Flight 11
u2r2h Sun, 10/08/2006 - 6:30pm
a flying object hit the WTC North Tower (Wtc1)
According to the airline BTS database Flight 11 never flew on 9/11.
http://www.osamawasframed.com/flight11.html << Very interesting!!!
The plane designated flight 11 when airborne took off from Gate 32, wheels off 8:00am
Flight 11 passengers were seen boarding a plane from Gate 26, wheels off @ 8:10am
WHAT THE @!#$%^& !!!!
you mean they don't know?
Has any of you truthers phoned up and asked?
Flight: http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.32
Links:
discussion BTS flight numbers
GOOD SUMMARY
THIEVES stole Flight 11
- u2r2h's blog
- Login to post comments
Double post...
I'll delete the first one.
No Wings
I like the fact that Blobs 11 has no wings when it reaches the tower!
But I'm sure it's more of that video "compression" phenomenon. ;-)
It also hits dead center in the building and as with Phantom 175, no part of the plane extends beyond the sides of the buildings. Both were direct hits.
more blurry pictures please,
more blurry pictures please, i think youve almost convinced me
Could you be a little more opaque?
It seems like you're trying to make some kind of argument here, but I can't figure it out.
it's not as important that
it's not as important that he displays anything coherant as it is that he misdirects
hey he is not misdirecting!
hey he is not misdirecting! he has presented the very few facts about aa11 - chiefly, that a search of the BTS data for 9/11/01 reveals that flight11 was not even on the schedule for that day - neither was flight77 for that matter - the "wheels off" time has to be nonsense in light of the BTS data.
in addition he has presented photos from the only video of alleged aa11 - if they are too blurry for you then you should take this issue up with the naudets who just happened to be in the right place ahead of time with their professional movie camera set-up. how ironic is it that pro movie makers with a pro set-up can't manage to get a clear focus shot of blob11 while what is alleged to be ua175 was 'captured' plain as day by numerous low quality camcorders.
don't be slandering u2r2h with labels of misdirection. he is trying to get to the bottom of things - just like a lot of us are. some of you find it more expedient to look the other way regarding the alleged 4 9/11 boeings but that is a mistake in my opinion.
2 countries are now depleted uranium hellholes and 100's of 1000's of muslims have/are dying because the american govt/media has insisted that 19 arabs highjacked 4 boeings and flew them into 3 landmark buildings.
not 1 of these 4 alleged boeings has been verified.
"a flying object"
"a flying object"
your blog links to similar
your blog links to similar blurry stills as evidence of a missile or othewise
collaborate much?
Okay, thanks
Thanks, James, that is quite interesting about the BTS data.
My opinion about the Naudet film is that it is suspect not for what it shows, but for the fact that it was made at all. LOTS of coincidences got them in the perfect spot to document the crime -- as if someone wanted a nice video momento of their handiwork.
BTW, u2r2h is not a guy. Interest in 9/11 is not the exclusive province of the Y-chromosome-endowed.
amazing. amazingly blurry. I
amazing. amazingly blurry. I mean, come on!!
what was the point here??
I like those 'result (with / no interpolation)' pics.
°#°`???
the only thing this proves is that blurry pics are useless in analyzing this situation.
???
Why did they make a CGI flash ???
------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".
casseia thanx for the heads
casseia thanx for the heads up on u2r2h' gender -
zerrox you might find it beneficial to just try and relax - the world will not cease to revolve because some people point out the fact that there are many many anomalies re: the alleged boeings - if any real evidence of the culpability of said boeings in the events of 9/11 actually emerges i will be the very first to admit that i was wrong - isn't that fair enough? until then i will not play along with any plane-hugger nonsense.
I´m relexed all the time
I´m relexed all the time :D
It´s simple question, I don´t want to offend someone.
I´m just curious to know why they added the flash, thas´s all.
------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".
yes, there are anomalies
yes, there are anomalies regarding their flightpaths.
i totally agree. however, i have not yet seen anything that would suggest the no-planes theory is even remotely likely. remote controlled planes seems just a thousand times more plausible. its as simple as that. "plane hugger nonsense" ?? hm well, ye, then..
its just amazing. i mean, theres facts about 911 that are understandable within a few minutes, well, not understandable, but, one can easily see something is dodgy. those need to get out. as boring as they get, after all the years. its sad to see these ego fights about planes or no planes. i think in the end we all have to agree that - in the first place - it doesnt matter if it was planes or not. note, i said in the first place.
and we are not yet there, at that 'first place'.
sorry zerrox i didn't
sorry zerrox i didn't realize you'd asked a question - i was too busy assuming that you were just attacking no-planers - why would they make a flash if it was cgi? that's a very good question that doesn't get addressed very often probably because no one has an answer - both wtc planes made a flash.
i have not yet seen anything that would suggest the no-planes theory is even remotely likely. remote controlled planes seems just a thousand times more plausible.
911tvfakery doesn't necessarily mean no-planes.
maybe there really were planes hitting the wtcs but the images of alleged ua175 are ridiculous looking.
here is the one and only "live" shot of alleged ua175:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
tell me that isn't ridiculous. all the rest of the images of ua175 were done after the fact and they look equally foolish.
click my name to see analyses of these.
well, everything in that
well, everything in that movie looks dodgy. did you look at the sky?? looks fake too me. im sure its a fake sky. tv fakery. yah. ok sorry. but anyway, if that was the only video of that plane then yes,i would doubt it too. but it is not the only one. not even to mention all the eyewitnesses. sigh...
here's my favorite part:
here's my favorite part: edna cintron is standing right where the wing would join the body of blob11.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm
notice how blob11 must have kicked that tangled wad of perimeter columns back into the opening behind itself before disappearing entirely without a trace.
call me crazy but it looks
call me crazy but it looks like there are plenty of perimeter collumns that got knocked in. Why the author of the site supposes that the very column she is standing behind needs to be bend inward is beyond me.
the point is not whether 1
the point is not whether 1 column bends inward or outwards - the point is that blob11 disappeared without any of it falling to the street below yet there are still a wad of columns blocking part of the hole - you can pretend all you want that this phenomena is not out of the ordinary but it is out of the ordinary.