What didn't hit WTC 1 (North Tower)

[stannrodd]

This post first posted at LetsRoll911 Sunday 26 June 2005 (NZ Time)

I would like to start by saying that it isn’t necessary to produce evidence, which is contrary to the official story, it is only necessary to show that the official story is not true. It then becomes the burden of the official’s to explain why the forensics do not match their own story. It would also be valuable if we can produce sufficient evidence to show that we were lied to, but since we have few absolute physical items to deal with, we must look elsewhere. The towers are gone, the remnants of the aircraft are also gone, but probably just well hidden, and the crime scene was dismantled swiftly under a cloak of security never before seen on this scale. A crime scene which just magically turned into an act of war thereby cleverly avoiding public scrutiny.

We have excellent photographic records of the towers demise, in particular the crash sites in the towers and it is here that I am doing business. Most other research has been done with respect to identifying planes etc. I’m looking at the crime scene after the event and will try to determine if the story teller is being honest or telling porky pies. So to the primary question :-

Was the first WTC impact at the North Tower caused by a 767, if not what perhaps was it?

Flight AA11 has been reported as not being scheduled on September 11, this thru the BTS database.

If this is correct then it could not have been American Airlines Flight 11, therefore .. not the plane that was somehow identified by someone, as being the impact vehicle. Flight 11 was usually serviced by a 767 therefore it would be expected to be a 767, and apparently was a 767 if the Official story is correct.

The only video evidence we have regarding the plane is the brief footage from the Naudet clip. This is indeterminate in terms of a clear identification of the type/model of aircraft and is best ignored for the purpose of this article, I think.

The building itself, WTC1 received considerable damage to the impact face and the gash produced by the impact is clearly visible in many detailed still photos. There is also a photo of some fuselage wreckage amid debris atop an adjacent building. This is alleged to be from the plane that impacted WTC2 (United Flight 175) a 767. It is my opinion that this is not 767 wreckage at all, but from a different aircraft.

If we compare the impact sites at WTC1 and WTC2 there is a remarkable difference, which has seemingly been overlooked to date. The WTC2 impact site has damage consistent with a Boeing 767 and all the footage and stills of that attack aircraft indicate it was a 767. Therefore we would also expect the impact site on WTC1 (if a 767 caused it), to be strikingly similar. Pun intended. However on close analysis there is a remarkable difference between the impact sites.

The impact site on WTC1 has a “something” where there isn’t one on WTC2.

Lets first look at the impact site of WTC2 which is clearly the result of some kind of Boeing 767 variant impacting the tower.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc2gash0jh.jpg

Look carefully at the above WTC2 pic and below WTC1 pic, please include a brief prayer for the lady. Though she is not what I am referring to.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc1gash5ns.jpg

If we now look at the WTC1 pic with a highlighted area in red circle

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc1hole0bl.jpg

and compare it to WTC 2 pic of the same area

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc2nohole9qt.jpg

We notice that there is something different. First though a little history lesson…

Introducing the suspect aircraft.

DC10 (KC10) or Lockheed L1011(Tristar) or perhaps but very unlikely a 767 as officially claimed.

All three aircraft are similar in size and were all competing for the same wide-bodied market at least in the area of commercial aviation when introduced. The 767 was the most successful of the three, due mainly to the unfortunate early track record of the DC10 and the late delivery of the L1011. There is also one distinct difference between the 767 and the DC10 or L1011 in that the latter two, have a third engine mounted in or in front of the vertical stabiliser at the rear of the craft.

If we compare the wingspan of a 767 and a DC10 or an L10ll they are all very similar, around 50 metres depending on model. The DC10 when viewed from the front, has its three engines arranged in a triangle.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/kc10schem012zs.jpg

If we overlay a schematic of a DC10 over the impact area of the WTC2 gash we can clearly see there is little damage in the area of the third engine, no penetration of the perimeter columns in that area. (Please excuse my talent at doing this stuff, and also the lack of dihedral on the wing shapes but guessing the shape of the wing in its final approach to impact is beyond my expertise.)

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtcsam18qd.jpg

This result above is to be expected because we are reasonably sure a 767 impacted the south tower. No DC10 here at WTC2.

