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
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 1:08 am

whatsgoingon wrote: The other idea to check on is the footage showing that fireball people call the "engine" and whether that parabola is the one we are talking about. This would be a hard task to do but perhaps worth a look. I think it is hard to critique that parabola photographed because we'd need 3D perspective to be able to say anything meaningful.
Image
http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

Can you subtend the declination from this??? Or is it too short to give a line for intercept...remembering the alleged descent path must be below the straight-line tangent from that point

And (not trajectory related)....but good grief

Image
Where do the pedestrian indicators go in some of the earlier shots? Is that truly someone on the phone behind that booth? Shoe instead of headphones...and is that cyclist about ride right over the top of the giant disk-plate that's meant to be in the roadway? Has that drain-grating always been in all shots?

And...the metal feet of the phone-booth, and the streetlight column base...here they don't go all the way to the sidewalk pavement, but are on some form of plinth. But here, from behind....they go flat to the deck.

Image

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 05, 2011 4:28 am

Image

Officials told us that both engines from Flight 93 were recovered after it allegedly crashed.


(Well, sort of.)

One of the engines was photographed being recovered from the crater at the scene.
Image

The other was reportedly found in the woods behind the crater, or in the pond.
Image

Confused?

Don't worry, that's what happens when a story doesn't add up.


Let's start with the engine allegedly found in the woods, or in the pond, or wherever it was supposedly found.

First, it was reported that a "whole engine" was found at a "considerable distance from the crash site."
Image
(Flight 93 was equipped with two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines.)

One report said this massive engine was found 600 yards from the crater.
Image
And got there by "bouncing" off the ground.

Then it was changed from a whole engine, to a 1,000 pound piece of it found far from the crash and to the west of it.
Image
They reportedly had to haul this engine out of the woods with a bulldozer.

And who was it that reportedly hauled this engine out of the woods?

You guessed it!

Jim Svonavec, whose company worked at the site and provided excavation equipment, told AFP that the recovery of the engine “at least 1,800 feet into the woods,” was done solely by FBI agents using his equipment.


Then the story changes again in which now a section of the engine was found in a catchment pond just south of the crater.

This section supposedly was an engine fan.

(or was it a piece of fuselage?)

But regardless of whatever was supposedly found in the water, it was reported that they recovered whatever they did in the woods BEFORE they even searched the pond!


Update:
Four Flight 93 victims identified
Saturday, September 22, 2001

"Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.

Yesterday, investigators drained a two-acre pond about 1,000 feet from the crater where the jetliner slammed into the ground, just another step in hunting airliner parts, personal belongings and remains, Miller said." - post-gazette.com
But let's skip all the major inconsistencies of where this engine was found and assume a piece of it was found in the pond.

The pond is about 300 yards south of the crater.
Image

Remember that Flight 93 was said to have crashed at 580mph into the ground at a 40deg angle.

There appears to be markings in the crater of where the two engines from Flight 93 supposedly hit.

(I guess.)

Remember that the ground was said to be "soft & loose" and that's why, they say, most of the plane was able to burrow deep underground.

So if Flight 93 hit this "soft" ground at nearly 600mph and at a 40deg angle then why did one of its massive engines that weighs almost 10,000 lbs burrow underground and the other one just bounced off?

Also, do any of these “engine marks” in the ground even look like marks made from 10,000-pound engines plowing nearly 600mph into the ground at a 40deg angle?
Image
But if these marks were caused by Flight 93’s engines plowing into the ground, how did one not only manage to escape, but tumble so far from the crash?

But let's just assume for a second that its engine (or massive fan) did bounce off the ground after impact.

Could it have tumbled 300 yards after crashing?

Officials say so and I would actually agree.

However, what I am wondering is, whether it was an entire engine, or one of its massive fans, how in the world did it manage to tumble into the pond with this 70ft wall of trees in the way?

Image


Image

But if some part of an engine was found in the pond, who's to say it wasn't just planted there?

Isn't it just a little too coincidental that of all the places a piece of a plane's hot engine would be found is in the cold water of a pond?

So if the perps planted a heavy engine part in the pond, how did they get it there without being noticed?

