TV 911 airplane fabrication - Eyewitnesses SAW NOT PLANES

Taken from non-public Bulleting Board

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=8589&st=0&#entry9858525

WNBC Chopper 4 Footage Proves Irrefutably That The Videos of a Boeing 767 Impacting WTC2 Are Falsified


Credible witnesses, directly corroborating each other, and effectively constituting group witness testimony, provide conclusive and irrefutable evidence that No Plane impacted WTC2 on the morning of September 11 2001. This in turn proves beyond any doubt not only that the videos of this event were irrefutably falsified but furthermore that this fact implicates multiple agencies colluding together on a massive scale in the staging of a false act of terror: namely the incident of September 11 2001: Attack On America.


PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

On the morning of September 11, the following people were employed by WNBC New York in the reporting of events for local broadcast:

Jane Hanson, News Anchor for WNBC, New York:



The station's Chopper 4 female reporter, Amber Theoharis:



and an unknown male helicopter Pilot:


(The two Chopper 4 pilots worked in shifts. The two pilots are noted in WNBC literature as: Lars Andresen and Vincent Carchia.)

At the time of the second impact, Hanson was watching the live feed from Chopper 4, which was hovering high above and to the north of the World Trade Center with its camera looking down and focussed on the towers, as she talked to Amber Theoharis, the Chopper 4 reporter, about the scene unfolding below: notably the fire allegedly caused by aircraft collision, and now burning on the upper floors of WTC1.

Here's a picture of the second tower exit explosion that Chopper 4 captured live, on the morning of September 11:



And another:



Now here is a transcript of the dialogue between (Hanson) the Anchor, (Theoharis) the Chopper 4 Reporter, and (Andersen/Carchia) the Chopper 4 Pilot:

Reporter (Theoharis): Try to get a better vantage point and see what we can see on the ground. It's a little difficult from the air because the buildings kind of shadow the streets but no doubt a lot of activity on the ground right now.

Anchor (Hanson): And um in terms of the firefighting capabilities, when you get up to this high level er I assume the firefighters have got to get up there and er you know fight it from inside. Oh...

Pilot (Andersen/Carchia): Oh my goodness.

Anchor: Aah if you're taking a look now...

Reporter: Wow!

Anchor (cont.): ... you can see that we've just had another explosion and that is considerably lower and is that in the other building? Is that what I'm witnessing?

Reporter: That ah, that apparently does look like it is in the other building.

If you watch a copy of the WNBC broadcast that plays over this dialogue you will not see anything resembling a large passenger plane, as did neither Theoharis, who was flying over the scene, or the helicopter Pilot, or Hanson, who was watching the live feed.

A version of this broadcast can be seen here:

Now think about this. it is obvious from the dialogue that neither the WNBC News Anchor or the Chopper 4 reporter, or the Chopper 4 Pilot saw any plane. From their elevated position, Theoharis and the Pilot had without question, in respect of any plane's approach towards WTC2, the clearest view imaginable: an uninterrupted vista stretching all the way to the far horizon. Hanson, the Studio Anchor was watching a first generation feed (not a YouTube compression.) While the Pilot is softly exclaiming "oh my goodness" and Theoharis is exclaiming "wow", both of them in what is apparently complete surprise, Hanson is explaining to her viewers that what they have just seen is an "explosion". The event witnessed is thus clearly described as an explosion and this characterization is not contradicted by any of the three witnesses. This evidence constitutes the most powerful of all witness testimony: Group Witness Testimony. The Anchor, not having witnessed any plane, merely seeks confirmation of the location of the explosion as being in the other building. Hanson's and Theoharis's mutual expression of confusion regarding this incident obviously and indisputably stems from them witnessing an "out of the blue" explosion with no apparent cause. All three of the group witnesses should have seen the alleged large passenger airline. They obviously did not!

Here's a NIST simulation which shows not only the entirely implausible "official" impact scenario but more importantly for our purposes here, the scale of the planes in comparison to the towers:



In light of the group witness evidence from these three credible witnesses as documented by the relevant article of the authentic broadcast footage, it is firmly established that on that day and at that time, from their vantage point and any other available vantage point, and thereby promoting a viewing of the buildings of the World Trade Center, an explosion with no apparent cause is all anyone would clearly have been able to see. The chopper's camera captured with a high degree of clarity the boats down further below in the Hudson. It most certainly would have captured the distinct and clear image of a Boeing 767. But it didn't!


AUTHENTICATION:

Authentication of this live feed can be found by listening carefully to the parallel broadcast of the main NBC News Channel which was being simultaneously anchored by Matt Lauer and Katie Couric.