But if we overlay the DC10 over the WTC1 impact gash see below

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtcsam20in.jpg

there in plane sight is a massive hole caused by a rear engine or some other event, but a 767 doesn’t make that kind of gash does it. Remember this is the twin towers, constructed identically and both were alleged to have been hit by an aircraft of the 767 variety. I would expect very similar results in terms of damage wouldn’t you? (again my apologies for the quality of my overlay, it’s not quite in the right place, but I think you can ascertain what I’m pointing to )

The L1011 is part of the suspect list because of its wide body and almost identical wingspan. Another reason is that the L1011 is known to have tanker and cargo variants and in one particular case is fitted with under fuselage equipment to launch orbital spacecraft from high altitudes.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/l1011front7nj.jpg

However the L1011 doesn’t quite fit the gash so we can probably down play it. Though it may still be a possible.

The DC10 is the ideal suspect because of the role it plays in the US Military as a KC10 tanker or cargo or a hybrid of both …… and what was happening on September 11 in the vicinity of NYC in terms of aerial war games!! It could also have been a quick sale and conversion job out at Mojave Desert. DC10’s are a dime a dozen, no one wants them because of their noise, high fuel consumption and age. Could well have already been painted in AA colours.

The one fact that emerges here is that the aircraft that punched out that hole on WTC 1 was not a 767. I cannot prove it was a DC10 or a military version KC10 but I’m convinced it wasn’t a 767.

Just wanted to make the point that it doesn’t matter what it was really, but it does matter that it wasn’t what was purported to be..

So where did the AA Flight 11 - 767 plane go?

Not into the North Tower at least IMO.

Stann

[slartibartfast]

The only video evidence we have regarding the plane is the brief footage from the Naudet clip. This is indeterminate in terms of a clear identification of the type/model of aircraft and is best ignored for the purpose of this article, I think.

Is there anything in the video that suggests it isn't a 767...

[bryan]

I would like to start by saying that it isn’t necessary to produce evidence, which is contrary to the official story, it is only necessary to show that the official story is not true. It then becomes the burden of the official’s to explain why the forensics do not match their own story. It would also be valuable if we can produce sufficient evidence to show that we were lied to, but since we have few absolute physical items to deal with, we must look elsewhere.

Just wanted to make the point that it doesn’t matter what it was really, but it does matter that it wasn’t what was purported to be..

Stann's turn to take the piss!


Leaving the hypocrisy aside, there's something else about this article that's curious.

It's word for word what Stann posted on the LetsRoll forum on Sunday 26 June 2005.

http://letsrollforums.com/wtc1-north-tower-impact-t6785.html

Is it ongoing research? Has no new evidence been uncovered in the meantime? Did a 24 page thread on the LetsRoll forum not persuade Stann to revise his theory in any way?


The DC10 Theory is to the North Tower what the Pod Theory is to the South Tower - a limited hangout designed to make sure planes stay in the equation.

[guntherznads]

what didn't hit the north tower? hmmm....let's see......ok, uh this may take a minute but here goes. A dolphin, santa clause, pumpkin seeds, a bag full of dirty diapers, mud, Oprah, sand dollars, a can of black olives, a reporters shoes, divorce papers, a home depot gift card, perpetual bliss, meatloaf, pixies, a used sham wow, dentures, an old toothbrush, a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, poor judgement, correct spelling, a cat, an empty box of cheerios, Christmas decorations, an old faded issue of Time magazine, a bowling ball, Adolf Hitler, water balloons, crayons, a dozen roses, bees wax, a smaller version of the north tower, the U.S.S Enterprise, the elephant man, an old beta max machine, a horseshoe, marbles, a huge roll of carpet, a grizzly bear. Ya know this can probably go on for a while and I'm growing a tail if you know what I mean...so I'll have to continue this later.

[stannrodd]

It's word for word what Stann posted on the LetsRoll forum on Sunday 26 June 2005.

So you can read the first line of my post above.

Well done bryan .. I posted that information for a reason .. it was to show you when this work was done.

Did you read the rest of the article ??

Do you have any comments about the content or are you simply showing again your basic attitude to 9/11 truth.

That you don't give a damn!

With regard to your question about ongoing research .. well I posted it here in the hope that a new look at it might yield some new information.

Is that reasonable ?

Stann

[stannrodd]

Is there anything in the video that suggests it isn't a 767...

