New pictures of 2nd plane hitting WTC

[Thunder]

In October or November of 2001, my next door neighbor brought over some pictures of the 2nd plane crash into the WTC. As the dust had not even come close to settling and I was still breathing in that crap, I had no interest in seeing these pics of horror.

Years later, as I began debating Truthers, I remembered these pics, and asked if I could see them again. My neighbor kinda forgot about my request, and didn't ask again.

A day or so after the 9-11 CT section boycott began, I remembered these pics, and decided to ask my parent's neighbor one more time, if I could see them.

And...low and behold, they had them.

Today, I recieved the pics, and scanned them onto my computer.

Unfortunately, they are not original pics. They are scans of the originals, as you can see the inkjet print lines. Nevertheless, these are indeed scans of amature photos taken on 9-11, in the Lower East Side neighborhood of Manhattan. These are the same images I saw in late 2001.

These photos were NOT taken by a member of the media. They were NOT taken by a politician or government representitive. They were taken by just your average, every-day, middle class New Yorker.

Anyone who doubts the authenticity of these photographs, has no shame.


picture #1. here you can clearly see the plane approaching for impact.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=510&pictureid=3200

picture #2. plane has impacted and jet fuel is beggining to explode out the other side of the building. do we see the left engine coming through? I'm not sure.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=510&pictureid=3201

picture #3. massive fireball and debree raining down on the city.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=510&pictureid=3202



.....yes, I ended my boycott a wee bit early. But it is Wednesday, and I just couldn't sit on these any longer. :)

[dtugg]

Photoshopped.

[AJM8125]

Plagiarized.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

what? these aren't new pics but photoshopped? shocking!

[Sam.I.Am]

Your parents neighbors are quite clearly members of the NWO photoshopping squad... You can tell because they used the standard generic blobby thing and not the standard shadowy thing. :D

[Juniversal]

picture #1. here you can clearly see the plane approaching for impact.Not a plane. An explosive drone painted to look like a 767. ;)

[BaaBaa]

No space beams. Total fakery.

[njslim]

Congrats on excellents fakes

A bonus payment has been sent to your NWO shill account...

[Harpo]

Not a plane. An explosive drone painted to look like a 767. ;)

Looks more like Rodan to the trained eye. ;)

[Horatius]

...my next door neighbor .... My neighbor kinda forgot about my request

...to ask my parent's neighbor one more time,



Not only photoshopped, but an internally inconsistent narrative!

[Oystein]

There is no sound in these photos, and no one visibly reacts to what must have been an earsplitting environmental impact.
I therefore objectively conclude that these photos are proof of NO PLANE.

[Thunder]

Not only photoshopped, but an internally inconsistent narrative!

in 2001, I lived at home. today, I have my own place.

hence...they were my neighbors then..and today they are not.

:)

....I'm very surprised no on has yet noticed the naked woman on the roof.

[Sam.I.Am]

So your perverted neighbors were taking pictures of "The Naked Woman On The Roof" (TNWOTR) were they? What has (TNWOTR) said about seeing the crashes? Did she see the crashes? I don't recall seeing any videos on the tee vee with (TNWOTR) saying that she saw a plane hit the buildings.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5374/crazywarningguy1a167780.jpg

ANOTHER NO PLANE WITNESS!!!

[Thunder]

So your perverted neighbors were taking pictures of "The Naked Woman On The Roof" (TNWOTR) were they? What has (TNWOTR) said about seeing the crashes? Did she see the crashes? I don't recall seeing any videos on the tee vee with (TNWOTR) saying that she saw a plane hit the buildings.

:)

[djlunacee]

Which roof??????

[Gord_in_Toronto]

@Thunder

All joking aside, do you have any information on the history of these pictures?

[Oystein]

@Thunder

All joking aside, do you have any information on the history of these pictures?

I think it is clear from the OP:

- Neighbors took them on 9/11/01
- Printed them out soon thereafter with an ink-jet printer
- showed them to thunder in october or november 2001
- had them in some drawer, desk, cardboard box
- found them again this week
- scanned by Thunder

Any loophole there? Of course you can't know if they had been tampered with in the meantime.

