Ghostplane

2009-07-18T04:28:00.001-07:00

Zero Interaction Physics or Zero Crash Physics

by The Anonymous Physicist

In looking over some of the CGI videos of the second tower hit, I realized that perhaps no one before has summarized some matters of what is and isn’t on these CGI videos. And that this summary is also a good, accurate catch phrase for the 9/11 truth community.

Now many have stated that the videos of the “second hit” show impossible crash physics. In a sense this is very true. But that summary may beg the issue. After all what do we have on these CGI videos? I suggest we focus now on the tower. I assert that we have NO INTERACTION PHYSICS or NO CRASH PHYSICS!

In the first few “plane entering tower” frames of the videos, what some have called “melding” occurs. That is the front part of the plane appears to DISAPPEAR into the tower--without ANY interaction of the tower. Very importantly, I could state this better WITHOUT THE WORD “INTO,” as I assert this CGI video just has the plane image sequentially disappear, and not “into” anything! Now one video, the Spiegel [German TV] video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-hlbw4a40Q has a close-up view from the side. It purports to show a flash at the surface of the tower just before the plane “enters.” This led to the hangout/distraction of pods and missiles fired. Then the Hezarkhani video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdfd6hLGWA of the frontal view shows--in the first frames--the “melding” or disappearing of the front of the plane, along with first a white puff or two, and later frames have gray puffs.

But the curious thing is two-fold.

1. First all these puffs appear to be at the surface of the tower.

2. Nothing is shown to happen to the tower, at least while the front half of the plane is “entering.”

Thus all these puffs appear to be painted onto the tower’s surface. This includes the alleged “missile fired from pod” bright orange puffball (seen from the side), and the white and then gray puffballs seen from the front. All the puffballs do not have any accompanying tower damage at all. No tower damage can be seen until much later in these GCI videos. They contain zero interaction physics or zero crash physics. Both the above side and front videos merely have puffballs painted on to the surface of the tower--until after about half the plane or more has “entered.” The side view has only the initial orange puffball. It’s either pretending to be a pre-entry puffball, or the initial contact moment. Then there are no other puffballs until much of the plane has “entered.” And no interaction physics as well.

Now the tower CANNOT have waited to display interaction physics-- pieces breaking off, or bending, some going inward some possibly even breaking off and falling out and such-- or crash physics. In the real world, it would be there from the instant the tip of the nosecone hit the tower. And puffballs painted onto the surface of the tower do not constitute interaction physics. I have also written that from the moment of a real plane hitting the 4 inch steel of the tower, a shockwave would have traveled down the plane at 5000 mph and would have deformed the back of the plane almost instantaneously or caused it to break off. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/06/further-proving-911-plane-hits-are.html So the plane also shows zero interaction physics or zero crash physics.

So no attempt to show the interaction of the plane and tower was employed in the CGI software used to create the second hit “videos.” Simplistic puffballs were painted on to the SURFACE of the tower. And at least for the first half of the ”second plane” disappearing into the tower, there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics, not merely impossible crash physics.

Now a method used in the analysis of the Zapruder film of the Kennedy Assassination might be useful here. Except of course, it may not be needed, or work here. Why? Because the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see, at least had their origin in a real film, whereas the WTC/9/11 “second hit videos” appear to be entirely CGI. Now all real JFK researchers know that the Zapruder film versions that we are allowed to see have been massively doctored. There are many missing frames, and altered frames, and a moving background is added in, when the limousine was brought to a halt, and much else. I have seen some 15 versions or more--none of which is accurate based on eyewitness testimony. But some Z-frames are relevant here.

Frame 313 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg is the fatal head shot frame; and you can even see the end of the gun of the shooter/driver, SS [Secret Service] agent, William Greer, as the it goes past the curvature of the head of S.S. agent Kellerman. The side flap, the back of the head, and the spray coming off the head of Kennedy have been analyzed, and are predominantly bogus. Here are frames 321 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg , and 335 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z335.jpg to make this clear. Now the side flap is known to be painted in because of both analysis and the eyewitness accounts from the Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda autopsy viewers. But my main point here is that some of these frames show an intact back of Kennedy’s head when numerous witnesses, again at Parkland and Bethesda, have stated that a good portion of the back of his skull was missing. And dot density analysis was used to verify this. That is, Kennedy’s brown hair was found, in these painted in frames, to be far more black than anything else in the frames that really was black. The black dot density [black dots per square millimeter] of JFK’s back of head far superseded anything in the frames that really was black.

