http://www.cloakanddagger.de/ presents:
TEN POINTS ABOUT 9-11 WTC „PLANES“
By: Dr. Stefan Grossmann
http://www.gallerize.com/, 3-6-7
Confusion abounds. We hope to bring you clarity about these issues that confuse the mind.
You might have heard or read about a „no plane“ theory. There are several notes to be made from a forensic view point:
(1) – The Twin Towers were hit by neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners that are alleged by the government to have hit the Twin Towers.
It gets worse:
(2) – In addition, neither WTC1 nor WTC2 were punctured with an impact hole that fits the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767. See:
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/9-11_Hole_Science.htm
It gets worse:
(3) – In addition, the Naudet brothers film does not clearly show an aircraft with the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767, and there are clues in the videos that argue against such an aircraft type. (WTC1 - north tower - impact on 9-11-1 at 8:46 a.m.)
It gets worse:
(4) – In addition, most of the videos of WTC2 hit do not clearly show an aircraft with the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767, and there are clues in a number of the videos and photos that argue against sich an aircraft type, for example the port wing anomaly described by Marcus Icke. There are also distinct problems with the UA livery not showing up consistently throughout the videos, and problems with slightly different plane trajectories and angles and plane speeds throughout the videos. Additional problems relate to the pod and side pipe and other tell-tale details. (WTC2 - south tower - impact on 9-11-1 at 9:03 a.m. – the alleged flight UA 175)
It gets worse:
(5) – In addition, it is reported on Rense that the aircraft servicing flight UA 175 (identified by its tail number) still was on duty servicing flights in the U.S.A. after 9-11-1. See
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
(making same report also for the plane servicing flight UA 93 (the Shanksville „plane“ that the government says disappeared in a mine shaft that then closed over the debris).
It gets worse:
(6) – In addition, the explosions shown in videos had the color of explosives (light gray to whitish) but not the color of burning or exploding kerosene (dark gray). Smoke and explosion puffs came out of wrong parts of the buildings, not hit by planes. The planes did not explode upon impact but nearly one second after impact with the walls of the towers. A tape recording of a nearby business meeting captured the sounds of WTC1 impact and has three explosions. Two of the explosions are separated by seven seconds. Witnesses including a BBC journalist told of hearing two or three impact explosions at north tower (WTC1). There was a flash of white lightning by the aircraft’s nose a split-second before hitting WTC1. There was a flash of orange lightning by the aircraft’s nose a split second before hitting WTC2. On at least one national TV video, the south wall of WTC2 was „painted“ by a missile homing target laser. In the afternoon before building WTC7 was bombed, national TV showed two drones or missiles being fired from the direction of the nearby Woolworth building. From the start of the attacks, policemen and callers called in with reports of missiles coming from the Woolworth building.
It gets worse:
(7) – In addition, none of the videos show wreckage from the impact explosions falling down that can be traced as belonging to the alleged hijacked airplanes. Such alleged debris that were allegedly found could have been placed by hand in order to create disinformation. There is no impact hole in the south wall of WTC2 for the jet engine that allegedly jettisoned through WTC2 and allegedly found its resting place under the arcades of a nearby building, see in
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/9-11_Hole_Science.htm
It gets worse:
(8) – In addition, neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners was hijacked; but that might best be treated as a different part of the story.
It gets worse:
(9) – In addition, it is likely that neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners departed from the airport; but that might best be treated as yet another part of the story.
It gets worse:
(10) – In addition, there are severe technical problems of cell phone engineering (confirmed through experiments by Professor Kee Dewdney) at the time of 9-11-1 that make it impossible that the cell phone calls from the allegedly hijacked planes, calls that are alleged by the government, in fact were made or could have been made; but that might best be treated as yet another part of the story.
It gets worse:
There is much more, for example: bombs going off, over a hundred witnesses (names known) observing this, clear evidence that fires did not pull the towers, admission that building 7 was pulled, explosion squibs, vibrations and plumes on video, a multi-trillion insurance fraud making a group around Henry Kissinger and his cronies multi-billionaires.
MY QUESTION IS: AMERICA ARE YOU NUTS?????