[Horatius]

in 2001, I lived at home. today, I have my own place.

hence...they were my neighbors then..and today they are not.

:)

....I'm very surprised no on has yet noticed the naked woman on the roof.



Yeah, right, next you'll start posting your "age" to "prove" you still "lived" at "home" then, right? Typical!


Besides which, if this mathematically-impossible claim were even likely to be true, you would have referred to them as "My former neighbours", not "my parent's neighbours". It's a lexicographical law!

[Thunder]

@Thunder

All joking aside, do you have any information on the history of these pictures?

taken on 9-11.

showed to me a month or two later.

put in drawer ever since.

..when my neighbor asked me, who these people were who would be stupid enough to doubt there were planes on 9-11, she asked if they were Iranian. :)

i said no, they are American.

[AaronMHatch]

I can't see the pictures. Am I missing a joke?

[Oystein]

I can't see the pictures. Am I missing a joke?

Maybe you looked before you logged in?

[ElMondoHummus]

Photoshopped.

Plagiarized.

what? these aren't new pics but photoshopped? shocking!

Your parents neighbors are quite clearly members of the NWO photoshopping squad... You can tell because they used the standard generic blobby thing and not the standard shadowy thing. :D

Not a plane. An explosive drone painted to look like a 767. ;)

No space beams. Total fakery.

Looks more like Rodan to the trained eye. ;)

I have a technical complaint: The color balance sucks. :p

Cue someone finding the color balance being cause for suspicion in 4... 3... 2... :D;):p

[NoZed Avenger]

The color balance is off, which clearly showes evidence of tampe-


Crap.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just out of curiosity: What is tampe-crap?

:duck:

[Metullus]

Compacted stool?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

taken on 9-11.

showed to me a month or two later.

put in drawer ever since.

..when my neighbor asked me, who these people were who would be stupid enough to doubt there were planes on 9-11, she asked if they were Iranian. :)

i said no, they are American.

Do the original digital pictures still exist?

[Thunder]

Do the original digital pictures still exist?

i assume so.

[NYCEMT86]

They were taken by just your average, every-day, middle class New Yorker.

You lie! No such class exists in NYC :D


Thanks for sharing Thunder! I can only imagine how many more photos and videos exist that the public will never see.

[Thunder]

You lie! No such class exists in NYC :D


Thanks for sharing Thunder! I can only imagine how many more photos and videos exist that the public will never see.

every photo that does not come forward, is evidence of the No-Plane Theory.

:p

btw, I believe the originals are 35mm...not digital. and no, I do not have them nor am I gonna ask for them.

[fess]

taken on 9-11.

showed to me a month or two later.

put in drawer ever since.

..when my neighbor asked me, who these people were who would be stupid enough to doubt there were planes on 9-11, she asked if they were Iranian. :)

i said no, they are American.

You have the nerve Sir, to call Jammonious an American? I shall move to the nearness of the South Pole in order to protect what little dignity I have left.

[ElMondoHummus]

You lie! No such class exists in NYC :D

You have the nerve Sir, to call Jammonious an American? I shall move to the nearness of the South Pole in order to protect what little dignity I have left.

Well, since everyone else is piling on:

You're ugly! And your mother dresses you funny! :p

;)

[Fonebone]

Not a plane. An explosive drone painted to look like a 767. ;)

Fonebone <
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164034

[Thunder]

interesting how Jammonious is avoiding this thread.

:)

[Edx]

Thunder,

That is clearly just a "shadow thingy". ;)

[djlunacee]

interesting how Jammonious is avoiding this thread.

:)

He is busy getting crushed (again) in another thread.

[jammonius]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=510&pictureid=3200

Thunder,

All I can say is there is little wonder the above photo has not been offered up earlier than the present. It shows next to nothing. The shadow thingy is of awfully poor quality and does not allow us to conclude that it has anything whatever to do with the subsequent explosions that occurred, let alone what it might actually be.

I suppose the temptation here is to get into a bruhaha with you or other posters concerning the authenticity or lack of it of the photo. However, that is likely to be a useless endeavor and I will decline to go that route.

