A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

[7forever]

Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll spent 387 hours on airliners dot net trying to find a real plane with those unexplained, elongated patterns on the bottom of the fuselage, but was unsuccessful because all images on film and video were faked, with the exception of the drone coming from west of the towers. The fake right wing is too close to the fuselage, revealing yet another look and see, it's image and video fakery on 911. The fake fuselage looks more flat than rounded.

 

[7forever]

I'm the first 911 researcher to capture the bomb igniting in the south tower. Watch the northeast corner as it illuminates during ignition. The bomb farted backward and created explosions along the east side and drone's impact area on the southeast corner. BOO-YA! The drone was used as an ignition device and to have something in the area moving toward the buildings even though it wasn't a real plane. It was at least something people could eyewitness and call a small plane or remote controlled drone like Dick Oliver had.LOL

 

[Angel of Ioren]

And he's back!
Maybe the driver had something to do with it!

 

[7forever]

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the perps wanted us to believe. The nose-out was exposed during live coverage and faded to black upon noticing their mistake. That supports that it wasn't supposed to come through. I believe it was Aaron Brown who said it was an illusion.

Only one relevant point has been made besides the simple truths I've posted on the live footage clearly showing a drone coming from the west. The fake plane could not explode because it wasn't a plane, it was a computer generated image. Had they created an impact explosion, they would have had to explain why no plane parts fell to the ground on the south side. They logically could not create an impact explosion because there was no plane to produce any plane parts in real-time. Note the drone just right of the southwest corner of tower one. It casts its own shadow left of the north hole with just fire coming from the northeast corner, no NOSE-OUT in any north view footage, live or not.

 

[7forever]

The fake left engine does not overlap the wing and is attached to air, to its left and rear. What a disasterous failure.

 

[7forever]

The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This is a hard one, this 9/11 thing.
Firstly, I am unsatisfied with the official investigation. Maybe there is no great smoking gun but it is the little things that really bother me. Is it not true that all the steel from the towers was taken away and destroyed very quickly? To take evidence from a crime scene away for destruction goes against everything that should happen in an investigation. To take evidence away and destroy it from the biggest mass murder of modern times is just unbelievable?
What about the hijacker's passport? It managed to come through an airplane crash and through a building, with the resulant fire, pretty much unscathed to be found on the street. How many other passports of passengers from the doomed jets were found on the streets of Manhattan?
Jumping quickly to the Pentagon. Something that has always bothered me is that you would imagine the Pentagon would be covered with multiple CCTV cameras from many vantage points. I do not understand how there only seems to be one piece of footage showing something hitting the building. It is very hard to make out but it doesn't look much like a plane. It does look a bit like a missile but it is impossible to say from one grainy bit of footage. Where are all the other recordings from CCTV cameras near the Pentagon that MUST have captured something. It is inconceivable that there is only one camera pointing toward where the aircraft supposedly hit the Pentagon.
I sort of understand why some people may take dis-proving the official 9/11 story to the nth degree but we must stay with provable facts?
Considering the event took place in the skies over the most densely populated city in the U.S I would imagine there were many people on the ground that day who actually saw 2 planes hit the towers. It would make sense that more people saw the 2nd plane than the first, because their attention would have been on the towers after the first impact? Stop me if I go wrong.
Also, these aircraft were from scheduled airlines yes? So it should be possible to check these flights did actually take off from their supposed point of origin, and that they contained the passengers they were supposed to. I doubt even the U.S government could pull off a trick such as inventing 4 aircrafts worth of people, with all their friends and family etc?
Building 7 seems a crock of shit as far as I can see. All the reasons the official story has for 2 steel framed buildings to come down do not apply to building 7. So what if the building caught fire? That does not explain how it fell into it's own footprint and certainly does not explain how it seemed that people knew it was about to fall down. Why did other buildings within the same radius not also fall down?

If anything, I do not believe the official story about that day. But that does not mean I believe that the towers were brought down by some death-ray or that the planes were holograms etc. No, if anything I think it is more likely that somehow 9/11 was allowed to happen. Something definitely stinks about the whole tragic day but it need not involve anything paranormal. Conspiracy, yes, but nothing paranormal.