Take a look .. it's the first clip. Not the best quality .. but I kept it because of the impact detonation sound. Sounds very much like a hi power explosive.

http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/?action=view&current=wtc1.flv

@ guntherznads

what didn't hit the north tower? hmmm....let's see......ok, uh this may take a minute but here goes. A dolphin, santa clause, pumpkin seeds, a bag full of dirty diapers, mud, Oprah, sand dollars, a can of black olives, a reporters shoes, divorce papers, a home depot gift card, perpetual bliss, meatloaf, pixies, a used sham wow, dentures, an old toothbrush, a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, poor judgement, correct spelling, a cat, an empty box of cheerios, Christmas decorations, an old faded issue of Time magazine, a bowling ball, Adolf Hitler, water balloons, crayons, a dozen roses, bees wax, a smaller version of the north tower, the U.S.S Enterprise, the elephant man, an old beta max machine, a horseshoe, marbles, a huge roll of carpet, a grizzly bear. Ya know this can probably go on for a while and I'm growing a tail if you know what I mean...so I'll have to continue this later.

....... perhaps you could consider continuing your trash some place else.

Thanks

Stann

[guntherznads]

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the question.

[stannrodd]

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the question.

I don't think so .. but you might want to address the issue sensibly.

The statement .. "What didn't hit WTC 1 (North Tower)" .. is not a question.

My reasoning is that a 767 did not hit WTC 1 as claimed in the Main Stream Media.

If you want to contribute to the thread then by all means do .. the evidence contained in the imprints/gashes made by the planes on the towers .. is actual evidence which is still available for scrutiny.

Even if you believe no planes hit the towers there is evidence contained in these images which can be useful to proving inconsistencies with the Official Story.

Comments like your ramblings above are not very helpful are they!

Stann

[noewhan]

The one fact that emerges here is that the aircraft that punched out that hole on WTC 1 was not a 767. I cannot prove it was a DC10 or a military version KC10 but I’m convinced it wasn’t a 767.

Just wanted to make the point that it doesn’t matter what it was really, but it does matter that it wasn’t what was purported to be..

So where did the AA Flight 11 - 767 plane go?

Not into the North Tower at least IMO.

Stann

In one of Alex Jones' or Anthony J. Hilder docos has a female witness who yells 'That was not an American Airliner!'

In Loose Change 2nd edition, @ 0:59:38, Dylan or Korey talk about the planes. There was obviously a switch between the planes to confuse people.

Like you I can't say this is proof, just adding info.

[dedicate]

Picking gnatshit out of pepper. By now we have each frame of every video detailed! Oh WoW.-- Lets see a list and biography of each and every person supposidly on flight 77,, and where the close family is now. Lets see that.

And then,, lots and lots of people have just moved on. Meaning, we know "they" did it, and it weren't no Arab Hijackers neither. We know the government and the media are covering it up. Take it from there Mystro.

[stannrodd]

Picking gnatshit out of pepper. By now we have each frame of every video detailed! Oh WoW.-- Lets see a list and biography of each and every person supposidly on flight 77,, and where the close family is now. Lets see that.

And then,, lots and lots of people have just moved on. Meaning, we know "they" did it, and it weren't no Arab Hijackers neither. We know the government and the media are covering it up. Take it from there Mystro.

And your point is ? .. That we should stop looking for gnatshit ??

Even gnatshit in pepper has it's uses. It provides more bulk .. perhaps the USAF lost a KC 10 tanker somewhere in 2001 .. and it just wasn't reported widely. You could try looking into that for example.

You're obviously bored .. how about YOU take it up Maestro .. it might lighten your burden, in what seems to be a very challenging life.

Cheers
Stann

[dedicate]

Why not you? Take it up, I mean. They did it! Who cares about the dressing on the cake. Why not you take it up, and prove that your not here to just divert our attention away from the meaning of 911. What it means. I don't have to, because I already have,, many times.-- I will if you will.

Yes, stop looking for gnatshit and throw the pile out.

[stannrodd]

It's being done as we speak .. but it would help if others contributed more as well.

The more termites .. the sooner the house comes tumbling down.

I'm not here to prove myself to anyone .. but thanks for your advice !

Stann :)

[dedicate]

"I'm not here to proove myself to anybody"!!! -- So don't you what-ever-you-are. But at least address the "point". What does that say about society and government and media,, if this sort of thing can be covered up? But you won't because Government is your employment.-- that's who you take orders from.

[stannrodd]

"I'm not here to proove myself to anybody"!!! -- So don't you what-ever-you-are. But at least address the "point". What does that say about society and government and media,, if this sort of thing can be covered up? But you won't because Government is your employment.-- that's who you take orders from.