Just prior to the WTC2 impact, Lauer and Couric were talking live on air with NBC News producer Elliot Walker who's vantage point was allegedly her home in Manhattan. Not only was the visual feed from the Chopper 4 camera broadcast in large part during this interview but also the Chopper 4 audio feed was audibly picked up on mike. Theoharis's reporting from Chopper 4 is clearly heard in the background as Lauer converses with Walker, most noticeably during a particular pause in Lauer's dialogue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14783031/>

Couric: I mean do you know if there were many people in the building?

Walker: Oh another one just hit. Something else just hit. A very large plane...

Lauer: Oh my...

Walker: (continued) just flew directly over my building and there's been another collision. Can you see it?

Lauer/Couric: (Together) YES!

Walker: I can see it on this shot. Something else has just hit that looked like a 747.

Lauer: You know what? We just saw a plane circling round the building...

Theoharis: (background dialogue picked up on mike) ...it is in the other building

Lauer: We just saw a plane circling the building a second ago on the shot right before that.

Walker: I think there's been another impact. Can you tell? I just heard another very loud bang and a very large plane that might have been a DC 9 or 747 just flew past my window and I think it may have hit the trade center again.

Lauer: To... to be honest Elliot, I... I didn't - yeah, I didn't get the impression that it was that big a plane.

Here's a clip of the broadcast:



(Theoharis can be heard at 1:50 minutes into the clip)

This broadcast is also available as part of an archived segment at The Television Archive (A library of world perspectives concerning September 11th, 2001) :

http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-091...

(Theoharis can be heard at 32:07 minutes into the segment.)

Now, though it has no direct relevance, I should point out that in this clip, and in curious contrast to the previous clip of the WNBC broadcast footage, a small unidentifiable oval object is seen advancing diagonally down towards the towers from the top of the right hand corner of the screen image. No credible account can be given as to what this object is but it is definitely not the image of a Boeing 767 and furthermore was not discerned by Theoharis, her Chopper Pilot, nor Hanson, nor apparently by Lauer. Lauer mentions seeing what he terms a plane moments earlier, though evidently to him: not a big plane. Analyzing the clip, Lauer is clearly and mistakenly referring to the helicopter seen in the Skycam close up: first seen appearing from behind the smoke at 5 seconds into the clip, crossing from screen left to screen right and then again, entering at 47 seconds into the clip, crossing back above the Towers from screen right to screen left. This analysis is consistent with his statement "we just saw a plane circling the building a second ago on the shot right before that." It also points to the probability that the oval object in the Chopper 4 footage, as seen here broadcast at some point by NBC, was not in the original broadcast otherwise it is presumed Lauer would have referred to it. In respect of this, the object in the Chopper 4 clip was most probably added much later as part of an ongoing falsification of evidence. Either way this has no direct bearing on the evidence of there being No Plane impacting the Tower; whatever this unidentifiable object might be, it is categorically not the alleged Boeing 767.

Confirming the above, this is what Paul J. Gough reported recently in the mainstream media about Lauer, Couric and Walker regarding that day.

Five years later, memories of a trying task (Network anchors recall chaotic efforts to tell the nation about 9/11) By Paul J. Gough - Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK - {The news came into Matt Lauer?s ear as he interviewed a Howard Hughes biographer on what felt like another slow news day in the summer of shark attacks and Chandra Levy.

?Go to commercial,? ?Today? executive producer Jonathan Wald told him tersely. ?Breaking news: A plane has hit the World Trade Center.?

That?s all anyone knew at 8:50 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

On ?Today,? Lauer and Couric were talking to an NBC News producer, Elliott Walker, who was walking her daughter to school nearby when the first plane struck. It is Walker who tells ?Today? of the second attack.

On ?Good Morning America? -- and ?Today,? where the shot wasn?t live but replayed a few seconds later -- there was a gasp in the studio that went out over the air. It?s no longer an accident but the worst case of terrorism on American soil, a seminal event in U.S. history.} http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14783031/>

As we've just seen on the broadcast of the clip and as noted by Gough: "The Shot Wasn't Live". NBC Today chose to intercut between three cameras during their broadcast: the Chopper 4 camera and two separate Skycams. They conveniently and inexplicably chose to cut away from what would have been a live shot of the catastrophe. Just moments before the explosion happened the broadcast cuts from the Chopper 4 live feed, which would have revealed that there was no apparent cause of the explosion, and cuts instead to an extreme Skycam close up of WTC1, effectively obscuring any view of the explosion in WTC2. The explosion thus happens off screen and viewers only have Elliot Walker's account to go by as to what was happening. The NBC broadcast then continues by quickly cutting back to the Chopper 4 live feed.

