Analysis of UAL FL 175 & WTC2 (read this before the OCT'ers do)

[Nozebro]

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

[MervinFerd]

1. Too Late!

What a pile of Poo!

[Nozebro]

2. When did you read it?

nt

[Nozebro]

3. Merv says it's a "pile of Poo". That means it makes OCT'ers nervous.

Whenever an OCT'er dismisses an important, in-depth, comprehensive, scientifically sound analysis, and does so in a disrespectful, arrogant manner - that can only mean one thing: the findings in the article are a powerful blow to their sacred 9/11 version (aka fairy tale).

[DocSavage]

10. Maybe

he is calling it a pile of poo because he has good manners. I personally think that it is comparable to the remnents of a rodeo parade.

I cannot think how holograms would be possible without the technology of the ancients and the existence of the moon base to hide it all. Oh, wait, I am getting stargate and Space 1999 mixed up with reality.

Where are the planes and where are the bodies?

[Nozebro]

14. Doc, before commenting on an article, it's polite to read it first.

nt

[DocSavage]

25. I did

and it is still stuff left behind a rodeo parade.

[whistle]

4. A Klingon reverse clocking device? A projected 3-D holograph?

....Oh well, throw it into the mix and flame away.

[Nozebro]

35. How about stereographic photos of the CGI plane? Include them, too. nt

nt

[OldSiouxWarrior]

5. And we stold the technology from the space aliens in Area 51?

Or was it from the recovered secret Atlantis explorations. Finding the Titanic was a test of the technology to be used to find and search Atlantis. /sarcasm

[salvorhardin]

6. Uh huh, more nonsense from anti-semitic conspiracists

The forward on that site is written by Dr. Stefan Grossmann who likes to write articles with titles such as:

Zionist Nuclear Terrorism in America
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/Grossmann/Zionist_Nuclear_Terrorism_in_America.htm

And...

BIOLOGY OF THE BEAST
The Shadows – Secret Lives in Our Midst

Bible informs us that the evil beings are the Beast. This article presents, in short, a biology, a zoology of the Beast. We will see that their life activities include, without limitation, a selective socialization (including their common inbreeding) together with an obsession with Satanic rituals and symbols.

This article has five parts:

I. Demon Eyes Tutorial
II. General Introduction
III. Rituals and Symbols
IV. Families and Hierarchies
V. The Treasure Hoard

This is meant as a serious investigative overview over the life of the horror channel, that is the dominant human life form on this planet. With today’s information we get a rather comprehensive panorama of the pyramid from knowledgeable sources.
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/Grossmann/BEAST/BiologyOfBeast_Update3/Biology_of_the_Beast.htm

Of course, we don't know who wrote the rest of the web page because it's a home DSL account. However, we might assume he shares Grossmann's beliefs.

[Make7]

7. Why is the version number of this going down?

Ghost Gun UA175 - Version 3.0
Webpage last modified: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:24:04 PM

Ghost Gun UA175 - Version 3.6
Webpage last modified: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:56:43 AM

Ghost Gun UA175 - Version 3.14
Webpage last modified: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:25:09 PM

That's strange...

Well, I guess we can just rehash the discussion we didn't have last time (Version 3.2 - topic posted Mar-09-06):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=75490&mesg_id=75490

Or the time before that (Version 3.0 - topic posted Apr-12-05):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=36774&mesg_id=36774

- Make7

[KJF]

8. The address makes it look like...

... it's from one of Jim Hoffman's sites. But actually it's got nothing whatsoever to do with Hoffman, who says:

9-11 Research does not endorse any of the no-jetliners theories or their associated theories such as Bumble Planes. We have not found any compelling evidence to support these theories, and have found abundant evidence contradicting them. In fact, we have done a great deal of work to debunk these theories, and think that, while they are promoted by many well-meaning people, they were probably created as part of an intentional disinformation strategy.

The 9-11 Research essays section has a number of articles debunking no-jetliners claims. The Information Warfare section of 911Review.com contains detailed analysis of many of the no-jetliners claims.
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/noplanes.html

Why would a no-planer try to make it look like he was associated with Hoffman?

