so where's the plane...flyover?
»
- kate of the kiosk's blog
- Login to post comments
|
|
|
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 47 guests online.
User loginNavigationFeatured Content WTCD Wiki WTCD Compendium WTCD Podcasts Glossary 9/11 TV News Archive 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud David Chandler's YouTube Channel Council for the National Interest Popular Mechanics: Money Masters Orwell Rolls in His Grave Reel Bad Arabs Recent blog posts
WTCD User Comments
|
so where's the plane...flyover?»
|
PollCan Maduro get a fair trial from Alvin Hellerstein? Of course, Judge Hellerstein is a jurist with integrity. 0% No, Judge Hellerstein works on behalf of the Zionist deep state. 0% Whether he does or not is irrelevant, Maduro is part of the op. 0% He will be bribed into pleading guilty to something minor. 100% Other (specify in comments.) 0% Total votes: 1
Disqus Comments |
The fact that no one saw a plane "fly-over"...
... means that there obviously WAS a "flyover" involved.
whereas...
The fact that "no one saw a Global Hawk" means that there obviously WAS NOT a Global Hawk or drone involved...
it's simple logic. See?
I know the logic seems a little difficult and convoluted AT FIRST... but if you let it sit for a while..., ah hell, who am I kidding.. it's still convoluted.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
ha
right.
btw this post was excellent from you, Willy Lo. it had not occurred to me before about 7 and 93, awesome! felt it needed to be posted again. sadly.
"....The ONLY mistake they made, was Flight 93. Someone "off message" shot it down, and then they had to figure out what to do with the pre-rigged Building 7. So, they chatted about it, and as Lucky Larry actually admitted, they decided to "pull it" anyway... and that is what they did.
Flight 93 had turned toward lower Manhattan. The timing was such that it would have reached Ground Zero about 10 minutes or so after the 2nd tower fell.
It would have used the clear path after the towers were gone to crash right into the base of building 7, and THAT would have been their big show finale.
So yes, it was very well thought out, actually. They covered their bases with the misdirection drills, and the put a FEMA team about a 1/4 mile away to facilitate the sealing off of the grounds, they ran the demolition in such a way that it fell where they wanted it, and looked like it could have been caused by the crashes...
They actually planned it very, very well...
And this theory suggests that all those people stuck in traffic on 395 at 9:30 in the morning going into DC, listening to their radios to the news, ... wouldn't turn their heads after a massive explosion at the Pentagon and look out their windows to see ANOTHER PASSENGER JET flying at treetop level over the building and then over the actual highway itself?
Is that the plan you would come up with? Or would you use a guided missile or a drone painted to look like a passenger jet to slam into the building, then collect all the video tapes and physical evidence from the scene?
Which plan would you chose?"
Kate; did you ever read my "Shock Opera" article?
I think you would like it.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/911-shock-opera-act-4-%E2%80%...
9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Where's your proof the video is legit?
Where's your proof that a flyover plane low over south parking lot should be able to be seen in that shot?
Where's your proof that video has not been edited/manipulated? Because I have 3 areas of precedence regarding the manipulation of Pentagon attack related video/cameras.
1st of all, you really can't see anything definitive in that video and there are trees in the way. Some people do point out a fast moving object that keeps on going AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS and AFTER the fireball. This is later blamed on being a truck (which could be edited together), the jury is still out on this one IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSkvV_r6DE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSkvV_r6DE
Second, do you really think they would show an unedited video of flyover/away??? We already have proof they removed 2 frames from each of the gate cam videos(2 frames that contain the flyover jet) and the object in the videos DOES NOT cast a shadow.
We've already noted this on our site:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html
No shadow is cast on the ground:
As I said...two frames appear to be missing:
Proof The CITGO Security Video Was Manipulated:
http://thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm
Sheraton Camera removal:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225549/pg1
None of this changes the fact that multiple eyewitnesses adamantly place the plane on the north side of the gas station, which again means it could not have hit the light poles or the building.
