to "Pro" account on Photobucket.
Gifs and pics load in seconds and I have unlimited MB to upload. It works soooooo good.
Rookie turned "pro" lol :lol:

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

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Equinox » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:05 am

Some one asked me this on another forum.
euqinox911... Just out of curiosity...

Can you answer this:

1) A huge crowd of people trashed a 767, put the parts on a truck and drove around the worlds busiest city, scattering parts around to make it look like a plane crashed into the towers. Nobody noticed them doing it.
In regards to how a big part like that may have been placed there. Well there would be many ways of staging that big plane part there. They definitely would not have needed a truck and HEAPS of people. Experience tells me you could pull it of with just one person in 5 minutes.

I used to work with frame scaffolding; it’s pretty much the same worldwide as also in New York as appears in these photos.
Image

A classic way of making the horizontal walk way on scaffolding is by using tempory attachable aluminum planks which very easily clip on and of with great ease from the frame…. As demonstrated here.
Image

So they wouldn’t need a big truck or a heap of people to plant some heavy wreckage like that.
The plane engine could have been placed on the level of scaffold above the sidewalk, easily weeks before 9/11. And after the 2nd impact someone could have taken away as little as two aluminum planks and with a pre ready rope n chain and pulley system could have lowered that sucker on to the sidewalk.
In a rush a I could probably do it in 4 minutes flat.
Image

Just a theory on how it may have been done. :)

(Equinox: I've just replaced the above image with a copy of mine - with corrected street names / ;) - simon )

Post Reply