[FoxOnTheRun]

11. I don't know about Hoffman

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html


He has some problems with Fetzer from st911.org

[KJF]

12. I read Hoffman's stuff about Fetzer...

... when it first came out and I agreed with the vast majority of it. I don't like Fetzer's stuff at all, especially that horrible joke he does about Mark Bingham. Hoffman is far from perfect, but he understands lots of the details, whereas Fetzer and many other members of the fringe organisation st911 are entirely superficial. I agree with Hoffman's stand against the no-planers 100%.

[FoxOnTheRun]

13. The phone call is pretty unusual.

Mark: Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I want to let you know that I love you. I'm calling from the plane. We've been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb.


Mark: I want you to know that I love you very much and I'm calling from the plane. I'm in the air. I'm calling on the air phone of the airplane. We've been taken over, there are three men that say they have a bomb.
Mark: You believe me, don't you?
Alice: Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?
Mark: I don't know who they are (repeats that he loves her)

I never say my full name, when I call my parents.


Hoffman says "pull it" has something to do with the fireman, that's funny in my opinion.

Fetzer isn't perfect and I would have to read all his work, but according t
o him Hoffman is steered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Paul Don Paul his co-author.


Fetzer believes a A3 Skywarrior hit the pentagon
Hoffman believes a Boeing hit the pentagon.

I don't know who is right



Who is COINTEL or just egocentric , I don't know....

[KJF]

17. Fetzer contra Hoffman

Apparently, Bingham used his full name when calling his mum sometimes.
Link: http://www.911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html

In any case, just because somebody in a stressful situation says something wierd, doesn't mean the flight was faked and the calls were voice-morphed; this is just the sort of a leap of the imagination we should be avoiding if we want to convince lots of people. You can't build a theory just on holes in the official theory, we need actual evidence (like a sighting of a hijacker in a bar, a piece of steel, an admission the NSA was tapping their phones). Or we need to point out there are two, contradictory official versions and they can't both be right.

[FoxOnTheRun]

18. You believe me don't you

he gives us the helpful information that he is calling from an air phone.
Which work contrary to cell phones.

We have for example 3 of the 4 black boxes found at the WTC but the FBI has sacked them and claims there were none.

We know Norad lied and gave different versions....the president lied not only once...but nobody cares.

As Fetzer said "absence of evidence is not evidence for absence"


-Steven Jones build his thermate theory on steel samples from memorials.
-team8plus has done a great work on hijackers http://www.911review.org/T8_img/TEXT.zip (zipped pdf book)
-the NSA isn't your friend and BUSH probably doesn't want to go through FISA because probably many things are cover-up related and can't be seen by a judge.

[JackRiddler]

33. So who made up this transcript?

Far as I know, the Bingham call - from an AIRPHONE - was not recorded, no transcript is available.

Everything we know about the Bingham call to his mom Alice is from Alice - who told reporters - who one hopes took notes before writing what they think she told them about what she and her son said to each other. Follow?

So the "Bingham" part might be Alice's insertion in recounting the story (perhaps because she is clarifying for the reporter, since her name is not Bingham). It might be some ironic formality between them, possibly owing to Bingham being one of three names the fellow used. You have no idea what their relationship was like. Finally, none of us have any idea how we would react under these circumstances, what we might blurt out while trying to reach someone from a hijacked plane.

In other words, this much-belabored point has never had any of the value toward proving anything imagined by those who have harped on it ceaselessly as some kind of smoking gun that "proves" no cell phone calls. Furthermore, it is enormously thoughtless to use it as such - certain to get people (not just family members) enraged. I am sad to see it picked up as relevant by the likes of Meria Heller or David Ray Griffin.

Want to talk about Flight 93? How about debris six miles from the main crash site? How about a seismic occurrence consistent with a plane crash three minutes after the official crash time? How about early reports of fighter jets on its tail? How about Ed Felt's call? All of these say something. Two of them even constitute physical evidence.

[Nozebro]

16. Why would a "sincere" truth seeker not be able to disprove the

analysis and conclusions about UAL FL 175?