I have, however, taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from Version # 14 of the ALL 43 videos, from about the 3:30mark of that video, where a reasonable facsimile of the shadow thingy shown there can be compared with the shadow-blob thingy in your photo.

Interesting, isn't it?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/thundercompar.jpg?t=1277417949

For those who wish to consider your photo as evidence that a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower, fine, let them consider it that way if they like.

I do not think your photo is convincing based on the way it looks and based on what it shows.

Mind you, I am not here making any claims about its authenticity, as I don't think it serves any purpose in doing so. If your neighbor asserts that the photo is an accurate depiction of what your neighbor saw, then, fine, I can accept that.

Your neighbor saw a shadowy thingy and took a picture of it.

Your neighbor cannot be said to have taken a picture showing a Boeing 767, as the quality of the photo is too poor to makie that claim, to put it no more harshly than that.

[jaydeehess]

OMG, having not read much of jammonious' posting I thought the others were making up 'shadow thingy'.

It certainly looks consistent with a twin engine airliner to me.

I do know its not a cloud, a seagull or the shadow of a low orbit death star.:D

[Gorgonian]

OMG, having not read much of jammonious' posting I thought the others were making up 'shadow thingy'.

It certainly looks consistent with a twin engine airliner to me.

I do know its not a cloud, a seagull or the shadow of a low orbit death star.:D

No. He steadfastly refuses to call what is obviously a plane a plane. He says says shadow-thingy over and over again as if that proves anything to anyone other than himself. It is really, really sad.

[Thunder]

All I can say is there is little wonder the above photo has not been offered up earlier than the present. It shows next to nothing. .

you are looking at a 757 approaching the WTC.

you know that.

I believe your posts are either dishonestly doubting that 2 planes hit the WTC..or insane.

Yes, I believe your posts may indeed be disinfo. Perhaps you have a grudge against certain Truthers and are trying to help defeat them by making them look insane.

Or your posts are indeed insane. Dishonesty..or insanity. It is definitely one of the two.

[dtugg]

you are looking at a 757 approaching the WTC.

you know that.

I believe your posts are either dishonestly doubting that 2 planes hit the WTC..or insane.

Yes, I believe your posts may indeed be disinfo. Perhaps you have a grudge against certain Truthers and are trying to help defeat them by making them look insane.

Or your posts are indeed insane. Dishonesty..or insanity. It is definitely one of the two.

For accuracy's stake, it was a 767.

[Dog Town]

I do not think your photo is convincing based on the way it looks and based on what it shows.



Brillant!


Almost as good as Adam.Savage: Performed by Jammonius,
" I reject your (read: All) reality, and substitute my own!"

Thanks for the laughs!
Obligatory, but only two, you can do better...


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

ETA duce:
41

4jam
@ Lurkers...Page 2!

[Thunder]

For accuracy's stake, it was a 767.

no. its a black blob.

a big black blob..with with three blobs that could be the plane's body and two engines, approaching the WTC, right before there is a big explosion in the WTC.

but its nothing. its meaningless. its probably just a bird.

a big...giant...bird.

[Thunder]

ok. ive just realized how much it says about me, that I am arguing with someone who is clearly either a liar..or insane. and it doesn't say much good.

I am done.

[PhantomWolf]

ok. ive just realized how much it says about me, that I am arguing with someone who is clearly either a liar..or insane. and it doesn't say much good.

I am done.

It took you this long? All I needed to do was compare his arguements to this. (http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpg)

[Oystein]

every photo that does not come forward, is evidence of the No-Plane Theory.

:p

btw, I believe the originals are 35mm...not digital. and no, I do not have them nor am I gonna ask for them.

How do you ink-jet-print 35mms?

[PhantomWolf]

How do you ink-jet-print 35mms?

Scan, Print, done.

[Oystein]

...
All I can say is there is little wonder the above photo has not been offered up earlier than the present. It shows next to nothing. The shadow thingy is of awfully poor quality and does not allow us to conclude that it has anything whatever to do with the subsequent explosions that occurred, let alone what it might actually be.
...
For those who wish to consider your photo as evidence that a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower, fine, let them consider it that way if they like.