I'm retired .. I live in New Zealand and only take orders for breakfast .. from my wife. :D

Cheers
Stann :)

[dedicate]

I bruised his ego, and he put a smile and a tail on it. Oh well.

I don't really like bruising people's egos, but it's really not much of a horror thing. Maybe, this original poster just wanted to share his finding. That is possible. Fine.. but take it from there Maestro. What does it mean, when an entire world population can be lied to like this? That's important.

-------------------------------

It means they can do anything,,, It means we can't trust the government or media at their word for anything anymore. It means that most people are brainwashed. It means our governments are Mafia-governments. That seems more important to know than wheather a wingspan of a 747 is 20 ft. larger than the hole in the north tower, unless it leads to those points above. What is the point otherwise of knowing every little detail of the event? Seems to me, one could get stuck on studying the minutia of that day, and miss the bigger picture.

[guntherznads]

I don't think so .. but you might want to address the issue sensibly.

The statement .. "What didn't hit WTC 1 (North Tower)" .. is not a question.

My reasoning is that a 767 did not hit WTC 1 as claimed in the Main Stream Media.

If you want to contribute to the thread then by all means do .. the evidence contained in the imprints/gashes made by the planes on the towers .. is actual evidence which is still available for scrutiny.

Even if you believe no planes hit the towers there is evidence contained in these images which can be useful to proving inconsistencies with the Official Story.

Comments like your ramblings above are not very helpful are they!

Stann

My God. I feel like a fucking piece off shit.

But if it were a question don't you think my post would then had been helpful?

Also, I contend that planes did hit the towers but they didn't get the desired footage of the impacts so they began airing faked images in order to really drive home the idea that real planes were used. This is the only theory that satisfies both sides of the arguement.

[fanoftruth]

Stann, obviously the Naudet clip is nowhere near high enough quality to tell exactly what type of plane that is. Also the camera is situated far away and because the plane is more or less flying away from the lens we cannot grasp any proper dimensions.

I tend to agree that the impact noise does sound more akin to a set explosive than a crash. I had never noticed that before.

Another interesting observation in this clip would be the immense white flash just before or as the plane strikes the building's facade. A freeze frame shows us that the white flash is larger even than the fuselage of the plane. Later editions of this Naudet brothers' documentary had that white flash digitally removed. This could easily be percieved as suspicious.

A read through the list of eye-witnesses (which I don't have at hand) and we also see how a large number, perhaps majority, describe seeing a smaller private jet hit the north tower.

[stannrodd]

I bruised his ego, and he put a smile and a tail on it. Oh well.

I don't really like bruising people's egos, but it's really not much of a horror thing. Maybe, this original poster just wanted to share his finding. That is possible. Fine.. but take it from there Maestro. What does it mean, when an entire world population can be lied to like this? That's important.
.

You didn't even touch the ego .. it's not what I do. Go bruise yourself I'm sure it will help your pleasure centre.

If you don't like doing it ..

I don't really like bruising people's egos

.. why do you do it ??

The original poster offered an alternative view ..?

That was me .. do you have a problem with that Patron ?


Stann :confused:

[bryan]

With regard to your question about ongoing research .. well I posted it here in the hope that a new look at it might yield some new information.

Is that reasonable ?


As long as people are aware that it originates from the same disinformation team that dreamt up the pod theory and promoted the Dov Zakheim diversion.

[john white]

As long as people are aware that it originates from the same disinformation team that dreamt up the pod theory and promoted the Dov Zakheim diversion.

Proof of Planes? More proof Killtown is treasonous...

[bryan]

Proof of Planes? More proof Killtown is treasonous...

John, does it not bother you that at the LetsRoll911 forum they encourage free and open debate of whacky subjects like the pod theory, the DC10 theory and the concrete core theory, which could be used by the mainstream media to make 9/11 truthers look like a bunch of idiots?

At the same time, if anybody so much as hints at the possiblity that images might have been faked on 9/11, or that planes might not have hit the towers, admin and mods like Phil Jayhan and stannrodd come down on them like a ton of bricks and accuse them of shitting on the living room carpet.

It's been going on for five years.

[stannrodd]

You seem to spend a lot of time quoting what happened at another forum some years ago.

Did Phil kick you out ??

It's now already bryan. Times and attitudes change or haven't you noticed ?

Stann

[bryan]

Why would the perps fly a DC10 over central Manhattan, crash it into the WTC, then claim it was a Boeing 767?

What about the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses? What about the tourists with their cameras?

