FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

No Plane Theory
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:55 am    Post subject: No Plane Theory Reply with quote

How come all the no planers have not looked at this picture


Clearly shows plane damege dosent it

Yes i know what the NPT guys will immediately say.
"how can a lady be standing there in 300degree heat?"
i dont know
but there clearly is a hole

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


all the No planers suggest there were no impact holes
but surely these photos show plane impact holes?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



one would suggest NPT has been DEBUNKED

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote




This photograph of debris on the roof of WTC 4 shows a fragment of the hull of the jetliner that crashed into the South Tower (Flight 175).

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:39 pm    Post subject: We have holes Reply with quote

Stelios69 - here's a link to an article by Morgan Reynolds which deals with the question of the gashes in the twin towers.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

You seem to believe the 'official' story about the plane fragment on the roof - I can't imagine why. Various parts were planted at various sites to prop up the planes story. I think you ought to check out Jack White's photostudies to see a delightful array of planted bits and bobs in various photo-opportunities, which might perhaps make you take NIST's 'evidence' with a pinch of salt...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK he questions the gashes.
But most of the no planers have for weeks been sticking up pictures with no gashes.
Personally i am open to persuasion, but you know the saying if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

I accept that the CNN video is fake.
I accept that no highjackers were involved.
I accept that pentagon and sharpsville there were no planes,
But the towers,
Too many people watching on live tv cannot be lied to anymore like they did with the moon landings. Too many different sources. Too many people at ground level watching the sky.

And remember it was cheaper and easier to use a real plane than all the nonsense about holograms and missiles and beam weapons

You say that that picture is disinformation?
ok, it proves that Jet fuel fire did not melt steel, it proves that the fires had virtually burnt out, it proves that it was not even so hot that a lady was standing there not even choking to death just hoping to be rescued.

The only thing these photos prove is that the official story is a pack of lies.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Banish
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How come all the plane-huggers have NOT looked at this photograph?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banish wrote:
How come all the plane-huggers have NOT looked at this photograph?



how does this prove no planes at the towers????

ive seen that photo tons of times plus others, and i never claimed there was certainly a plane at shanksville as im sure is the case with many other people who believe that planes hit the towers.

if we are suddenly talking about shanksville then yes i believe there was either no plane or it was shot down and debris scattered, im not sure which.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a good question, and check out this new discovery! Thanks to Peggy Carter for noticing that the hole got bigger, and Aman Zafar for taking the pictures.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/297494E2BE8F4B998498AC81 071192A7/what-made-the-plane-shaped-hol.aspx

This suggests that the hole didn't form instantly. It took them a little while to make it. That may explain some of the justification for the TV Fakery as well.

I still don't know exactly how they made the holes, but I suspect they used the Airborne Laser.

Fred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

watch this video
the holes were made by an explosion just prior to the plane inpact
to allow the plane to disappear into the building
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/link.do/4/1409/2013/15231/25270

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
It's a good question, and check out this new discovery! Thanks to Peggy Carter for noticing that the hole got bigger, and Aman Zafar for taking the pictures.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistration/297494E2BE8F4B998498AC81 071192A7/what-made-the-plane-shaped-hol.aspx

This suggests that the hole didn't form instantly. It took them a little while to make it. That may explain some of the justification for the TV Fakery as well.

I still don't know exactly how they made the holes, but I suspect they used the Airborne Laser.

Fred


why the strange sounds on the video? and what was strange about it?
ive seen plently of hi res pictures showing the hole, why would the hole not be there all of a sudden and why do new things keep coming up claiming every little tiny part of 9/11 is strange? is somebody playing games or is the evidence being reinvented to fit some bizarre theory?

is this psy-ops?????

somethings i think are possible, that video however if 100% false and suggestive and also low res.

lets compare the photos "shows hole in the building" then "shows smoke coming out of the hole in the building" both are either low res or have been tampered with to make it hard to tell.

what the * is going off! am i suppose to believe that??? do you think im that gullible???

tune in next month for the video claiming there was no new york Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

seriously whoever is claiming there are no plane holes from that video is certainly playing games, it is so obvious the hole is there and one has smoke and one dosnt.

if you want proof of what im saying just keep watching it and take note of the outline of the hole when the smoke is covering it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:

why do new things keep coming up claiming every little tiny part of 9/11 is strange? is somebody playing games or is the evidence being reinvented to fit some bizarre theory?

is this psy-ops?????





Yes, very probably imo.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stelios69 wrote:
OK he questions the gashes.
But most of the no planers have for weeks been sticking up pictures with no gashes.
Personally i am open to persuasion, but you know the saying if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

I accept that the CNN video is fake.
I accept that no highjackers were involved.
I accept that pentagon and sharpsville there were no planes,
But the towers,
Too many people watching on live tv cannot be lied to anymore like they did with the moon landings. Too many different sources. Too many people at ground level watching the sky.


