Amputee wings - ua175 impact videos

These planes show HOLOGRAMMES.
See further below for an explanation.

FROM THE EXCELLENT

KILLTOWN 2nd hit webpage

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

Pavel Hlava (2) ("Amateur")
(Click gif to enlarge)	youtube*

Amateur" video taken by Pavel Hlava who "unknowingly" captured the 1st WTC crash also. Notice the right wing is partially missing.

Gamma Press ("Amateur")
(Click gif to enlarge)	***11 News* (@ :21)

remaster*, youtube

VH1 (expired)

FOX News* (good slow-mo) "UFO" streaking by.

PAX TV ("Amateur")
(Click gif to enlarge)	ktla 5* (good slow-mo)

CNN Superstation*

CNN*, download

© WPIX-TV NYC

NO WINGS WHATSOEVER

Peter Strid - "Amateur". Released 11/20/06.
(Click gif to enlarge)	Video*, *Source	(@2:23 -) Male 1: "Wha, what just hit it?" Male 2: "An airplane." 1: "Another one?" 2: "Did the, wait, was the first one an airplane?" 1: "No, the first, no. What was that? Just now?" 2: "That was a... as far as I could tell, that was a United -- it looked it, I swear, a United airplane that crashed into the side of it." 1: "The one just came in now?" 2: "Yes!"

Notice the filmer zooms in closer as the sound of a plane approaches. Notice how either the filmer, or his friend by him, is able to tell that this plane that was supposedly coming in at 590mph was a United Airlines plane.




MUST SEE!! THE REST IS HERE: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html





First, as customary in anglo-american society, let me lean out the window with a bold assertion:

A real (fly-by) jetliner was an optical template for a real-time dynamic hologram.

OK,this is just a theory. But I chose to preface the compelling and simple logic of hologrammes with a theory of how to solve the computational complexity of real-time hologrammes because I want you to read the short roundup of clues here (& follow the links please) and contemplate the technical feasibility while getting accustomed with the terms, such as conjugate mirror and voxels.


But the heart of my argument is that...

• cameras DID record jetliners (albeit shiny, luminous, amputee wings, distorted)
• There was no serial-numbered jet debris, witnesses hear missile, no 767 roar

IN OTHER WORDS:



If ONLY A SINGLE ONE of the recorded pictures, or a SINGLE EYE WITNESS statement is true that a large passenger jet was recorded/seen

*A*N*D*

at the same time, this large passenger jet did physically impossible things like butter-plane, amputee wings, shape-shifting, or disappeared (chopper 4)

the ONLY conclusion is that, there, in the air, on that day, there was an apparition. Today these apparitions are called hologrammes, but feel free to call it what you want.

IN YET OTHER WORDS:

Although TV-fakery was employed in *some* pictures, the fact that eye-witnesses saw a jetliner (in various stages of weirdness because of variable visibility in combination with the impossibility that the perps would have risked footage showing NO PLANE could surface.. leaves no other conclusion than holograms.


So, holograms, huh?


In case you aren't in the mood to sift through the technical laser-hologramme-computer details... here a snippet:

"The 3-D scene appears distorted if viewed from locations other than those the scene was generated for" see picture 46 to 50 here


Visible jet + NoPlane = hologram

I think this logic is compelling, compulsory, imperative, mandatory, forceful and stringent, but even if you disagree, please lets just debate the facts, and lets not debate my assessment of the value of my logic.


Why holograms? In general, I believe that the perps knew very well that they needed a fair chance to get away with such a huge crime. In order to be able to cover-up the whole monstrosity until they are all dead, they needed to use

• very secret weapons ("cannot be disclosed EVER = national security = blackmails even good people)
• very high-tech weapons (near magic - people would not believe their eyes)
• remote-action weapons (can't have too many people peeping)
• control over the media
• control over the law-makers (elections)

But that is another thread. I kindly ask you to give me your reasoning on the existance of hologramm-imagery on that morning.



Credit is due:

• to Nico who pointed me to
• Marcus Icke who proved that none of jet-images is real ('Port Wing Anomaly')
• Factfinder General who encouraged me to properly investigate CT&MH
• Killtown for his great 2nd hit page

Arthur Rubin sabotage - Golbez Vendetta

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175&diff=187061974&oldid=186913367

PLEASE research. The statements I made reflect reality.