As John White would say:

All it takes is ONE IMAGE . . . just ONE IMAGE of a DC10, and the game's up for the perps!



Another interesting observation in this clip would be the immense white flash just before or as the plane strikes the building's facade. A freeze frame shows us that the white flash is larger even than the fuselage of the plane. Later editions of this Naudet brothers' documentary had that white flash digitally removed. This could easily be percieved as suspicious.


Do real-planers have an explanation for the flashes?

[mr_pixie]

John, does it not bother you that at the LetsRoll911 forum they encourage free and open debate of whacky subjects like the pod theory, the DC10 theory and the concrete core theory, which could be used by the mainstream media to make 9/11 truthers look like a bunch of idiots?

At the same time, if anybody so much as hints at the possiblity that images might have been faked on 9/11, or that planes might not have hit the towers, admin and mods like Phil Jayhan and stannrodd come down on them like a ton of bricks and accuse them of shitting on the living room carpet.

It's been going on for five years.


I'm getting fed up with these bastards people just dont wont to know about it its as if theres a wall.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH nar lets keep to what sounds normal. aarrrgggg.

[bryan]

The building itself, WTC1 received considerable damage to the impact face and the gash produced by the impact is clearly visible in many detailed still photos. There is also a photo of some fuselage wreckage amid debris atop an adjacent building. This is alleged to be from the plane that impacted WTC2 (United Flight 175) a 767. It is my opinion that this is not 767 wreckage at all, but from a different aircraft.


Stann, can your crash physics explain how the piece of fuselage got from WTC 1 onto the roof of WTC 5?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/t/images/thumb/7/76/Fema-aircraftdebris.jpg/500px-Fema-aircraftdebris.jpg

[stannrodd]

Stann, can your crash physics explain how the piece of fuselage got from WTC 1 onto the roof of WTC 5?

The allegation is that the fuselage piece came from WTC 2 impacted by flight 175 (a 767) .. correct? That is what I quoted.

It isn't my intention to confuse .. but .. I can see why you may be confused.

The wreckage appears to be from a DC 10 or variant .. the question you pose is a good one .. but it is possible for that piece to have come from WTC 1. And it's identity has been shown to be more like DC 10 construction than 767 .. therefore .. perhaps from WTC 1.

If you have a look at the impact of WTC1 .. you will notice that debris from the impact face explosion was carried over WTC5.

This photo was snapped just 15 seconds after the impact at WTC1

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/nt_15sec.jpg

You will notice a "plume" to the left of the tower.. a rising cloud and a descending debris field. This passes over WTC5.

A video of this phenomena is available here and shows that plume in action.

The first clip.

http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/?action=view&current=wtc1.flv

Stann

[mr_pixie]

Thats photoshop stanrod

[stannrodd]

Thats photoshop stanrod

And would you like to demonstrate how you determined that brilliant forensic analysis.

Perhaps you could expand on your comment just a teeny bit ..?

I take it you viewed the video and reasoned the same thing.

When confronted with good evidence to support a claim all you can do is cry ...

"PHOTOSHOP !!"

Quite a pathetic post really.. you could at least elaborate so as to convince people of your beliefs.


Stann :)

[bryan]

The allegation is that the fuselage piece came from WTC 2 impacted by flight 175 (a 767) .. correct? That is what I quoted.

It isn't my intention to confuse .. but .. I can see why you may be confused.


I know that according to the official story the piece of fuselage is from the second plane, and according to your theory it's from the first plane. What's confusing me is how you think it could have been thrown roughly toward the north east after hitting WTC 1 from the north, in full flight. You're the man for vectors, so can you explain how that would be possible?



The wreckage appears to be from a DC 10 or variant .. the question you pose is a good one .. but it is possible for that piece to have come from WTC 1. And it's identity has been shown to be more like DC 10 construction than 767 .. therefore .. perhaps from WTC 1.


Or perhaps it came from the back of a van. ;)



If you have a look at the impact of WTC1 .. you will notice that debris from the impact face explosion was carried over WTC5.

This photo was snapped just 15 seconds after the impact at WTC1

You will notice a "plume" to the left of the tower.. a rising cloud and a descending debris field. This passes over WTC5.


The way the wind was blowing, I think the entire plume would have started from nearer the towers and drifted to the position it was in when the photo was taken.

[stannrodd]

Bryan you didn't address the huge detonation heard on impact and the one which sent debris north .. did you have a look at the video mate .. turn up the sound so you can hear the explosion.

