9/11 -"Bizarro" Aircrafts

Forum posts

• 27 February 2006, 02:57

  "Bizarro"-Aircraft No.4
  http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft4.GIF
  (DEMO Version)

  • 27 February 2006, 03:06

    Repost of links:

    http://911closeup.com/nico/invisible.htm

    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro.htm

    http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft3.GIF

  • 27 February 2006, 04:51

    Collection now also remodelled as swf-flashes at
    http://911closeup.com/nico

• 27 February 2006, 07:44

  why don’t you show the buildings as they come down you can see the explosions coming from the sides as in controlled demolition.

  • 1 March 2006, 04:29

    The focus on "controlled demolition" is a different one.
    There is no doubt in my mind, that the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was the result of a combination
    between conventional and unconventional explosives.

    I co-founded in 2002, together with Jeff "King" Plaguepuppy the "9/11 science and Justice Alliance" (this group of 20-30 memmbers existed until early 2006), which members inspired so many projects like 911reopen.org(Walter/Hufschmid-tandem), 911phsyics.net, David Ray Griffin (who worked with us together outside the group and cited its member), Vermont Senator Candidate Craig Hill and last but not least the st911 scholars and other scientific 9/11 portals, though some of them misinterpreted or manipulated our research.

    It’s clear to me, that besides many other reasons, controlled demolition took also place to "destroy"
    evidence of non-commercial aircraft fired into the Towers.

    There are enough good videos around about controlled demolition. I strongly also recommend 911EyeWitness by Rick Siegel.

  • 1 March 2006, 04:32

    You can "see the explosions coming from the sides" also a little bit in my "bizarro aircraft No.4", when you watch it 6-8 times.

    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro1.htm
    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm

  • 2 March 2006, 02:18

    The following message had been censored and deleted at
    "democratic"underground.com, after only one day:

    http://tinyurl.com/g57y3

    My ’political answer’ on that:

    How can i take a messageboard for serious, who is supporting a fascist
    fake opposition party like the Democrats, who seems to compete with Republicans and NSDAP and try to run the better ’war on terrorism’ or ’patriot act’?

    Another osbcure element at DU:
    LARED and Kevin Fenton do not attack each other, though LARED is the most aggressive opponent of "controlled demolition", ’Fenton’ isn’t but supports the official hijacker-boxcutter myth of 9/11.

    Both are governmental assets, working in a tandem to keep the troll activity busy over there, while in reality being a "daisy committee", hidden by an IP address, which can be shared by multiple operatives.

    All other trolls in DU’s 9/11 section are ’useful idiots’, who also hide their real identities, while i was active in public, as co-founder of ny911truth.org, which was later infiltrated from cointel-pro assets and intelligence infiltrated culsters as well.

    Since then ’(media) activism is kept on a low profile, though their supporters at the weekly St. Mark’s Church try to turn the wheels around again...

    For the record: I was banned as "ewing2001" in late December 2002, for speaking out against supporters of Hillary Clinton, when i posted a breaking news alert on a protest in NYC against her. I decided since the ban to never come back again, even not under another identity.

    I also cannot recall, when i ever was stationed in any hospital in the last 20 years for more than a few hours. In between maybe for a few hours, when i broke my finger.

    Speaking of mentally illness, i have to wonder why democratic underground is supporting so many false hope campaigns, instead of speaking out against their own party, who will more than obviously also THIS TIME allow Bush to invade or bomb Iran, Russia, China or whoever.

    More on my other ’political views’ here:

    http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10637
    9/11 -"Bizarro" Aircrafts
    Monday, February 27th
    "...It looks, like Portland Indymedia censored last night the following
    links:

    http://911closeup.com/nico/invisible.htm
    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro.htm
    http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft3.GIF

    Therefore, like Village Voice and MAXIM, also "Portland Indymedia" took not
    the opportunity to smear or "discredit" this research, though it allegedly
    "discredits" the 9/11 Truthling Movement.

    Here we have the double standard where one scientific evidence on 9/11 gets
    growing support, while the other is still pushed into no man’s land...

    ...I’m contesting everyone to find the names of these cameramen to stop this "outrageous conspiracy theory"..."

    http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.2509
    UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline ’screw-up’
    Sun Feb 26 2006
    SKY NEWS TV CLIP: American Airlines confirmed BOTH "aircrafts"
    that had been crashed into the Twin Towers, belonged to them
    http://www.911closeup.com/nico/aa_bothcrash_wtc.rv

    "...As seen above, this seemed to be another screw-up in the plotline
    script. How could AA confirm that AA77 crashed into the Towers?...

    nico haupt aka ewing2001
    team8plus.org
    911Inside Jobbers Yahoogroup

  • 2 March 2006, 02:21

    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro1.htm

    just up,
    Bizarro Plane No.5 at
    http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro5.htm

    This re-edited video is based on the very first clip of the second hit,
    which started the actual myth about an alleged commercial aircraft.

    I removed once again the black burb from this video.
    Therefore i doctored an already doctored video again.