I do not think your photo is convincing based on the way it looks and based on what it shows.
...
Your neighbor cannot be said to have taken a picture showing a Boeing 767, as the quality of the photo is too poor to makie that claim, to put it no more harshly than that.

If these pictures were the only evidence we have, then you would be right, we could not specifically say it's a Boeing 767 flying into the South Tower.

However, the pictures are clear enough to show that something the size of an airliner, made up of three main pieces (a larger blob in the middle and two smaller blobs left and right) is featured in picture 1, is absent in pictures 2 and 3 and replaced by a fireball spouting north-west out of the tower.
If these pictures were the only evidence we have, one might still conclude that a large twin-engine plane crashed into the World Trade Center, we just would not know excatly type and origin of that plane, other than that it approached from the south.

However, given the theory of a 767 crashing, we would be able to predict that photos taken by Thunder's neighbours immediately before and after the crash would look exactly like the pictures we see.

That is why the pictures are strong evidence for the 767 theory: They live up 100% to predictions from theory.

jammonius, what would your theory (DEW) predict about pictures snapped by Thunder's neighbours at that time in history? Would your theory predict a shadowy thingy consisting of three little blobs (one larger in the middle, two smaller left and right) in that position of the photo where we actually see it? Or would it not rather predict that this spot in the sky would be equally free of such large objects in all 3 pictures?

Do you have a better explanation for this particular shadowy thingy than "large twin-engine plane"? If so, now is the time to spell it out! If you have no better explanation, now is the time to admit that the PLANE-theory is the best theory we have to date.

[Oystein]

Scan, Print, done.

Why would they scan and print a 35mm? The time-honoured and best-quality method to enlarge 35mm is to have the photo lab do photoprints right away. I have a select few analogue photos scanned on my computer, for the purpose of e-mailing them or uploading to the internet. However, if I wanted to show my neighbours those pictures, scanning and ink-jet-printing would never come to my mind - I have the originals, they are always much better!

I just find this idea very strange, and I would definitely ask my neighbours kindly for the originals, whether 35mm or digital.

[PhantomWolf]

Why would they scan and print a 35mm? The time-honoured and best-quality method to enlarge 35mm is to have the photo lab do photoprints right away. I have a select few analogue photos scanned on my computer, for the purpose of e-mailing them or uploading to the internet. However, if I wanted to show my neighbours those pictures, scanning and ink-jet-printing would never come to my mind - I have the originals, they are always much better!

I just find this idea very strange, and I would definitely ask my neighbours kindly for the originals, whether 35mm or digital.

What about if you are going to give them to a neighbour? Scan and copy with an all in one scanner/ink jet printer, or go and get new prints made up?

[Oystein]

What about if you are going to give them to a neighbour? Scan and copy with an all in one scanner/ink jet printer, or go and get new prints made up?

Hmm ok...
Then Thunder re-scanned the scanned-and-printed...

I guess what I am driving at is: it would be nice to finally have one picture proof that has not been copied and reduced x times before it reaches us; one whose record of custody is precisely known.

[T.A.M.]

you are looking at a 757 approaching the WTC.

you know that.

I believe your posts are either dishonestly doubting that 2 planes hit the WTC..or insane.

Yes, I believe your posts may indeed be disinfo. Perhaps you have a grudge against certain Truthers and are trying to help defeat them by making them look insane.

Or your posts are indeed insane. Dishonesty..or insanity. It is definitely one of the two.

He is so deep in the quagmuire of the noplaner lies, nothing short of a crystal clear image of the plane taken by his own motherwould convince him...and even then there would be considerable doubt.

These pics are not to convince him. They are merely to add to the total body of evidence.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

Why would they scan and print a 35mm?

because this is what normal people do.

remember...the pics were taken 9 years ago. the negatives are loooooong gone.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers in bold:

Thunder,

All I can say is there is little wonder the above photo has not been offered up earlier than the present. It shows next to nothing. The shadow thingy is of awfully poor quality and does not allow us to conclude that it has anything whatever to do with the subsequent explosions that occurred, let alone what it might actually be.