The fact that this broadcast was undoubtedly happening according to an alloted broadcast delay, makes this precision intercutting most incriminating. (In radio and television, broadcast delay refers to the practice of intentionally delaying broadcast of live material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_delay_(broadcast...)

Matt Lauer and Katie Couric are talking to Elliot Walker over and while the audio feed from the WNBC affiliate continues to play, as evidenced from the audible background dialogue from Theoharis that is picked up on mike. A decision was made by the staff of NBC to interrupt the live shot that would have clearly captured the explosion in favor of a close up thus ensuring that the explosion without any apparent cause happened off screen. Furthermore a decision was made to completely ignore the "eye in the sky" testimony of the local NBC reporter who had a clear view of the event, in favor of someone who was allegedly in her Manhattan Apartment and who first stated that an airplane flew "directly over (her) building" and then moments later contradicted this by saying that she saw it fly "past (her) window". Matt Lauer who was obviously watching the broadcast via studio monitor, and in accordance with Hanson, Theoharis and the Helicopter Pilot, did similarly not see a large plane. He clearly disputes Walker's testimony by stating: "I didn't get the impression that it was that big a plane."

Neither Lauer nor Couric sought to clarify their confusion as to what hit the Tower as they easily could, and dutifully should have by referring to Theoharis, who's testimony would have categorically confirmed Matt Lauer's observation that it was not a large plane. Now all the preceding goes to positively corroborate the authenticity of the Chopper 4 footage and the evidence of the audio feed containing Hanson's, Theoharis's and the Chopper Pilot's testimony describing an explosion without apparent cause. It also points to unquestionable complicity in the fraud of 911 by various members of the NBC staff. Though there is definite complicity indicated here by this evidence it is not clear who exactly at NBC is implicated, though Elliot Walker most obviously is.


SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

Now taking another look at the Chopper 4 footage, a careful observer will notice the glowing white projectile that is trailing dark smoke while it exits the site of explosion blast. Watch it as it flies outwards in a gracefully descending parabola. Not many metals turn "pyrophoric" which is the technical term for this phenomena. The Depleted Uranium nose of a missile does. Not only that it emits dark and not light smoke as it burns. It also manifests a short bright flash upon impact:

Here's a clearer view of the pyrophoric projectile from some other footage of the second explosion. (It's the white hot particle trailing dark gray smoke. The dark particle trailing white smoke is either 'punch-out" building debris or some other part of the missile)

.

Remember the short bright flashes captured on film during both impacts?

(First Hit)


(Second Hit)


OK - Well, now read how two military experts, testifying before the NGO Committee on Disarmament in 1999, describe the pyrophoric effect of Depleted Uranium as it impacts and cuts through the material (armor) of its target:

DAMACIO LOPEZ: "When the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator strikes the target it will have what appears to be an explosion. There are no explosives in the slug of DU. It is the mass and speed and the energy from the radioactivity that gives the impression of an explosion. The projectile is referred to as a kinetic energy penetrator. It burns through like molten metal, and as it burns it is giving off smoke. The particles in that smoke are very tiny, somewhere between 1 and 5 micrometers in size. 30% to 70% of the slug of depleted uranium goes up as smoke into the air, and is taken by winds."

COLONEL ERIC DAXON: "Science does not support the contention that DU is a weapon of mass destruction. Science does not support the contention that the use of DU will result in an environmental catastrophe. The explosion is not due to the radioactivity of the DU. When the penetrator first hits you see something that looks like a sparkler. That is the pyrophoric nature of the DU. It self-ignites when exposed to high temperatures and high pressures. A tungsten penetrator becomes blunt. A DU penetrator will become sharper as it is penetrating armor, and that is the primary reason that we are using it, along with its density. The self-sharpening effect gives it a significant tactical advantage. "
http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/phy_a2_a...

So, the bright flashes, as observed in many of the videos just prior to the "plane" impacting, is most likely the pyrophoric impact flash of the D.U. missile tip. (Seeing as the flash is only visible for a frame or two of film it was in all likelihood an oversight on the part of rushed CG technicians.)

Now check out these statements about the Tomahawk Penetrator:

"US Patent records confirm that the most common of these -- the upgraded 2000 lb BLU-109/B guided bomb warhead, and the new Tactical Tomahawk penetrator warhead -- specify Uranium warhead options."
http://www.idust.net/Letters/Willms01.htm

"On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.h...

The Tomahawk is 20 ft 6 in long. A Boeing 767-200 has a wing span of 156 ft 1 in, a length of 159 ft 2 in, and a height of 52 ft 1 in.