I would be willing to swallow my pride and accept the official story of the whole thing if just one decent bit of footage showing the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was to surface. There can be no reason to withold such footage but somehow I doubt we will ever see it. If we were to go take a tour near the Pentagon tomorrow, around the section where the aircraft hit, and canvassed the area for CCTV cameras, that were there 10 years ago, I am sure there would be plenty that should show the impact. Why is there no more footage? The equivalent of the Pentagon in the UK is the Main Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall, London. If an aircraft had slammed into that building 10 years ago, there would have been multiple shots from multiple cameras. I find it hard to accept the most powerful and rich nation on Earth had only one camera pointing at that part of the Pentagon?

There is indeed a lot of silliness in the 9/11 truth movement but no doubt there are a few nuggets of truth too. As with the whole UFO enigma, you have to concentrate on the good stuff and disregard the rubbish?

gordon

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think that his Kennedy feelings are relevant here. The fact that he thinks that the driver shot Kennedy shows that he is prone to wild speculation. That's what he is doing here.

Angelo, I do not think the Kennedy driver shot JFK, although I think it was a conspiracy. This stuff about the nose cone needs to be explained, that is for sure.
About your point that his feelings RE the kennedy driver are relevant cos it shows he is prone to wild speculation. Maybe, but I think that is close to what I think about Religion and the paranormal.
I think it is very relevant to discussions of the paranormal or conspiracies if someone admits to being religious in the same way because if someone believes Jesus walked on water or made the blind see again, then I think that most relevant as to whether someone will believe any fakery. Psychic surgery? Faith healing?
I suppose I agree with you, it's just that due to convention, we see people believing in the paranormal as fair game to having their beliefs analysed to the nth degree, but when it comes to religious beliefs, for some reason we are not supposed to go there like it is some sort of sacred cow? Not to me. I just want to apply the same standards across the board.
Now back to that nose cone - if there is no conspiracy, then it should be easy for someone to explain how in one video, a nose cone clearly exits a tower intact but footage from a little later shows no hole from which such a sized object could have exited unscathed? Unless the nose cone was dis-assembled and then quickly re-assembled just outside the windows!
I think whoever was involved in the JFK conspiracy, they will have learned some valuable lessons on how to obfuscate the truth and muddy the waters, just enough so that the truth will likely never come out.
The best way to hide the truth is to cover it with lies, lies that could almost be true, and also to allow some of the truth to come out. That way, looking back it is impossible to tell what is truth from complete fiction. I think the truth about UFO's has been cleverly hidden the same way. But that is another post!
gordon

 

[trainedobserver]

The 911 Truth Movement, investigations into the JFK conspiracy, and Ufology are all plagued by irrational and fringe elements that serve mainly (intentionally or not) to delegitimize serious discussion about issues raised by them. It is discouraging to see so much misspent effort thrown into things like no-plane theories, driver assassins, or alien hybrids when there is reasonable evidence that casts doubt on the official stories of the events of 9-11, the assassination of JFK, and the presence of high performance aircraft of unknown origin in our skies. I can't buy into the official stories on any of those subjects but neither do I buy into 99% of the alternate theories presented by the wild mix of people that constitute the research community.

I think the truth is that the mysteries surrounding the subjects of 911, the JFK assassination, and UFOs are for all practical purposes impenetrable. The real solutions,, if and when they were or are found, have to be sorted from the vast amount of dubious evidence, theories, and baseless speculation that gets presented as fact.

 

[Roro]

The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage.

If you follow the engine pylon back you see that both pylons are in the same place on both wings, ending just outside the canoe fairings that covers the trailing edge flap mechanism. The apparent difference in position if you just look at the engine out of context is due to the attitude of the airplane, one side is lower than the other, and the distance between the lower surface of the wing and the engine. On both the 757 and 767 the engine hangs quite low below the wing and the actual interface between the pylon and the engine is surprisingly small (the engine mount is designed to allow the engine to separate from the pylon and fall away under certain circumstances). The illusion that the left engine in the upper photo is hanging in air is due to the pylon interface being blocked to our view by the engine itself. You can see the pylon above it and as I said, the engine hangs below the wing.