It shows something which you can never dispute Jam. You can't dispute that it shows a plane in the picture. So what you've got to prove Thunder wrong? We're waiting!

I suppose the temptation here is to get into a bruhaha with you or other posters concerning the authenticity or lack of it of the photo. However, that is likely to be a useless endeavor and I will decline to go that route.

Like I stated, what have you've got to show for? NOTHING! I rest my case!!

I have, however, taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from Version # 14 of the ALL 43 videos, from about the 3:30mark of that video, where a reasonable facsimile of the shadow thingy shown there can be compared with the shadow-blob thingy in your photo.

Cut & paste, is there nothing you can do but admit that you faked some pictures to spread your paranoia?

Interesting, isn't it?

Interesting that you've got nothing against Thunder!

For those who wish to consider your photo as evidence that a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower, fine, let them consider it that way if they like.

You've still got nothing to disprove Thunder. So quit it fool!

I do not think your photo is convincing based on the way it looks and based on what it shows.

What it shows is a plane, a 767. You've got the same picture without the plane in it?

Mind you, I am not here making any claims about its authenticity, as I don't think it serves any purpose in doing so. If your neighbor asserts that the photo is an accurate depiction of what your neighbor saw, then, fine, I can accept that.

Yeah, you're making a claim that there were "no planes". Well you've got a no brainer, no planer!

Your neighbor saw a shadowy thingy and took a picture of it.

Atleast it shows a 767 in it. What you've got?

Your neighbor cannot be said to have taken a picture showing a Boeing 767, as the quality of the photo is too poor to makie that claim, to put it no more harshly than that.

And you're making a poor example of how you interpret information. There's a plane in the picture regardless of what you say. Are you blind BTW?

[sheeplesnshills]

He is busy getting crushed (again) in another thread.

You can't crush Jammo.....he is like a roach on a soft carpet.

[sheeplesnshills]

Your neighbor saw a shadowy thingy and took a picture of it.

Your neighbor cannot be said to have taken a picture showing a Boeing 767, as the quality of the photo is too poor to makie that claim, to put it no more harshly than that.

Ok Jammo prove that they are lying about they saw and photographed.

What would that be if not a plane? There is no technology that can project a 3D image onto clear brightly lit sky so if the photo is not faked the what is it?

given the reproduction process involved it looks like a twin engined large jet to me! Your other picture looks exactly like a United Airlines 767 would look like in a close still up from a video. Please show us why it would look any different from that. Perhaps you could look at some other youtubes of fast moving aircraft thousands of feet away and see if they look any better?

[sheeplesnshills]

How do you ink-jet-print 35mms?


A lot of scanner/printers have device for scanning from 35mm negatives.

[Fonebone]

Ok Jammo prove that they are lying about they saw and photographed.

What would that be if not a plane? There is no technology that can project
a 3D image onto clear brightly lit sky so if the photo is not faked the what is it?
given the reproduction process involved it looks like a twin engined large jet to me!
Your other picture looks exactly like a United Airlines 767 would look like in a
close still up from a video.
Please show us why it would look any different from that. Perhaps you could
look at some other youtubes of fast moving aircraft thousands of feet away and
see if they look any better?



A CRUISE missile wearing a miniature Boeing 767 overcoat as a disguise.
The hollywoodesque special effects that offered the appearance of a
twin engine widebody combined with the sound effects of a super-sized
turbofan jet engine that would required to propel the flying Trojan horse
would easily fool the TeleVision generation that the WTC2 Boeing 767 llusion
was genuine.

The CRUISE missile concealed in the belly of the Flt.175 Boeing 767 overcoat
became a remote controlled powered glider that delivered the explosive payload
of munitions accurately to their target .
The disguised missile fired a AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) to pyrolyze a
molten entrance hole thru the steel exterior box columns allowing the missile
minus the disguise to penetrate "like soft butter" thru the potatoe slicer shaped
blades built into those box columns. The chisel shaped nose of the
CRUISE missile traveled completely through the WTC2 tower and exited intact
before the munitions were detonated.

