ghostplane

[demodewd]

ghostplane2.wmv

[demodewd]

1. sorry ...try this..

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm Then click ghostplane2.wmv

[demodewd]

11. AC Mechanic: That Object Should Not Exist

http://www.rense.com/general41/ac.htm...,...The object attached to the jet fuselage should not exist in the picture of the second 767 heading for an impact with the south tower.

I am an aircraft mechanic with nineteen years at a major carrier and have accomplished hundreds of service checks on most models of passenger liners from the 727, 737(all models), the MD-80, DC-9, 757 and the 767. There is no accessory to my knowledge that attaches to the fuselage of any of those aircraft.

From the shadow of the object it reminds me of some kind of external fuel tank, like many military aircraft use to extend their range. How it came to be attached to a Boeing 767, which has no fittings, ("hard points", in the service) for it to fastened is a dilemma.

In conclusion, it is definitely not an open right side AC bay door on the bottom of the fuselage, because if it had come unlatched the airstream at 450-550 mile per hour would tear that door right off its' hinges, regardless of its' orientation to the line of flight.

[MercutioATC]

2. This was dealt with in DU1's forums...

It'd be highly unlikely that an aircraft could depart a major airport with some big honkin' piece of siomething attatched with nobody noticing. This is an issue of light and shadows, not a modification/addition to the plane.

[Robb]

3. Heya Thumb-biter!

Long time no see! :)

I agree with your post, too. And I think someone made an excellent case about this a few months back... must search.

[MercutioATC]

9. Robb! Long time no type!

How ya been?

[Abe Linkman]

5. It was dealt with, and found to be a disturbing anomaly

"It'd be highly unlikely that an aircraft could depart a major airport"
without being noticed.

Important point...if it were alleged that THAT plane departed from a major airport. I thought the idea was that it departed from a military airfield.

[MercutioATC]

10. THAT plane was in radar contact the entire time. "Replacing" it

with a plane from another airport (which would have had to leave no radar signature) would be next to impossible. That plane DID depart from a major airport.

[demodewd]

6. Please look again

Did you download ghostplane2.wmv? If you did(or didn't) review it and focus on the attached "anomaly" throughout the eleven seconds. Notice the observable movement and the puff of whiteness occuring nearly simultaneously with the flash of flame?

[JHB]

4. and....?

The plane was seen (and photographed) from other angles, which don't show anything odd about its profile. The "device" appears to be shadows of the plane's strucutre itself, and the "fires a jet of flame" loks like nothing more than the impact of the nose with the building.

[demodewd]

7. re: and

Did you download ghostplane2.wmv? If you did(or didn't) review it and focus on the attached "anomaly" throughout the eleven seconds. Notice the observable movement and the puff of whiteness occuring nearly simultaneously with the flash of flame?

[JHB]

8. Yes I downloaded and reviewed it...

I don't see any "observable movement" that can't just as easily be the changing angle of shadows, and the "puff", if it's what I think you're referring to, may be a reflection of the impact flame, or a lens effect. I don't know for sure, because it's not sharp enough.

However, if there's something really there, you ought to be able to see it in other footage of the plane hitting the tower.

I remember one bit of footage, where the cameraman had the camera low pointing up at a hot dog vendor, so he could get the guy and the south tower in the same shot, when suddenly the second plane appears from behind a building and hits the tower. That footage would have had a clear view of the underside of the plane, and IF you can find the same "device" and "puff" in that footage (and other footage of the 2nd plane hitting), you'll have a much better case than with one clip of footage that isn't sharp enough to show what you're claiming.

[demodewd]

12. Multiples...

http://www.rense.com/general41/boeing.htm ............We are currently engaged in an investigation of this anomaly to the fuselage of the aircraft that hit WTC2 (south tower).

We no longer refer to this plane as UA 175. We call it WTC2-AC for World Trade Center building 2 aircraft.

UA 175 was a commercial Boeing 767-222. Look at as many photos of the 767-222 as you like and you'll not see this configuration. The 767-222 has no hard points for mounting external tanks or such. We are confirming this last statement today.

It matters not, what other arguments are made as to why this ac is UA 175. The proponent of the allegation MUST explain and prove that UA 175 (registration N612UA) had modifications to its fuselage. Further, the proponent must prove that this modification to the fuselage was exhibited upon take off from Logan on that fateful day.

This is a major smoking gun that has been in our faces since the first or second day after the event. This configuration is shown on MULTIPLE IMAGESof the event from MULTIPLE CAMERASin MULTIPLE FORMATSfrom MULTIPLE ANGLES.