Kate,
How come you don't explain to all of us why we don't see a global hawk and a large jet in the dubious gate cam surveillance video?
Kate, can you show us what expertise you have with munitions? Can you show us examples of a missile or explosive laden drone causing a cookie cutter plane shaped hole, a swath of columns taken out and kinked, causing a circular exit hole? What proof do any of you have? Because Eric Hufschmid and Dylan Avery told you a missile did it? Where are their studies comparing a missile/explosives drone detonation to a plane crash?
THERE WAS NO GLOBAL HAWK. THERE WAS NO MISSILE.
STOP THE MADNESS.
any evidence released by the government in support...
...of their claims is irrelevant, as it could have so easily been manipulated. so all we really have is the fact that something exploded at the Pentagon and witnesses have wildly varying claims about the cause. that's it. we have no evidence it was AA77. No evidence it was anything but an explosion of indeterminate cause. Until incontrovertible proof is made public that AA77 is what cuased the explosion, we have grounds to question the official story and demand a real investigation. And grounds to encourage everyone we know to take the same position. THAT is the important thing here.
So let me see if I got this straight...
1. they faked the video Kate put up, and put a truck in the video to cover up the massive plane flying over the top of the Pentagon.
2. they faked the Pentagon stills and video, taking OUT the massive 757 flying over head, and they put IN an image of something too small to have been a 757. And they only included 2 frames of it... for what reason now? I mean, if they are going to doctor video footage, why didn't they put a clear image of Flight 77 in there?
3. Multiple eyewitnesses (some where ALLOWED by the Pentagon) did tell you that a plane was north of the CITGO... however... multiple eyewitnesses DID report that the planes' wing dragged on the grass in the lawn as well, AND ONE even reported that the plane "tumbled end over end" into the Pentagon.
4. I need you to confirm this one for me, because I still don't quite understand it...
"Can you show us examples of a missile or explosive laden drone causing a cookie cutter plane shaped hole..."
Are you trying to tell us that there is a "cookie cutter plane shaped hole" in the side of the Pentagon? Because I don't SEE that one....
5. "... why we don't see a global hawk and a large jet in the dubious gate cam surveillance video?"
Didn't you just say the video had "missing frames"?
6. What has this question you asked Kate, got to do with anything?
"Kate, can you show us what expertise you have with munitions?"
I am going to ask you again; what has that got to do with anything?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
i'll repeat
the most important thing, perhaps the only thing that matters at this point is that AA77 most likely did NOT hit the Pentagon. the rest will follow, no need to fight.
repeat: AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.
-- --- ------- --- - --- ----- - --- ---?
----- - --- -- - - - -----, ---- -- -- -- - - - --... --- - -- -- ---- - - -- -- .
NO, Mime 11
American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT HIT THE PENTAGON. AA77 may have been a radar blip, it may have been a scheduled flight, it may have been in the air on 9/11. But it did NOT HIT THE PENTAGON. I have seen no evidence that it contained all, some, or any of the alleged people allegedly listed on the flight manifest (if it exists). I have seen much evidence that would lead me to believe that the flights were total fiction. Are there people who are really so evil as to play along with such a charade for money? If a plane crashes in the forest and no one is around to record it, does it make a sound?
You ever notice it's always the second guy to throw a punch...
... that gets the foul called on him?
Are my questions not reasonable? Was Aldo's (I thought you told us to use our login names?) backhanded insult toward Kate about her "munitions experience" not worthy of the same warning you just gave me? I mean, that was just a little dismissive of him, don't ya think? Am I the one using capslock to "scream" about no Global Hawks?
I'm just asking him questions. And I think they are valid ones. And I am the one "fighting"? These are just questions, and they are valid questions. You yourself started the other thread off by reminding Aldo that the readers here were not the sheeple type to just accept anything and everything without critical thought and discussion.
I'm just living up to the billing.