Image

Now that you're probably curious as to what was actually found in the pond (or woods for that matter) we can probably identify what this mystery part was by the photos taken of it at the scene:

Image

Did you see it?

No?

That's because officials never took any, or at least never released any.

Hmm, kinda weird they never showed us any photos of this large piece from Flight 93 that was reportedly recovered from the pond, or found in the woods.

(or was it found in the bushes???)

So what about the engine seen being excavated from the crater in that photo that wasn't released until 4 1/2 years after 9/11?

Is it from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engine, the kind Flight 93 had?

Image

Kinda hard to tell since it's so smashed up.

But let's assume it is for the sake of argument.

The obvious first question about this engine is why is it only a few feet under the surface when officials said the black boxes were recovered 15ft & 25ft underground?

Image
Also, doesn't this engine look kind of old and rusted?

Right about now it should start becoming obvious that this is a planted engine scrap.

But planted how and when?

There was a person living in a cottage right around the corner and there is a scrap yard right up the street in plain view.


Image
How were the perps able to plant such an engine scrap without being noticed?

Seems unlikely that they dug up the field and planted it before the "crash".

So realistically, the perps would have to have planted it sometime afterwards.

But how could they have done that with so many responders stationed at the scene?

Image


Well, it helps when the piece of debris you are planting fits neatly in the equipment you are "excavating" it with!

Image


They just used one of their excavators at the scene and simply lowered it down for a nice little photo-op.

Didn't you notice the engine scrap was small enough to fit in the backhoe bucket?

Image


And that no dirt is caked on it after supposedly burrowing down "soft soil" at nearly 600mph?!

And all those responders that were stationed next to the crater would have only seen the backside of the backhoe bucket.

Image

Image


And if it can’t get more obvious the perps threw little pieces of shiny aluminum in the crater to try to make their staged photo-op look more real.
Image

When will they learn that United Airlines planes are not silver, but dark blue and grey?
Image

But you can’t blame them for trying.

I mean, what are you supposed to do when you have to excavate a hole with no plane in it?
Image
Image

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 05, 2011 8:50 am

I Have downloaded the pics and posts and then re-uploaded the pics and comments as a permanent hystorical record and archive for this important thread on staged fake plane parts. Couple more on the way. B)
Last edited by Equinox on Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6939
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:15 pm

*
My all-time favourite "PLANE PART evidence" is that tire seen lying below the WTC, lodged into a steel section landed beside the St. Nicholas church (a poor little Greek Orthodox chapel which got crushed by the towers). NOTE THAT THE TOWERS HAVEN'T COLLAPSED YET - so that pretty large WTC1 section must have been ...uh... punched out by that purported 'landing gear' tire ! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Those absurdly silly 9/11 images inspired me to put together an ad for that mighty product known as the...

FIRESTONE DEMOLITION TIRES


Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6939
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:50 pm

*
But of course, the one and only video we have of the WTC1 impact is that horridly doctored clip credited to the Naudet brothers - which has been exposed as a fraud in every imaginable way. NO other image exists of that 8:46AM timeline (apart from Pavel Hlava's atrociously blurry long-distance video clip "shot from his car") - and much less do we have any 8:46AM images from the south side of WTC1 (where that FIRESTONE DEMOLITION TIRE made ravages...)

So let's see what we have from the impact moment at WTC2. What exactly do we see exiting the north face of WTC2 - in the available 9/11 images? And is it consistent from image to image? The answer to this is: No.

Here we see a white blob (leaving NO white smoketrail) exiting the WTC2:
Image

Here we see the white blob (leaving NO white smoketrail) preceded by a superfast black blob:
SLOW MOTION:____________________________________"REAL" SPEED
ImageImage

But of course...as has been much debated in the past (when we still thought that SOME of the 9/11 imagery might be real) the black blob is not meant to be debris but must be...uh, let's say... just a fly-by pigeon (scared shitless by the impact sound)... :rolleyes:
Image
This is a typical 'teaser' inserted in the computer-animated imagery for us 'conspiracy theorists' (and assorted birdwatchers) to chew on - much like the infamous 'squibs' seen puffing out of the towers in the collapse animations, to make us all go: "LOOK; LOOK! 'Tis a controlled demolition, folks!" In this case, it made us go: "LOOK; LOOK! 'Tis a missile!"