A Tomahawk Penetrator at 20 ft 6 in long is about the length of one of the grid squares. The Chopper 4's camera was taking too long a shot to capture anything as small as a 20 ft 6 in missile. Though merely in light of the evidence herein presented, it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that the cause of the explosion witnessed by Theoharis et al was a Tomahawk Penetrator Missile but reasonable suspicion of this is most definitely established (see also below).


FURTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE:

By itself, the Chopper 4 footage proves beyond doubt that there was no plane impacting WTC2. It is enough; but curiosity begs the question of whether there is more corroborating proof.

Apart from the group witness testimony of the three above mentioned witnesses, which directly corroborate each other, here is another corroborating witness: David Handschuh, New York Daily News Photographer who took his famous photograph of the second explosion just moments after impact, whilst standing at the foot of the WTC Towers.

Some context here: Handschuh is one of the most respected photo-journalists in the business:

"David Handschuh, the past president of the National Press Photographers Association, and a staff photographer for the New York Daily News is one of the most street-wise photographers in New York. He commonly arrives on the scene of a fire or crime with the first wave of police."
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0112/editorial.h...

Court Official, Diana Ferriero, J.C., defined him as "an exceedingly credible witness."
http://www.state.nj.us/labor/wc/cases/handschuh.ht...

Now, on the morning of September 11, just prior to the second impact, Handschuh was in Manhattan, standing at the corner of Liberty and West, being the nearest corner to the west of The WTC complex and facing easterly and looking up. Here's the image he caught of the impact blowback:



Note: This isn't a photograph of the exit explosion, it's a photograph of the impact blowback immediately following the impact. In other words, this photograph affirms that Handschuh pretty much had a ringside seat to the second Tower impact and furthermore had a clear view of the approach of the alleged Boeing 767. Here's a map to help you understand his location:


(with reference to the map and as affirmed by the photograph he took, Handschuh was standing directly to the left of WTC2 (the south or lower Tower).

Here, in his own words is how he describes the event:

"Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. And the second tower just exploded. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I didn?t see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time."
http://www.globaljournalist.org/archive/Magazine/j...

Some other interviews with Handschuh:

'Handschuh was standing on the corner of Liberty and West when he heard a noise that ?seemed to come from everywhere.? He thought that perhaps a large natural gas main in the building let go. ?But all of the sudden the second tower explodes into flame. And I?m standing underneath it. And I think, ?OK. This is a second bomb. This is not an accident.? Handschuh instinctively raised the camera to his eye. ?I have the fireball coming out of the West Street side? .'
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Mast...

'Then this noise filled the air that sounded like a high-pressure gas line had been ruptured. It seemed to come from all over, not one direction. Everyone was looking around thinking, "What was that?" And the second tower explodes.'
http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/29...

A large passenger plane, traveling at 1,000 feet is unmistakable by visual and aural identifiers and impossible to miss by size and decibel level. If there had been a Boeing 767 that morning, approaching the Towers in Handschuh's clear view, he would have seen it, unless he was blind and deaf, which is not in any way feasible for a photo-journalist. He didn't see any plane. Instead he documents hearing a noise that filled the air that sounded like a high-pressured gas line had been ruptured. This confusing noise couldn't be attributed to any visible object and seemed to be coming from all over but nowhere in particular. He was not alone in his confusion. According to him everyone was looking around wondering what the sound was and then came the second tower explosion. His instinct was that it was from a bomb. A Tomahawk Penetrator emits a high-pitched sound that could well be described as similar to that of a ruptured high pressured gas line:

http://www.museumofsound.com/listen.php
(6th sound down - Title: belgrade - Description: tomahawk missile hitting the military headquarter in belgrade during the nato attacks on 24.3.99)

Now remember this missile is 20 ft 6 in long and A Boeing 767-200 has a wing span of 156 ft 1 in, a length of 159 ft 2 in, and a height of 52 ft 1 in. Check the graphic above that illustrates these dimensions to remind you of the comparison here.

As I said before: a Tomahawk Penetrator is about the length of one of the grid squares.

Imagine this at 1,000 feet:



Imagine this at 1,000 feet:



If someone was standing at the corner of Liberty and West looking up and easterly they would definitely notice the alleged Boeing as it approached and impacted. They would probably not notice a Tomahawk Penetrator. They would hear a confusing high pitched whine, seemingly coming out of nowhere. Unless Handschuh has lied repeatedly about his experience, and presuming he was in his full faculties this day, which do you think he witnessed hitting the second tower: (a) a large passenger plane, or (B) a missile?

Just for the record, here's a photograph of Handschuh being carried away from the scene after being badly injured when the South Tower fell:



He was there, he is credible, he saw no plane. So Theoharis, and her Chopper Pilot are not the sole witnesses who were in an ideal vantage point to see the approach of the alleged plane but didn't. We have the credible witness of Handschuh also. Is that it? Absolutely not.

