BDK <kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ea07797f88eedb7989e9a@news.buckeye-express.com:

In article <Xns979DD892184B912345666@207.14.113.17>,

BDK <kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1e9f921e33089b9989e95@news.buckeye-express.com:

In article <Xns979DA788B669912345666@207.14.113.17>,

"Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.removethistoreply.com> wrote in
news:TGfZf.1387$Es3.84@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Your ISP Hosts Child Porn, Warez, Movies - Ask Me How"
<

"Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.removethistoreply.com> wrote in
news:kkeZf.1364$Es3.253@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Your ISP Hosts Child Porn, Warez, Movies - Ask Me How"
<

Why did that "plane" sail smoothly into the building without
a single piece of the wings or anything breaking off?

Got a realistic answer for that?

Accelerate an object weighing over a hundred thousand pounds
to several hundred miles per hour, and run it in to a
building whose outer surface is covered with windows.

What happens? Boom, right *in* to the building.

Even my kids aren't buying your silly, over-simplistic
explanation.

Do you really think 757 wings would just slide into a
skyscraper without breaking anything off?

It is to laugh.

No, I think all kinds of stuff would break. And the broken
pieces would be flying IN to the building at the speed of the
plane -

several

hundred miles per hour.

Try this experiment. Stand outside your house. Take a baseball

bat.

Swing hard at a window. Notice how all the broken glass ends up
*inside* the house?

Now imagine that bat weighs a hundred tons, most of that jet
fuel,

is

going four or five hundred miles per hour, and milliseconds
after impact all that fuel explodes.

Again, silly and simplistic.

No, just right.

Keep lying to yourself.

ALL of the plane would go into the building?

Uh, yeah. Talk to your science teacher. Please.

I'm pretty sure even elementary science teachers understand the
physics involved better than you do.

Hey you were talking about "Reptilians" a few posts ago, so your
disease is pretty obvious.

And you're so dim as to not know I run one of the biggest reptilian sites
on the net?

http://www.bedoper.com/reptilian

http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/

Thursday, March 16, 2006
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.

posted by Spooked at 7:43 PM 0 comments
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.

Wow! That was really fucking insane!

The Ghost Plane footage confirms this theory.

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.

You need to be given a large dose of an anti-psychotic "cocktail" if
you believe 10% of the above. Any more, and I'm guessing it's a prion
thing.

Half of all New Yorkers are also apparently insane.

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.

LOL, the only evidence presented above points towards the author's
insanity!

Thanks for providing so much evidence to support your case...

*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.

Whoo-hoo!

**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.

You sure that wasn't Woody Woodpecker the "researcher"?

posted by Spooked at 7:41 PM 0 comments
Saturday, February 25, 2006
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.

You are rather comical. But it's not nice to make fun of someone
mentally deranged...LOL.

You're also so dim as to think I wrote any of that?

posted by Spooked at 7:32 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
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.

Whoo-hoo, and the kookness continues.

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.

Missile? Jeez!

Close-up footage is all fake.

posted by Spooked at 1:51 PM 0 comments
Friday, January 13, 2006
Some good posts by Killtown showing the Ghostplane phenomenon well:

Here and here.

And I got this picture from Webfairy:





I call *****.

posted by Spooked at 7:49 AM 0 comments
Sunday, January 01, 2006
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...

posted by Spooked at 9:25 PM 0 comments
Saturday, December 31, 2005
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.

Please get some help, you're a sick sick little kook.

Still waiting for you to prove that the footage isn't CGI...

BDK <kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ea07797f88eedb7989e9a@news.buckeye-express.com:

In article <Xns979DD892184B912345666@207.14.113.17>,

BDK <kingratay@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1e9f921e33089b9989e95@news.buckeye-express.com:

In article <Xns979DA788B669912345666@207.14.113.17>,

"Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.removethistoreply.com> wrote in
news:TGfZf.1387$Es3.84@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Your ISP Hosts Child Porn, Warez, Movies - Ask Me How"
<

"Bo Raxo" <forensics@earthcorp.removethistoreply.com> wrote in
news:kkeZf.1364$Es3.253@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Your ISP Hosts Child Porn, Warez, Movies - Ask Me How"
<

Why did that "plane" sail smoothly into the building without
a single piece of the wings or anything breaking off?

Got a realistic answer for that?

Accelerate an object weighing over a hundred thousand pounds
to several hundred miles per hour, and run it in to a
building whose outer surface is covered with windows.

What happens? Boom, right *in* to the building.

Even my kids aren't buying your silly, over-simplistic
explanation.

Do you really think 757 wings would just slide into a
skyscraper without breaking anything off?

It is to laugh.

No, I think all kinds of stuff would break. And the broken
pieces would be flying IN to the building at the speed of the
plane -

several

hundred miles per hour.

Try this experiment. Stand outside your house. Take a baseball

bat.

Swing hard at a window. Notice how all the broken glass ends up
*inside* the house?

Now imagine that bat weighs a hundred tons, most of that jet
fuel,

is

going four or five hundred miles per hour, and milliseconds
after impact all that fuel explodes.

Again, silly and simplistic.

No, just right.

Keep lying to yourself.

ALL of the plane would go into the building?

Uh, yeah. Talk to your science teacher. Please.

I'm pretty sure even elementary science teachers understand the
physics involved better than you do.

Hey you were talking about "Reptilians" a few posts ago, so your
disease is pretty obvious.

And you're so dim as to not know I run one of the biggest reptilian sites
on the net?

http://www.bedoper.com/reptilian

http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/

Thursday, March 16, 2006
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.

posted by Spooked at 7:43 PM 0 comments
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.

Wow! That was really fucking insane!

The Ghost Plane footage confirms this theory.

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.

You need to be given a large dose of an anti-psychotic "cocktail" if
you beli