I mean, honestly, wouldn't you like to know what Aldo there meant about the "cookie cutter plane shaped hole"? Is he talking about the Pentagon? That's what we are talking about here... did YOU see a "cookie cutter plane shaped hole" at the Pentagon? Because I didn't
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
neither I nor Mime 11 saw a
cookie cutter plane hole. his words: -- - - ------ - ---.
and I was addressing everyone whereas you think i was calling a foul on you. we disagree on stuff all the time on this site. but we don't heap abuse on one another. and that too was meant for everyone, not just you. don't be paranoid.
There you have it... if Mime didn't say he saw it...
... that's it. Good enough for me.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
thanks, Willy
"I mean, if they are going to doctor video footage, why didn't they put a clear image of Flight 77 in there?"
i humbly apologize for offending The CIT. All I did was put up a video for all to examine. I never attacked them. Unfortunately, at this point, I have no desire to even visit their site or research.
Did you have a chance to check out "Shock Opera"?
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/911-shock-opera-act-4-%E2%80%...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
i have it bookmarked for later...
work break. thanks WillyLo
read first one third and last one third
very intriguing, will complete later, but a couple questions stand out regarding 93.
"This plane would appear to have been tailing Flight 93 and probably flying it by remote."
If so, why wouldn't the flights that hit the towers have also needed little white planes tailing and flying them remotely?? I mean, I do believe those planes were also FTS controlled.
The other question would be, if all along it was planned for 93 to head back to building 7, and it was not in the plan for it to be shot down, how do we explain the hole in the ground in Shanksville which just looks like an explosion. and the preplanted evidence of a bandana and passport? Perhaps that little white plane had something to do with this?
later, WillyLo
Kate...
as best as I can figure it, there were E-4bs in the air over New York and DC at the time of the strikes. Videos and still photos show a "white plane" in the air over both, I believe (I could be wrong about that).
At the time, the drones were capable of long distance flight from a central location on the ground. I don't know about the remote technology for the planes though. It may have been that someone wanted to be close in case something unforseen happened. Like say, the plane getting shot down by a pilot who wasn't in on the scheme. I don't know.
But as far as I know, there were "Doomsday Planes" flying over both New York and DC at that time...
As far as the hole in Shanksville is concerned, I think that was caused by the remains of Flight 93 (or a military craft made to LOOK like 93) hitting the ground.
I think there was so little evidence there because, as two early news reports showed, the debris field was spread out over a 6 mile area... they showed images of that fact til someone made them stop. for some reason...
They even showed a big hole in the ground near a garage of some sort that looks like a 5 ton engine might have made it after falling from 20,000 feet or so.
As far as the lack of bodies are concerned, well, I think that might be better addressed by the idea that Gretavo psoited about ALL the flights that day being fabricated. Perhaps the plane was empty in the first place. I don't know.
I think they could have planted the staged "terrorist" passports regardless of what that plane was or wasn't; shot down or "saved" by the "Let's Roll!" PR Spin machine....
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Willy, were
human remains found in the debris field spreading out over 8 miles? i thought i had a read a report of that in some research. that pulled video of debris field may be posted here somewhere, losing track.
so, does anyone think anything happened a la Loose Change 2nd Ed. in Cleveland, folks being escorted off to some hangars, perhaps even forced to make phone calls which were scripted.
I think I remember hearing the same thing...
... in those early reports that seem to have vanished. But yes, I think there were human remains scattered all over.
And I think even the "official" report mentions "bouncing" material that "bounced" "over a mile" from the crash site.
"bounced"? Didn't look to me like that engine "bounced" in that hole in the early report. Looks to me like it "sank" in someone's driveway...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Willy, the shock opera is
really excellent. I particularly like this little summary: "....but this was their one shot – the conspirators one chance to justify multiple illegal wars, a new doctrine of “pre-emptive aggression”, the establishment of the “unitary executive” model, the passing of the Patriot Act, the creation of the Trans Afghan Pipeline, wholesale privatization of public assets and wealth, military contracts, and just basically complete and total world domination based really on the successful completion of one act of treasonous terrorism that would galvanize the American people long enough that they would allow all of these things to take place in their name without so much as a whimper – with all that on the line, risk management became of the highest priority."
