A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post a reply

In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by 7forever » Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:20 pm

Noentry wrote:Much has been made of the September Clues series (henceforth referred to as September Clueless, for good reason) by the re-invented No Planery splinter fringe group claiming it as a prime demonstrator of their new meme of 'Media Fakery'.

The elements concentrated on here are to clarify two major and contentious points.

Where ‘the missing backdrop’ of NYC went
why the shots of the WTC2 second strike show a plane in one view but not the other.


The 'Media Fakery’ case is that the two camera views shown above are ‘virtually identical’, with the plane ‘inserted’ and the background 'removed' in the right hand frame.

However, closer examination reveals that the shots are far from identical.

The very low resolution (VHS tape copy?) Chopper 4 shots used in the comparisons made by September Clueless are taken from a minimum altitude of approx 1400 ft, (1500 ft if the chopper pilot was staying within NYC overflight regulations) as can be seen by the camera looking slightly down onto the 1362 ft high roof of the North Tower with its TV mast, and overlooking the WTC to view the Upper New York Bay area to the south west of Manhattan.

The only known practical way to look over something is to be viewing from a yet higher altitude.


The WNBC shot by contrast, is taken from the roof of the Rockefeller Centre - 850 ft high max. and home of WNBC studios - and is obviously from a lower elevation looking slightly above the horizontal plane at the damaged area 1200 ft up the North Tower.


Compare with this postcard and extract from the same known location showing the Empire State Building in the foreground and the twin Towers in happier days.

Note the green lines marking the relative positions of the roof levels which will be indicated again later.

As with the zoomed-in shot of WNBC’s 911 view, it can be noted that the city backdrop has also disappeared in the close-up.


As the red outlined area in the next photo, taken with a wider angle clearly shows, there is no ‘missing background’ – only sky could be the visible background in the well known zoomed-in horizontal shot of the plane's approach.


In conclusion, there is no case let alone evidence for 'Media Fakery' editing out the background.
WNBC’s camera angle and its content are perfectly logical and consistent.

Note that in the night time postcard shots above, a very slight gap is visible between the buildings, indicating that we are seeing the north faces (which are actually oriented north east) almost perfectly head on to within less than 2 degrees as in the WNBC 911 shots. Note also the red and yellow lines indicating the same spatial relationship of the Towers' roof lines.


The Chopper 4 shot is oriented differently, from both an altitude of approx plus 500 ft higher and also further to the east (by approx. 6 degrees relative to the Towers), as a comparative measurement of the visible sides of the Towers show.


As it is morning, the brightly lit faces of the Towers are to the east. In the Chopper 4 shot we can see 12 pixels of the East face, as compared to 2 pixels in the WNBC shot.
The angles of view are thus shown to be completely different in all three dimensions.


As the follow-on lo-resolution monochrome section from Chopper 4 that September Clueless 3 also shows, the plane’s approach from the south west can (just) be detected 10 seconds prior to impact due to the increased contrast in the black and white image.

Being small and round – like a ball – when viewed from head on (a B767 has a fuselage diameter of 15.5 ft) and seen from an initial distance 1.4 miles (calculated from the speed) travelling at approx 500 mph, it’s difficult to see the airliner against the dark land background and it gets completely lost over water before disappearing behind the Towers just after it passes Ellis Island, wholly due to the lo-resolution image source used.

The NBC shot on the other hand, being further west and from a lower altitude and with a lightened background provided by the sky, is able to capture the last seconds of the planes approach prior to impact from much closer in.

Illogically, September Clueless then superimposes the plane’s flight path from the hi-level Chopper 4 shot onto the WNBC lo-level shot, and then blithely advises that as two views of the Towers are ‘identical twins’ the difference in perceived flight paths proving some hypothetical missile actually hit the South Tower and the airliner image was ‘inserted’ by ‘Media Fakery’ afterwards.


Compounding its grossly misleading case, September Clueless then shows a much higher definition version of the Chopper 4 video from the WNBC archive (note the greater level of detail now visible on the North Tower TV mast) which does - would you believe it - in fact show the approaching plane, if blurred and in a not very photogenic fashion.

We are gravely advised - because Simon 'socialservice' Shack says so - that the ‘pencilled in ball’ we now see is an 'obvious fake' added afterwards.


Back in reality, the approach closely matches the official flight path as plotted by NIST in the diagram below, with the final curve at landfall as it crosses South Cove obscured by the Towers.