Some type of similar analysis of the various puffballs could be attempted by the experts in this regard. Of course, this discussion indicates it isn’t even necessary as there is zero interaction physics or zero crash physics of the tower and the plane for at least the first half of the plane “entering” the tower. And we are apparently dealing with total CGI here. Adding on puffballs of differing colors to the SURFACE of the tower does not afford interaction physics or crash physics at all! That is the tower remains PRISTINE for far too long a time.

While some could analyze all these painted on surface puffballs, the terms zero interaction physics or zero crash physics should be employed by actual 9/11 truthers, as it may be stronger, more relevant and more understandable than saying impossible crash physics. And it should also be proclaimed that the tower on these fake CGI videos remains PRISTINE for far too long a time to remind people we are dealing with the same monsters that should have been eradicated when they killed President Kennedy, and invented the pristine bullet. It too claimed to be pristine and show no interaction despite the claim that it hit some five bones in two people.

And BTW, for those who still doubt that no planes hit the towers on 9/11, consider the following. You can be sure that the perpetrators-- the Regime’s military and intel agencies-- took many videos of what they were doing (for various reasons). Likely they took videos from their helicopters and planes flying nearby or overhead, from satellites, and from intel assets in nearby buildings, and on the ground. If ANY of them showed real planes, and real interaction physics, they would have released these by now. This, together with how numerous people have done fine work for over five years now documenting that all the released videos are bogus CGI, cements the case.

I should include that I have no doubt that the regime could have put better CGI on TV. See for example, the 1997 movie “Contact.” When the first huge worm-hole device is destroyed, one piece of it is exploded, and falls onto the rest of it. There is much INSTANTANEOUS interaction physics simulated, and it looks pretty real-- even though the structure is quite elaborate, and entirely CGI. Now the regime, some four years later, and with likely vastly superior CGI capability at its intel agencies, could have put plane hit videos, on TV, that contained some, or much, interaction physics, but chose not to.

This has traditionally been the case with their most dastardly deeds. With the Kennedy Assassination, the Pearl Harbor set-up, Gulf of Tonkin non-incident, the Apollo Hoax, and other events, either at the time they happened, or some time thereafter, everything the Gov’t says is a lie, and often a physical impossibility-- and this is clear to the intelligentsia. Those who can think and change can see this. But most people cannot easily think and change; and that difficulty is created and enforced by the Govt, the media, education, religion, etc. I saw Spooked recently put up an acronym for this-- MITOP: Made It Transparent On Purpose.

It agrees with what I have written. From the beginning, I have cited everything from the jet’s wings blinking in and out of existence, to the words of videographer, Evan Fairbanks, when he got his video from the FBI and saw that the jet/tower interaction looked like “bad special effects,” to Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” WTC7 quote, that the PTB were telling the intelligentsia that the regime itself were the perpetrators. MITOP is meant to instill fear, helplessness, depression, schizoid behavior, and ultimately paralysis in those who can think and change, so as to try to stop them from ACTING on what they have realized. The way to counter this is to ACT.

For now please consider using these new terms for what is claimed during the planes first half “entry”/disappearance:

Zero Interaction Physics or

Zero Crash Physics

Pristine Tower

2009-07-16T10:32:00.000-07:00

John Lear's No Plane Affadavit

No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:

A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...rld/main546355. shtml)

C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.

D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:

a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet
above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.

b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.

F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12"x36". The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.

G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the
collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a
crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have 'evaporated' even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

III.

9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:

A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.

Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto.

Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.

The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.

In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].

That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

IV.

10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.

11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.

12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.

13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).

14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.

15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.

Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.

What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.

16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
parasite power.

Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.
Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.

17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.

What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed, triples.

The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).

That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.

18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.

19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:

(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(b)
* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...PW4000_FAA.pdf

20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.

21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.

The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)

The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.

But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.

So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power

required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.

It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.

That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.

22. To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.

23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.

24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.

Notes:
1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,
2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.
I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.
_/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
John Olsen Lear
1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
Subscribed and Sworn to before
me this 24 day of January 2008.
/s/ Connie Jones______________
Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09
Certificate #94-2650-1

2008-12-13T09:18:00.000-08:00

Cheney Hit Ghostplane:

This plane probably IS the most GHOSTLY of any of the 50-odd planes in videos out there.

2008-08-16T16:50:00.001-07:00

Someone messed up with the digital imaging of the UA175 impact:

2007-12-23T15:49:00.000-08:00

Unexpected Wing-Tip Explosions for "UA175"--

Screen captures from the Michael Hezarkhani "Ghostplane" video. Yellow arrow indicates the "wingtip" and where it struck the tower.

Capture A:

Capture B:

Capture C:

Capture D:

Capture E:

Capture F:

Capture G:

Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion at all?

The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd.

If this was deflected debris, we should see it occurring in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in-- a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.

There's ALSO that weird explosion that occurs much lower down from the wing--away from EVERYTHING!

2007-09-03T19:37:00.001-07:00

Interesting Discussion on the "Ghostplane" Video here.

The fact that 19 Rector Street (Greenwich Club Residences), which is the apparently missing building in the Hezerkhani (Ghostplane) video, is absent from Microsoft Virtual Earth is quite interesting.

2007-09-03T14:02:00.000-07:00

2007-04-23T08:22:00.000-07:00

CNN: Only the Finest in Fake Video!

This idea has been percolating around for a while, and I was not totally sure about it. But now I am finally convinced from this excellent video by Fred that even the freakin' towers in the CNN "Ghostplane" video were manipulated:

CNN Fake Footage Blasted: More Proof for the Hard Headed

If you look at the end of the video (at 2:24), there is a very damning photo that shows what the view from the park was of the twin towers, and where the damage to the tower was.

Note WHERE the building scar was and also the SCALE of the towers were from that view.

Look at the video at 2:24 and then look at this series of photos:

Compare the size of the south tower to the buildings in front between the shot at 2:24 and the "Carmen Taylor" shot (which is the same angle and view as the CNN "Ghostplane" footage).

The towers are too big in the CNN and Taylor view, compared to the front buildings. This is beyond any doubt.

If you move forward to try to get the CNN "Ghostplane" view, you lose sight of the building scar completely, if you move back to get more perspective, the towers are going to get even smaller.

The only way to explain this is extreme levels of video fakery.

So here is what I think they did. I think they took some video from the Battery park location, and PASTED IN LARGER WTC TOWERS-- and added in a CGI plane thus-- to give an "enhanced view" of the towers and "plane" and the impact.

This is why the camera motion is so fake-- because the whole thing was cobbled together as a montage.

No way would any cameraman be able to pan up so quickly to capture a plane flying over his head at 540 mph-- and then perfectly follow the movement of the plane!

But it can be done here because the camerawork and video is all totally bogus!

This CNN footage is FAKED beyond any doubt, and thus it doesn't even matter what the plane is doing-- the whole fucking video is a fucking fake.

Dammit.

2006-11-25T20:08:00.000-08:00

Ghostplane:

Longest view of explosion:

2006-09-22T05:29:00.000-07:00

MISSING: Four Top Secret Planes

Last seen: 9/11/01

General Appearance: similar to a Boeing 757/767 series aircraft; wings sometimes flash off and on; color, variable

Details:
-- can pass easily without slowing into large sturdy buildings or into the ground, leaving a perfect silhouette shape of the Boeing 7X7
-- wingtips and tail look real, but disintegrate upon contact into fine powder, and only leave a mild indentation on solid surfaces
-- the rest of the plane has the unique ability to break into very small pieces upon impact, leaving a deep indentation in solid surfaces
-- can carry specially designed ordnance, either a fuel bomb or a penetrating warhead

Cost: priceless

2006-06-18T20:35:00.000-07:00

I must admit that I have been somewhat skeptical about the idea that a flock of UAVs was really what hit the north tower. But I have to say in general, eyewitnesses to the first hit, as well as the Naudet video, seem more convincing that a real "plane-like" flying object hit the north tower than for eyewitnesses to the second tower.

