The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

[reel.deal]

.

[whatsgoingon]

Fabulous work reel.deal on that engine.

1. Mysterious path that changes direction. Diagonal and then straight out. Wow. Are we to think the explosion changed the path of the engine suddenly in a sharp angle. That is impossible since the explosion is isotropic. The forces from the explosion would have pushed the engine outward on its original trajectory. The imagery is stunning fraudulent.
2. No exit wound on the building. Excellent work.
3. The engine seems to go up through the elevator and up a few floors too during its ghost like trip through steel columns and walls. That makes sense.

Poor engine just cannot get a break. Both the launch and the landing look pretty bad.

[simonshack]

PARRALAXATIVE --

(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".)

[simonshack]

*
"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"


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:

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


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!

[hoi.polloi]

lol @ the curled-up USA flags.

Oof! We've been hit!

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

[lux]

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

[SmokingGunII]

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.

[reel.deal]

.

[reel.deal]

.

[reel.deal]

.

[SmokingGunII]

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

[whatsgoingon]

Seems average joe with his smoke can stroll over an engine part and the police of course could care less. Heck everything is safe folks. It is just an engine part. The building is not collapsing yet. Don't panic. Just walk right over the "evidence."

[donovan70]

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

[icarusinbound]

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

Seriously- is it??? At what purported location?



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]

[donovan70]

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!).