The explosion/fireball came out of the building and initially traveled in the direction from which the plane arrived. This was from the north

I don't know what the detonation was .. do you ? But IMO there is a good possibility that the aircraft debris could have traveled in the direction of WTC5.

Sound analysis has suggested that the detonation was a singular hi powered charge rather than a crunch. The fireball itself is expanding too slowly to be the source of the detonation sound.

As for the wreckage being planted .. why would you plant DC10 wreckage if the alleged plane was a 767 ??

Why would the perps fly a DC10 over central Manhattan, crash it into the WTC, then claim it was a Boeing 767?

What about the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses? What about the tourists with their cameras?

As John White would say:

All it takes is ONE IMAGE . . . just ONE IMAGE of a DC10, and the game's up for the perps!

It hasn't surfaced yet .. but then neither has a pic of a 767.

But if you think about it .. it was an unexpected event for most of the people of NYC. If you look up at a DC10 from below, .. the third engine would not be easily visible .. and the two wing engines are mounted almost identically to a 767.

Then of course there is the speed aspect as well .. but it is a good point and that's why I have followed this theory and to date I have found merit in the line of research. The evidence based on that wreckage alone is pretty damning.

Stann

[john white]

As John White would say:

All it takes is ONE IMAGE . . . just ONE IMAGE of a DC10, and the game's up for the perps!

DC10 or 767, "No Planes Theory" is buggered either way

^ Planes you see

I've always been open to the possibility that the Planes used in New York are not the Planes claimed in the OCT.... however "open to possibility" is as far as it goes

That there were Planes, there we have no problem, the evidence is in and it's conclusive

Regretably Pixie shouting "photoshop" everytime he sees something NPT can't explain won't change that, although if he really wants to see image manipulation, he only has to watch a Simon Shack Video again to get his fill

[mr_pixie]

Stannrod its photoshop becauce looke at the differece between the foreground and the background its as if its been joined together.

Also the you talk about and show a cloud rising up over WTC 5 this in not true there are no clouds rising up over WCT 5 before the towers collapsed.

Please get some real pictures. I have looked at a lot of videos and stills this is fake!

[stannrodd]

Wrong Mr Pixie..

It's photo shopped ONLY because you say so .. and you can't prove that ..so why say it..?

Go find a dead horse and flogg it !!

Would you rather I went away .. so that you and your friends can pat each other on the back and say you have got us on your side.. or defeated us ??

Or would you like us to go away .. because we are right .. and are pissing you off..

Or would you like us to just go away .. so you didn't have to argue with us .. and you can say what a bunch of fuckwits we are..

What is it fellow member ??

How about you explain your reason for being here ??

Stann

[mr_pixie]

Wrong Mr Pixie..

It's photo shopped ONLY because you say so .. and you can't prove that ..so why say it..?

Go find a dead horse and flogg it !!

Would you rather I went away .. so that you and your friends can pat each other on the back and say you have got us on your side.. or defeated us ??

Or would you like us to go away .. because we are right .. and are pissing you off..

Or would you like us to just go away .. so you didn't have to argue with us .. and you can say what a bunch of fuckwits we are..

What is it fellow member ??

How about you explain your reason for being here ??

Stann

LOL I dont have explain why I'm on this forum to you mate.

[john white]

LOL I dont have explain why I'm on this forum to you mate.

LOL Indeed

I do think you'd like it if real 9/11 Truthers didnt post here though

[stannrodd]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/rofll.gif

[mr_pixie]

LOL Indeed

I do think you'd like it if real 9/11 Truthers didnt post here though



I never said that John.

What do you mean real 9/11 Truthers ? Another Insult from you.

I'm as real as most on here.

Anybody is wellcome to post here IMO its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH
maybe its you John and your mates who would want people like me to go away.

[bryan]

I don't know what the detonation was .. do you ? But IMO there is a good possibility that the aircraft debris could have traveled in the direction of WTC5.


As Dr. Greening would say, there's no such thing as a physical impossibility, so yes, it COULD have performed a miracle and travelled in that direction!



As for the wreckage being planted .. why would you plant DC10 wreckage if the alleged plane was a 767 ??


Here's what you've claimed regarding the fuselage:


The wreckage appears to be from a DC 10 or variant ..

And it's identity has been shown to be more like DC 10 construction than 767 ..


To whom does it appear to be a DC10 or variant? Who has shown it to be more like a DC10 construction than 767? We know you don't like to speculate, so let's see more details of this evidence and how many people support the theory.