We are creating a web page for our arguments, that will be up in a few days. We will incorporate this information into a documentary we are making on the Oil Wars and America's failed energy policy. Pilots and crash investigator engineers are involved. I am available for an interview on the matter.

Best regards,
David Sadler
www.david-sadler.org
GOP congressional candidate, 12th CD/IL (2002)
618.542.4413 voice

[JHB]

13. And to me...

...that "pod" looks like the shadow of the wing and right engine pod on the fuselage.

Where are the alleged "MULTIPLE IMAGESof the event from MULTIPLE CAMERASin MULTIPLE FORMATSfrom MULTIPLE ANGLES"? They're not on that page.

[RedSock]

14. delete

deleted

[demodewd]

15. Looks like an extra "pod" to me...podner

The"pod"looks quite distinct to me. Especially from the angle in the last three seconds or so of the clip where it appears to extend well beyond the surface of the fusillage.

[MercutioATC]

16. No prob. Just explain how everybody missed noticing it on the ground.

Think about it. Hundreds of passengers, gound crew, luggage handlers, the tower controllers, for chrissakes the PILOT that did the preflight walkaround ALL just MISSED it?

"Replacing" the plane in midair was nearly impossible also. It would entail:

1) Finding something to do with the real flight and all of its passengers.

2) Making the real flight invisible to radar while "replacing" it with another aircraft (and making the other aircraft invisible to radar until the moment of the switch).

I think that a misinterpretation of the images is a whole lot more likely than either of the scenarios above.

[demodewd]

17. Radar Substitution

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=36583 4.1 Radar Substitution
A radar screen is essentially a circular CRT (cathode ray tube — like a television screen) that displays aircraft within the circular airspace represented on the screen. Radar operators are the only people who can be aware of what planes are in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of what is going on in any large volume of airspace and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the radar operators.

The resolution of a radar screen is the size of the smallest point that can appear there, approximately two millimeters in diameter — a "blip." A typical radar screen, less than a meter in diameter, could therefore be described as less than 500 "blips" wide. If the airspace represented on the screen were 500 kilometers in diameter (approximately 300 miles, a not atypical size), each blip would represent a piece of airspace that is more than 500/500 = 1 kilometer wide.

In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within a kilometer of one another, there would be a tendency for their respective blips to merge. With half a kilometer separation or less, the two aircraft could easily appear as one.

Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a distinct risk of collision — unless they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent airspace in the same way as a map, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed. Thus, without additional information in the form of a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not. Altitude information is displayed if an aircraft's transponder is turned on, otherwise, the radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.

If one aircraft happens to be within a half kilometer of another, whether above that aircraft or below it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a horizontal separation that is no greater than half a kilometer (about 500 yards).

Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both planes swerve, each taking the other's former direction. The operator would simply see the aircraft cross and would have no way to realize that a swap had taken place.

There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch up and "pass" another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded up.

Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.

[MercutioATC]

18. Yes, I'm an air traffic controller. I know how our scopes work.

Both scenarios you mention would require the active cooperation of both aircraft. If you're claiming "replacement" you have to believe that the flight crew of the real flight was in collusion with the government and both they and all of the passengers have been killed or are being held incommunicado. You'd also have to believe that, although 3 other flights were hijacked and the "real" aircraft really did crash in THOSE scenarios, this ONE flight was "replaced". Does that make any sense?

The target merge you describe is a real phenomenon and does work much as you explained. The range of the scope would not be 500km...probably more like 150km...but otherwise relatively accurate. The issue is that it's a known phenomenon. If ANY target (transponder return or just a primary) had crossed that flight's path in the way you described, it would have been investigated, or at least mentioned by the controller(s) involved.

Look, I really believe that the signs were there and this administration dropped the ball in a big way. I might go so far as to entertain the idea that they intentionally didn't look to closely, because an attack of this magnitude would help their goals in the Middle East. The talk of substitution and replacement is beyond reasonable, though. There would be too many possible failure points. It's just a bad plan...which makes it unreasonable as a theory of what really happened.