I do not believe the official government conspiracy theory of what happened on 9/11 but I have yet to see any photo evidence that causes me to think real commercial airliners weren't involved. The absurd collapse of the towers and completely unexplainable collapse of building 7 are the anomalies here, not the airplanes.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'm digging the last couple of posts and it sounds like RORO is a man who knows aircraft. I don't have any time for theories about fake planes etc as T.O says, but can someone please explain this thing about the nosecone? It's all very well to say it is absurd etc and it probably is, it's just that I am not seeing how this footage makes sense with the story.
I don't believe the official story either T.O as it is hard enough to believe! Is it possible that some footage was faked, just to lend credence and visual impact to the story? i.e the planes did hit the towers and half came out the other side, but possible none of the footage available showed something recognisable exiting and someone in their divine wisdom decided to doctor some footage to provide something with more impact, for what reason I know not?
Anyway, forget all the whacky stuff, anyone with an explanation for this nose cone thing, speak now or forever hold your peace!
gordon

 

[cottonzway]

Not this shit still. Dammit! This is probably the most obviously incorrect misinformation about 9/11. The whole "fake plane" thing is total nonsense.

 

[trainedobserver]

Anyway, forget all the whacky stuff, anyone with an explanation for this nose cone thing, speak now or forever hold your peace!
gordon

I don't know what the answer is for the nosecone business. It cannot be the actual nosecone of the aircraft since that would simply be impossible. The aluminum nosecone of that plane crushed against the steel side of the building and would have been shredded as it smashed through columns and walls. I'm not 100% sure of the authenticity of the footage that is used in that presentation though. Who created it? Where did the original footage come from? What are we really seeing in that footage? Etc, etc. etc.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I don't know what the answer is for the nosecone business. It cannot be the actual nosecone of the aircraft since that would simply be impossible. The aluminum nosecone of that plane crushed against the steel side of the building and would have been shredded as it smashed through columns and walls. I'm not 100% sure of the authenticity of the footage that is used in that presentation though. Who created it? Where did the original footage come from? What are we really seeing in that footage? Etc, etc. etc.

Agreed. I would think it must be faked because it seems even less likely that some debris that looks like a nose cone just happened to exit at about the right time. I agree the fake plane thing is most tiresome but it bothers me this bit of footage!

 

[trainedobserver]

Also, I don't see how the guy in the accident gif got away without a serious head or neck injury. Always wear your seat-belt and should you awaken at the wheel it is probably a good practice to switch from the one handed casual driving style to the two handed white-knuckled grip of death driving style. If you have the time of course. It looks like he had all of four seconds before the car rolled and bounced his head off the side window.

 

[Roro]

The only thing I can add to the nosecone discussion is to say that the nosecones are not made of aluminum. They are some sort of fiberglass. The nosecone covers the radar so it's made of material that won't interfere with radar. I'm thinking it is extremely unlikely that the nosecone would survive the trip through a building. Not that aluminum would either. The strongest parts of an airplane are the front and rear wing spars, the center wing box and the keel beam. These components carry the weight of the plane, in the air or on the ground, contain the fuel, support the engines and take the thrust, the main landing gear attach to these parts. The only thing near the nose with any weight is the nose gear.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@RORO - thanks - you must work with aircraft then? anyway, all mentions of nosecones and anything relating to 9/11 'silliness' is hereby stopped.
now, building 7 again!
gordon

 

[trainedobserver]

...now, building 7 again!
gordon

What do you think of the whole Barry Jennings mystery? His mysterious death only adds to it.

 

[Roro]

@RORO - thanks - you must work with aircraft then? anyway, all mentions of nosecones and anything relating to 9/11 'silliness' is hereby stopped.
now, building 7 again!
gordon

I do work with commercial aircraft. My employer is very concerned about employees representing them without authorization, so I will not name them and just say that my comments are based on my knowledge of the aircraft and I do not represent anyone but myself.

 

[trainedobserver]

I do work with commercial aircraft. My employer is very concerned about employees representing them without authorization, so I will not name them and just say that my comments are based on my knowledge of the aircraft and I do not represent anyone but myself.

... and you wear a mask. Good thinking.