...and this is where I have dificulty also... I'm a CNN Video fakery believer BUT I ALSO believe the planes hit the towers...

The amount of work that would be needed to fake the CNN Video ostensibly would have required foreknowledge and SHOOTING OF FILM FOOTAGE prior to 9/11


So how did they know what floors the planes were going to strike?

What was housed on each of the floors where the planes struck?


Quote:

And remember it was cheaper and easier to use a real plane than all the nonsense about holograms and missiles and beam weapons

You say that that picture is disinformation?
ok, it proves that Jet fuel fire did not melt steel, it proves that the fires had virtually burnt out, it proves that it was not even so hot that a lady was standing there not even choking to death just hoping to be rescued.

The only thing these photos prove is that the official story is a pack of lies.


very true... there was not the heat(thermal energy) claimed with that woman standing there...

..also...the WTC steel columns were the biggest "heat sink" in the world
which would have wicked away more thermal energy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:49 pm    Post subject: Re: No Plane. Not Theory Reply with quote

stelios69 wrote:
How come all the no planers have not looked at this picture


Clearly shows plane damege dosent it

Yes i know what the NPT guys will immediately say.
"how can a lady be standing there in 300degree heat?"
i dont know
but there clearly is a hole


If this hole were accomplished by "plane damage" then Edna Cintron would be standing at the very hottest part where all the fuel drained from the wing tanks.
Instead she he is alive, and standing there waving to us.
http://webfairy.org/edna
http://webfairy.org/hole

Instead, the alleged "point of impact" is the coolest and safest place.
You can see that fires are raging a few floors above and below Edna's perch.

This shows they used weaponry that sucks up all avalible oxygen, making it impossible for sparks to start fires at the alleged "impact point".

For the North Tower plane shape hole to have been created by a plane, there would have had to have been a plane there.
Nada.
http://missilegate.com
instead, the explosions develop separately from one another with no plane in sight.

The law of perspective
http://missilegate.com/perspective.htm
shows that objects look larger when they are closer.

All are in agreement that the plane shape hole is the size of a 767.
So, there would have been a plane LARGER THAN the plane shape hole visable in every frame prior to the "impact.", since all that time it would be closer to the camera, and therefore appear larger, if it had been there at all.
http://missilegate.com/blob11
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Re: No Plane. Not Theory Reply with quote

webfairy wrote:
stelios69 wrote:
How come all the no planers have not looked at this picture


Clearly shows plane damege dosent it

Yes i know what the NPT guys will immediately say.
"how can a lady be standing there in 300degree heat?"
i dont know
but there clearly is a hole


If this hole were accomplished by "plane damage" then Edna Cintron would be standing at the very hottest part where all the fuel drained from the wing tanks.
Instead she he is alive, and standing there waving to us.
http://webfairy.org/edna
http://webfairy.org/hole


Two problems.

- You seem to have a flawed idea of how things burn. Fire needs fuel, if none is present it moves on or goes out. I don't think it's odd to assume that very little flammable office equipment would exist around the hole after the impact.

- The idea that the any quantity of fuel would be at the impact side, having been traveling at over 500MPH through the building is just zany.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Every bit of the story IS Strange Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:

why do new things keep coming up claiming every little tiny part of 9/11 is strange? is somebody playing games or is the evidence being reinvented to fit some bizarre theory?

is this psy-ops?????



The "psyops" comes from Los Alamos 911"Truth", as a coverup of the various Los Alamos technologies used on 911 by the consortium of defense contractors who held wargames and terrordrills on 911 as cover for their plot to drum up business with eternal war against a fictional enemy.

WE keep finding more and more, and it always turns out to be strange.
There's a backlog of findings not published at all yet, showing that many of the alleged "plane" victims are not in the Social SEcurity Death index, and ARE still in phone books, living openly despite their heroized/dead status. These consistantly have Defense Contractor connections.

Others appear to be pure fictionalizations.

Flights 11 and 77 were missing from the BTS database on 911.
This means those flights were cancelled at least a week in advance.
http://iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.htm
After the Gov caught onto this, the database vanished, and then appeared with the planes inserted, but not taking off.
Once we made this point, the records were changed again, but this time the "planes" take off from helipads.

The "Planes and Hijackers" is a fictional account sold as a shock and awe "Reality TV" show, not that much different than War of the Worlds.
It was never expected to have to withstand the scrutiny we have given it over the last 5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Re: No Plane. Not Theory Reply with quote

webfairy wrote:

This shows they used weaponry that sucks up all avalible oxygen, making it impossible for sparks to start fires at the alleged "impact point".


