What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The flash is spark as the building tears through the plane. The flash look odd because of the video quality of the video.- End story.

These debunkers here are having a laugh keeping this thread alive with sillyness. This has been debunked back in 2003 when the letsroll911 website was pumping out the pods, holograms, windowless tanker theories to prepare for Popular Mechanics : Debunking 911 myths.

edit on 28-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

No conspiracy. This topic was created by the same people who gave you missile pods and holograms. Sponsored disinformation.

reply to post by NWOwned

I'm glad you have all that plane data to back things up because as far as I am aware there were no black boxes recovered from the towers.

Well you see.....the thing is, and this hardly ever gets noticed by those who see a "conspiracy" around every corner....in the case of United 175, there was a different technique used by that hijacker pilot to attempt to "drop off" the radar.

Whereas the other three selected the transponder to what's called "Standby" - ('STBY') - same as "off", except it doesn't power down, just stops transmitting a signal -- the hijacker(s) on UAL 175 chose to just alter the four-digit code instead.

This had a similar result, in terms of the "squawk" code that was programmed in the ATC computers to recognize United 175. The originally assigned code, that is. Once it was changed, now it was no longer recognized as being assigned to any airplane with a flight plan on file.

However, it continued to provide all the normal radar data that any transponder that is recognized as "generic" will provide, including the Mode C. Mode C is altitude reporting.

SO, the gist is: United 175 was one of those four that morning that was easiest for ATC radar to keep track of. There is an unbroken history recorded of its ground track.

This means, by logical deduction and preponderance of evidence (to include the debris found....a section of the fuselage with a portion of the N-number that was identifiable -- look it up) proves this is the same airplane that left Boston.

Of course, also were various Human remains and DNA samples and personal effects recovered, that identified some of the passengers and crew from that same flight.

Add all that up, and regardless of not having the FDR or CVR, it is still the same airplane. It takes a particularly twisted sort of skewed "logic" to not realize this reality.

Originally posted by ProudBird

This means, by logical deduction and preponderance of evidence (to include the debris found....a section of the fuselage with a portion of the N-number that was identifiable -- look it up) proves this is the same airplane that left Boston.

Debris from N612UA





N612UA

reply to post by ANOK


Thanks for the well written response.

I've never claimed to be a 'no-planer', but physics is physics, I have to go by what it says, not what anyone else or any website says.

It is unfortunate one needs to tread so lightly, but there is obviously a lot of pressure to keep the physics and the implications thereof confusing and discombobulated.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

No conspiracy. This topic was created by the same people who gave you missile pods and holograms. Sponsored disinformation.

i would think the easiest way to hide a disinfo agent would be behind accusations of disinformation. Isn't that in the manual or something?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ProudBird

This means, by logical deduction and preponderance of evidence (to include the debris found....a section of the fuselage with a portion of the N-number that was identifiable -- look it up) proves this is the same airplane that left Boston.

Debris from N612UA

Are you trying to point out the differences in the fonts, or that every airplane in the country has a tail number starting with an N? Golly, if this is how convincing the rest of your proof is, I must be confused...is this the HOAX bin?

Originally posted by septic
It is unfortunate one needs to tread so lightly, but there is obviously a lot of pressure to keep the physics and the implications thereof confusing and discombobulated.

LOL. Don't be so hard on ANOK.

reply to post by septic

so I guess that makes the both of you paid disinfo.

Originally posted by septic


Are you trying to point out the differences in the fonts, or that every airplane in the country has a tail number starting with an N? Golly, if this is how convincing the rest of your proof is, I must be confused...is this the HOAX bin?

Use your eyes Truther. What we have is the N, the left side of the 6, the lower righthand corner of the 2, the bottom lefthand curve of the U, and a portion of the US flag. All exactly where they should be. The paint sheen line is from a repaint or repair and would be unique to N612UA.





N612UA original paint scheme was white and a look under the door seals on a piece of debris also shows white



Sorry Truther, N612UA crashed into the south tower, the evidence proves it.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

so I guess that makes the both of you paid disinfo.

Let's review who's trying to prevent a discussion of every aspect of 911, and there you'll find your disinfo agents. I say we should let ALL hypotheses out on the table to come as close to leaving no stone unturned as possible. Of course if we did that we might reach a consensus that would be embarrassing for the government', so the forums are like the internet version of a political debate, with the questions and answers agreed upon long in advance. Sure there are agents afoot, especially when they run popular websites.

reply to post by waypastvne


That's one man's opinion anyway. The way you use "truther" implies you're trying to get someone's goat...is that your signature or something? I'll try to picture your expression when you use it from now on. What's it like? Is it your love face?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic

 

I call you Truther to make you feel special. You and all the other Truthers are very very special.

