New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
By now everythings so buried in here, and it sucks we can't give your primo analysis (

) votes

Thank you. But I'm more concerned with truth than attention.

Well it was 2 pronged, as it would get a mound of analysis front and center attention, instead of digging thru pages and pages of rhetoric to synthecize the raw material. People on defense will often do their best to drag out your intel acrosss vast space to make it harder for you to be heard.

Originally posted by piacenza
That window its pretty big. Do you realize how big that oject is? its 1/4 of the plane.

It wasn't just one window. Perhaps the column of gas, dust and smoke was expelled from a cluster of windows whose glass had been blown out by the shockwave of the explosion inside the tower? My proposal still stands.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by piacenza

I believe you are basing that image composite, at least in part, on this digital video capture on StillDiggin's website --

(Please correct me if I am wrong)

The composite appears to have applied quite a bit of blur effect to achieve the desired shape in order to fit the presupposed theory. As we know, we cannot place too much reliance on the accuracy of compressed digital video. The very act of compression introduces mosaic artifacts to varying degrees, dependent on the method used for compression (and anything uploaded to YouTube or any other similar service is compressed, yet again).

But let's examine this image in closer detail. Here is a 600% zoom on the are in question. As we can see, this shape is surrounded by a great deal of compression artifacts and pixelization. However, after zooming in on the unfiltered shape (no blur), we can see that the pixels do indeed imply more of a ejected smoke plume, than fuselage --

Granted, the shape is fuselage-like, but but this source imagery is not enough.

Again I stress the need for diligent reliance on high-quality source material as the basis for theories that result in claims as fantastic as presented in these threads.

This poster is absolutely correct. The "Nose-In, Nose-Out" image appears to have been significantly altered... How ironic that 9/11 cultists use altered images to prove that the media/government used altered images... it's downright funny.

Hmm I guess that if he finds the High res image he can study it a little better. Plus the red line were carefully outlined to differenciate the shape from the original footage (in a deception way). Anyway if you cannot see the nosecone out what can I say, its an illusion.

I believe it was on part -2, they were talking about the plane being a different color (darker) then in another shot (whitish).

I noticed that too Talisman.I just can't seem to believe what these folks are trying say.Example,They brought up the sound of a missile,the sound I heard did indeed sound like a low flying jet.When I was in the Navy,I was at NAS Memphis in Millington,Tenn.and would here the sound of low flying jets all day.

piacenza

I think most of us agree that there is something sticking out of the South Tower, that part we agree on. At least according to the film WebFairy posted on youtube.

You really ought to ask yourself who webfairy is? Do you honestly believe her to be a grandmother from Chicago who worked in Textiles and suddenly realized soon after 9/11 that the footage was hoaxed? She was on the Jim Fetzer show.

She is responsible for a lot of this stuff going around.


Leaving that aside, yes I agree something is sticking out of the tower and I don't believe it to be smoke. I think it looks like a solid object. I also believe we are not getting a full view of the damage on the area in question in the South Tower to see if there is a hole. We do get a small picture, but not enough of the area.

So something came out. The question is what. Now you can safely say that it isn't CGI. This is the nail in the coffin for that. The fact is your seeing something coming out of the Tower from Both the Helicopter and from a totally different angle supposedly a Japanese NEWS crew.

So the CGI mistake wouldn't be happening from totally two different places at the same time.

So what are we left with?

At this point we have to wait. See if we can get a better quality video of this and then make some guesses.

Do you know what I am thinking though> I am thinking it is the very back of the plane. I know that might sound wrong but I am thinking we are seeing the tail end after the fins came off. Recall the plane banked before hitting the tower, it was tilted. I am only guessing but I think that is what we are seeing.

I need to see something of quality before making a proper guess though.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have yet to see a video where we can say with 100% certainty that the object in question IS the nose. We know that an engine was found in the streets below, it could have been that shrouded in dust and other debris. There's no way to say with absolute certainty what it is though.

Here's (I know it's rense) pictures of the engine in the streets.

However in that article they say that:

the street engine was identified as a CFM56, the sole powerplant of the Boeing 737 after the 737-200 series. HOWEVER, UA175 that was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower was a Boeing 767-200.

Has this been covered before?

Except that the only one saying that is Rense, and I'd take anything from his page with a BIG grain of salt. I've seen other pages where people do an analysis and come up with something different, but it's difficult to do with the amount of damage done to that engine.

Thanks Danx,this is what I think is being mistaken as the "nose cone".pieces of the plane broke off on impact and exited the opposite side of the building.There is pictures of this debris on the net.I'm almost positive there is a overhead map of where these parts landed.I will see if I can find it.

For anyone confused about NO planes, please go to the following link and look at all the amateur photo's there. Look at all the balcony's people are watching the events from, look at how some people have taken pictures from within offices.

Look at the pictures from the streets. This should convince anyone and I MEAN ANYONE that Planes Hit the Towers and that it wasn't CGI.


But even *IF* you must stick to the CGI. It doesn't prove REAL PLANES WEREN'T used! All you would prove at the end of the day is CGI.

The following LINK proves that real planes were used because too many people were watching it happen.

hereisnewyork.org...

Originally posted by danx
However in that article they say that:

the street engine was identified as a CFM56, the sole powerplant of the Boeing 737 after the 737-200 series. HOWEVER, UA175 that was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower was a Boeing 767-200.

Has this been covered before?