Or... perhaps it shows that there is nothing to BURN? I dunno, just crazy old me with my looped out ideas.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Re: No Plane. Not Theory Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
webfairy wrote:
stelios69 wrote:
How come all the no planers have not looked at this picture


Clearly shows plane damege dosent it

Yes i know what the NPT guys will immediately say.
"how can a lady be standing there in 300degree heat?"
i dont know
but there clearly is a hole


If this hole were accomplished by "plane damage" then Edna Cintron would be standing at the very hottest part where all the fuel drained from the wing tanks.
Instead she he is alive, and standing there waving to us.
http://webfairy.org/edna
http://webfairy.org/hole


Two problems.

- You seem to have a flawed idea of how things burn. Fire needs fuel, if none is present it moves on or goes out. I don't think it's odd to assume that very little flammable office equipment would exist around the hole after the impact.

- The idea that the any quantity of fuel would be at the impact side, having been traveling at over 500MPH through the building is just zany.


If there had been a plane, already shown as impossible, since the hole shows up in the absense of any previous object large enough to create it, it would have been stopped by the steel beams like a bug against a screen.
Nada.
Speed does not make something able to pass ghostlike through soild matter. This is just mind control poison you have been exposed to.

Physical solid objects are subject to the physical laws of the universe.
Los Alamos 911"Truth" makes up new ones as it goes along, knowing that people's critical thinking skills have been atrophied.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

webfairy, the video i watched did not just give me all that information you just said. i can see what the problem is here.

who ever makes these videos needs a differant approach, untill then there will always be confusion and hard for people to see what the hell your trying to say.

whats wrong with a human voice over it telling us whats happening or what we are meant to be seeing???? i find the music/noises a very strange
approach when trying to explain something.

either these videos are fake, made to purposly confuse or the problem here is the messengers approach to explaining what you expect people to beable to tell/see and what is being claimed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
who ever makes these videos needs a differant approach, untill then there will always be confusion


To me, these videos are exactly what I would expect from a corporation or something trying to IMITATE the trendy cult themes of Loose Change.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:26 pm    Post subject: White: Tavistock New Age Mystery Babylon Spook Patrol Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
who ever makes these videos needs a differant approach, untill then there will always be confusion


To me, these videos are exactly what I would expect from a corporation or something trying to IMITATE the trendy cult themes of Loose Change.


The No Planers predate the Loose Change Hangout by at least three years.
To a large extent, the Loose Change Hangout exists to puff up the important fictions of the Frameup Against Humanity and keep the plane fictions alive.

There will always be confusions as long as researching is called "manufacturing evidence" by the Orwellians who have set themselves up in charge here.

http://missilegate.com
http://webfairy.org
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit
are my works.
It is my Whatzit site's 5 year anniversary now.
I was the first person to notice there was no plane in the first hit footage that allegedly shows a plane.
We didn't know about the TV Fakery stuff. There was no we, just me standing alone with a fact nobody wanted.

So I am at least experienced enough to make a stand in the midst of this Tavistock Mind Control OP and the New Age Mystery Babylon Spook Patrol and make my case.

A circle jerk of liars deluding each other cannot stand, no matter how many stripes by their name.
Pretty soon regular folks start laughing and pointing at the amazing stupidities required to maintain the farce.

And then we will be free of the Orwellians, their Bluster and their Lies. Their power to confuse will be broken.

Thanks for the helpful criticism of "fred"'s style.
He is new to this and just learning the powers available in video.
Fortunately he has a very nice voice for narration, and I hope he takes the advice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Fictionalized Photoshopping Reply with quote

stelios69 wrote:



This photograph of debris on the roof of WTC 4 shows a fragment of the hull of the jetliner that crashed into the South Tower (Flight 175).



Here is what is left of Building 4. Find this alleged plane part.
Notice the alleged debris doesn't have any dust on it?
The alleged mystery debris was photographed somewhere else and melded into a fake picture.



Judy Wood says the mystery debris picture is supposed to be on the roof of Building 5, so here's a picture of what's left of building 5 so you can look for the fake debris there too.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:23 am    Post subject: Moonhoax created seed money for Los Alamos 911"Truth&qu Reply with quote

stelios69 wrote:

Too many people watching on live tv cannot be lied to anymore like they did with the moon landings. Too many different sources. Too many people at ground level watching the sky.
.


The moonhoax was the original funding source for the Los Alamos version of the Nazi Plan to Bomb New York.
During WW2, Von Braun was in charge of the original
Nazi Plan to Bomb New York

The moonhoax is proof they can "get away with it".

