Faking the Planes
I'm wondering.
Has anyone yet been able to refute this piece on how 767's shouldn't leave plane-shaped holes in steel towers and then completely disintegrate once inside?
The logic seems very sound to me-- and the logic is EXTREMELY damaging to the official story.
I know Wood and Reynolds also find the plane-shaped holes suspicious.
The logic in Holmgren's article, coupled with proofs of fake videos, basically destroy the official 9/11 story.
The funny thing is part of me says, YES, they must have lied. The planes were all a giant hoax.
But I still keep resisting this conclusion, because its implications are so amazing and hard to believe.
Nonetheless, science implies that planes were not used for the WTC attacks.
Has anyone yet been able to refute this piece on how 767's shouldn't leave plane-shaped holes in steel towers and then completely disintegrate once inside?
The logic seems very sound to me-- and the logic is EXTREMELY damaging to the official story.
I know Wood and Reynolds also find the plane-shaped holes suspicious.
The logic in Holmgren's article, coupled with proofs of fake videos, basically destroy the official 9/11 story.
The funny thing is part of me says, YES, they must have lied. The planes were all a giant hoax.
But I still keep resisting this conclusion, because its implications are so amazing and hard to believe.
Nonetheless, science implies that planes were not used for the WTC attacks.
posted by spooked at 11:38 PM
21 Comments:
I know "how they did it" matters.
I respect your work. I respect others who wear the no planer hat.
However, I still trust those eyewitness accounts who said that was a building swaying (for WTC 1 and WTC 2) upon "impact". I imagine the explosives could have created that effect. Personally, I prefer, for now, to speculate that the aircraft were weapons grade projectiles that could indeed physically be part of a "cartoon" like melting into the buildings.
When you look at the video of the second impact, you are presented with only two ways to go, as far as I can tell:
1) Video is fake, depicting a physical event that did not happen.
2) Impact included advanced weapons grade attack plane including a laser-like flash from a pod leading the plane into the the building.
I understand how unpopular the reference to "pods" has been with some. I know I could be missing something. It seems like to me if you are going to "deny" the reality of a "pod" and a flash, then the only fall back is the no-planer proposition.
First off I'm basically a no-planer.
OTOH...
I personally know two credible people who saw a plane in real time in real life, (one from subway train above ground, one from a car). I'm not sure that proof of fake videos leads us to "no planes". At the very least, I think they did buzz Manhattan with a jet or some sort of jet-like distraction. Since the buildings were brought down with explosives anyway, the planes were really "eye candy" and designed to create shock and awe and distraction.
I have a couple of thoughts regarding the media hoax: Would the TV stations fake videos on their own just so that their network would have some sexy footage? Perhaps some amatuer cameramen handed in some camcorder tapes with blurry images, and the TV stations had their news guys clean the tapes up a little adding in footage from the other networks? Obviously they edited out profanity and that sort of thing, so is it possible that the TV news crews doctored the footage themselves for dramatic effect (without having been ordered to by the Conspiracy?) I could see the guys in the editing booth going, oh, that's a great shot of the explosion, but we cant see the plane... let's merge these two videos. We know they censor violent images out of the news all the time.
I heard a radio interview with Icke and Grossman (Gallerize) and one suggestion was that different people were making the fakes, or that whistleblowers were deliberately leaving in clues.
Another possibility is that some videos are real, and some were just hoaxers. We had anthrax hoax letters, is it inconceivable that some guys would make some fake plane videos for fun?
So I think Nico and Friends have proved that their are fake videos of the plane hits, but I'm not sure that they've proved that all the plane hit images are fake. (My guess is that the real videos showed some smaller drone aircraft smacking the towers.)
Thoughts?
Kudos to Nico and Holgrem and Webfairy. Very interesting research.
Fred
Fred-- I think you're right about how and why the videos could have been made. I also think there was a fly-by plane that distracted witnesses. But Holmgren's article strongly says that it is impossible for any sort of normal aircraft to have made the damage to the building that was seen. And I still can't see what is wrong with his logic.
BG and Fred-- It's possible that there was some strange aircraft that hit the towers which people saw but wasn't captured by any video we've seen. Or there was some special aircraft that was cloaked to look like a 767, though this isn't a simple argument as I explain below. I also still like that the idea that the plane-shaped hole was made by specially planted internal explosives and that no aircraft hit the tower. Whatever happened at the north and south towers created scars remarkably like a 767 shape, but as Holmgren writes, a real 767 would never have made that impact scar. It's not clear to me how any missile or drone would make this scar either. What happened is obviously a huge mystery and I'm sure many people prefer to throw up their hands and say "it HAD to be a 767!" Except again, a real 767 wouldn't have impacted the building like that. Moreover, the conflicting plane paths imply either that there was no real flying craft or that some videos were edited to remove the plane and a fake image was inserted-- but why would they do that? Importantly, a real 767 wouldn't have impacted the building like that, unless Holmgren is wrong. But I don't know what is wrong with his argument.