It hasn't surfaced yet .. but then neither has a pic of a 767.


The point is, one of the main arguments against NPT is that they'd be mad to risk not using planes because of all the eyewitnesses and cameras. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to using a totally different type of plane.




Would you rather I went away .. so that you and your friends can pat each other on the back and say you have got us on your side.. or defeated us ??

Or would you like us to go away .. because we are right .. and are pissing you off..

Or would you like us to just go away .. so you didn't have to argue with us .. and you can say what a bunch of fuckwits we are..


No, PLEASE, don't go away!!! Stay and start some more meaningless threads so people can SEE how desperate you are instead of just taking our word for it.

[john white]

I never said that John.

What do you mean real 9/11 Truthers ? Another Insult from you.

I'm as real as most on here.

Anybody is wellcome to post here IMO its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH
maybe its you John and your mates who would want people like me to go away.

Lol yes, anyone is free to post here

I never said differently

And no, your not a "real" 9/11 Truther, sorry, not my fault, your shortcomings

[stannrodd]

To whom does it appear to be a DC10 or variant? Who has shown it to be more like a DC10 construction than 767? We know you don't like to speculate, so let's see more details of this evidence and how many people support the theory.

Why don't you simply post a link to the LetsRoll911 forums where all that has been discussed in depth .. it would save me a whole lot of time reposting it here.

You see bryan I wasn't looking for a DC10 or KC10, I was looking at the holes in the towers and noticed there was something quite different about them.

The next question was .. why are the holes different when the towers were almost identical and the alleged planes were both supposedly the same type .. 767 passenger jets.

So I look at the fuselage wreckage on WTC5 and attempt to make it fit on a 767 by using photos of 767's .. hello it doesn't match.

What does it match .. I thought to myself.

Well I looked at other aircraft which were about the same size and .. had a "light bulb" moment .. after reading about the anniversary of the DC10 crash of an Air New Zealand passenger jet in Antarctica. This news item had a photo of some wreckage from that disaster .. I knew it was a DC10 and guess what .. there were some rather striking similarities between that and the WTC5 wreckage.

That's how the research went bryan.

I didn't drag a DC10 into the 9/11 debate on purpose or for any other nefarious reason. It just happened and it was honest research .. and I could be wrong OK !

Oh and thanks for your invitation to stick around. I might do that ..

Stann :)

[mr_pixie]

Lol yes, anyone is free to post here

I never said differently

And no, your not a "real" 9/11 Truther, sorry, not my fault, your shortcomings

Your not even worth it mate. :)

[stannrodd]

Your not even worth it mate. :)

If you can't stay "on topic" and discuss the topic in this thread .. why don't you start your own "big ears, fairy, and goblin' party" somewhere else Mr Pixie.

Thanks
Stann :)

[guntherznads]

LOL Indeed

I do think you'd like it if real 9/11 Truthers didnt post here though

Oh do tell!!!!!!

What is a "real" truther?

this should be rich




Gunth

[mr_pixie]

John, No Planers are not going anywere mate. :D

[john white]

John, No Planers are not going anywere mate

LOL How true

[john white]

Oh do tell!!!!!!

What is a "real" truther?

this should be rich




Gunth

If you don't attach any values whatsever to the word "Truther" then absolutely everyone is one. Pixie thinks of himself as a "Truther" but really he's just a bloke who believes stuff. That might cut it for you, but it doesn't for me, and if I want to say so, I will

[mr_pixie]

Ok John Boy Ive warned you now for this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIwlRClHsQ

[john white]

LOL its always now now

[stannrodd]

Bryan you didn't address the huge detonation heard on impact and the one which sent debris north .. did you have a look at the video mate .. turn up the sound so you can hear the explosion.

What did you think about the detonation sound bryan ?? A singular Hi power charge or a crunch as you would expect from a crumpling aluminum plane.

Stann

[bryan]

What did you think about the detonation sound bryan ?? A singular Hi power charge or a crunch as you would expect from a crumpling aluminum plane.


Why would I trust the sound on a video that was filmed by the perps?

Still no evidence that the piece of fuselage was from a DC10?

Your DC10 theory is starting to look as lame as the concrete core theory.

[djeminy]

What did you think about the detonation sound bryan ?? A singular Hi power charge or a crunch as you would expect from a crumpling aluminum plane.

Stann

Stann, I really do like you.