The Paperclippers pulled off the Moonhoax, with Von Braun who was NOT a rocket scientist but the ex commandant of the Dora concentration camp where at least 14,000 people were worked and starved and frozen to death building the tunnel complex for the Nazi Plan to Bomb New York
http://www.ihffilm.com/r784.html

It was cheap to build a moonhoax with left over sets from 2001 a Space Odessy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3288261061829859642

Moon Buggie with Earth Gravity
http://thewebfairy.com/moon_files/moonbuggie.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:38 am    Post subject: ROSEMARY'S BABY- ST MARKS 911 COINTELPRO Reply with quote


Link
Zeph Daniel and Geo Karras discuss the Dulles-Luce PSYOPs and their current manifestations in globalist cults, NYPD INTEL infiltration of Church groups, FATHER SATANICA, and St. Marks 911 URANTIA Truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="david carmichael"][I accept that the CNN video is fake.
...and this is where I have dificulty also... I'm a CNN Video fakery believer BUT I ALSO believe the planes hit the towers...

The amount of work that would be needed to fake the CNN Video ostensibly would have required foreknowledge and SHOOTING OF FILM FOOTAGE prior to 9/11


So how did they know what floors the planes were going to strike?

What was housed on each of the floors where the planes struck?
Quote:

And remember it was cheaper and easier to use a real plane than all the nonsense about holograms and missiles and beam weapons

.


Actually, i need to correct myself.
The CNN video clip shown in the 911 Octopus video is fake.
But the CNN video clip shown in 911 In Plane Site is not fake
they are different. Look at the explosion flash in one and not in the other proir to the plane hitting the building
which means the octopus one has been doctored.

It looks like people are faking stuff to justify certain positions. But original archive news footage is the only proof needed. But fitting up evidence the truth movement weakens its case. There were planes and there were bombs.

The reason the lady can stand there is the fuel has burnt out. a hydrocarbon fire cannot melt steel and was virtually out.

By the way nobody has confirmed whether the WTC had a sprinkler system like most office blocks have. This would have surpressed the fires.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

david carmichael wrote:
[I accept that the CNN video is fake.
...and this is where I have dificulty also... I'm a CNN Video fakery believer BUT I ALSO believe the planes hit the towers...

The amount of work that would be needed to fake the CNN Video ostensibly would have required foreknowledge and SHOOTING OF FILM FOOTAGE prior to 9/11
So how did they know what floors the planes were going to strike?

What was housed on each of the floors where the planes struck?
And remember it was cheaper and easier to use a real plane than all the nonsense about holograms and missiles and beam weapons



Actually, i need to correct myself.
The CNN video clip shown in the 911 Octopus video is fake.
But the CNN video clip shown in 911 In Plane Site is not fake
they are different. Look at the explosion flash in one and not in the other prior to the plane hitting the building
which means the octopus one has been doctored.

It looks like people are faking stuff to justify certain positions. But original archive news footage is the only proof needed. By fitting up evidence the person ensures the truth movement weakens its case.

All the real evidence says there were planes and there were bombs.

The reason the lady can stand there in the hole is the fuel has burnt out. a hydrocarbon fire cannot melt steel and was virtually out. And obviously it was cool enough for her to stand. Nobody says that she was not there. Hydrocartbon fires burnt out quickly and cool down quickly too.

By the way nobody has confirmed whether the WTC had a sprinkler system like most office blocks have. This would have surpressed the fires.[/quote]

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
webfairy
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:05 pm    Post subject: Three different versions of CNN Ghostplane footage Reply with quote

Three different versions, each with different audio track.
All three show things possible only in cartoons.
http://webfairy.org/ghostplane/vanishment

Some show the Flash Frame, some don't.
The flash frame appears in only one field of one frame.
When the footage is deinterlaced, the flash has a 50 percent chance of being in the eliminated field.
This version has much better color but is missing the flash frame:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/ghostplane.htm
This is more proof we are dealing with an animated cartoon regenerated differently several times.
Not even the audio track is consistant.
My favorite version of Ghostplane audio
http://webfairy.org/ghostplane/ghostplaneaudio.mp3
doesn't even mention the big ole plane.
They are talking about explosions and people running down the street.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witchfinder General
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Webfairy

Please visit this site more often we need you.

Ignore the comments of the likes of CHEK, FALLIOUS, THERMATE, STEFAN AND JOHN WHITE.

From their comments you can tell they are not interested in what really hapened on 9/11, they are more interested in suppressing the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karlos
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that webfairy
but you get my point, there are different versions of the exact same footage which have been doctored or at the very least appear different.
Some have the flash and some dont.
So some evidence MUST have been tainted by someone.
And the question is why.
The guy who made 911 octopus is one such person in my opinion.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group