There is some mystery as to why Shack has used the lo-definition version of Chopper 4’s shots in his comparisons; whether it was used to mimic the image quality seen by the average TV viewer or to increase the brightness flaring of the sunlit faces of the Towers to make them seem more similar or to be otherwise deliberately obtuse and/or deceptive is unclear.

It may be that Simon Shack/Social Service is indeed the ‘Father Dougal’ of film making and really hasn’t got a clue about perspective, or it may be he is maliciously misleading those who have little in the way of functioning critical faculties and a tendency to believe whatever they see challenging ‘da official story’ as being gospel.

The subject of 911 – what happened and how it happened - is so serious and goes to the very top and heart of the world’s current power structure that I find I’m unable to easily accept the ‘idiot amateur’ explanation, particularly in view of the manner in which the absolute undiluted bullsh!t September Clueless unquestionably is, has been enthusiastically promoted from some quarters.

Make no mistake, No Plane Theory with its equally feeble minded cousins ‘Media Fakery’ and ‘Exotic Weapons’ are at the centre of the divisions tearing away at what can be termed ‘the 911 truth movement’ (no capitals). Every single 911 group from the Scholars on down to the various websites have seen nothing but division as a result of NPT and its offshoots.

And the biggest joke is that NPT adds nothing but a further layer of incredulity – yet claiming to be the very core! - whilst pretending it is presenting ‘conclusive evidence’.

To answer Simon Shack’s embedded question, yes by now I do feel my intelligence is being insulted.
And the insulting is being done by your pernicious, false and bogus little internet ‘films’.



Patricia, saw the ball and pretended it could be a plane by pretending that she was far away from the towers, which of course she was very close to. This is called a false excuse.

As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames.

She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight: “I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.”

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by Doogle » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:34 pm

Welcome to a even bigger nuthouse than the one you thought you were in, at least you're big enough to admit it.

Dimitri Khalezov really opened my eyes. I'm not saying I think there were no planes at all, or that there were definitely planes, but I am convinced that if any planes did hit the WTC, that it wasn't the ones that are claimed - something else happened to those....

Check out Elias Davidsson' s Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11, it shows the shocking discrepancies in the accounts of the phone calls and the official logs.
And talk about hijackers turning up alive, there were passengers presented as victims that also turn up alive.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by TorJohnson » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:07 pm

I take back what I said in this thread about this fake plane stuff being disinfo, and apologize to anyone I may have offended.

In the intervening several months, I've learned a lot more about exotic weapons like Blue Beam, and have actually listened to several hours of Judy Wood interviews, watched dozens of videos explaining the theory from all angles, and have come to the conclusion that an aluminum plane is not going to make a Wile E. Coyote style cartoon hole in a steel-reinforced concrete building.

Upload to Disclose.tv

This is a constant learning experience for all of us, and I feel like such a mainstream faggot for blindly dismissing this theory before without looking into it first.


Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by 7forever » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:57 pm

DmoniX_The_Destroyer wrote:
7forever wrote:This is so simple it's stupid. :look: The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.

Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g"]Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube[/url]

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

And a fake brain was added to those who believe this nonsensical dribble :hell:

I believe radar over fake witnesses and fake planes. The truth for you is a foreign language. The ball came from southeast of the towers went into Jersey and circled back. Did you forget that it was captured on radar coming over the Verrazano bridge?

Since you won't address what they said came over the bridge, you're conceding THE ATC'S were correct, that something, NOT FLIGHT 175 was spotted on radar coming from southeast of the towers..

Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News



Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by Hurtswhenipee » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:18 pm

Rich316 wrote:spend the time on their forum and have a look around, you might be surprised at what you see.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by Rich316 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:12 pm

TorJohnson wrote:
Mattler906 wrote:I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.

I see what you mean, but some things can be debunked and then should never be brought up again.

Example disinfo conspiracy:
The driver shot JFK!

Same goes with the no plane thing.

We're not comparing apples with apples here.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by Rich316 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:10 pm

I honestly don't know what's wrong with you people. This is a theory and he has every right to post it on here. You have your own theories or believe the MSM story, that's fine too. There's plenty of evidence that suggests something very suss went on that day. see http://septemberclues.info/ and spend the time on their forum and have a look around, you might be surprised at what you see.