Basically, it defies logic that a 160 foot long plane enters a 200 foot think building without slowing significantly and seemingly intact, without coming out the other side. If the building IS going to cause the plane to break up completely, then it never should have left a plane-shaped hole in the wall and we should have seen it clearly break up upon impact. No one yet has been able to refute this. People who want to believe in planes just ignore this argument or weasel out of it.
maybe it's time to figure out just what would happen if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to hit wtc2 - i believe it would squash against the side like a beer can beneath your boot - with it's own momentum acting as the boot - maybe the engines would crack a few of the massive perimeter columns, but to leave a 767 shaped hole behind seems ridiculous to me.
why is this only ever discussed by us? where are the engineers that could actually shed some real light on this?
---
never underestimate the power of yosemitesam!
Engineers seem essentially worthless at this point, since they can't even admit publicly for the most part, the obvious demolition of the WTC bldgs. And plane-huggers, who make up greater than 99.9% of Americans, are simply loath to confront the reality of Holmgren's argument.
they are worthless aren't they? for the most part they are silent - even if they would weigh-in on the side of NIST that would at least be something.
the NIST report is just pathetic - 10k pages to say that the towers collapsed because they were hit by planes and caught on fire? lame.
and of course it's a pdf so segments of it can't be copy/pasted to show just how stupid it really is.
the few engineers who have taken a stance opposite that of NIST are just disregarded by everyone else who couldn't be bothered.
James-- In case you haven't seen it, Killtown has made a very useful page with many key images from the NIST reports:
here
good overview on no plane theory here:
http://no-plane-theory.blogspot.com/
no i hadn't seen those - thanx!
those are all nice pictures, but did NIST explain how and why the towers exploded and disintegrated - wtc2 in only 10 seconds?
or did they not ignore that altogether.
Quick question for you all...
One thing I don't understand is why the hologram theory isn't viable and gets pooh-poohed so much. I'm not talking about a hologram projected from a distance into empty space, but just conventional holograms on a cruise missle or smaller drone? Holograms have been around for a long time, and I don't see why it's particularly technically challenging to have a drone or missile cloaked (by showing a hologram of something bigger. This would explain the "plane image" that the eyewitnesses saw, and it would also explain the cut out in the towers not being filled with appropriate wreckage etc, the angles and size of the plane being wrong, the weird illumination, the audio anomalies, color changes...
Given that we're all agreed that we're dealing with a PSYOP... I guess I don't see why holograms are too high-tech. Also, given the weird ghostly behavior, with wings blinking on and off, that seems like behavior fits. I could see then see much of the media hoax then being "organic" in the sense that the raw video they received looked noisy or with dropouts. So the plane is there, not there, etc... I can then see the news editors innocently "cleaning up" the impact images. Also, if the hologram was only visible from certain angles, then the no-plane witnesses can also be telling the truth. One problem I have with "no planes" is that you have to bring some more people in on the conspiracy. Wouldn't some of the people with camcorders say things like, well, I watched my video 4 times before I gave it to the FBI... and then I saw it on CNN and they added a PLANE into it!
I like the fly-by theory (simple, low-tech) but then you have to have the news guys not-so-innocently blanking out the plane when it escapes.
In my mind, the "Pod" could be the real part of the image, and then it could be projecting 5 holograms for the left wing, the right wing, the fuselage, the nose, and the tail. Given the lack of detail on the images... I'm not sure why we can't have real photographs of a fuzzy hologram. Clearly there's a bunch of doctored video floating out on the net. I'm not in anyway discounting the media hoax or the other theories.
Anyway, I'm not trying to advocate the hologram theory or say that it's correct, but I don't understand why so many people seem to think it's just ridiculous. To me, it has a lot of explanatory power, and harmonizes well with the live eyewitnesses. It didn't have to be perfect, but it does explain why so much is wrong with these videos, without saying that all "plane" cameramen are in on the media hoax. I'm sitting here with my $5 laser pointer and looking at holograms on my ATM card... so it's not like I'm imagining super-high-tech black technology.
