A fake plane was added for south tower explosion
Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:31 pm » by 7forever
The inboard flap track on the right wing of fake 175 clearly has the inboard flap not between it and the fuselage (YOU can see it, clear as day), thus it's too close as the faked image shows. The left engine nacelle also does not connect to the underside of the wing at a point outboard of the flap track, exactly as it can't be. The rearmost point of the nacelle attachment footprint is clearly not abaft of the leading tip of the flap track fairing, also impossible and fake.
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
- Mrmcnuggets
-
- Posts: 3911
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:21 pm
Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:30 pm » by Mrmcnuggets
Sorry man, you're just an idiot.
now go get a model airplane because there are no 360 online models, and hold it in your hands at this angle until it makes sense.
It was an airplane.
now go get a model airplane because there are no 360 online models, and hold it in your hands at this angle until it makes sense.
It was an airplane."There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "
I AM an endangered species.
I AM an endangered species.
Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:32 am » by 7forever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."
She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'
There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."
She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'
There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
- Antimalware
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:27 pm
Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:17 am » by Antimalware
Just a thought i would like you too consider.
Why do you think Drones are so popular and widely used as of 2001 and now?
Because 9/11 was a product demonstration!!!
Maybe Televised Video on the Main Stream Media was Manipulated...
Certainly Demolitions were pre-planted in the Buildings...
The Free Fall Collapse of The Trade Towers Confirms That...
Building 7 Confirms That
Carry on...
Why do you think Drones are so popular and widely used as of 2001 and now?
Because 9/11 was a product demonstration!!!
Maybe Televised Video on the Main Stream Media was Manipulated...
Certainly Demolitions were pre-planted in the Buildings...
The Free Fall Collapse of The Trade Towers Confirms That...
Building 7 Confirms That
Carry on...
"You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation."
"You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing."
"You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing."
Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:08 am » by 7forever
http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List
Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?
FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.
By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5
Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.
The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.
Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.
In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.
Why the late filing by United?
"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?
"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.
"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.
"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"
A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'
The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.
Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.
According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.
Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.
Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.
More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.
Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.
On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.
Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.
Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.
Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:
"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?
"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List
Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?
FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.
By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5
Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.
The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.
Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.
In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.
Why the late filing by United?
"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?
"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.
"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.
"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"
A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'
The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.
Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.
According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.
Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.
Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.
More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.
Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.
On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.
Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.
Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.
Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:
"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?
"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:24 pm » by 7forever
[QUOTE=dontdrinkurmilk;1060600796]I wonder how many people saw a large airliner vs how many saw a ''small object'' striking T2?[/QUOTE]
I think there's a lot of psychology that goes into understanding what people said they saw after either seeing it on tv or hearing that large planes hit. Many on the ground described something circling, which could not have been 175 because nist themselves provided its final seconds coming south to north, behind the towers entirely. The west approach is either the bogey or an overlay making its path appear more southwest.
I think there's a lot of psychology that goes into understanding what people said they saw after either seeing it on tv or hearing that large planes hit. Many on the ground described something circling, which could not have been 175 because nist themselves provided its final seconds coming south to north, behind the towers entirely. The west approach is either the bogey or an overlay making its path appear more southwest.
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:31 pm » by 7forever
I was wrong about Anthony Lawson, he's an arrogant Aussie who got a popular yt channel to say the ball was a plane.LOL This proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths. I will dig up a post that pertains in more detail to this issue but for now take a look at this vid. The altered footage that hazed out the orb was done by the media.
A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4 ... re=related
A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4 ... re=related
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:03 pm » by 7forever
Don't waste my time with babble- I want facts or interesting questions asked. I want theories and ideas. I am fact-minded on this, but part of being open minded is listening to the other side's fantasies, so I will entertain you all.
Keep in mind I did my own 9/11 research in the last four months, and a silly looking drone came from the west and exploded the south tower, so I am well versed on the topic. So, tell me your fake delusions of planes for either tower and I will show facts derived from video and eyewitnesses.
Keep in mind I did my own 9/11 research in the last four months, and a silly looking drone came from the west and exploded the south tower, so I am well versed on the topic. So, tell me your fake delusions of planes for either tower and I will show facts derived from video and eyewitnesses.
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Dubai tower shut after visitors hear an explosion
by savwafair2012 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:47 pm - 0 Replies
- 188 Views
- Last post by savwafair2012
Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:47 pm
- Dubai tower shut after visitors hear an explosion
-
- New evidence of an explosion before the first plane hits the
by phaeton » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:17 pm - 7 Replies
- 854 Views
- Last post by crunchy
Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:52 am
- New evidence of an explosion before the first plane hits the
-
- Norway False Flag Attack - Oslo, Explosion, Fake Footage
1, 2by muchtyman » Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:08 pm - 18 Replies
- 804 Views
- Last post by wardor
Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:46 am
- Norway False Flag Attack - Oslo, Explosion, Fake Footage
-
- Fake 9/11 Plane Witness Dance
1, 2, 3, 4by pindz » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:05 pm - 31 Replies
- 1396 Views
- Last post by theprophet
Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:00 pm
- Fake 9/11 Plane Witness Dance