Image
Image
Image
Image


And here's the horrid shot credited to one "Clifton Cloud"- pretty useless for our current purpose to compare what is SEEN exiting the WTC2 in the various available WTC2 impact imagery. But please do note that the north faces of the WTC are both in full shade here - as opposed to the above image samples. This fact alone disqualifies (at least one of the two WTC2 impact videos) as being real images shot on 9/11 :
(NOTE also Clifton Cloud's marvellous rock'n'rolling smokeplume! :lol: :lol: :lol: )

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqiEx-42uys


But, perhaps you're all tired to look at this God-awful, low-resolution video imagery the 9/11 perps offered ?
So let's have a look at this "high-resolution still-photo" canvas as published by SIPA press. Lovely, isn't it?...
Image
Let's try and pretend for a second that this roaringly funny plastic image has any sort of relation to a real photograph.
Note the distinct white smoketrail soaring down to the Manhattan streets (no doubt, towards the Church/Murray intersection, yah?). So did the white blob (seen in the above image samples) develop a smoketrail AFTER having flown that parabolic trajectory? A DELAYED white smoketrail?

Yah - Rrright. <_<

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 6:52 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0ZaXC ... A4MDYzOGQ5

That is a trajectory based on the landing site.
.......... I just imagined that the physics was going to be terrible too. We need to get a look at the height of the other buildings that were cleared too to wrap this up.
Excellent document whatsgoingon, thanks!
SmokingGunII wrote:
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
SmokingGunII, thank-you for that- and it puts 100 Church at 69.8m. If I estimate the north face of 100 Church as being at the 250m mark, that puts the theoretical roof-clearance at ~110-69.8=40.2m. Which is a lot higher than I'd expected...but the curve looks totally reasonable, I suppose.

But this is of course cannot take account the tumbling that would theoretically occur, due to wind resistance for what would be a very non-aerodynamic object, to do that test we'd need Jamie and Adam with a trebuchet. The engine part is like a giant low-kinetic snub-round: I wonder if it yielded/gave way when the lights changed??

And an obvious thought....if you were Joe Public, wandering on Church, would you casually stand and stare and chew gum beside what looks like a giant smoking landmine perhaps filled with aviation fuel, whilst WW3 may be commencing behind you?? Or maybe even make a phonecall, from that street kiosk only feet away (like the possible one-legged man)?

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 05, 2011 7:07 pm

OK, an airplane slices into the south wall of the south tower WTC2 at 500 mph and stops inside except one engine and one landing gear wheel, which continue through the north wall + smoke trails and the engine lands as shown above in a crowded street and nobody gets hurt. All jet fuel arriving at 500 mph also stops inside tower high up, ignites and produces a FIREBALL! Soon after NYPD arrives and fences off the engine landing area, while people continues walking around, buying (eating!) pizzas, phoning, shopping, etc. I like the fat mama walking in the middle of the street prior fencing off. She hasn't eating cooked food for years, just chips and chips, etc. and is too busy to observe action around her. An average US observer?

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:43 pm

Notice the wording on the pizza shop is not consistent either. Hard to believe that lettering as well.
The length of the banner/awning has been shortened, also, and even though both pics were taken from the same position, the pizza building looks slightly smaller/further away (based on what can be seen on the cropped inset image).
. . .if you were Joe Public, wandering on Church, would you casually stand and stare and chew gum beside what looks like a giant smoking landmine perhaps filled with aviation fuel, . . .
He's casually huffing (abusing inhalants)!!

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:15 am

HonestlyNow wrote:
Notice the wording on the pizza shop is not consistent either. Hard to believe that lettering as well.
The length of the banner/awning has been shortened, also, and even though both pics were taken from the same position, the pizza building looks slightly smaller/further away (based on what can be seen on the cropped inset image).
Note that sections of scaffolding to the rear of the picture backing on to Murray Street, including a cross-spar, flick in-and-out of 'reality'....as does the lower yellow mounting for the DON'T/WALK sign...there's also something odd happening down on the side of the Permanent Pizza Parlour, on Church....like a Western Union sign that comes and goes, in the .gif sequence.