And You And All The Other Purposeful Deceivers Are A Disgrace.

You have the gaul to post pictures of almost prestine condition crash debris that has supposedly
come through 2 facades of a massive steel building and an enormously energetic inferno, and
you demand that we believe that all is genuine? I recall seeing footage of an atomised jet and a
wall somewhere! What of it?
I asked you before how easy would it have been to fake this and other scenes, accepting some
people had the mind and the might to deceive?

This whole f* thing is fake, and I think You damn well know it!

This is how they did it!


GET REAL, And Knock-Off The BS.

From the video:
'If the great masses of people are sufficiently traumatised, they will believe anything.'

Psychological preparation in independence day

NO entry hole!!

Source- Jennifer Spell
Almost the entire Fuselage, wings, and engines. Have pierced the nth tower, yet not a single sign of an entry hole!

Source- Michael Hezarkhani (CNN)
(In between the fuselage and left engine the plane has pierced the building yet has not yet made the hole.
This is of course reprehensive of a pixel crash.)



Look no hole.. The plane has entered the WTC...and the fuselage has not made any hole!

Source- Luc Courchesne

-----------1-------------------------------2-----------------------------------3---------
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.)

Posed Here by Equinox



Isn't it as clear as the (Long) noses on the (fakery) deniers faces?

reply to post by pshea38


They appear to have used a team of photographers who have mixed and matched their images, and over the years they are released as "new found footage" from an "amateur'. For example, Luc Courchesne's footage is on the Naudet film, but the Naudet film was released years before Courchesne's footage was available.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pshea38
This is how they did it!

GET REAL, And Knock-Off The BS.

From the video:
'If the great masses of people are sufficiently traumatised, they will believe anything.'

Well now it appears that all video footage of the event is now suspect isn't it

It's very possible that the flashes could have been digitally added to the footage

After all it's very unlikely that any of the witness' on the ground saw the flash in question.

reply to post by pshea38


pshea38, now I know what the P stands for "persuasive" lol

I think it's bad see to just say "it's all Fake", far far better to show examples of specific Fakeness, for all the world to see and mull over. Good job.

That still of the plane showing no damage between the fuselage and left engine is akin to my observation of the Naudet clip of the North Tower, where the wing tip gets to the building before the right engine which is closer to the fuselage and hence closer to the building on an angled wing etc.

So these anomalies on both strikes seem to indicate to me that no 767s hit the towers on 9/11.

Further to that, if no OSers can offer evidence against these anomalies, then I dare say, going forward, having read this thread, any OSer claiming that Flight 11 or Flight 175 (Both 767s) impacted the towers, would be guilty of knowingly promoting a Hoax. And you know what that means, right into the HOAX bin you must go!

I know, I know BUT there are eye-witness reports of planes, someone will say, it can't all be video composite etc.

Right.

Here's what I think, in the open air it's Hologram technology, but a hologram isn't a real plane, it just "looks like one" which would account for eye witnesses "seeing planes" (unless all the eye witnesses are lying, but since it was New York if there were no visuals of planes many people would come forward and say they "saw no planes", because this did not happen I think they seen planes, but if the hits were Fake then how?)

So, because of the wing disappearing and the look of the soot black plane in open morning sunlight I'm going with a hologram plane in open air etc. Next, because a hologram isn't a plane, when you get to the building you got to fake the video and make it look like a plane entering, next, inside the building you set off a real explosion.

Open air - hologram
Striking building - video overlay
Inside building - real explosion


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


Pshea38's link shows how easily it was done using CGI.

I imagine you're sticking to the hologram because of "eye witnesses", but the easiest way to get an eye witness would be to lie. There is plenty of evidence of FBI and secret service types in the crowds talking about "planes". If someone saw a bullet-fast missile out of the corner of their eye, and then heard an FBI agent warning them about another plane, they'd think they saw a plane. No holograms needed.

reply to post by septic


You want a witness? Ask me. I was there and saw the 2nd plane hit. I was right near Trinity Church on broadway and wall. Had a front row seat. Are you saying that I'm a liar? I saw the plane explode into the south tower. Felt the ground rumble. Saw the towers come down. Ran for my life. Covered in dust. Breathed it in. The death and destruction. I saw the terror on everyones face. It was very real chief. Not some computer generated made for tv movie.

So PLEASE STOP with the hologram and cgi stupidity. And get back to REALITY already. You folks really have no clue do you? !0 years and you're all still going on about some ridiculous theory.

You are deliberately spreading disinfo and lies. It's a real shame that people actually still believe this crap.

Are you really on a quest for truth? For what purpose?

It seems very apparent that you'd rather believe lies and fantasy than truth and reality.