Now herein brought forward is a well known 9/11 hearsay witness but a hugely significant and credible one: Dick Oliver, veteran reporter, who was assigned on September 11 by WNYW Fox 5, the task of interviewing witnesses along the streets of Manhattan in the vicinity of the World Trade Center. His credentials appear exemplary:

"Dick Oliver, a veteran New York reporter who started in print, left WCBS in 1988 and has since been working for WNYW's morning show." http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/C...

Oliver (aka Olly) had this anxious interchange with WNYW Fox Studio Commentator, Jim Ryan, not long after the second impact:

Dick Oliver (on the phone): Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

Jim Ryan (in the studio): I must say that we have an eyewitness who said it was a large plane that crashed first. And then as we were watching the live picture here in the studio, we saw a plane crash into the -- crash into the other tower of the World Trade Center. And again, let's to be sure, there it is. There it is, the plane went right through the other tower of the World Trade Center.

(As picked up by CNN http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.... )

So according to Jim Ryan, never mind the witnesses that Dick Oliver was interviewing on the scene. We have it on the authority of Ryan and others who saw the video that: "to be sure, there it is. There it is, the plane went right through the other tower of the World Trade Center."


SUMMATION:

According to the various media personnel of 911 and sundry other authorities: we can be certain that a large plane actually hit the Towers because we all saw the videos, and it is not likely or credible that they would be falsified.

However, we now know, not only is it likely and credible that the videos have been falsified but furthermore that they most categorically have been so falsified.

One bona fide Chopper 4 reporter with her pilot, sitting in her chopper, with a sweeping panoramic view of the Manhattan sky and facing the alleged plane's direction of travel, the chopper's camera trained on the towers, feeding a down shot of the World Trade Center live to a New York News Channel, the chopper reporter talking on air directly with the on air Studio Anchor, and all this pre, during and post WTC2 impact and:

Zero, Zilch, Niente, No Plane.

No Plane Hit The Tower! Nothing recognizable as a plane is observed by either the reporter, the pilot or the anchor and nothing recognizable as a plane is captured on Chopper 4's film footage. It doesn't matter how many people say they saw a plane strike WTC2 and it doesn't matter how many people offer as evidence easily falsifiable video tape of a plane. The FACTS above are totally irreconcilable with anything other than there being NO PLANE. Solid and incontrovertible proof has been established to substantiate this. All contradictory evidence must be weighed against this incontrovertible proof and be considered impeached in the face of this evidence, being such as it is demonstrably and superior in nature. In light of all of the above and in this particular regard, the only single circumstance that would allow for the possibility of a plane impacting WTC2 is if the facts in question are false.

They are not.

Factfinder General (August 24 2007)

"Did He who made the lamb make thee?

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=8589&st=0&#entry9858525

when you take into account the size of a 767 relative to the size of the towers and the fact that the Chopper Squad are reporters (i.e. professional observers) covering a story about an alleged aircraft collision with WTC1, a "Big Bird" flying towards WTC2 all the way from the horizon in a clear sky is NOT going to fail to get their attention.

Plus the camera is going to pick up the recognizable form of such an object in a way that is consistent with Flight Tracking Data. It picked up every other large detail in the shot.

The oval blob that is evident in the NBC footage is not on a Flight path that is consistent with (a) the impact (b) the other videos and (c) supplied flight tracking Data

All the above 3 reference points indicate a flight path just a few degrees away from head on against the presenting facade of WTC2: this is in line with NIST. My NIST graphic gif in the post shows the approach for the WTC1 impact: it is more or less head on against the facade. WTC2 impact was just a little bit more skewed than this (i.e. about 5 to 10 degrees away from head on).

With the camera angle that Chopper 4 gives us, high downshot pointing head on to the buildings, the plane's path should have been tracking just off of straight to camera and slightly above the buildings, travelling downwards towards impact point. Not, categorically not, from top right corner diagonally down as the NBC blob is.

Now on the one hand this supports your point about part of the flight path being obscured from Theoharis's and the Pilot's view.

Yes, it would be, though what I say about clear view out to the horizon and the scale of a 767 would still mean a positive sighting of the plane by the two professional observers. Such a sighting definitely would have occurred IMHO. Peripheral vision would guarantee awareness in this instance and dissallow for confusion as to what hit.

This presents us with the interesting reality that the camera failed entirely to record anything that tracked in the way every authority tells us the projectile tracked.

This is absolutely impossible for an object of such relative dimensional significance as is a Boeing 767.