[mirandapriestly]

9. The technology exists, but I think you might need a screen for a

true hologram. This is the story about holograms used at the Super bowl, only in reverse, Homeland Security :puke: is viewing holograms rather than projecting them.
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177105917
Here is a Lexus shown in Time Square as an ad, there is a video linked that shows it, I couldn't really tell what they were doing. Someone in the "comments" section said it wasn't a "true" holograph, but whatever they do at the Haunted House at Disneyland:
http://www.adrants.com/2005/10/times-square-holograph-sells-lexus.php

Here's a company that offers the technology
http://www.poc.com/tech_summary/avionics/
3-D Autostereoscopic Displays
True real-time 3-D video/images can now be seen with the naked eye. POC’s unique autostereoscopic display requires no goggles or special glasses to view 3-D images. The proprietary HDS™ Holographic Display Screen combines 2-D projected images into 3-D viewing zones by combining left (L) and right (R) stereo images. POC’s 3-D system will accept 3-D recorded images, video, games or graphics and will display them for 3-D viewing. The special POC software interface is compatible with standard 3-D graphic and design software, and enables the storage and retrieval of 3-D images.

Application: 3-D graphics, product display, CAD stations, medical imaging, training, entertainment, terrain mapping, military, sand table and flight simulators.

Originally designed to camouflage remote solar cells on military vehicles, our holographic coatings are now available for commercial purposes. POC can produce holographic film coatings in nine colors, including brown, green, and yellow, which can be combined with silicon PV solar cells.

Application: Architectural and building camouflage of solar cells which now can be blended into buildings.
In another thread I mentioned that Brian Sweeney, a passenger on 175, worked for Brandes Associates, a gov't contractor which leased UAV's, well he ALSO worked for a company that made holographic diffraction films, Spectratek Technologies, and one of the things they sold was holographic paint (and they are a gov't contractor)...

I think maybe if something like this was used it was used to disguise something rather than create something.

[Nozebro]

15. Most of the article is about UAL 175. Very little about holograms.

I expected the OCT'ers to act as the enemy of truth they are, but I would hope that friends of the truth would bother themselves to read the article (not just the TITLE of it), despite the fact that the author proves that UAL 175 could not and did not crash into WTC2. Would you be upset if presented with proof of that little fact? Then read the article and come back. We can discuss your special interest in holograms later (given the meticulous work by the author, I was actually disappointed there wasn't much about holograms in the article - but the author, to her/his credit, did NOT try to prove WHAT happened, only to investigate WHETHER FL 175 did or did not crash into WTC 2).

[FoxOnTheRun]

19. Who cares if UAL 175 hit the WTC or not?

Why should someone use holograms and make it more difficult.
You have to generate sound and provide airplane parts on the streets.
It's not so easy as planting passports

[William Seger]

27. "...despite the fact.."

"...that the author proves that UAL 175 could not and did not crash into WTC2." I read the article, but I missed that "proof." What I see is that in some paragraphs "proving" that the "pod" and the "pipe" can't be lighting effects, so they must be real. Then, in other paragraphs, he "proves" that we must be seeing an imperfect hologram (without explaining why the hologram would include the suspicious "pod" and "pipe" nor why those "anomalous structures" matter, anyway, if it's just a hologram). Then, he "proves" that none of that matters anyway, since the pics have been faked (without explaining why the faking included the "anomalous structures" and the "imperfect hologram" effects).

Seems to me the problem with that article is that it "proves" too much.

[Nozebro]

28. The most important thing it proves is right here, Mr. Seger.

Here's the author's Conclusion:


"Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this. Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing, lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting, descent path angle and airframe attitude.

Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.

It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.

So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows". The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

There was only the illusion of an aeroplane plane colliding with, and subsequently vanishing inside of, the tower. It is this illusion that is the foundation for the Hologram Theory along with the physics of aircraft impacts which tells us that a Boeing 767-200 could not have penetrated the tower so completely and vanished inside. It should have crumpled up on the towers facade and exploded."