And a cluster of fast-flying UAVs in "plane formation" might be enough to convince eye-witnesses that a plane struck the tower-- and help plant the plane meme.

I just had a realization for why they did this for the first and not the second hit.

For the first hit, they would not expect anyone to film the UAVs in enough detail to see what they were. And that is what happened.

Whereas for the second hit, LOTS of cameras would be ready to tape a flock of UAVs that headed for the tower-- SHOULD THEY APPEAR. And the perps didn't want random videographers taping something so incriminating. (A key point is if there was no plane, there was no reason for random videographers to film the tower, and random videographers would get caught off guard by the explosion and only capture the explosion. Whereas only perps would know the tower was going to explode and be ready to tape it.*)

But in fact NOTHING appeared to hit the second tower, because the second hit was done with video fakery and most likely pre-planted explosives (a different possibility-- very small UAVs, entomopters, dispersed along the south wall of the south tower wall, waiting for the right time to strike the wall).

The point is for the first hit, they could get away with the large flock of UAVs, with the second, they couldn't and used other means.

They sold the plane myth with UAVs for the first hit, and TV for the second hit.

*An interesting point is this may be why they had so many videographers (over 20) in on the second hit-- because it would be too suspicious if only one or two cameras "caught" the second plane. That's why they made so many different fakes, I bet.

2006-06-16T21:22:00.000-07:00

Ghostplane poll at DU.

2006-06-08T20:16:00.000-07:00

I Call Bullshit!

Frames from here, which is a frame by frame break-down of one of the second hit videos shown on CNN.

2006-05-23T19:03:00.000-07:00

Pentagon art:

2006-03-16T19:43:00.000-08:00

So what hit the south tower, anyway?

Here are all the possibilities I can think of for the south tower hit:

1) nothing flying, purely pre-planted charges
2) cluster of visible unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)(this could include a wide variety of flying objects including entomopters)
3) cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs
4) cloaked (invisible) missile
5) visible large missile (one or two)
6) hologram-projecting missile (showing a Boeing jet)
7) UA175
8) some other large Boeing, possibly modified

Numbers 2-6 in theory could be combined with pre-planted charges.

Because pictures of the south tower "entry" hole show columns knocked inward, I tend to favor possibilities where some flying object hits the tower.

Because videos show conflicting plane paths (and because of the strong evidence in general that the videos had artificial planes inserted in them), this suggests to me that the flying object was invisible, or only weakly visible (a blur, perhaps only seen from certain angles). That is, the videos were not simply inserting an image over some foreign flying object that was not a Boeing 767-- the videos were making up the flight path of the 767, and this varied from video to video.

All this basically leaves possibilities 3 and 4-- cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs
or a cloaked (invisible) missile. The problem with missiles is how did they create the wing-scars? This leaves the cloaked UAV idea as the strongest possibility, where the UAVs were able to chew up sections of the outer columns and knock columns inward, and assist in the propulsion of the explosion out the northeast corner of the south tower.

The other possibility is that somehow pre-planted charges were set-up that could specifically knock columns inwards, though this would presume extraordinary access to the building right before 9/11. Of course, there was a major power down of the top half of the south WTC tower the weekend before 9/11, with lots of workmen coming and going.

2006-03-16T19:41:00.000-08:00

CONNECTING THE DOTS ON 9/11: NO PLANES

OF COURSE, at first blush, the idea that no real planes were used in 9/11 seems absurd.

But when ALL the evidence is taken into account, it is the only reasonable conclusion.