What could account for this absence of any visible sign of the explosion's cause. As I see it there are two main possibilities: (1) a bomb inside the building or (2) a projectile lacking in relative visual significance; this category would include a 20 ft 6 in missile. (strong evidence favours a missile. See below.)

It is not only possible but expected that an object of relatively small dimensions such as a missile (and neutral painted such as they are) would elude the camera's ability to record it at the distance it was recording from.

And the Organizers would have known this.

The pyrophoric exit debris is a dead giveaway for anyone who understands D.U. penetrators. This glowing white hot exit debris has only one known cause as far as I can ascertain. Depleted uranium is one of the only heavy metals to have the property of turning pyrophoric.

You see this is why I wrapped this one case together like I did. You have to add it all together in context to see how it is cast in iron. It is though, I believe. We will see as the days progress and the comments begin to roll in.

Edited by Factfinder General on Fri Aug-17-07 07:00 PM

Here is one of the few "live" shots of the WC2 impact that went out on September 11. It was broadcast on WPIX-TV which was then calling itself, WB11. The morning news anchor is, Lynne White:

<>

and she is talking in the clip to one of the station's female feature reporters.

Here's the clip:

<

>

Apart from the remarkable absence of anything distinguishing it as a plane, what would you estimate the blob's angle of approach relative to the tower's impacted south side is? The north side of the towers are facing us and we are looking at these north sides more or less straight on.

There isn't any visible size increase in the penetrating object (can I call it that?) that suggests any perspective to the object's path. It almost feels like a lateral path but that cannot be! That would have the plane hit the west side of the Tower!!!

In that case I would have to estimate that the plane was coming towards the south side at about a five or ten degree angle tops (with zero degrees being completely sideways and ninety degrees being square or head on.)

Now, what does the official FEMA diagram show as the angle of approach? Surely nothing like that?

<>

Well, according to this diagram, the plane is just off by about five to ten degrees from being head on so that is about eighty degrees. This is a huge angle of difference from the apparent approach angle of the mysterious "penetrating object".

Now, just double checking here, is this FEMA diagram consistent with the official flight path?

<>

Well yes, the FEMA diagram is precisely consistent. (Good to see them getting something right! )

It's also consistent with this still frame from another video, which as you can hopefully assess is approaching the south tower at just a little off from straight on:

<>

Now if we moved the cameraperson who shot the second video, slightly to the right we would approximate the front on set up for the first video. In this regard the plane would be largely blocked from view as it made it's near head on approach towards the south side of the south tower.

It certainly wouldn't be approaching the side at a five or ten degree angle, i.e. almost sideways!

So how can the flight paths indicated by the videos be so different from one another? Is one of them fake and the other one correct. That wouldn't make much sense.

OK, I'll give you the answer: of course they are both fake but the technicians compositing the second video had more time to get it right.

Basically, the plane, according to the official flight path records and according to most of the videos, should have approached the WTC2 tower in an almost head on fashion,

With the camera position evident in the WB11 video, the plane would have been obscured by the Towers if it was making the officially designated approach.

However, in this clip, the blob, or whatever it was, is approaching the south face of the tower, i.e. the impact zone, at an almost sideways angle that flagrantly contradicts the data: watch it as it travels across screen without growing in perspective.

i.e. it is fake! shock, horror!

A good reason for the Perps to choose a head on angle for this live shot would be that this would best obscure the missile. This way they wouldn't have to "scrub" the missile from the shot. All they would have to do is add a suitably amorphous blob and hope that no one would notice the difference in trajectory with the actual flight path of the penetrator.

In other words the Perps were making it easier for themselves. The choice of a head on angle like this was not accidental. Everything about that day was meticulously planned.

Bearing in mind, the technicians did all this CG fakery on the fly and within the small time delay that was operating on that day (this amounted to what some estimate to be approximately 17 seconds if comparisons of the lag between geographical seismic records to "official' impact times are anything to go by!)

The CG technicians also had to make the shape purposefully amorphous, as it was the final flight path of the missile (which would supply the tracking details in lieu of the alleged plane) that would dictate the choice of final approach angle for the CG plane model.

Check out the way the ladies have to be informed, presumably through their ear pieces, that what hit the building was meant to be a plane, otherwise they would have mistaken it for a police helicopter ( ) Imagine that: mistaking a large Boeing passenger jet for a police helicopter!

Paraphrasing the words of anchor, Lynne White:

"You hate to say the words but what comes to mind right now:"

No planes, no planes, no planes!


Edited by Factfinder General on Fri Aug-17-07 07:04 PM I tried to make it clear but I guess "angle of approach" is not so straightforward a matter.