TEN POINTS ABOUT 9-11 WTC „PLANES“
By: Dr. Stefan Grossmann
http://www.gallerize.com/, 3-6-7
Confusion abounds. We hope to bring you clarity about these issues that confuse the mind.
You might have heard or read about a „no plane“ theory. There are several notes to be made from a forensic view point:
(1) – The Twin Towers were hit by neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners that are alleged by the government to have hit the Twin Towers.
It gets worse:
(2) – In addition, neither WTC1 nor WTC2 were punctured with an impact hole that fits the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767. See:
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/9-11_Hole_Science.htm
It gets worse:
(3) – In addition, the Naudet brothers film does not clearly show an aircraft with the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767, and there are clues in the videos that argue against such an aircraft type. (WTC1 - north tower - impact on 9-11-1 at 8:46 a.m.)
It gets worse:
(4) – In addition, most of the videos of WTC2 hit do not clearly show an aircraft with the outlines and measurements of a Boeing 767, and there are clues in a number of the videos and photos that argue against sich an aircraft type, for example the port wing anomaly described by Marcus Icke. There are also distinct problems with the UA livery not showing up consistently throughout the videos, and problems with slightly different plane trajectories and angles and plane speeds throughout the videos. Additional problems relate to the pod and side pipe and other tell-tale details. (WTC2 - south tower - impact on 9-11-1 at 9:03 a.m. – the alleged flight UA 175)
It gets worse:
(5) – In addition, it is reported on Rense that the aircraft servicing flight UA 175 (identified by its tail number) still was on duty servicing flights in the U.S.A. after 9-11-1. See
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
(making same report also for the plane servicing flight UA 93 (the Shanksville „plane“ that the government says disappeared in a mine shaft that then closed over the debris).
It gets worse:
(6) – In addition, the explosions shown in videos had the color of explosives (light gray to whitish) but not the color of burning or exploding kerosene (dark gray). Smoke and explosion puffs came out of wrong parts of the buildings, not hit by planes. The planes did not explode upon impact but nearly one second after impact with the walls of the towers. A tape recording of a nearby business meeting captured the sounds of WTC1 impact and has three explosions. Two of the explosions are separated by seven seconds. Witnesses including a BBC journalist told of hearing two or three impact explosions at north tower (WTC1). There was a flash of white lightning by the aircraft’s nose a split-second before hitting WTC1. There was a flash of orange lightning by the aircraft’s nose a split second before hitting WTC2. On at least one national TV video, the south wall of WTC2 was „painted“ by a missile homing target laser. In the afternoon before building WTC7 was bombed, national TV showed two drones or missiles being fired from the direction of the nearby Woolworth building. From the start of the attacks, policemen and callers called in with reports of missiles coming from the Woolworth building.
It gets worse:
(7) – In addition, none of the videos show wreckage from the impact explosions falling down that can be traced as belonging to the alleged hijacked airplanes. Such alleged debris that were allegedly found could have been placed by hand in order to create disinformation. There is no impact hole in the south wall of WTC2 for the jet engine that allegedly jettisoned through WTC2 and allegedly found its resting place under the arcades of a nearby building, see in
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/9-11_Hole_Science.htm
It gets worse:
(8) – In addition, neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners was hijacked; but that might best be treated as a different part of the story.
It gets worse:
(9) – In addition, it is likely that neither one of the two hijacked Boeing 767 commercial airliners departed from the airport; but that might best be treated as yet another part of the story.
It gets worse:
(10) – In addition, there are severe technical problems of cell phone engineering (confirmed through experiments by Professor Kee Dewdney) at the time of 9-11-1 that make it impossible that the cell phone calls from the allegedly hijacked planes, calls that are alleged by the government, in fact were made or could have been made; but that might best be treated as yet another part of the story.
It gets worse:
There is much more, for example: bombs going off, over a hundred witnesses (names known) observing this, clear evidence that fires did not pull the towers, admission that building 7 was pulled, explosion squibs, vibrations and plumes on video, a multi-trillion insurance fraud making a group around Henry Kissinger and his cronies multi-billionaires.
MY QUESTION IS: AMERICA ARE YOU NUTS?????
No comments:
Post a Comment