So let's go through it piece by piece---

BY ITSELF, videos that show conflicting plane paths for the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps a network created footage because they were too cheap to buy footage, or wanted more dramatic footage than what was available. But clearly these videos show the south tower exploding. If planes were added in-- what happened to THE REAL PLANE in the video?

BY ITSELF, weird anomalies in photos and videos of the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps there was something strange in the air that day that made the plane look strange. But is this really a convincing explanation?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the second plane completely melted into the south tower, without slowing, or distorting or breaking or exploding upon impact does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps that is just the way a fast large bodied jetliner impacts a steel frame building-- even though it defies physics and examples of other plane crashes.

BY ITSELF, the fact that CNN footage of the second hit shows signs of editing and signs of sloppy bluescreen technology do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps CNN had good reason to alter the video, though it is not at all clear what these reasons might be.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the airplane wings and tail cut through large steel columns on the WTC wall do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange that the fuel carried in the wings was never ignited by the impact of the wings on these large columns. And it sure is strange the huge tail section, which breaks off quite easily in other plane crashes, slid into the building without a hitch.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the south tower fireball came out all on one side of the building, even though the plane hit straight on and just slightly off-center, do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building.

BY ITSELF, the fact that very few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Sure, perhaps these were incredibly violent plane crashes that tore up the plane much more than in "normal" crashes-- but it still does make one wonder, since typically plane crashes are quite violent but still leave plenty of parts on the ground.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site were not verified to make sure they matched the plane that officially crashed at that site does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. After all, why does the government need to prove anything to anyone?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, no black boxes were found in the rubble at the WTC, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Even though these boxes are incredibly sturdy and meant to survive the worst plane crashes, the fact that FOUR of these boxes (two per plane) vanished at Ground Zero only shows how destructive the unusual collapses of the two towers was.*

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official flight path of the Pentagon crash is impossible does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it does make one wonder what really happened.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official story of the crash of UA93 makes absolutely no sense does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder what the hell the government is lying about.

BY ITSELF, the fact that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it sure tends to support that flights 11 and 77 were not involved in the attacks.

BY ITSELF, the fact the passenger lists for the four 9/11 planes are highly suspect, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder why we can't have the truth.

BY ITSELF, the fact that it is highly doubtful terrorists training on small prop planes and flight simulators could have piloted the planes so effectively on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY lucky.

BY ITSELF, the fact that terrorists armed at most with knives, boxcutters and fake bombs took over four large jets with not one of eight pilots notifying air traffic control of a hijacking by any standard means does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY REALLY lucky. But how much luck can we reasonably expect for the terrorists on that day?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, forty minutes after two hijacked jets attacked New York City, a third hijacked plane flew hundreds of miles before penetrating Washington DC airspace to attack the Pentagon WITHOUT AIR FORCE INTERCEPTION-- this does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps NORAD just had a REALLY REALLY BAD DAY. But when can we simply laugh at the absurdity of the official story?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the media lies about what the government does all the time, and covers for the government all the time, does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But certainly the media is capable of covering up and disseminating such a huge lie.

BY ITSELF, the fact that 9/11 has all the features of a highly sophisticated covert operation that was years in the works and was an operation that clearly aided geopolitical goals of the US does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But it would support the idea that the 9/11 planners would know how difficult and therefore risky it would be to control real hijackings and real aircraft.

So, indeed-- all these things BY THEMSELVES do not prove that 9/11 was carried out without real planes.

But together, all the evidence presented here points to the idea that-- NO REAL PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11.

What WAS used for the 9/11 attacks?

My current hypothesis is pre-planted bombs and missiles (possibly cloaked missiles). However, the whole POINT is that the whole operation rested on the idea of making it LOOK as though planes were used. Thus, a few plane parts were planted, videos were faked, "witnesses" were coached, hijacked plane paths were faked, hijackings were faked, cockpit radio transmissions were faked, plane passenger lists were created with fake IDs and passenger/crew phone calls were faked. Possibly a real Boeing jet flew near each 9/11 crash site to act as a decoy.** Some real passengers were likely killed on 9/11 or given new identities.