To my mind, it's plausible that they used some UAV, gussied up with some holograms to look like a bigger plane, and then flew the thing in and blew up the big explosives. Also, that could explain the "dark shape" appearing out of nowhere over the New Jersey Lowlands.
Also, the many helicopters are almost invisible on the main videos. With Rick Seigel, he has to add arrows in for me to see many of the choppers. So a UAV would be pretty invisible from a distance until it turned on it's camoflauge. If you guys check out that Zebra Imaging site, you can see that holograms have gotten pretty good.
Please let me know what you think.
Fred
God you folks are thick. We're having a good laugh at your expense over at C. Smasher:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Lol, that sucker NOT ONLY believes everything he reads in the papers, he ALSO believes everything he sees on TV. Somebody be sure to send him an autographed copy of Ann Coulter's new book...
There was a post a while back from a Boeing guy in manufacturing who talked about the impact video. His take on it was that it looked fake. I don't have the post here, but the upshot was that the wings would not be doing any cutting at all. I think the engines would make huge holes, and you'd have crumpled up wings and tail-section pieces stuck in the holes and falling onto the streets below.
The scar should be littered with seats, bodies, luggage... but none of those things exist in the minds of the TV Watchers. Everything vaporizes in a magical neoconservative Fox news special. Buildings suddenly turn to dust. And the TV always tells the truth, straight from the Pentagon and the White House Press Office. Just ask the experts!
Fred
i doubt that anyone around here, other than the conspiracysmasher posse, thinks that the possibility of actual flying devices that project holographic cloaks around themselves is ridiculous.
the whole point of all this is that none of us knows. yet.
it is a fact that there was video fakery presented by some of the media on 9/11. some people, the conspiracysmasher posse for instance, find it expedient to look the other way when confronted with a world where our so-called leaders and their various mouthpieces merely pretend to have our best interests at heart.
me i am glad for this blog and others that are also trying to figure it all out.
i doubt that anyone around here, other than the conspiracysmasher posse, thinks that the possibility of actual flying devices that project holographic cloaks around themselves is ridiculous.
Hey clown-shoe, you've been watching too much Star trek.
I was thinking about it, and there must be some good footage of Japanese Kamikazi strikes from WWII. Of course, those were much smaller planes, but we could probably get a sense of what real planes in real suicide strikes look like from analysing some of that footage. It would be interesting to see if the wings and tail did anything, or if the engine just acts like a cannonball.
Also, I think Steve Jones claimed in an argument with Reynolds that the plane did show some deceleration. Has anyone done a frame-by-frame of the tail (Just draw a vertical line trhough the tail on the screen with each frame, and see if the lines get closer together.)
| | | | || would show deceleration
| | | | | | | would be further evidence for lame CGI.
Maybe someone has done that already, but it seems like it would make a nice demo. I'd try it myself if I had talent!
Fred
|......|.....|...|..|.|| plane
|...|...|...|...|...|...| butterplane
joe keith did
Fred-- your post at 4:23 is spot on, I agree with what you're saying.
I have looked at kamikaze attacks, I did a post on it sometime back. Basically what I remember is that Japanese planes could penetrate wooden but not steel decks.
I also measured the slowing of the plane
here.
There was essentially no slowing.
BTW--One major problem with the hologram theory is that it doesn't explain conflicting plane paths. The other thing is several people think hologram technology still isn't good enough for what happened on 9/11.
But one could say there was a hologram-cloaked missile that accounted for some videos. In some videos, the illusion didn't work well, so a CGI plane was added over it. Just as a ossible explanation. I also like the idea of a disappearing plane, though that has some of the same problems as the hologram theory.
i would think that blob11 was a hologram because it looked sort of invisible and blurry like an attempt at arnold's predator effect except wtc1 was also blurry which raises another point; naudet's were pro film makers with a pro camera so why was wtc1 & blob11 out of focus other than purposefully? ghost/butter/vanish plane @wtc2 was filmed by guys with only camcorders yet they are not out of focus - ghost/vanish had to be some kind of cgi but then what made the wingtip and tail scars on wtc2's facade? but if real wingtips made the scars why didn't they break off since the scars were just marks on the facade and didn't extend to actual holes in the columns? and speaking of holes why was the little puffs of smoke @blob11/wtc1 so disjointed and out of alignment with blob11's actual impact with wtc1?
when the fbi confiscated the naudet's film they must've rendered it out of focus on purpose -
all of this is lame damnit - we need to find a naudet and pinch his head until he blabs
Post a Comment
<< Home