There's also something else I've thought of...the localised debris, scattered on the road and presumably the sidewalk. Within the scenario, it will all have detached on impact, and rolled/bounced outwards from the main impact point (did I see a bizarre tarmac-not-paving-slabs 'sidewalk cracked' shot somewhere on the net?? now not sure). This would almost be the air accident investigation equivalent of a blood spatter pattern (or should that be hydraulic fluid??). Or perhaps it was starting to fall apart, just prior to....impact. And that large plate/flange-disk on the road, maybe it fell beside the main lump, like the blade of a scythe...and took-out the signs, also neatly severing the upper yellow mounting bracket. This becomes metaphysics- or even just more metaphysical.

pov603
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by pov603 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:15 am

Heiwa wrote:OK, an airplane slices into the south wall of the south tower WTC2 at 500 mph and stops inside except one engine and one landing gear wheel, which continue through the north wall + smoke trails and the engine lands as shown above in a crowded street and nobody gets hurt. All jet fuel arriving at 500 mph also stops inside tower high up, ignites and produces a FIREBALL! Soon after NYPD arrives and fences off the engine landing area, while people continues walking around, buying (eating!) pizzas, phoning, shopping, etc. I like the fat mama walking in the middle of the street prior fencing off. She hasn't eating cooked food for years, just chips and chips, etc. and is too busy to observe action around her. An average US observer?
The 'fat lady' is like the bow-legged Chinese Illusionist who used to make the Round fishtank appear with live fish from 'thin air' whereas in reality he used to have to act bow-legged all his working life because it was between his legs that he would carry the fish tank on 'working' days.
The 'fat lady' is really a size '0' but has been preparing for this very event at the behest of TPTB by having to carry an aircraft 'engine' at oppportune times and then 'deposit' same engine and move on unnoticed!
She may also have been in the crowd at the site of 'Flight 93'!

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

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:21 am

Ehh, probably not. But that's a funny idea.

pov603
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by pov603 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:42 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Ehh, probably not. But that's a funny idea.
I had better qualify that what I said was in jest!

AnonymousTruther2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: The ridiculous "PLANE PARTS evidence"

Unread post by AnonymousTruther2 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:35 am

Here we have someone who complains that nobody in TV Fakery Research would look at his new WTC "declassified" :P video.
This troll (same name on YT) says it's proof of NON-fakery. He says jumpers are real, jet sounds are real , and there's plane debris falling in the street. :lol:


Let's see this crappy video.
http://vimeo.com/29084672

First, there's always cuts of videos and sound. It's all edited. Nothing "raw".

1:14 The ONLY TIME the camera seems to be able to clearly see the towers from the WAY TOO dark street to the sky, on the green screen WITHOUT the "white sky", "invisible Towers, "flickering Towers" and "Ghost Towers".

1:19 "Flickering Tower"

1:35 Dark to Light Streets, "White Sky" and "Invisible Towers" to "Ghost Towers".

2:30 Fake jumpers and "flickering Towers" and ALWAYS the VERY odd deep blue sky.

4:10 Fake jumpers and still horribly wrong images of the Towers.

4:52 The "Second Strike".... horrible fake sound coming from nowhere.

5:04 DEBRIS FALLING DOWN all around the cameraman! :lol:

5:38 We can see a perfect equal reflection of the Towers on a "window/mirror".
Are we supposed to believe this angle is REAL!??? :lol:

5:47 The ridiculous plane parts in the streets! :blink: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? It's like 4-5 blocks away too, if not more, idk! :lol:

5:55 Still the creepy dark streets of Manhattan. :ph34r:
The only people that seem "excited" are the people behind the camera.

6:09 Towers color change for no reason. Except it's 9/11, that must be why... just like physics, reality took a day off. B)

6:43 Bizarre cut! Followed by the "white sky" and "invisible Towers". :huh:

6:59 Cut! Actor! Cut!

7:40 The really haunted "Ghost Towers". MUCH like what we saw at 1:35! :wacko:

The rest is a repetition to try to "prove" plane parts, jumpers, and planes.

