UA 175: Who created this fake footage from this rare south view?

Thanks for that hanging curveball, but I think I'll just leave it alone lest my post be deleted.

Suffice to say your animated gifs and fictional writings are far from convincing.

 

http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List
Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?

"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.

"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."

 

You're right, no plane was involved in Terminator 2...It was a helicopter....same as in your fantasy

 

So ... What do you think about the results of your poll?

 

It's been said that Democrats lead by idealogy but Republicans need leadership. 911 truth has no leadership and it's afraid of the real truth which is consistent with jfk mythology. I don't see myself as a leader but certainly my research can contribute to real truth if brave leaders can get behind the drone from the west and the driver shooting jfk. I doubt we'll ever see in our life times, two coverups that garner more attention than these two. This doesn't mean worse things have happened but the average ignorant will raise their ears for jfk and 911.

 

Are you saying you are trying to appeal to the ignorant? Good plan, they are the only ones who will buy into these CTs.

How do you feel about the results of your poll? You were only able to snag two ignorant people in it.

 

I can't speak for your JFK research because I am not familiar with it but the problem keeping brave leaders from getting behind your drone research is that the evidence does not back it up.

 

I was wrong about Anthony Lawson, he's an arrogant Aussie who got a popular yt channel to say the ball was a plane.LOL This proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths. I will dig up a post that pertains in more detail to this issue but for now take a look at this vid. The altered footage that hazed out the orb was done by the media.

A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo&feature=related"]9/11 Fake: DEBUNKED! Live Footage No Plane Seen Before South Tower Explosion - YouTube[/ame]

 

So ... What do you think about the results of your poll?

 

That poll is so rigged you can see it's scaffolding from outer space...

 

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.

 

http://http://nononprofitspam.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/markasspam.jpg

 

With the clear and overwhelming evidence of drones, it was inevitable that a few eyewitnesses would corroborate the video footage of drones for both towers. Stewart, said he saw something bump into tower 1 before it exploded. That certainly wasn't a plane, because a plane would crash into it, not bump.

He says, "I'm not sure, if it was a ????? (plane). Of course it wasn't a plane, Stewy, and you gave the truth some of the best early testimony that no planes of any kind were seen for either tower because neither had wings. His subconscious gave every word, but 'plane', leaving no doubt that his conscious state prevented that last word. But, we already know those goofy french kids did not film a plane or really any identifiable object which corrorborates Stewart's verified account.

Bryant Gumbel: It's 8:52 here in New York, I'm Bryant Gumbel. We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan. You're looking at the WTC. We understand that a plane has crashed into the WTC. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know if it was a commercial aircraft. We don't know if it was a private aircraft. We have no idea how many were on board, or what the extent of the injuries are right now. We are, uh, we have, I understand, an eyewitness on the phone right now. Sir...

[cuts to commercial briefly]

BG: ...your name?

Stewart: Yeah, my name is Stewart.

BG: Sir, where are you right now?

S: I'm working at a restaurant in Soho. (northeast of the towers)

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

BG: Did you, could you tell us whether or not it was a prop, or a jet .

S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw"]WTC MISSILE STRIKE ON 911: EYE WITNESS SAW "A SMALL PLANE" - YouTube[/ame]

 

Leave it to truthers to cherry pick one witness who sorta makes the claims truthers want to hear while ignoring all other evidence including other witnesses. Just goes to show the absolute dishonesty and lack of credibilty of truthers in general. I showed pictures of parts from a large commercial aircraft. That trumps an eyewitness who thinks he saw a small plane in ANYONE'S book but a truther.

 

HOW TO MOCK A MINORITY OF COWARDLY FOOLS

A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses, which has been proven true by jfk and 911 polls throughout the last four decades.

When the government and media are responsible for these and other outrageous acts of corruption, there is nothing they can do but perpetuate the official lies in hopes of convincing anyone of said propaganda. It soothes them of their darkest fears that humanity may wake up and realize how completely ignorant they are.

Another theory, is the government crapologist gets a certain ego-boost from supporting big government conclusions on such things as 911, and that makes them feel superior over those who actually operate in a real maverick fashion. It gives them a sense of self-importance that they may not have developed through normal processes like the rest of us. Either way, it's pathetic to see how this irrational minority of silly humans attach themselves to goverment theories which cannot, nor will ever be proven.

 

You mean some people actually need lessons on how to mock truthers? Wow.

Really? So now reality is determined by POLLS?!? And you wonder why you get mocked all the time!!!!

Really? So everyone in the government and the MSM is a mindless robot that doesn't mind the fact they helped kill and cover up the murder of 3000 Americans. Do you even read the total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you write?!?!? Don't get me wrong. It is hysterical and please don't stop! I have a great time sending this stuff to friends who just can't believe how stupid truthers really are.

Some day you may wake up. I am beginning to have my doubts.

That may be how some truthers work. Take you for instance. You pretend you've single handedly uncovered what really hit the towers. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter that your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theory doesn't fit the evidence. It doesn't matter your theories are based entirely on your retarded opinion of pixelated video. All that matters is you out there pretending to make a difference! Try again.

Are you still talking about yourself? See this is that whole "self-importance" crap realized.

It's been over a decade now. Truthers are no closer to "proving" their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) than they were right after 9/11. Over a decade and not one piece of real evidence their silly theories are true. Over a decade and not a single person out of thousands to tens of thousands (millions if 7forever is right) has stepped forward and exposed the conspiracy.

Can anyone say rampant paranoid delusions?

 

ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"

 

Leave it to truthers to cherry pick one witness who sorta makes the claims truthers want to hear while ignoring all other evidence including other witnesses. Just goes to show the absolute dishonesty and lack of credibilty of truthers in general. I showed pictures of parts from a large commercial aircraft. That trumps an eyewitness who thinks he saw a small plane in ANYONE'S book but a truther.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk"]WTC1 North Tower Plane Impact on 9/11 - Naudet - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah. Small little plane.

 

It wasn't a small plane, but a west bogey bop.

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one because there was no plane.

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25"]911stealth David Handschuh Propelled in Air a Block by Explosion & Saw No Plane - YouTube[/ame]

 

This is an even more retarded claim than your last one! Because one guy didn't see the plane, the plane EVERYONE ELSE saw supposedly doesn't exist. RIIIIIIGHT.

How about addressing all the other evidence? It takes a special kind of ignorance to focus on one piece of evidence over all the other evidence, especially when the evidence doesn't even prove what you claim it proves.

 

These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what really would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.

 

These two images are taken from 2 different distances, and from 2 different angles. You didn't even do a very good job of cropping to try to create a similar perspective. Why are you intentionally trying to deceive people?

 

9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack
The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

This simple fake image raises reasonable doubt about the official south to north flight path of flight 175. New York police officer, L. Perez, took a picture of the towers and this laughable fake was added to it by persons unknown.