No Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower on 911

Discussion in '9/11' started by 7forever, Apr 3, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Actually there was a nice big hole right in the North East corner of the South Tower which could easily fit an engine through it.

    [​IMG]

    You can cry fake all you want, it only shows how childish you are when confronted with actual evidence. This thread is a waste.
     
  2. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Unfortunately the nose out was not there but a bit west. The hole has to be there. It's a catch 22.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Rob Howard Photograph - The WTC 2 Media Hoax

    The Rob Howard fake flop compared to a real boeing underside. The weird patterns are bizarre and the engines overlap differently. Thanks for the fake plane, Rob, preciate it.:clapping: IT'S FLAT, NOT ROUND.:woot: The fake left engine's a bit lower than real boeing. It has to be exact or else it's fake.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're using fake images seven.


    Fail.
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, I wasn't there and I didn't see the plane either.
     
  5. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Maybe United Airlines livery?

    [​IMG]

    Oops, your images debunk your insane theory again. You're really bad at this.
     
  6. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I couldn't be bad at something so simple. The Howard photo shows impossible, very clear patterns scanning the whole length of the fake mess. The left wing is clearly lower in comparison to real boeing. It's a fake image, unless some other real plane shows those differences.
     
  7. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That comparison was made long ago by someone else. The elongated patterns are the dead give away.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I like that. In fact, only the folks on the ground are relevant for determining if any of the tv or amateur footage can be substantiated.
     
  8. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your excuse is poor. The images, both the ones you link, and the ones I am providing, debunk your nonsense. Do you have anything other than crying and excuses to provide here? Anything??

    You are really bad at this, maybe you need a new hobby.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    some people had far too much koolaid for their good!

    there is no hole can be found in the above picture.
     
  10. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, there is, right at the corner of the buillding, on the left face. That is where the engine existed. You can see it in the videos of the second impact taken from that side.
     
  11. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many times do I have to tell you people that the nose-out is hogwash, a misinterpretation of what was recorded, promulgated by people who have no freaking idea what they are looking at?

    The "nose-out" was actually just a cloud of atomized jet fuel epxpressed through the broken windows across several feet on one or two floors, aparently from column 239 to 250 on the 80th and possibly 81st floors, judging by the way that the aluminum cladding is blown off there as though by a strong wind.


    This crap is worthless for any forensic or amusement purposes and the butt munch who posted it should be mocked into the farthest corner of society for being such a disengenuous schmuck.

    If you are going to show us two two-dimensional images of three-dimensional objects and ask us to compare contours, show those objects in the same EXACT orientation to the camera, with the lighting coming from the EXACT same angle.

    (*)(*)(*)(*)-for-brains who made this up did not do so here.

    The plane on the left is viewed slightly from the right, (as we can see from the fact that we can see the right sides of both engine pylons,) with the sun coming from the right, at the same level as the aircraft, as indicated by the shadows cast by the engine and engine pylon on the fuselage. The right wing (to the left in this picture), having a slightly positive dihedral, is shadowed by the fuselage.

    The plane on the right is in a slight right bank, as we can see by the fact that we see neither side of the pylon on the left, but can see the left side of the pylon on the right. This would put the wing root out of sight. The light is clearly coming from the left and slightly below, possibly reflected off other surfaces such as buildings, as shown by the faintness of the shadows of the engine pylons and aeleron control fairings.

    I measured the image as it appeared on my screen and found another area in which the idiot either lied or totallt screwed up and failed to check his own work. At the top of the frame, it is 7 cm from the side of the frame to the left side of the fuselage. The fuselage is 2 cm wide at that point. The distance from the right side of the fuselage to the right edge of the frame is 7.5cm. At the bottom, the distance from the left frame to the fuselage is 7.5cm, the fuselage is 2.5cm wide and thecdistance from the fuselage to the right frame is 6.5cm. Thus, one of the reasons that the contours are not easy to match is that the sorry sack of fail who cobbled this together did not know how to show the object in the exact same orientation to the same intensity of light and then put the image of the 9/11 plane slaunch-wise across the page. Only an idiot would think that that fool has any skill as a forensic investigate. Take this stuff back where the little snot who crafted it dug it up.

    Latrine is that-a-way--------->
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    finally you admitted to it.

    atomized jet fuel ignites at 6+ times the speed the alleged plane was moving before it supposedly hit the first wall and that is out the second wall, hence it is absolutely impossible to be "atomized fuel". the notion is so ridiculous it borders delusional loonacy. its a cgi glitch, those are all signature clips!

    Now do I need to pound sand up someones, or can you all figure the rest out by yourselves?

    LMAO
     
  13. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Neither of us has any idea what the hell you are talking about.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guessed you wouldnt, think about it.
     