I do wonder if the little white plane hovering for a coule minutes and flying erratically over the crash site was perhaps sprucing up the crash site hole. just a thought.
And yes, the TAPI - Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline..with oil and gas reserves rights owned by Maiman.
why they didn't put in a clear image of AA77
because as long as a fake is ambiguous, it serves its purpose. a fake that can be proven to be a fake (because it tries too hard, for instance) is fatal to the coverup. not at all a problem, imho.
Exactly.
It's one thing to put Golum in a LOTR movie, but a different thing altogether to try and insert an image on some grainy security cam video... especially after about a 100 or so others have already seen it. Forensic imaging specialist could tell it was doctored for one thing. And like Gretavo here says, that would immediately point to a cover-up.
Where that is true with this video, it is also true with the one posted showing the Pentagon being hit and no plane flying overhead. Taking out frames is one thing... inserting fake images is another altogether. It's a risk they wouldn't take, IMHO.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
i hate the music
in that video
And then the end all be all comment from Alten...
"Oh well Iraq was NEVER as BIG A THREAT as Iran is. They didn't have the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT IRAN DOES...I mean WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?"
Steve Alten, a "911 Truth Advocate" is ACTUALLY TRYING TO SPIN UP WMDs stories TO JUSTIFY ATTACKING IRAN...
now if THAT doesn't tell the people something about Alten, I don't know what does.
That is the most disgusting, dishonest, bullshit I have ever heard (aside from the other disgusting crap he tried to say in this interview).
Alten actually repackaging Cheneyeque/neoconservative lies from the spin-up to war with Iraq, to attempt to justify YET ANOTHER war against YET ANOTHER regime Israel hates.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Wait! This one is even better...
"I don't turn on the news and see anti-Islamic views.... well, I have never seen "Well, we need to blame the Muslims for 9/11"... "we need to blame..." this, this. Nobody..." Steve Alten...
just... wow.... What world has he been living in for the past 8 years? He about to say "nobody has done that"... but he couldn't. Because he KNEW IT WASN'T TRUE... so he stopped mid sentence. He's so full of shit, he can't even buy his OWN line of crap.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
hey, is this comment suppose
hey, is this comment suppose to be in the Kevin Barret - Steve Alten thread?
opps
guess I am typing too fast.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Revised demolition theory hypothesis
OT/ sorry
I would like you guys to have a look at a preliminary Demolition Theory Hypothesis I am working on. Still det cord based, but I read some more of the NCSTAR1 report and found some very interesting things. Please take a look and see what you think. Detailed diagrams drawn by me... thanks.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/sneak-peak-revised-demolition...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I like this comment you made
I like this comment you made there which I think bolsters the argument that conventional demo was used (perhaps not exclusively) at wtc.
"First of all, thermite would only “cut” something lying under it. And that is, if there was a lot of it there. What happened to those floors happened at a rate of about 10 floors per second. One tenth of a second, the entire floor system was gone."
Having watched videos of conventional thermite melting through metal, it does not seem to be as precisely controllable - time wise - compared to high explosives. Videos of WTC7 collapsing shows a very precise and well timed control of the collapse sequence.
Thanks too for posting a link to DR Griffin's take on WTC 7.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201
DRG is the most credible representative of our movement...
I mean, I hate to put it that way, but it's true.
I am thinking that Jones gave us a little peak into what they are doing when he published his emails to the producer at National Geographic. I think it is safe to say that the "nanothermite" they have is probably from electric matches that were used to detonate linear shaped charges or kicker charges.
I also have reason to believe that testing for explosive residue on the dust at Ground Zero may be just around the corner. However, I will believe it when I see it.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
er... i disagree
I think thermite (the kind that produces molten iron) was used to weaken the core, to reduce (though not eliminate) the need for explosives. this would explain the molten stuff pouring out of the south tower, which would seem to have been unintentional. My guess is that the plane that we know hit less on center than the north tower plane dislodged some kind of thermite device from its position on a core column, pushing it towards a corner where it poured out the results of its reaction. Affixing some kind of pack of thermite to a vertical column doesn't seem like it would be that challenging, imo...
once the "collapse" began, though...