Human nature dictates thousand of genuine albiet tramatized eyewitnesses
that heard for a split second or viewed for a fraction of a second any of the
events outline above would exclaim I saw it - I saw it.
I'm an eyewitness !
The videos and the camera stills would record the illusions as well as the
genuine jet engine sound effects that would reinforce the illusions just
like hollywood movies do.

You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time,
You can fool ALL of people SOME of the time,
But, You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. __Abe Lincoln

[DGM]

A CRUISE missile wearing a miniature Boeing 767 overcoat as a disguise.
The hollywoodesque special effects that offered the appearance of a
twin engine widebody combined with the sound effects of a super-sized
turbofan jet engine that would required to propel the flying Trojan horse
would easily fool the TeleVision generation that the WTC2 Boeing 767 llusion
was genuine.

The CRUISE missile concealed in the belly of the Flt.175 Boeing 767 overcoat
became a remote controlled powered glider that delivered the explosive payload
of munitions accurately to their target .
The disguised missile fired a AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) to pyrolyze a
molten entrance hole thru the steel exterior box columns allowing the missile
minus the disguise to penetrate "like soft butter" thru the potatoe slicer shaped
blades built into those box columns. The chisel shaped nose of the
CRUISE missile traveled completely through the WTC2 tower and exited intact
before the munitions were detonated.

Human nature dictates thousand of genuine albiet tramatized eyewitnesses
that heard for a split second or viewed for a fraction of a second any of the
events outline above would exclaim I saw it - I saw it.
I'm an eyewitness !
The videos and the camera stills would record the illusions as well as the
genuine jet engine sound effects that would reinforce the illusions just
like hollywood movies do.

You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time,
You can fool ALL of people SOME of the time,
But, You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. __Abe Lincoln
Why not just fly the fuel laden 767 into the building? Hey, maybe some suicidal hijackers could do that. :rolleyes:


K.I.S.S.

[Thunder]

Cockaroaches can survive the radiation of a nuclear explosion.

But they are still...cockaroaches.

:)

[Corsair 115]

Cockaroaches can survive the radiation of a nuclear explosion.

But they are still...cockaroaches.

:)


Pffft! You haven't been watching enough science-fiction films!

[djlunacee]

A CRUISE missile wearing a miniature Boeing 767 overcoat as a disguise.
The hollywoodesque special effects that offered the appearance of a
twin engine widebody combined with the sound effects of a super-sized
turbofan jet engine that would required to propel the flying Trojan horse
would easily fool the TeleVision generation that the WTC2 Boeing 767 llusion
was genuine.

The CRUISE missile concealed in the belly of the Flt.175 Boeing 767 overcoat
became a remote controlled powered glider that delivered the explosive payload
of munitions accurately to their target .
The disguised missile fired a AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) to pyrolyze a
molten entrance hole thru the steel exterior box columns allowing the missile
minus the disguise to penetrate "like soft butter" thru the potatoe slicer shaped
blades built into those box columns. The chisel shaped nose of the
CRUISE missile traveled completely through the WTC2 tower and exited intact
before the munitions were detonated.

Human nature dictates thousand of genuine albiet tramatized eyewitnesses
that heard for a split second or viewed for a fraction of a second any of the
events outline above would exclaim I saw it - I saw it.
I'm an eyewitness !
The videos and the camera stills would record the illusions as well as the
genuine jet engine sound effects that would reinforce the illusions just
like hollywood movies do.

You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time,
You can fool ALL of people SOME of the time,
But, You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. __Abe Lincoln

:eusa_doh:

[Bell]

You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time,
You can fool ALL of people SOME of the time,
But, You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. __Abe Lincoln

Again with the quotes. What is it with you guys that you think you have the truth because you know how to quote a smart dead guy?

[Fonebone]

Again with the quotes. What is it with you guys that you think you have the truth because you know how to quote a smart dead guy?