Basically, the plane, according to the official flight path records and according to most of the videos, should have approached the WTC2 tower in an almost head on fashion,

With the camera position evident in the WB11 video, the plane would have been obscured by the Towers if it was making the officially designated approach.

However, in this clip, the blob, or whatever it was, is approaching the south face of the tower, i.e. the impact zone, at an almost sideways angle that flagrantly contradicts the data: watch it as it travels across screen without growing in perspective.

i.e. it is fake! shock, horror!

I suspect that the Perps chose a head on angle for this live shot because that would best obscure the missile. This way they wouldn't have to "scrub" the missile from the shot. All they would have to do is add a suitably amorphous blob and hope that no one would notice the difference in trajectory with the actual flight path of the penetrator.

In other words the Perps were making it easier for themselves. The choice of a head on angle like this was not accidental. Everything about that day was meticulously planned.

Bearing in mind, the technicians did all this CG fakery on the fly and within the 17 second delay that was in operation this day!

Hope that makes it a little clearer!


They say moslems launched jetliners at buildings as weapons thus bringing America it's worst ever military disaster on continental home turf.

They immediately said in the aftermath of this that this was a war against our Freedom and we will uphold this Freedom.

We continue to "uphold' this Freedom to the tune of much greenstuff expended per second in terms of financial outlay and much redstuff expended per second in terms of supportive procedure.

But there were No Planes it was US Missiles; and by upholding Freedom they mean Brotherhood: Their Brotherhood! (Natch)

No Planes leads us to necessary logical inferences. We won't get where we need to go, in terms of logical throughline, unless we are walking in the right direction.

They lie, they decieve, with images, words, chemicals, dang they'll use it all. Why because they love fooling us. They get the biggest KICK out of it.

I don't know if I'm making things any clearer?


I truly believe that an understanding of the initiating events of 911, as being carried out by missile attack and not plane attack, is the fundamental starting point for processing the evidence of this most bewildering of days in an accurate and meaningful fashion. After all, if you start off going down the wrong alley, you have a good chance of quickly getting lost. No Planes, quite simply, in light of all the evidence and my understanding of science, is the right alley as far as I'm concerned. But it seems as far as the general public is concerned No Plane Theory is sidelined and distinctly understood to be an Alternative Theory.

I will discuss in a moment what is generally understood to be the Accepted Theory, with particular reference to each of the alleged 911 planes, i.e. AA 11, AA 77, UA 93 and UA 175?

But back to the "Alternative" Theory, as to the truth behind all four of the alleged 911 planes: No Plane Theory is that the planes of 911, including the two filmed impacting the WCT Towers, weren't real. I see this as being simple and elegant as far as theories go. There is science on the side of this theory, both the discipline of metallurgy and penetration mechanics not to mention a Newtonian Law or two. The inconsistency of the evidence is also supportive. (e.g. the flight paths of the planes from the various videos that depict vastly dissimilar trajectories.) Along with all this, I've personally got some plain understandings born of experience and some finely tuned intuitions born of inheritance that harmonize perfectly well with the theory. So, all in all, I'm on quite comfortable ground In my belief.

Now let me attempt to sum up the Accepted Theory in the same terms and in as simple and elegant a fashion as I did the Alternative one.

The Accepted Theory is that the planes of 911, including those filmed impacting the WTC Towers, were real. I'll call this Real Plane Theory (RPT) This is simple: yes. But is it Elegant? hardly! Indeed, I strongly suspect that what most people call the "Accepted" Theory is really, when all's said and done, quite "Unacceptable." What is it that backs the Real Plane Theory up to make it worthy of the designation: "Accepted"? What basis is there for widely held belief in it? There is no science which will lend a hand here; I swear there is not even a scientifically plausible hypothesis to start to begin explaining how the planes of 911 could have behaved in the way they were alleged to have done:

Lightly constructed aluminum planes slicing through heavily constructed HSLA Steel framed buildings, showing no visible deceleration and holding off both structural failure and flash point ignition until safely behind "closed" walls. Planes burying themselves deeply and completely into fields, just like their distant but much more firmly constructed relatives, the Bunker Buster EPWs. Composite Nose Cones pummeling their way clean through multiple military grade masonry and reinforced concrete walls. Wings somehow folding inwards upon impact and thus allowing the plane to slip inside through the hole the nose cone managed to bore. This is all truly and utterly fantastic and quite "unreal!"