I think its clear that explosives were used to simulate a gravity driven collapse. at that point a roar of explosions could be explained away as the "sound of a building collapsing" (which of course is nonsense but believable by most people.) I also think that the explosion in the basement timed with the first plane crash was designed to sever at least some of the columns connecting to the ground so that a lot of the gravity load would be shifted to the exterior structure, which would help simulate a gravity driven collapse.
I agree with your hypothesis
I agree with your hypothesis of first weakening the structure by cutting with thermite then using high explosives to effect the collapse.
Placing thermite on vertical structures is possible. I don't agree with Willy on that. But note that even with this technology, timing a cut takes hundreds of milliseconds which is quite good but perhaps not good enough to execute what we saw with building 7, in other words I still think it was done in combination with high explosives to sequence the implosion.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7555986/description.html
"Until this time, one-shot thermite-based devices have been used primarily to make point like, circular holes in materials. Sustained thermite cutting technologies, such as burning bars, achieve linear-shaped cuts by expanding on the initialpenetrated area and moving away from the initial point of penetration in a line (similar to a conventional cutting torch). By configuring a single-use apparatus and its associated nozzle into a linear or curvilinear arrangement, the shape of thepenetration would be lengthened dramatically. Connecting segments of these devices into a desired shape would allow users to determine the dimensions of a breach area or linear cut.
This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermitejet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree ofpreparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A \"preconditioning\" process involves removing overlapped plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, anddangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning. The thermite charge\'s sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cuttingplates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting or reinforcing members that may exist in the middle or on the backside of a material. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of anexplosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds."
Hello all.... from the Ghost of willyloman
This is willyloman.
I am writing from another computer, because my taped together p.o.s. computer that I had made and been running for about a year, just finally crashed after I helped a friend with an online computer class, and she took pity on my p.o.s. computer and gave me a tower to put my homemade scraps of a computer in. Well, after a 14 hour battle yesterday working with the transition from one tower to the next, the computer ran for awhile, then crashed out, over and over again. The last time while I was writing something for my blog. Anyway, I can't remember the password here at WTC Demolition, and I can't access my Verizon.net email account from here to get my email, and the password. So I can't log in.
Life f*in sucks for everyone these days. My situation is nothing special.
I am sure that the "powers that be" in the "Truth" movement will be all "slam tore up" about another Truth advocate biting the dust, especially since I advocate testing for explosive material in that dust they have while they spend their time looking telling you to look at "super secret untestable military grade material" while suggesting "others' test for dust samples as they refuse to do it themselves (yes that is you I am talking about Mr. Jones) ... but that just is what it is.
I want the people on this site to know that I think of the WTC Demolition site as one of the few remaining uninfected Truth advocacy sites that remain.
Though we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, I know that what you do here is valuable to our efforts. I hope you continue for as long as you can.
As far as Dov Zakheim is concerned, I have been writing about him for a long time. His connections are not only with the neocon PNAC, but also with the Vulcans (Bush's "foriegn policy advisers' in 2000) as well as the missing 2 trillion dollars and the office that the accountants were in when "something" hit the Pentagon.
Zakheim is a traitor of immense proportions. Were the Hoffmans and the Golds (THE Jon Gold of 911truth.org) of this movement not so concerned about keeping us from investigating what really hit the Pentagon, perhaps more of us would realize that the odds are it really was a remote piloted vehicle of some kind, the type that Zakheims' SPC International used to make.
But let's also not forget that Gregg Roberts just wrote an essay with Mr. Dwain Deets; a man who spent much of his life developing remote piloting technologies for NASA and the Dryden Research Center. And lets not forget that Mr. Deets is now associated with AE911Truth.org.
Anyway, I have to give this person back their computer. I wish you all luck. Like I said before, I think you guys are one of the few remaining real truth sites out there and I hope that more people find this place. good luck to you. I will stop by when I can...
willy