[William Seger]

32. Conclusion? Where's the "proof" you mentioned?

"Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that some kind of unexplainable defect." Unexplainable, unexplained, or explanations rejected out-of-hand by you and the author? Big difference, don't you think?

But let's try a little experiment. Pick one analysis from the article that you think particularly illustrates the author's "unexplainable" assertion, and let's see how unexplainable we "enemies of the truth" find it to be.

[Nozebro]

34. Mr. Segar, I tried to make it easy for you. EOM

nt

[mirandapriestly]

36. oops sorry, I only looked at the beginning

I was in a hurry and wanted to reply. He points out a lot of things that just looked "wrong' to me for some reason and shows why they are wrong, like the wings tipping up. I can't see the antennae in front of the plane, though, on the right side. I still have not quite finished it, though.

[Nozebro]

42. A good editor would have worded the title differently - knowing that

certain words would make it very easy for Bushco supporters to immediately apply the most salacious labels in their quiver and thereby likely avoid having to respond to anything else in the article.
And it works, too. Most people would just as soon not have to contend with anything that they don't already know or believe and when it comes to 9/11, Bushco supporters are happy to oblige them.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

29. None of that could be used for the CTers claims.

All of those require a screen, and and can't compete with sunlight.

For a hologram to work, the holograms light must be brighter than the light for other sources. In the sun, the sun would overpower anybody's hologram.

And we do NOT have the technology to wrap a hologram around a missile. That is pure science fantasy, NOT science.

[Brainster]

20. The Best Work in 9-11 CT Is Being Done By the No-Planers

And that's a pretty sorry comment on the state of affairs in 9-11 Denial.

[FoxOnTheRun]

21. you mean no-brainers

[Nozebro]

22. Science must really frighten you. Is your avatar something you selected

in hopes it would protect you from advanced thinking?

[FoxOnTheRun]

24. Why not stick to something you can prove?

[greyl]

26. I'd love to see that. nt

[OldSiouxWarrior]

30. I would say he distinguishes between science and sci-fi.

You, however, obviously can't tell the difference.

[Nozebro]

31. Well, since you aren't scientific, by your logic that makes U sci-fi

That makes sense because it's hard to tell the difference between you and a holographic CT'er.

[Nozebro]

23. Interesting, but if you read the article, you'll know the author doesn't

agree with you.

[rman]

37. disagree

The best work is done by those who look beyond the (often inconclusive records of) physical evidence of what took place on that one day, and rather look at the people and organizations involved before, during and after the event;

9/11 Press For Truth
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=everyone+got+to+learn+sometime

9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

9-11 Citizen's Commision headed by Cynthia McKinney
http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Both are important

At this point, there is a huge pile of evidence that the Top Leaders of the US knew an attack was coming and allowed it to happen. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans have no clue about what really happened that day.

Whenever I get the chance to 'educate' someone I stay as far away from the physical and mechanical aspects off the attack as possible, and focus on Bush and his Top Leaders. On the morning of 9-11, every single one of these leaders went AWOL and could not be 'found' until after the Pentagon was attacked. Too bad Flight 93 got off the ground so late, that really put a crimp in things.

However, the physical and mechanical aspects of this attack are just as important. There are too many anomalies. When you study how the buildings were designed and how they fell, two things are apparent. One - The damage from the planes and resulting fires were not enough to cause total failure of both buildings. Two - When you look at the sequence of events and how the buildings fell, it is apparent the attack was designed to minimize loss of life and damage to the surrounding areas. When you study the buildings, you start to see how they did it, and then you know that this was a very carefully planned event that took years to implement and had to be an inside job. Whoever did this knew the buildings too well.

[Nozebro]

41. I think your analysis is too narrow & leads to the wrong conclusion.

You said:

"At this point, there is a huge pile of evidence that the Top Leaders of the US knew an attack was coming and allowed it to happen."

Isn't it more accurate to say that as of September 10, 2001 --- as of THAT date, the President had been given briefing reports which contained suggestions that some kind of "attack" might be in the planning.

