100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes

[7forever]

THE RIGHT WING IS NOT DISCERNABLE and not aligned with the sagging left wing. It's an obvious and easily proven fake. Every video and picture can be proven frauds in the same way. Garbage in, garbage out.

Notice the white component anterior to the right engine. The fake engine is behind that and far too rear of the left sagging engine. It is simply a fake image with numerous impossibilities.

The shark fin does not have that fancy angle backward of the boeing. The horizontal stabilizer should be more centered (forward of) with the fin. The right boeing wing is anterior to the fin, while the fake wing is oddly pointing up and far too rear at this angle. The fake image is missing that distinct point at the nose and clearly smaller than it has to appear, if it was real.

---

I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their plane morph. The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing. The live orb and fake plane image cast their own shadows behind the towers, dismissing any nonsense that the drone was added or faked. Since the orb did circle the buildings before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2, the fake plane image at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9...plpp_video

---

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

[7forever]

This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.

---

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0

---

911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 live broadcasts showing the drone do just that from the north view. It's logical with so much footage being released that something from the south would show the drone's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.





41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy...plpp_video

---

I took the work from September Clues and made it into something real instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7...plpp_video

---

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS orb did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to 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]

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.

[7forever]

V8rider;4985270 Wrote:Not only that, the two large reflections on the left engine would not be there given the angle of the plane and the shadow on the rest of the plane.

I work with Photoshop every day and could do a much better job than that.

The inboard flap track on the right wing of fake 175 clearly has the inboard flap not between it and the fuselage (YOU can see it, clear as day), thus it's too close as the faked image shows. The left engine nacelle also does not connect to the underside of the wing at a point outboard of the flap track, exactly as it can't be. The rearmost point of the nacelle attachment footprint is clearly not abaft of the leading tip of the flap track fairing, also impossible and fake. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.





The hinged control surfaces are used to steer and control the airplane. The flaps and ailerons are connected to the backside of the wings. The flaps slide back and down to increase the surface of the wing area. They also tilt down to increase the curve of the wing. The slats move out from the front of the wings to make the wing space larger. This helps to increase the lifting force of the wing at slower speeds like takeoff and landing. The ailerons are hinged on the wings and move downward to push the air down and make the wing tilt up. This moves the plane to the side and helps it turn during flight. After landing, the spoilers are used like air brakes to reduce any remaining lift and slow down the airplane.

[nwo2012]

7forever interesting posts.

[7forever]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.

[7forever]

(01-19-2012 02:58 AM)nwo2012 Wrote:  7forever interesting posts.

Thanks, it ain't rocket science.

[Sovereignman]

I am definitely not buying the no planes theory.

The only one I question is the pentagon hit. And the one in I think Virginia or Pennsylvania, that touched down in a field, because of the lack of aircraft parts.

But I have seen many different angles of the twin towers and all of them look like aircraft hitting them.

[7forever]

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.

[7forever]

Don't waste my time with babble- I want facts or interesting questions asked. I want theories and ideas. I am fact-minded on this, but part of being open minded is listening to the other side's fantasies, so I will entertain you all.

Keep in mind I did my own 9/11 research in the last four months, and a silly looking drone came from the west and exploded the south tower, so I am well versed on the topic. So, tell me your fake delusions of planes for either tower and I will show facts derived from video and eyewitnesses.

[7forever]

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

[7forever]

With the clear and overwhelming evidence of drones, it was inevitable that a few eyewitnesses would corroborate the video footage of drones for both towers. Stewart, said he saw something bump into tower 1 before it exploded. That certainly wasn't a plane, because a plane would crash into it, not bump.

He says, "I'm not sure, if it was a ????? (plane). Of course it wasn't a plane, Stewy, and you gave the truth some of the best early testimony that no planes of any kind were seen for either tower because neither had wings. His subconscious gave every word, but 'plane', leaving no doubt that his conscious state prevented that last word. But, we already know those goofy french kids did not film a plane or really any identifiable object which corrorborates Stewart's verified account.

Bryant Gumbel: It's 8:52 here in New York, I'm Bryant Gumbel. We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan. You're looking at the WTC. We understand that a plane has crashed into the WTC. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know if it was a commercial aircraft. We don't know if it was a private aircraft. We have no idea how many were on board, or what the extent of the injuries are right now. We are, uh, we have, I understand, an eyewitness on the phone right now. Sir...

[cuts to commercial briefly]

BG: ...your name?

Stewart: Yeah, my name is Stewart.

BG: Sir, where are you right now?

S: I'm working at a restaurant in Soho. (northeast of the towers)

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

BG: Did you, could you tell us whether or not it was a prop, or a jet .

S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw

[nwo2012]

No way that manoeuvre you show above is possible. I have never noticed that before but if that is meant to be real footage then it is most certainly fake. Im very open minded to the idea of no planes, nothing would surprise me with 9/11. I mean the fact that the average person thinks nothing suspicious of it being exactly 11 years prior to the day the 'attacks' (9/11/1990) when Bush said

Quote:We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle.

[rsol]

Quote:S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly

even he admits he doesn't know. don't take the word of someone who even doubts himself as gospel.