A very STRANGE anomaly with the impact and exit of the 2nd WTC-plane....

[Not gullible]

Found this on the ATS Forum:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226427/pg1


Strange that we haven´t heard about this before...

It acts and looks like nothing else than a military plane!

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[LARED]

1. The thing coming out is an

engine, not the nose. The engine landed on Church street if memory serves me correctly.

[Nozebro]

2. How do you know it's an engine? Got a photo of one like it? Thanks.

n/t

[LARED]

3. Frankly this issue has been hashed over somewhere around

50 times in this forum and I know I'm supposed to provide a link to back up my position, but I will leave that to others that may be willing. Or you could do some research yourself.


Regards

[Nozebro]

4. Your claim is nothing but a wish or dream, not reality. Otherwise, you or

one of your "friends" would have already flooded this thread with photographs and claims by Gov't experts about how that whatever-it-is thing is most certainly a jet engine. Looks much more like the front end of a MISSILE than anything else, but whatever it is, it sure as H--- isn't a jet engine.

[Carefulplease]

10. You really ought to learn to use search engines...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=98312

[LARED]

13. Well most of my friends are at the annual

dis-info agent convention in a secret location, so they are not available to flood the message board in my defense. I would have gone to the convention, but I lost my secret decoder ring and the dis-info agent bylaws prevent me from assembling with my peers unless my ring is in plain sight.

[Carefulplease]

16. I couldn't attend the convention either...

I have gotten a three weeks suspension without pay from DIA for having recently expressed disagreement with NIST on the issue of the free-fall collapse in this forum. Fortunately, Cointel-NA isn't directly involved with the ASCE-FEMA-NIST Cover-up Operation (AFNCO) and they still honour my contract.

[rman]

19. how do you know it isn't an engine?

i'd say the photo is inconclusive, and thus useless as evidence of foul play.

[whistle]

8. Engine??? So where were the two engines from flight 77 which

...supposedly hit the Pentagon?

[hack89]

5. What about it says military plane?

the nose cones of military planes are just as fragile since they also house radars.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

6. Your imagination is working overtime. It needs a rest. NT

[whistle]

7. Incredible, I hope these videos have not been doctored in any way

[Not gullible]

9. No, they are directly from official broadcasts...

So they are 100% genuine...unlike videos like the so called bin Laden-video, the Pentagon-video, and other doctored "government"-videos...

[Carefulplease]

11. Cherry-picking of low res. pictures is just as bad as doctoring.

Witness "Fat" Bin Laden.

[whistle]

12. So the 2nd airplane to impact the WTC south tower appears grey

...in color. That was not colorized or dulled down to highlight the whit smoke coming from the bulk head beneath the wings on the fuselage? That puff of white smoke and then the bright orange flash that follows a second later just as the plane enters the steal skin netting is a new image that I had not seen before in any of the long shots of that plane #2 crashing into the south tower.

It certainly appears to have been produced by a rocket or missile of some sort. Now the bullet shaped object exiting the south tower on the opposite side, it looks like a nose cone, but we know that the 757 nose cone could not have remained intact after such a massive impact, unless a rocket cleared a path for it. I remember something about that set of floors being vacant <78th floor of south tower> so it would be possible for the nose section to shoot across the vacant space inside and as long as the steal outer skin of the tower had been pierced also, then it could emerge intact.

Finally, I see the massive fire ball of the explosion overtake the bullet shaped projectile that emerged and more white smoke engulf whatever it was, then it disappears as it moves in front and across the backdrop of the north tower, but what reappears on the other side against the sky background is a silver object hurtling on a downward trajectory which I could accept as the frame of massive inner parts of a jet engine.

That is what my eyes appear to be witnessing. Do you agree?

[Not gullible]

14. Very interesting!

Nice explanation, indeed!

Thanks!