  15. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you have nothing and and have fallen make on the old IYCBTWYBBTWYBS tactic. How twoofy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So you have nothing and and have fallen make on the old IYCBTWYBBTWYBS tactic. How twoofy.
     
  16. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The trolls ignore that the fake left engine is attached to nothing. The flaps which are on the rear of the wings is open on the front of the left. That's full proof the whole image is fake. Real boeing on the left, fake on right. No flaps on fake image. The left engine is misaligned, being too posterior to the right in both fakes posted here.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're lying seven.....again,the engine is attached to the wing,even in tht grainy pic you can see the pylon.


    And your pics of the 767 have been nseriously manipulated as well.


    Fail.
     
  18. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    seven still posting images which debunks his ramblings? I see progress is stong :-D
     
  19. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That picture was made someone else long ago. How is it altered?
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More evidence that you can't see worth spit......LOOK at it
     
  21. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    A fake plane was added for south tower explosion : Politics & NWO - Page 41
    9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

    Thanks goes to Rich for comparing fiction against reality. He should have a 1 and 4 at the top, but it's self-explanatory. Rich's post is below the picture. Robert Clark is credited with this and one other fake photo image from 911. Rich didn't line up the fake right engine with its way out of alignment left counterpart. Every discernible plane part is out of sync with a real boeing 767-222, including the joke image being a black smudge with no windows or markings.

    1. Horizontal stabilizer
    2. Right Wing
    3. Tail Fin
    4. Left Engine

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I've resized the blue/grey plane to make it the same length as the colour photo underneath it... some interesting anomalies pop up right away. I lined the planes up from their ass end to their noses marked A and B. The rest is self explanatory...

    I don't know how much these planes need to be twisted and turned, rolled and pushed about to get the 4 anomalies to line up as they should... But I just can't see how they can line up.. No. 2 is the standout for me..

    Even if the coloured plane was rolled more to it's left, the right wing that we can see would naturally go up and move further away from the tail section.. not closer to it and right thru it.. not a chance. I also cannot see how a planes fuselage can become 25% thicker.. ok bad photo.. but it shouldn't look like that.. it makes no sense at all..

    As Doogle has shown, maybe it's the angle.. I'm not seeing it yet and I'm not sure I will.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no doubt you NEVER will see anything..it's all a matter of perspective,something you won't understand.
     
  23. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The whole thing is self-expalnatory. It shows peerfectly clearly that you have no bloody clue what you are doing.

    Get a scale model of the proper aircraft and photograph it in the exact same orientation. You cannot photoshop the clear picture enough to line up.

    You are looking at the 9/11 aircraft with the nose pointed slightly toward you, so that you are loking straigth odwn the leading edge of the left wing. The fuselage is going to look fatter because the APPARENT over-all length is reduced while the height remains the same. Because the wings are swept back, you now see the entire length of the right wing as being longer thasn that of the left and the engine will naturally be further back.

    Whaty you have proven is that you are a worse artist than many 7th graders.

    As for not seeing the windows, or the color being wrong, bear in mind that this is a digital photograph. The camera was focused on something else, and adjusted for the much brighter light reflecting off the towers. Anybody who has the brains of a 7th grader knows that this will produce a dark and blurry image.

    There is a smudged dark line down the fuselage where the windows should be. That is what you should EXPECT the windows to look like. There is also a pale line above that dark line of dots. This corresponds nicely with the location of the United logo in tan letters.

    Of course its the angle, and, from all we have read of your comments, I doubt that you are capable of seeing it.

    The art school sent its reply on your admission. Rejected, with a recommendation that you look for work in the building trades as a manual excavation worker.
     
  24. 7forever

    7forever Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Get a scale model of the proper aircraft and photograph it in the exact same orientation. You will never attempt to produce a similar image because it's impossible.

    What they have proven is that many 7th graders could've made a better fake image of a boeing.

    As for not seeing the windows, and the color being BLACK, bear in mind that this is a fake photograph. The camera was focused on something, not a plane, and adjusted for nothing that hit the towers. Anybody who has the brains of a 7th grader knows that the fake blurry image is fake.:worship:

    There is no smudged dark line down the fuselage where the windows weren't. That is what you would EXPECT with a fake blob of garbage. There is also no pale line above that dark line of dots. That corresponds nicely with nothing but kids stuff.
     
  25. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Still posting? Seven, when will you understand you are not convincing anybody with your rubbish. The mere fact you are suggesting no planes hit the WTC means that instantly 99% of people ignore you right off the cuff. What outright, obvious dribble. You are wrong because reality proves you wrong. If you can't grasp that, you need to find reality.

    You are wrong, get over it, grow up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page