I like the way you try so much and so hard, in writting, to make yourself
appear to us as the 'creature' in your avatar.

I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh when you eventually tell us your "sneaky
devious" reasons for it all.

Keep up the fun, mate!

Love your work.

[stannrodd]

Thanks bryan,

You allege that the sound track is provided by the perps .. you just said that!!

OK ..

so ..DO they want us to believe that there was a massive singular detonation of some explosive device instead of a crunchy airline crumpling sound .. ?

I just heard what sounded like a huge artillery shell after hearing a low flying jet passenger airliner pass overhead .... and it is reported like that in the media...

What was it ??

DC10 v 767 .. I have always said I could be wrong in terms of my effort there ..

Do you have a problem with people admitting they maybe wrong ..

Stann

[stannrodd]

Stann, I really do like you.

I like the way you try so much and so hard, in writting, to make yourself
appear to us as the 'creature' in your avatar.

I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh when you eventually tell us your "sneaky
devious" reasons for it all.

Keep up the fun, mate!

Love your work.

The avatar has nothing to do with me .. you can choose your own interpretation of that .. with what I might say ..

Interesting that you commented about the avatar though ..!

My words and what I write is where I am from.

The avatar is just a silly pic

Cheers
Stann

[djeminy]

DC10 v 767 .. I have always said I could be wrong in terms of my effort there ..

Do you have a problem with people admitting they maybe wrong ..

Stann


On the contrary Stann - no problem here.

We think that people who admit to be wrong are the most beautiful people
in the world.

Such people are an absolute rarity.

Keep up the good work, stann!

[thelyran]

...what did'nt hit the tower,was
1)Hologram
2)Missile or other projectile
3)Special and Secret Weapons
4)A DC-10
5)A 757/767 "Passenger" airliner.
6)Hi-Jacking Terrorist
What did hit the tower
1)A repainted cargo plane designed on the 757/767 fuselage
2)A Military E-10,based on the general design of the 767/757


...Just thought you could do with the input Stann...if others can't accept this,I don't care,and don't bother debating,as I seen it live on TV...no,I don't believe in fake footage...I believe the shoddy footage NPT's use to back their claims laughable.I'm a RPT's and nothing will change that.Regards.:)

[djeminy]

...
1)A repainted cargo plane designed on the 757/767 fuselage
2)A Military E-10,based on the general design of the 767/757

...Just thought you could do with the input Stann...if others can't accept this,I don't care,and don't bother debating,as I seen it live on TV....:)


I once meet a guy who said that Jesus was walking on water, and that
there was nothing really to debate or discuss about this.

Not even the Truth of the matter!

He seemed happy enough, so who are we to argue with people like that!

[stannrodd]

I'm not sure that the Jesus thing is relevant .. but I do see why you introduced it.

I'd prefer we didn't get into that belief system on behalf of something rather ordinary in comparison to the one mentioned above.

Jesus was a man .. the bible tells me so.. that was what I was told .. is it relevant.. perhaps..

Lets move on.. :)

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

The avatar is just a silly pic

Cheers
Stann

You mean it isn't Fred Flintstone after a hard night's drinking?

[stannrodd]

You mean it isn't Fred Flintstone after a hard night's drinking?

Actually .. the avatar is a picture of what an artist may have thought the legendary Eccles from the GOON SHOW might have looked like in the TeleGOONS.

Here is a clip from that series .. you may see Eccles briefly.. !!

Look for the big Nose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdayw_7Er5o

Stann :D

[stannrodd]

Bump

[stannrodd]

...what did'nt hit the tower,was
1)Hologram
2)Missile or other projectile
3)Special and Secret Weapons
4)A DC-10
5)A 757/767 "Passenger" airliner.
6)Hi-Jacking Terrorist
What did hit the tower
1)A repainted cargo plane designed on the 757/767 fuselage
2)A Military E-10,based on the general design of the 767/757


...Just thought you could do with the input Stann...if others can't accept this,I don't care,and don't bother debating,as I seen it live on TV...no,I don't believe in fake footage...I believe the shoddy footage NPT's use to back their claims laughable.I'm a RPT's and nothing will change that.Regards.:)


Moving on from the Telegoons .. I know it was a while ago, but getting back to what didn't hit the WTC1 Tower I thought I should refer this thread to another one where the Woolworth building missile attack on WTC speculation is being discussed .. I thought the cross correlation of threads may be interesting..

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73654

Stann

[stannrodd]

bump