[whistle]

15. I noticed in one of the links from your initial opening post, I think

...the Loose Change one, they show a photograph of an air force refueling carrier. It has a striking resemblance in shape and color to that #2 plane. In one of the videos which I've seen, there are a series of eye witness interviews that were video taped on that morning of 9/11 in and around the WTC. Several people said they thought the plane which hit the south tower was not a passenger airliner plane. One woman specifically commented about the color being grey and looking like a "military plane". When the reporter pressed her and asked if she might be mistaken and suggested to her that it was in fact a United flight, she adamantly said that it did not look anything like any United airlines plane she had ever seen and repeated that it looked more like a military plane.

Anyway, I found that link, the image of the air force plane is about 2/3 down through the comments.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2147

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The 78th Floor of WTC2 was a sky lobby floor

It also had tenants, with Seabury Smith occupying 40,000 sf, which would have been most of the available space on that floor.

[mirandapriestly]

18. I think a lot of the photos were edited

Definitely some of the amateur ones and there is a video of the "plane" being shot by a Wescam which is a camera used by the military. There is also software that will edit photos as they are taken. A military contractor named Brandes Associates provides this, it's called Tactical Imagery Processing Software (TIPS) and it can be relayed in real time (to media sources?)
http://www.brandes-assoc.com/technology_insertion%20v2.HTML

Oh, and incidentally , Brian Sweeney a "passenger" on board 175 worked for Brandes. They also provide UAV Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle services, Sweeney was also a former fighter pilot. Quite a few 9-11 plane passengers, mostly on flight 77 worked for companies that were involved with UAV's.

As Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) become increasingly integrated into the battlefield and border security environments, BAI is uniquely positioned at the forefront of this emerging field, providing foresight, knowledge, and unparalleled operational experience

http://www.brandes-assoc.com/UAS.html

Check out "terrorize" for some good 2nd hit videos, also they have a section on missiles. I've been looking at these and zooming in , a lot of them are very suspicious.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit1/

[Nozebro]

29. You are correct. Check out this article for more info on fakery.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

[Nozebro]

20. Whatever it was, it wasn't UAL 175 & it wasn't a B767.

A B767 would NOT have melted into the building. That is a physical impossibility. A 767 would have collapsed and exploded outside the building immediately upon impact. It IS possible that some pieces might have gone inside the building, but most of the aircraft would simply collapsed, exploded, and the heavier parts would have fallen down to the street below. The VIDEO that has been released does NOT show a plane (of any size) collapsing. It shows a plane apparently melting into the building, which is impossible in the real world. That's just one of many reasons why we know that whatever, if anything, struck WTC2, it was NOT UAL FL 175.

[Not gullible]

21. Intelligent observation!

Nice to see that people here have their brains working! :)

[mirandapriestly]

22. I pretty much agree, I hate to get into the plane issue

but it just doesn't look right! I mean the building had solid steel columns and I have never seen parts of the plane break off on impact photos/vids. Maybe "no-plane" is a distraction for "something other than a 767".

[Nozebro]

23. You pretty much agree that you hate to get into the plane issue?

WHY? Don't feel confident about your knowledge of "the plane issue"? If so, then DON'T even try to get into it because the OCT'ers will eat your lunch and have you trying to unravel and explain whatever you and/or they mean by "no plane", and thereby waste time and cause new people to become discouraged and if they do that, they'll decide it's easier (and better) for them to remain comfortably numb and dumb. Time and the truth can't afford to wait for the incurious and lazy to change.

[screembloodymurder]

24. It's doctored video.

Come on people.

[Not gullible]

25. Why do you believe this?

Which of the videos is doctored?

And on what basis do you come forward with this claim?

[Nozebro]

26. This analysis explains the faked videos in great, meticulous detail.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

[Not gullible]

27. But it cannot explain the following flashes:

http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch

http://911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml

[Nozebro]

28. It isn't about flashes, and therefore doesn't need to "explain" them.

It's an analysis of the U.S. Govt's claim that UAL 175 crashed into WTC 2.

[file83]

30. That "video" was a completely doctored "animation" - and not even

a very good one. This is the kind of shit that makes 9/11 CT's look nuts - or just very gullible.