Quoting dead smart guys to prove a truth is a countermeasure to "you guys"
that quote living stupid people to bolster your blatant lies. Bic ?

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists,
themselves, away from the guilty." (President George W. Bush)

[Oystein]

"Be warned in time, James, and remain, as I do, incomprehensible: to be great is to be misunderstood."

"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. "

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. "

"Hard work is simply the refuge of people who have nothing whatever to do."

(All by Oscar Wilde)

I think these together prove INSIDE JOB.

:duck:

[Bell]

Quoting dead smart guys to prove a truth is a countermeasure to "you guys"
that quote living stupid people to bolster your blatant lies. Bic ?

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists,
themselves, away from the guilty." (President George W. Bush)

I knew a truther would make this kind of comment :rolleyes:

It's not my fault you can't grasp the difference between the two.

[Sam.I.Am]

Man... that's one hell of a cruise missile. :eye-poppi Got something more than a generic "Cruise missile" description, like a Tomahawk or whatever your fantasy is?

[PB2007]

A CRUISE missile wearing a miniature Boeing 767 overcoat as a disguise.

You have, of course, compared the size of those two objects?

How would this overcoat work then? Wireframe, inflatable...?

with the sound effects of a super-sized turbofan jet engine

How did they do this???

[carlitos]

Man... that's one hell of a cruise missile. :eye-poppi Got something more than a generic "Cruise missile" description, like a Tomahawk or whatever your fantasy is?

You can find the details in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164034). Fonebone believes that it was a "flying pig."

[Sam.I.Am]

You can find the details in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164034). Fonebone believes that it was a "flying pig."

Ahhh yes. I remember that thread now. I believe my response was:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8493/07pigbusreduced76626217.jpg

[PhantomWolf]

Man... that's one hell of a cruise missile. :eye-poppi Got something more than a generic "Cruise missile" description, like a Tomahawk or whatever your fantasy is?

When I first read the quote, I thought that it had to be a parody, but then I realised that I have Fonebone on ignore, which is why I couldn't see the original, and so it dawned on me that he was actually being serious. Then I remembered why I have all the Truthers on ignore.

[PhantomWolf]

Hmm ok...
Then Thunder re-scanned the scanned-and-printed...

I guess what I am driving at is: it would be nice to finally have one picture proof that has not been copied and reduced x times before it reaches us; one whose record of custody is precisely known.

Yeah it likely would have been better to get them to scan the photos and send over the electronic files by e-mail, but if they give you scanned and printed copies, and you want to put them on the net, well you have to scan them again. I know it's a long way to do it, but it does make sense.

[Thunder]

I got what I could get.

I am not happy with the quality. I thought I recalled seeing the original prints, back in 2001.

But the fact is, the folks I got these from were VERY confused as to who these people were, who would not believe there was a plane, and VERY confused as to why I would want to try to convince such silly people otherwise.

Therefore, I am not gonna bother them about this again.

[sheeplesnshills]

A CRUISE missile wearing a miniature Boeing 767 overcoat as a disguise.
The hollywoodesque special effects that offered the appearance of a
twin engine widebody combined with the sound effects of a super-sized
turbofan jet engine that would required to propel the flying Trojan horse
would easily fool the TeleVision generation that the WTC2 Boeing 767 llusion
was genuine.

The CRUISE missile concealed in the belly of the Flt.175 Boeing 767 overcoat
became a remote controlled powered glider that delivered the explosive payload
of munitions accurately to their target .
The disguised missile fired a AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) to pyrolyze a
molten entrance hole thru the steel exterior box columns allowing the missile
minus the disguise to penetrate "like soft butter" thru the potatoe slicer shaped
blades built into those box columns. The chisel shaped nose of the
CRUISE missile traveled completely through the WTC2 tower and exited intact
before the munitions were detonated.

Human nature dictates thousand of genuine albiet tramatized eyewitnesses
that heard for a split second or viewed for a fraction of a second any of the
events outline above would exclaim I saw it - I saw it.
I'm an eyewitness !
The videos and the camera stills would record the illusions as well as the
genuine jet engine sound effects that would reinforce the illusions just
like hollywood movies do.