[demodewd]

19. I think they were gassed.

My own personal scenario is that the planes were taken over by outside control after the passengers and crew were gassed to death. I just start with what visual evidence and disinformation I perceive and work backwards. I believe from what I have examined that there was an extra attached fuel tank and missle flame thrower of some sort on 175. This allowed for the Hollywood special effect of the plane immediately bursting into a mammoth plume of inferno. All a prepared spectacle for the viewing masses 20 minutes after the North Tower crash. Now if I were convinced otherwise then all the speculation would be for naught. But as time passes I find myself more and more convinced that I am onto something. :)

[MercutioATC]

21. The attatched stuff was on the REAL 175?

That runs into the problem that anything out of the ordinary would have been noticed by ground crew, baggage handlers, caterers, tower controllers, and, most importantly, the pilot on his preflight walkaround. How did all of these people miss these attachments?

[demodewd]

22. No

No. Sorry, I should be more exact. The 175 was brought down and replaced by a drone.

[acerbic]

23. So they built a drone that was an exact replica of the passenger plane

...except they put that suspicious external attachment there instead of putting whatever it contained inside the empty plane. That makes sense... :-)

[demodewd]

26. Instantaneous transformation

Especially if there is a nuzzle attached to it that fires a flame towards the nose of the plane(drone) and causes the building interior and the drone to instantaneously transform into a huge flame ball. :)

[acerbic]

27. ...and in the pictures that the Attachment Believers tout as "proof"

...the "attachment" is indeed seen to do just that just before the plane hits the building:

Especially if there is a nuzzle attached to it that fires a flame towards the nose of the plane(drone)

Oh wait: the pictures don't actually show any such flames. Whatever. :silly:

[MercutioATC]

28. "brought down" how and where?

If you gas the passengers and crew, why doesn't the plane crash?

[demodewd]

29. Shrug...

By backdooring the FCS(Flight Control System) and triggering a new set of flight coordinates (possibly clandestinely installed) through the INS(inertial navigation system)? :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

30. That's a bit of a stretch...besides, that plane had to go SOMEWHERE...

...let's assume for a moment that they DID tamper with the nav system in that manner. There's still a very big airplane that has to be disposed of to make this theory work. Where'd it go?

[ramblin_dave]

20. The "object" hanging below the plane

It certainly looks more like a real object to me than some kind of light or shadow effect, but the image is just too fuzzy to say for sure. Isn't there a video of the second plane looking straight up the tower as the second plane seems to slice right in? That shot would show the belly of the plane but I don't remember how clear it was.

[reorg]

24. i have the video

and here are screen shots, not very good, but yo can see the object:



Hard to make out if it is a combination of the right engine's shadow and bright light on the underside of the right wing.

The view in ghostplane2.wmv is better, but the phenomenon is clearly visible in the above video, too. I have yet another one, shot from a similar angle as in ghostplane2.wmv which was shown on CNN, I believe, where you can also see this thing. Together with the new images in the NYT that makes four different ones I know of.

Other videos of the second impact show the plane from angles where you don't see the the plane from below and/or cannot make out if anything unusual is there. I have yet to see one video where you see the underside without this strange object or whatever it is.

It is my impression too, after watching the videos quite a few times, that it is an object rather than a shadow.

[ramblin_dave]

25. Very strange but still fuzzy.

A brief glimpse of the underside of the plane was also caught on the so-called fireman's video shot by one of the Naudet brothers. I looked at my copy of 9|11 DVD but my PC is not good enough to see or grab a single frame.

[markses]

32. The Naudet brothers' video captured the first plane

Flying into the North Tower. They do not have any images of the second plane, since they were in the lobby of WTC 1 at the time. All the images above are of the second plane flying into the South Tower.

[ramblin_dave]

33. There is a brief glimpse of the second plane

from below as one of the brothers is outside trying to work his way toward the towers. The two brothers were separated. One was taping the firemen checking for gas and caught the first plane. He rode with them and taped all the action in the lobby. The other brother was at the firehouse during all this and was nearing the towers as the second plane hit.

[markses]

34. I've seen the whole tape

Or the parts they showed on HBO. Don't remember that part. In any case, the second brother was coming from uptown, so it's mighty strange that he'd have a "from below" shot of the plane hitting the South Tower, coming from the south?

[JHB]

31. Sorry, but...

...I just see a dark area, with insufficient detail to distinguish a "pod" from the engine shadow.

If you're convinced it's a pod, then perhaps you can explain where the shadow of the engine pod is, since at that time of day for a plane with that direction and attitude, that's about where one would expect the shadow of the engine pod to fall.

[ramblin_dave]

35. kick

Another thread has been started on this subject so I'm kicking this one in case newcomers want to review this thread.

[Minstrel Boy]

36. thanks dave

I'd missed this thread.