What I find interesting is that according to the official story there was 767s used. However the newer 737s have that range to do the New York/Boston to San Fransisco/Los Angeles route. I don't know when the newer 737 series came into availability, but here is the range of them from Boeing's website.

Of course the website (rense) isn't very trustworthy but I find it interesting that a 737 could do that route.

Of course a 767 can pretty much do there and back without being refuelled, though it would be a bit dodgy. range picture here

[edit on 8-6-2007 by apex]

Here is more photos of plane parts in NYC.The photo that Danx got from Rense is also on this page.

Originally posted by apex
What I find interesting is that according to the official story there was 767s used. However the newer 737s have that range to do the New York/Boston to San Fransisco/Los Angeles route. I don't know when the newer 737 series came into availability, but here is the range of them from Boeing's website.

Of course the website (rense) isn't very trustworthy but I find it interesting that a 737 could do that route.

Of course a 767 can pretty much do there and back without being refuelled, though it would be a bit dodgy. range picture here

[edit on 8-6-2007 by apex]

At the time of 9/11 and just before, airlines were using 767s and 757s because it was a better plane for the flight. The 737s of the time could make the same flight, but they couldn't carry the same number of people that the 757/67 could. The 737-800 was the first that came close to carrying the same number of people as a 757-200. The first delivery of the -800 was in 1998.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At the time of 9/11 and just before, airlines were using 767s and 757s because it was a better plane for the flight. The 737s of the time could make the same flight, but they couldn't carry the same number of people that the 757/67 could. The 737-800 was the first that came close to carrying the same number of people as a 757-200. The first delivery of the -800 was in 1998.

Yes, I thought it was something to do with passenger capacity, but I thought it was also interesting that it could be flown without using 767/757. Still, i don't know of anything except a 737 that uses that sort of engine. And as was stated, it can't be easy to work out what sort of engine it was after it went through a building. It's probably never been done before as usually everything apart from what caused a crash is known anyway.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At the time of 9/11 and just before, airlines were using 767s and 757s because it was a better plane for the flight. The 737s of the time could make the same flight, but they couldn't carry the same number of people that the 757/67 could. The 737-800 was the first that came close to carrying the same number of people as a 757-200. The first delivery of the -800 was in 1998.

What really matters is if the engine is really from a 737 or a 767.

I believe that both flights that hit the WTC were 767s, so if the engine is from a 737 something's not right.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place

source

I wish someone else could identify the engine from the photos, I can't really trust stuff on rense.com.

As per the wishes of the moderators, i would either try to scrounge a pre-existing thread about this issue up or make a new thread. This thread is in response to the "no-plane" theory and it's plausability.

I will say though, nice job on the cautionary approach to rense.

A number of posters have wondered why the perpetrators of 9/11 would intentionally make the same "nose-out" mistake on two different videos. Simple. The Chopper 5 video aired live, and the nose-out mistake happened. The other video surfaced later. They had to put something in there which appeared to match with the Chopper 5, otherwise it would be a dead giveaway.

Based on my study of the Chopper 5 video, I think the plane in Chopper 5 was not a CGI, but rather a real video of a real plane, recorded prior to 9/11, with background removed, overlaid onto live video on 9/11. The cut-and-paste is pretty obvious on this cropped frame, for instance:




I explain exactly how I think they did Chopper 5, and why, here.

I think it's very important that the following observation is made:

The extensive internal damage to the Pentagon strongly suggests the use of a 'Bunker Buster' type of ordinance IMHO. The nose out at the WTC could also be attributed to this same genre of weapons. Whether or not the aforementioned has the ability to appear as a jumbo jet is not important. First, we must use our heads for something besides a hat rack, and realize that the nose out at the WTC DOES NOT FIT the official story.

Perhaps the footage of the Pentagon 'attack' has been witheld because of glaring anomalous similarities? Apparently the producers of 9/11 did not like the asthetics of how the outer wall was penetrated. I would not expect the 'director's cut' to be released anytime soon.

I am not the least bit surprised at the verocity with which the OP is being pursued. The video doesn't lie. Do you?

Ace Baker

I'll tell you why I don't think it is a good explanation for that. IF the Japanese News Crew was in on this 'plot' then I would think they would just leave well enough alone. Also it makes the assumption that whomever did this would be aware that they 'screwed' up on the helicopter shot.

Screwing up is one thing, but to be aware of all your mistakes is clearly another, even in a motion film production in final edit things are not caught.

*IF* what your saying is true, then they wouldn't have even bothered with the second shot to begin with.

Following Occam's razor, it is much more simple an explanation that we are seeing something proceed out of the South Tower and both the helicopter and the Japanese Film Crew caught it.

But if we are to conclude that the entire MEDIA was in on this plot with help from a Japanese Film Crew, and that NO-ONE there that day saw a plane.
Then with that type of thinking we might as well conclude 9/11 never happened!

Please see my Thread on this subject here:
LOGIC

You see even *IF* there was camera trickery. It doesn't logically follow that there were NO PLANES.

We can make a logical guess based on the eyewitnesses and the fact it happened over a major metropolis with too many eyes looking at the event in question.

So even *IF* there was camera hocus pocus, which I don't believe, it doesn't follow that there were NO PLANES.







[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

For god's sake.

I tried to explain as simply as i am capable several pages ago (go back a few pages if you are remotely interested).

If this mythical realtime CGI operator made the mistake the film claims they made you would see something completely different in the film.

NO PLANES is a ridiculous theory. Who first came up with it?

I know for sure it wasn't someone there but an armchair theorist.