9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax (Analysis by StillDiggin)

Thursday, October 26, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax


It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this newly released video, we are presented with an uninterrupted “live” video feed, which provides us with a reverse version of the magic trick "Now you see it... Now you don't."

At 7:38 of this video, the feed is switched to a different helicopter. A few seconds later, FOX commentator Jim Ryan describes the image from the video feed as "the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene." This comment seems to validate that this is indeed the same video that was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, since the picture correlates with the commentary. In what I referred to in my previous article as the "original source," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).

Although this matching commentary does not necessarily prove that this newly released video is exactly what was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, it does seem to prove that this is the feed that Jim Ryan was looking at as he was commentating
Continued here...


Show "FOX Blanks Out Live Video to Hide Their Nose-Out Error" by CB_Brooklyn

why the hell would they

why the hell would they blank it out, it almost looks like some sort of object coming out

Journal of 9/11 Studies -> A

re: Journal of 9/11 Studies

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories



There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.

Eric Salter has more than a decade of professional video experience, which has included editing, 3D animation, compositing, motion graphics, image retouching, and camera operation."

Excellent article by Mr. Salter! Thanks for posting!!

Show "More on Salter and his Unscientific Conclusions" by CB_Brooklyn

Extremley Telling

I make a post that refutes your bullshit, and three minutes later, on a late Friday night, you pop out of the woodwork to post a smear attack on Mr. Salter.

The 9/11 criminals are getting more desperate by the minute.


They think that they are our nightmares :) rofl
You are funny and desperate, but not nightmare.

NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".

Show "no, what's telling is that" by CB_Brooklyn

Salter's Unscientific Paper

A couple reasons why Salter's paper is JUNK:


  1. Use of the phrases "bizarre claim", "bogus no-plane theories", and "Reynolds presents a long-winded argument" are not appropriate for a paper that's supposed to address scientific evidence
  2. Salter is not qualified. Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith is: "airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"



Show "Video Stills Show Laser Beam on Towers !" by CB_Brooklyn


Friday, October 27, 2006

Conflicting Plane Paths-- Clearest Example Yet?
The two videos in question are shot from opposite sides of the WTC, one about three miles to the EAST of the WTC, and one perhaps four to five miles WEST from the WTC. Importantly, one can see the towers lined up perfectly on north to south, indicating the camera angles are from exact opposite sides...

...The point that should be obvious is that in the top video, the plane undergoes a huge change in size from beginning to end, consistent with the plane coming closer to the camera as it approaches. In the second video, the plane hardly changes size at all, consistent with an approach where the plane maintains a similar distance from the camera throughout....

Lasers from Within or Without?

Ever since I got a close up look at the steel beams, I was sure that they'd been cut somehow.

At first I considered conventional means, like using the power outage over the prior weekend to torch them.

That would require many man-hours, and it would involve quite a bit of planning along with some additional risks, I'm sure.

One particular night about a month ago, when I was thinking out of the box, I started to contemplate how lasers or other beams could have been used in ways other than I'd read in some posts in these forums.

Could the beams have been directed from the inside out? I have no way of knowing this, but everybody seems to assume that everybody on a given floor has access to everything on that floor.

What if the sections where the impact holes were manufactured were blocked off, either under the guise of renovation or possibly just limited security clearance?

We never did see a live shot of either tower's impact face prior to the formation of the impact holes.

I've seen pictures of and read about cranes and scaffolding on rooftops of surrounding buildings where these cutting beams may have been directed from, but wouldn't it have been easier to do this from the inside out? At the very least, you certainly wouldn't have to worry about anybody finding them after the fact.

Again, I'm just wondering out loud here. No proof at all. Just trying to figure out how all those cuts are so clean and almost perfectly horizontal, making it look like someone punched a hole in wall made of Legos.

you say laser beams, i say a

you say laser beams, i say a floating piece of paper.

are you really this gullible? if one of your cult leaders told you the buildings were CGI would you believe that too?

HAHAHA --- case closed

HAHAHA --- case closed

Laser Trail is Bogus!

This is a doctored clip in more ways than one. The "laser trail" was added merely to create a phony divisive issue, imo. Why? View the clip below FULL SCREEN, and watch the segment from 1:02 ro 1:05 carefully - you will see a row of ignition flashes from demolition squibs quickly going from right to left across the lower equpment floors of BOTH towers just as the main pyrotechnic event occurs above. The "light trail" in your clip might be neither laser nor paper nor DEMOLITION SQUIB - it may have been added just to throw everyone off of seeing the flashes in other clips for what they really are!



It is my opinion that this is all cointelpro disinformation SPAM

This is clearly spam.

this same circle of researchers advocate no-planes, mini-nukes, star wars beams, lasers from the planes, Keebler elves in the towers (bwahahahaha) and little green men.

this is in my opinion designed to disrupt this movement.

They WILL be held accountable.


Albanese is spamming again.

Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter???

Please see Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter??? in the separate thread discussing the two (2) scientific articles on these issues.

We are now awaiting a response...