But people exclaim: there are the videos that show the planes performing some of these miracles; surely we can believe our eyes? Wait though - the videos are wildly inconsistent with each other in the first instance, are riddled with artifacts betraying their production methods in the second instance and they portray a scientifically implausible event in the third. Well then there is the witness testimony! But no - the same problems that are present with the videos are present with this aspect too. Inconsistencies abound: there was a plane, there was no plane, it was a missile, it was a small jet, a bird, a bug, a boo... Everyone of reasonable maturity must be aware that both cameras and people can be made to lie. They always have been and I suspect they always will; just as long as there are unscrupulous characters that have a vested interest which they wish to uphold. Then what of the physical evidence, the debris? There is none recovered from where it should have been, i.e. underneath and surrounding the impact zone of the WTC Towers. The precious little samples of whatever was collected is all as suspect as the behavior of the planes.

So what IS there then in support of the theory that the planes of 911 were real? Nothing? Now please allow me a moment to digress:

Did any of you believe in Santa Claus as a young child? Some, maybe a good portion of you? Now as I recollect, from my own personal experience, there was no real evidence as such which formed the basis of my deep conviction in the jolly old elf. Instead there was merely a naive trust in the tradition of this figure and possibly more than just a little psychological pressure to accept him, pressures both internal and external in origin. From the point of view of tradition: The red robed one's ubiquity made him hard to ignore or for that matter deny. Psychologically speaking: on the one hand the idea of a magically endowed Patron Saint of gift giving was a pleasant thing to believe in and on the other it was my caretakers who were encouraging this belief.

Ah yes, I fondly remember the comfort and joy of those early and innocent Christmases of my childhood - But even more vividly, I remember that Christmas Eve when I stumbled upon the plain, harsh truth and found what was obviously going to be Christmas morning's stocking fillers for me, my brother and my sister, all neatly laid out on my parents' king-sized bed in three equally proportioned piles. I knew at first sight what the three piles meant but my conviction kept me from admitting it to myself consciously. Basically, I didn't want to believe that it was all a lie. So I made up a rationale: the presents must have been for some surprise street party that my mom and dad where going to put on for the other children who lived on our street.

Believe it or not that far fetched rationale sustained my challenged and now tenuous faith until Christmas morning: when ultimately I saw those selfsame presents that had been laid out on my parents' bed, stuffed into mine, my brother's and my sister's stockings, I simply had to face up to the facts. How the three of us cried as I revealed to my younger siblings the truth of my discovery and oh, what confusion on my parents' faces when they burst in to the living room to see what Santa had brought us - only to find us all in tears. That morning, the fantasy of Santa Claus had only brought us pain. But of course we got over it and moved on: rather quickly as I recall. An opportune and welcome visit an hour or two later, from a kindly Great Uncle, laden as he was with boxes of chocolates, definitely helped to ease the pain.

But now back to the planes of 911. Where is everybody in regards to this lie? Are some of you still bound up in a mere conviction built upon naive trust and bolstered by psychological pressures? Have some of you stumbled upon the underlying truth but yet are still not ready to believe that it is all a lie? Is this unwillingness to accept that it is all a lie the only thing now supporting your implausible theory? Are there any of those amongst you who are finally ready to accept the suspicions of the night before in the cold light of the morning after?

The very worst of the Santa Claus lie is that it temporarily fills a child with false hope. The whole fantasy seems well intended, designed as it is to bring a spirit of joy to an otherwise harsh season. Once I realized the truth I still had real hope to build upon and work towards. No one had tried to take that away from me and there really wasn't much harm done in retrospect. In stark contrast, the perversity of the 911 lie, and the lie starts with Real Plane Theory, is that it fills us with false fear. Whoever put the theatre of terror together for us that sunny September day sought to incapacitate our wills: to bring despair to an otherwise hopeful world: to effectively rid us of our genuine hope. The lies of these abusers keeps us bound to their will. The horror of their theatre initiates a blind obedience that lurks within their shadowy falsehood: a falsehood that deceives us into thinking that these masters of horror somehow will protect us from the things that they are lying to us about in the first place.

Chubby Men in Red Outfits can not breeze down people's chimneys. We can all accept that now and maybe smile at our naivete in once believing that they could. In remarkably similar fashion: Chubby Boeings in their Aluminum Outfits can not breeze into steel frame buildings. The only thing that supports the theory that they can is the idea that it surely can't be all just one big amazing lie. Such a massive betrayal of trust is unimaginable. The amiable News Anchors, the men and women on the streets, the nice lady tourist from the Ellis Island Ferry who's now visiting schools with her photographs to help children accept the terror - they can't all be lying? Well, just like I was there to tell my brother and sister on that Christmas morning long ago, here I am to say:

There is no Santa Claus - and there was no planes! Real Plane Theory is for kids! We badly need to grow up and face the truth. The fear that is being spread is nothing more than a patent lie, destroying our genuine hope. When we can find the courage to face the truth, then we can start slowly claiming back the hope, bit by bit, until it is rebuilt and we are once more whole.