You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time,
You can fool ALL of people SOME of the time,
But, You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. __Abe Lincoln

A 767 is much much much much bigger than a cruise missile....the hole in the building exactly matched that of a 767 and was much wider than a cruise missile. How would the High explosive warhead of a cruise missile look anything the fuel air explosion as witnessed on 911? Why bother with disguising a cruise missile when you could much more easily simply use a real 767 which contains far more KE and fuel energy than any non nuclear warhead!

[PS13]

You have the nerve Sir, to call Jammonious an American? I shall move to the nearness of the South Pole in order to protect what little dignity I have left.

If you're talking about Antarctica, then I'd advise you to be careful... Apparently there are armed guards there keeping people like us away. Why you ask? Well... you see, Antarctica is actually the "ice wall" that surrounds our earth & keeps the water "in". :jaw-dropp

A: There is a vast "ice wall" that keeps the water where it is. This explains why you can find a vast plane of ice as you travel southward. The wall is roughly 150ft high. In the McIntyre model, however, the height of the wall increases further as one moves toward the edge of the world.

Antarctica as a continent does not exist except in the Wilmore model.




I'm sure some of you have had the pleasure of seeing this forum?

*replace the (dot) with '.' and close the spaces between the w w w*
cause I'm not at 15 posts yet

w w w(dot)theflatearthsociety(dot)org/forum/

:eye-poppi :eek: :eye-poppi



ETA: I'm not a supporter of the flat earth "theory"... I merely go to that forum for comic relief.

[Bell]

Fixed: www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

I'm confused. I thought the armed guards were there to keep us away from the secret Nazi flying saucer base?

[ElMondoHummus]

ETA: I'm not a supporter of the flat earth "theory"... I merely go to that forum for comic relief.

Ahhh... establishing precedent for why you came here, aren't you? ;):D

Ps. Welcome!

[I Ratant]

For accuracy's stake, it was a 767.
.
Not Plymouth wheel covers in formation?

[PhantomWolf]

Fixed: www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

I'm confused. I thought the armed guards were there to keep us away from the secret Nazi flying saucer base?

No, that's on the moon, which is why NASA had to fake the moon landing, they are keeping people away from the south pole so they won't be able to see Nibiru approaching.

[I Ratant]

"Kay: All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. "
.
Jammy sounds like a living breathing victim of the flashy thingy.
Probably self-induced by saying "Bloody Mary" three times in the bathroom with the lights out.

[excaza]

All I can say is there is little wonder the above photo has not been offered up earlier than the present. It shows next to nothing. The shadow thingy is of awfully poor quality and does not allow us to conclude that it has anything whatever to do with the subsequent explosions that occurred, let alone what it might actually be.
It's got a fuselage, wings, and two engine nacelles. What the hell else could it be? If you can find a bird with engines, I'd be glad to see it.

Oh, sorry,
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=469&pictureid=2941

[NutCracker]

It's got a fuselage, wings, and two engine nacelles. What the hell else could it be? If you can find a bird with engines, I'd be glad to see it.

Oh, sorry,
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=469&pictureid=2941


I hate to be told what and what not to do. Likewise, I respect the freedom of others to do what they please, but for Jamn I make somewhat of an exception.

Can we please stop debating this indivudual that is clearly insane? There really is no point in arguing with him.

[excaza]

I hate to be told what and what not to do. Likewise, I respect the freedom of others to do what they please, but for Jamn I make somewhat of an exception.

Can we please stop debating this indivudual that is clearly insane? There really is no point in arguing with him.

I agree, but I'm not asking for a debate, I'm asking him what exactly he thinks the 'shadowy thingey,' that looks exactly like a plane, is.

Though I might extend your point a bit further to include pretty much the entire CT subforum, there really is no point in arguing/debating with any of them, yet here we are.

Hell, why limit it to CT, I'd expand it to the internet ;)

[Thunder]

honestly, how many "shadowy thingees" can he just disregard?

has be proven that ANY of the photos are fakes?...or were Photoshopped to falsely show a plane?

pathetic. just pathetic.