Today, we know that it is not accurate to say that the "Top Leaders...allowed it to happen"...UNLESS by that you mean those "Top Leaders" knew the U.S. was planning a false flag operation and allowed that false flag operation to continue. Put another way, 9/11 was an inside job. THAT is what happened.

[FogerRox]

43. I think its more accurate to say that

at the top levels of Government, they cleared the way for 9-11. Months before it went down. TOO many FBI/law enforcement efforts were stymied by high level officals.

I think there are many instances where Law enforcement was on the verge of busting part of the "Evil doers" plan. TO me that reeks of pre-meditaion, at the very least, @ top gov. levels, people knew, and went out of their way to let it happen. Whether the plan was an internal op or not ...

I would go as far as saying that the quality of circumstantial evidence of some sort of LIHOP is great. Great enough, if it wasn't about 9-11, we would already have had supbeneoas and a Grand Jury, discovery, etc. IMHO this is currently where the best case can be made.

This is why I am copying "Everybodies gotta learn Sometime", its a great intro. Easily digested by the novice.

[Nozebro]

44. LIHOP is an impossibility. Here's why.

The 9/11 "attacks" simply could NOT have taken place WITHOUT the ACTIVE participation of U.S. Gov't operatives. It wasn't a simple matter of someone(s) closing their eyes. Decisions and actions WERE taken that facilitated the "attacks". Closed eyes (only) would NOT have been enough for the "attacks" to have taken place.

[FogerRox]

45. I think they actively ran interference for the evil doers

Re my previous post. That has already been shown via the press.

[Nozebro]

47. By your logic, at most bushco was guilty of what? gross negligence?

I didn't realize you are a supporter of the "Osama & Other Evil Doers Did It" conspiracy theory.
Or is it that you simply don't realize that what you're attempting to do is point out a difference without a distinction. The bank guard who "only" held a gun on everyone in the bank while someone else actually took the cash bags is JUST AS GUILTY as anyone else that participated in the crime, and the judge is NOT going to let him off because he "only ran interference for the Evil Doers". Don't you understand that?

[FogerRox]

48. No,

[Nozebro]

49. Well I give up. Thanks for playing.

nt

[FogerRox]

50. I was very careful not to directly say who came up with the plan

What I did say was that there was interference run for the "evil doers".... and that there is solid documentaion for this. I put plenty of Qualfiers in what I wrote. & I dont play, not in this forum. I usually stay out of the fray. Thanks for the welcome.

[Nozebro]

51. Yes, I read that. Sounds like you need to refine your theories. Reading

and thinking things through helps.

[rman]

46. There's an enormous mountain of verifiable evidence

of highly anomalous events, associations, influence, conflicts of interest etc surrounding 9/11, that point to a False Flag Operation á la Northwoods (except that this one was bigger and it was actually executed).

It takes more time to absorb it all but is much more readily unidentifiable as being anomalous, as being highly suspicious, than any of the reports and recordings of the attacks and the collapses.
After all, no-one has ever before seen planes crash into sky scrapers and no-one has ever before seen sky scrapers collapse. Nobody knows what it's supposed to look like. Much it it sure looks odd, but there is no point of reference for it in people's experience. The exception being perhaps, the most suspicious event of that day: the collapse of WTC7.

Conspiring and secretly using one's influence to manipulate events in one's favor, is recognizable. Everyone does it to some extent and everyone has been a victim of it - even if only in minor ways and even though often times there's no crime involved. Everyone knows people can succumb to the temptation of using one's influence to one's own advantage even if it is to the detriment of some, or even of many. Everyone knows some succumb more easily than others.
Everyone knows there's a lot going on behind the scenes in politics and business, everyone knows there's not only lobbying but also corruption and conflict of interest - any difference of opinion is mostly about who's to blame. Everyone knows there are unscrupulous people in positions of power.

My point is, this kind of evidence is much closer to home for many people.
Conspiring to assassinate a president or to stage a terrorist attack is just a bigger version of what people are already familiar with.

[kerry_s]

38. What does "OCT" mean?

[RedSock]

40. OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory - right? (eom)