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 5:32 am

AnonymousTruther2 wrote:Here we have someone who complains that nobody in TV Fakery Research would look at his new WTC "declassified" :P video.
This troll (same name on YT) says it's proof of NON-fakery. He says jumpers are real, jet sounds are real , and there's plane debris falling in the street. :lol:


Let's see this crappy video.
http://vimeo.com/29084672

First, there's always cuts of videos and sound. It's all edited. Nothing "raw".

1:14 The ONLY TIME the camera seems to be able to clearly see the towers from the WAY TOO dark street to the sky, on the green screen WITHOUT the "white sky", "invisible Towers, "flickering Towers" and "Ghost Towers".

1:19 "Flickering Tower"

1:35 Dark to Light Streets, "White Sky" and "Invisible Towers" to "Ghost Towers".

2:30 Fake jumpers and "flickering Towers" and ALWAYS the VERY odd deep blue sky.

4:10 Fake jumpers and still horribly wrong images of the Towers.

4:52 The "Second Strike".... horrible fake sound coming from nowhere.

5:04 DEBRIS FALLING DOWN all around the cameraman! :lol:

5:38 We can see a perfect equal reflection of the Towers on a "window/mirror".
Are we supposed to believe this angle is REAL!??? :lol:

5:47 The ridiculous plane parts in the streets! :blink: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously? It's like 4-5 blocks away too, if not more, idk! :lol:

5:55 Still the creepy dark streets of Manhattan. :ph34r:
The only people that seem "excited" are the people behind the camera.

6:09 Towers color change for no reason. Except it's 9/11, that must be why... just like physics, reality took a day off. B)

6:43 Bizarre cut! Followed by the "white sky" and "invisible Towers". :huh:

6:59 Cut! Actor! Cut!

7:40 The really haunted "Ghost Towers". MUCH like what we saw at 1:35! :wacko:

The rest is a repetition to try to "prove" plane parts, jumpers, and planes.
"Here we have someone who complains that nobody in TV Fakery Research would look at his new WTC "declassified".
Wrong, For a start the video is not "new" is a video that been around for YEARS and is attribited to Bartvanbelle,
Secondly, the video has been looked at and already proven faked... YEARS AGO!!!!

So much so I have already gone through and archived the fake frames to the exact second.
I believe I made a copy of this archiving on my thread at lets roll ...
Ahhh here it is http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=313
3rd of september I archived that...


"BART's" video

Another video by one "Bart Van Belle" also turns out to be crafted with digital imagery technology...(Surprise, surprise! )
It's the same video which shows a lot of JUMPERS falling down from the WTC towers. http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image
Blue streak
- 0.21

Bart Van Belle's video (which was released only in 2007) looks pretty realistic at a first viewing - yet at closer inspection THIS is what "Bart's Manhattan" looks like:
Image

For the next analysis, I really need your utmost attention. The below sequence (featuring a "Manhattan Demolition" truck
passing in front of "Bart's" view of the burning WTC) shows a reflection in the cabin window. Let's look at it:
Image

Big red demo truck....

- 9.24

"Bart's video camera" then shows us this scenery - right after the "Manhattan Demolition truck" has passed in front of his camera:

Image


3d rendering flaws-
9.13


Here's how it compares to a 9/11 TV scenery shown on ABC:

Image

PERPspectives..
- 9.13 minutes.
+
09.53--- 9/11 tv archives ABC (05.33- 06.14)
http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109111733-1814


And here's how it compares with a recent Google street view (large picture):
Image

Building "A" is a total disaster: it is huge and doesn't look even remotely like the real thing!

The Youtube troll literally shot itself in the foot from the very start claiming this is "new declassified" footage and claming ddoesn't know who the alleged "cameraman" is.... It is"bartvanbelle" Its an extremely popular piece of 9/11 footage that has been seen in history documentries. I watched it on a history channel documnetry on my TV along time ago :lol:

It was released 2007!! :lol: :lol:


NEXT!!! B) :lol:

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 6:36 am

reel.deal wrote:
simonshack wrote: FIRESTONE DEMOLITION TIRES TM
:huh:

:lol: :lol: :lol:
:P
LoL Thats awesome work! love the firestone tires add. ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Post Reply