• MICHAEL HEZARKHANI VIDEO -- the jet did not VISIBLY disintegrate (yes, it *is* strange, and that *must* be the reason why Arthur Rubin will not accept it. It is OBVIOUSLY a debatable point WHY it DID NOT VISIBLY disintegrate, but the fact remains that there are NO FILM or photos that shows ANY disintegration, whereas common sense *COULD* tell us that at least the wing tips and vertical stabilizer would deform and large parts would visibly stay OUTSIDE the building.

Whether you like it or not. THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. The plane "buttered" into the tower. If you argue that this is because of its high speed... well, try your luck. There is NO WAY the jet was flying at 545mph... because in the dense air at 400feet or so it would tear the airframe apart. Also the ENGINE blades would not be able to cope with the amount of air and would act as AIR BRAKES.. I'd say 300mph tops. But be that as it may... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. You just cannot say that without violating Wikipedia policies on accuracy.

• CARMEN TAYLOR PHOTO I separated the sentences to avoid the misleading formulation that would make people believe that there Carmen Taylor also FILMED the event. She only took photos. This must be made clear. 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

YOUR photos may have been edited, but the jet DID visibly disintegrate in most of the videos. Your statements about airspeed at low altitudes are known to be false. — Arthur Rubin 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You CANNOT show us a single photo or film that shows ANY disintegraiton of the aircraft. My statements about airspeed are known to be false? How so? Just look in the Boeing manual.

You seem to have a political agenda. 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot show us a single film that FAILS to show the jet visibly disintegrating. I've seen a number of them. — Arthur Rubin 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the film that FAILS to show the disintegration! I'll show you more... there is at least two more that make it plain to anyone with eyes. Remember that the vertical stabilizer assembly is the strongest part of these airframes. If you care to check, there is not a single air-crash where the rear end of such a jet has disintegrated. Rather the opposite. in 9 out of ten cases it is actually ENTIRELY intact. 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone tell me why the hell this matters? --Golbez 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think about it, the reason why this is so contentious is that it proves there was no plane .... it was either a hologram or a video fake. The **hologram** is REALLY hard to believe, and the video-trick COULD be easy to disprove. The perpetrators did **it** exactly for those reasons. The logic in inescapable. Whacko? I quote John Kenneth Galbraith: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. You see, rather than following the logic and accepting the consequence that it was an inside job – most people get busy trying to explain it away. This is why you find dubious pictures of airplane debris (wrong paint job, never verified serial number) and why you see wikipedia editors trying hard to edit away any hint. For whatever reason people are hell-bent on keeping the official conspiracy theory alive... maybe it's "inner comfort" that drives them. To me it is unfathomable that wikipedia, the greatest lie detector on earth, has not yet included FACTS ABOUT 911 in the MAIN articles. One day this will look so silly. If you have UNDERSTANDABLY trouble believing in a hologramme, then look at the footage of Luc Courchesne and the missing wing and distorted aircraft. here or here. Of course the incredible look of the aircraft will be blamed on a worn vhs tape. But can a videotape really warp images that unevenly? Strains credulity. More likely it was a flickering hologramme. Here is a critical look at nearly all of the other videos!! And, yes, many conspiracy theorists are nuts. You have to ignore many of their wild statements and stay with the facts. The world is not difficult to deconstruct with the help of the internet community.

15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

y... you can't be bloody serious. If you continue to edit war to put your edits in, based on this statement, I will block you for vandalism. --16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hologram or not. Plane debris WAS found in the WTC wreckage. 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, but the serial numbers were never recorded, there is no proof at all that is is indeed from UA 175. If you cannot imagine why this would be, let me spell it out for you. The US military operation "911" was done with the the utmost in deception, as is usual in military covert operations. If they used NO PLANES, as seems to be the case, this naturally would have involved the planting of aircraft debris to make the hologrammes believable. I URGE YOU TO READ. Not just "scan" the words and then knee-jerk dismiss. (also see my addition above .. re: Street engine, in answer to RenesisX .. 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am bloody serious. How dare you put your value judgement on my opinion? If you are for freedom of research and in favour of peer-review you should not a priori denigrate my findings without showing evidence of your own. Let the evidence speak for itself. Your threat of blocking me is duly noted and I will pursue arbitration for your behaviour if it continues. IMHO it would disqualify you as an editor on wikipedia. 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)