Yeah I know there's a video called sept clues debunked.. it's hasn't been debunked at all, someone just could not bring themselves to agree with the idea that someone else, not them, worked shit out. It has all the trademarks of layers and cgi. Anyway, why do we still care that much? It's been what 13 years now? I don't lose sleep over it but I find it amusing the experts on here can't be open minded enough to entertain the idea that something far more incredible took place.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by TorJohnson » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:59 am

Mattler906 wrote:I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.

I see what you mean, but some things can be debunked and then should never be brought up again.

Example disinfo conspiracy:
The driver shot JFK!

Evidence to debunk claim:

Upload to Disclose.tv


We should never have to entertain this theory again.

Same goes with the no plane thing.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by Mattler906 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:51 pm

I don't know if locking the thread is the best way to allow the competition of ideas to unfold. Only the truth can survive under such competition, and it's not up to any one person to decide what that truth is.

I'd also like to address cia212's point that there are examples of aircraft flying at such speeds. This poster's point is that aircraft have done these speeds before, therefore it must be possible, if not easy, for them to do again in a "power dive".

This is absolutely not the case. From an aerodynamic perspective, this logic does not stand up to reason. That is because, while aircraft are capable of reaching those speeds in a "power dive", they would be difficult, if not impossible, to control, and in the specific case of the 767, the aircraft likely wouldn't stay together.

First, the China Airlines 747SP did appear to go super sonic, however, this is an entirely different aircraft than the 767, with an entirely different wing. The 747SP's maximum mach speed is m.92, and it is quite happy cruising along at mach .87-88, whereas the 767 is considered to be screaming along when it's doing m.83. Therefore, the 747 wing is not only engineered and shaped differently than those of the 767, but they are capable of much higher speeds.

Secondly, the Egypt Air 767 broke up just as it approached Mach 1, so it disproves cia212's theory. This is because it reached the maximum airspeed (or dynamic pressure) that the wings were capable of withstanding before sheering off. Mach 1 is interesting here, because the altitude at which the Egypt Air 767 broke up was approximately 16,000'. So as a frame of reference, if you were to extrapolate to 16,000', the exact speed that Flight 175 was doing when it hit the towers, after accounting for how the speed of sound changes with altitude, you would get M1.2. Thus, if we assume that the fact that Egypt Air's 767 broke up at Mach 1 demonstrated a physical limitation of the unmodified 767 wings, we can also assume that it would be impossible for Flight 175 to do these speeds without being heavily modified first.

My last point, is even if you could get an unmodified 767 to stay together at those speeds, you wouldn't be able to control it. Right off the bat, it would be buffeting so badly from the turbulent flow over the top side of the wings. The outboard ailerons would be locked out, the roll spoilers would be locked out, all you would have to roll the plane would be your inboard ailerons (and maybe asymmetric thrust, but you would need a prodigious pilot for any of this - somewhere in the region of Mozart meets Da Vinci). So all of this, and especially the abrupt roll to the left that Flight 175 makes a couple seconds before impact, would be impossible in an unmodified 767.

When one analyzes the dynamics of the explosion that results from both impacts, it's clear something hit the buildings. The debate is, was it an aircraft, or a cruise missile cloaked as one? This is a good debate, however I'm firmly in the camp that this was a heavily modified aircraft. The capability to modify an aircraft in such a way exists, and would have been relatively inexpensive. The aircraft is already equipped with sufficiently sensitive navigation sensors, all it would have taken was an upgraded military GPS, and you would have had the equivalent of a cruise missile in the general shape of a 767.

Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Post by TorJohnson » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:39 am

*WillEase* wrote:
DmoniX_The_Destroyer wrote:"A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" and a fake brain has been implanted in all you who believe that absolute nonsense...


Noentry wrote:7forever I have watched you over a couple of years and have come to the conclusion you are a disinfo agent trying to discredit the 911 truth movement and the JFK assassination.
You have only really posted on two subjects on this forum. JFK assassination and fake planes hit the towers.
I find this strange to say the least!

There are many videos clearly showing airplanes hit the towers. I know someone personally who witnessed a plane hit the 2nd tower.
So I can safely say you are breeding shit and trying to make a mockery of the truth.


My question is, why has this :bullshit: thread (or the Jackie killed John thread) not been locked?
It is a slap in the mouth to anyone pursuing truth that I for one find offensive.
DTV is too good for this crap or 7forever... :top:

I agree. Why haven't these threads been locked? They are nothing but disinfo that muddy the waters and discredit the truth. Anyone who does that knowingly should likewise be banned from this forum.