Doesn't the scale of this operation make it seem highly implausible?

Clearly 9/11 was a very large complicated operation, with many interconnecting parts. I think the whole thing could have been done with perhaps 50-100 key operatives who knew much of the plot. These people would be subject assassination if they spoke out. Some of them may have been killed on 9/11 itself. Other people would be involved but not know the whole story and might even think what they were doing was innocuous (FBI agents for instance).

Is my theory hard to believe?

Yes. Of course!

But what is even harder to believe is the official 9/11 story-- particularly in light of the evidence presented above.

*My theory is that the planes attacking the WTC meme was planted so effectively by TV imagery that there was no attempt to plant boxes at the WTC. Whereas at the Pentagon and Shanksville, there were more immediate doubts about whether a plane had crashed there, and so the black box story was fabricated for these two sites. Later, when some in the 9/11 skeptic movement started to doubt if normal planes hit the WTC, stories were planted in the underground media that black boxes WERE found but that their existence was kept secret by the FBI.

**Interestingly, the timing of the attacks were such that in theory ONE JET could have flown by the WTC north tower to mimic flight 11, then overflown Manhattan and turned around and came back to mimic flight 175, then this same jet could have hightailed it to Washington DC to fly over the Pentagon, then would still have had time to get to the Shanksville area to mimic flgiht 93. Researcher Woody Box has found that a Boeing 767 was "stolen" on 9/11, which could have been used for this purpose-- as well as to send radio transmissions from the "hijacked jets". Finally, this idea is supported by the fact that, as documented in the 9/11 commission report, air traffic controllers initially thought flight 11 continued flying after flying by Manhattan.

2006-02-25T19:32:00.000-08:00

THIS is the best page for viewing the Ghost Plane footage-- frame-by-frame.

Some odd explosions seems to come and go that I never noticed before.

The explosion cloud where the tail goes in at the end is rather comical.

2006-01-31T13:51:00.000-08:00

Odds and Ends

The power-down described by Scott Forbes was probably when the second hit ruse was set-up. Plane parts planted, fuel bomb planted, on the unoccupied floor 83.

The angle of attack of the second hit was carefully designed so it would be AWAY from where the first plane hit. News cameras not in on the plot would primarily by focused on the north face of the north tower, where the hit was. The second hit officially came from the south, so there was less chance of random cameras getting it. Only news people in the know, also helicopters would be set-up to view the south approaching hit.

Dark flitting shapes in distant footage probably show the missile.

Close-up footage is all fake.

2006-01-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

Some good posts by Killtown showing the Ghostplane phenomenon well:

Here and here.

And I got this picture from Webfairy:

I call BULLSHIT.

2006-01-01T21:25:00.000-08:00

Just one plane used on 9/11?

Let's postulate that no real plane hit any target, and the building and ground damage was all done by bombs and missiles (and perhaps various high-tech gizmos), with sprinkled in plane parts.

Certainly it might be useful to have a plane flying near the targets, giving eyewitnesses and earwitnesses some idea that real planes were part of the attack.

The key idea here is that just ONE PLANE, say a Boeing 767 (perhaps Woody Box's extra flight 11) could have had time to mimic all four flights on 9/11. It could have first mimicked flight 11, but overflew the WTC, then in 15 minutes it could have doubled back to mimic flight 175-- then if it overflew the WTC again, it still would have easily been able to overfly the Pentagon at around 9:30-9:45, and then it could have trucked over to Shanksville easily in time for the plane sightings there around 10am!

I think this timing issue must mean something important about 9/11, but I'm not sure what...

2005-12-31T09:40:00.000-08:00

This is the Ghostplane:

This is a still taken from this video.

The Ghostplane melts into the south tower without any trace of distortion of the plane or any sign of immediate explosion-- even though the wall hit by the Ghostplane was constructed of huge steel beams. Once the Ghostplane got beyond these beams, the Ghostplane hit a strong cement floor at a perpendicular angle. Yet the Ghostplane melts completely into the wall without any trouble, without even slowing speed.

The Ghostplane is a computer generated cartoon.