9/11 #33 waar nieuwe filmpjes uitkomen

quote:

Op woensdag 20 oktober 2010 17:49 schreef mouzzer het volgende:

[..]

Dat is niet het enige wat je moet doen, je moet namelijk ook zelf blijven nadenken. September Clues zit namelijk vol met speculaties, misleidingen en fouten:
This article is a point-by-point analysis of each of the eight episodes in the “September Clues” series. This article will demonstrate that none of the alleged proofs presented in the series has been proven conclusively to be an artefact of ‘TV Fakery’, and that every alleged proof has a more rational and likely explanation.
http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

En dat is maar een van de vele debunks. Vraag je eens af waarom zou je zoveel speculatie, misleiding en fouten nodig hebben om de spijker op de kop te slaan? je bent toch op zoek naar de waarheid?

quote:

• When the plane is not visible in the wider-shot, this could be due to it being obscured by
clouds and/or smog, or simply because the plane is not in-frame yet.
• Safeguards – to ponder whether they had safeguards is begging the question, as it assumes as
a premise that some act of fakery was taking place. This has not been proven.
• To declare that the “Safeguard was 17 seconds” is again begging the question. It has not been
established that there were computer operators, a safeguard, or that it is the reason for the 17
second gap between the seismic records and the official version events.

quote:

Op woensdag 20 oktober 2010 22:12 schreef DarthHouse het volgende:

[..]

@JokkeBrok......reactie?

quote:

SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

LIKE A MISSILE
14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17. ”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19. “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 fireball. 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.” - Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic.

http://www.septemberclues(...)09-11%20Accounts.pdf

quote:

Op woensdag 20 oktober 2010 22:42 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Zie, als je dus eventjes wat rond klikt over 911 kom je de meest bizarre dingen tegen. Eigenlijk is alles wat het officiele verhaal verkondigd tot op de letter bullshit.

quote:

Op woensdag 20 oktober 2010 20:10 schreef Elusive het volgende:
ff snel dan...
als we de befaamde beelden er bij pakken heh, en een stukje doorspoelen en er een mooie animatie van maken... dan kom je uit op dit

[ afbeelding ]
dan zie je dat het ""object"" van vorm veranderd.. dit sluit imo dus uit dat het een zogenaamde "CGI vliegtuig" is... want ...waarom zou die van... vorm veranderen?

quote:

[ afbeelding ]
anyway, die "nose-out" is op zo'n beetje elk videotje vanuit die hoek waargenomen + bovenstaand plaatje bewijst imo dat er toch ECHT iets uit het gebouw was gevlogen... zouden ze daadwerkelijk een vliegtuig hebben gesoept in de vele video's/foto's.. of is het wat anders? een stuk puin ? of...

[ afbeelding ]
[ link | afbeelding ]
Volgens de NIST heeft de rechter engine het volgende traject afgelegd en is die engine 4 "blocks" verder geland. Rond murray/church street... Verassend genoeg is daar ook bewijs van, namelijk deze video (+vele foto's)

767 Engine as seen on 9/11

[ afbeelding

quote:

en ach, als we dan toch gaan foto neuken
hier heb je vlucht 175, voor 911 (jaja, het was een bestaand vliegtuig!)
[ afbeelding ]
Valt het je ook niet op dat de kleuren overeen komen met het plaatje hier beneden ? is het mogelijk dat het witte in de foto een deel van "United" is en het blauwachtige is misschien wel de onderkant, of is het een reflectie en een schaduw? wie weet.

quote:

ALLEGED FLIGHTS

The 4 purported hijacked flights have grave problems as far as their authenticity is concerned: A long list of documentation (or plain lack of it) reveals inconsistent NTSB, BTS and FAA data. The 2 American Airlines flights lacked records of required airport log data such as taxi-off and wheels-off times. The 2 United Airlines flights were not deregistered until October 2005, as of official FAA records. Both should have been listed, by law, as 'destroyed'. Shortly thereafter, the FAA rectified this 'oversight' in a peculiar manner : in place of 'destroyed', the wording used was 'cancelled'. This evidence has not been challenged, to this day, by any of those air-regulating agencies nor by the airlines themselves.


ALLEGED PASSENGERS

Since no evidence has been forthcoming of the very existence of the 4 ‘hijacked’ airplanes, the question of the passengers allegedly on board of them should be moot. However, multiple and repeated people-searches have attempted to backtrack and contact the alleged families of those passengers - to no avail. Thus, the prevailing indications of those longstanding investigations suggest that none of these people have ever existed. Moreover, the stories created around the alleged passengers simply do not stand up to scrutiny. As for the cell phone calls that they allegedly placed to their loved ones, they have by now been established as a technical impossibility.

quote:

Wat een feit is is dat de complete neus sowieso niet door het gat past, wat wel weer kan is dat de voorkant als het ware geshred er uit is gekomen... wat we weten is dat een deel van de romp gevonden is op het dak van WTC5
[ afbeelding ]
Ook staat er nog een deel op video, wat geland was op West Broadway, volgens de filmert is een voorbij ganger er doorgeraakt en overleden.