  • 2 March 2006, 03:38

    [b]Jimmy Walter shows support[/b]

    Proof That Blue Screen Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane
    http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

  • 3 March 2006, 01:28

    The no-plane theory for 9/11— why it may not be as crazy as you think
    By "spooked911" aka http://covertoperations.blogspot.com
    Wed Mar-01-06

    Evidence

    1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am (see Team8plus.org)

    2) the footage of "flight 175" hitting the south tower is clearly fake (planes shouldn’t slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact; the explosion takes place too far from where the plane impacted; there are videos that show contradicting flight paths; all the videos have a flat cartoonish character; the plane never has any significant detail; other camera oddities (see 911hoax.com))

    3) in the footage of [..] second hits on the towers, the "planes" slide into the towers without slowing— this is impossible according to laws of physics (unless the planes completely disintegrated upon impact— but then they wouldn’t have left plane-shaped holes)

    4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It’s not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed— NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions. (the rumor that black boxes were found and kept secret is likely a psy-op meant to prop up the planes story)

    5) plane wings shouldn’t slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint (certainly if plane wings could easily cut through steel columns and floor slabs, it is not clear why the planes didn’t pass all the way through the towers)

    6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble— when the rubble was SIFTED for human remains (see the book "9.11 Revealed")

    7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but never saw a plane

    8) plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used?

    9) a very good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville— very little to no clear plane debris, suspicious (too small) holes

    10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes the way they did according to the official story

    Logistically, for a false-flag operation:

    1) using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes and managing a real hijacking situation

    2) having no planes avoids problems with air traffic controllers seeing something they shouldn’t see (for instance if there was a plane-swap)

    3) having no planes is the easiest way to avoid military interception, and much easier than a stand-down that would involve thousands of military personnel

    4) psy-ops effect of the attacks is stronger if it defies a certain logic (the bizarre plane crashes)

    5) having the media distribute a set of fake videos of the south tower hit is sufficient to plant the meme

    6) having the media complicit in the operation helps ensure that they won’t question the event

    7) "big lies" (such that there were no planes) are often more effective than smaller lies (i.e. planes were used but they were controlled by remote control)

    8) the paradigm shift required for people to question whether real planes were used in the attack helps keep the actual nature of the event hidden and the perpetrators safe

    Evidence that planes were used:

    1) the gov’t told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact

    2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles

    3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears to show a plane hitting the North tower

    4) witnesses claim to have seen planes

    5) a small number of plane parts were found at each crash locale

    Counter arguments to "evidence that planes were used":

    1) gov’t and media often work togehter and lie together

    2) yes, this was how they planted the meme that planes were used

    3) the footage is blurry and what hits the tower is not clear

    4) some witnesses were planted as part of the operation; other witnesses may have seen a missile flying in the air; eyewitnesses may hvae seen a plane that happpened to fly by at the same time as the event occurred; possibly some sort of high-techhologram-cloaked missile were used instead of planes; in any case, eyewitnesses are of course notoriously unreliable

    5) some plane parts were planted to support the idea that planes were used

    Summary

    The idea that no planes were used in 9/11— that the crashes were faked with bombs and missiles— is clearly counter-intuitive. However, logistically, avoiding the use of planes has many benefits if you presume that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Moreover, there are many pieces of evidence to point to some sort of fakery with regard to the idea that real planes were used.

    Note— real planes may have been used as part of the operation as "fly-bys" — these would give eye-witnesses something to "grab onto" that they saw a plane that was involved in the event.

    Major problem with the no-plane theory— requires a complicit media and more people involved in the plot. But clearly 9/11 was a huge operation and conceivably many people were willing to lie in service of some operation of which they didn’t know the extent. After 9/11, speaking out would mean death.

    What this theory DOES explain is the complete inability of the mainstream media to question the official 9/11 story in any way— because they were in on it!

  • 9 March 2006, 02:56

    http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html
    The timeline of CNN’s "reality tv" hoax from Sep11th and its impact.
    By Nico Haupt, New York City, March 8, 2006

    How some black blurbs and orwell speak on ’televison’, deceived a whole nation into the biggest "threataganda" and lies since 1945.
    (A to be updated review of deceptive and manipulative language and ’images’ on CNN)...

  • 16 March 2006, 21:47

    Since noone was able to debunk the evidence on the second hit footage fakery (including the very first only alleged LIVE footage from W-ABC, premiering on CNN), it’s time for an updated list of what might have hit the south tower.

    This list is the current result of a brainstorm, if "nothing at all" hit the south tower, or if ANY kind of ’uav’ formation hit the tower.

    (Thanks for spooked911 and some input from 911Inside Jobbers yahoo.)

    I modified it a little bit more for myself:

    Here are all the possibilities for the south tower hit.
    It’s clear that the so called "no-planers" (they got labelled like this from outside saboteurs during 2004 ff) do definetely rule out 7 and 8.

    1) nothing flying, purely pre-planted charges
    2) cluster of visible UAVs (including entomopters)
    3) cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs, maybe combined with pre-planted charges
    4) cloaked (invisible) missile
    5) visible large missile (one or two)
    6) CGI (overpainted) projecting missile (showing a Boeing jet)
    7) "UA175"
    8) some other large Boeing, possibly modified

    Here is a comment of "spooked911", a very constructive 9/11 researcher and -blogger (covertoperations.blogspot.com) on this issue:

    "... 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, this suggests to me the flying
    object was invisible or only weakly visible (a blur, perhaps only seen from
    certain angles).

    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...."

    I’m personally also leaning between 1) or 3) combined with pre-planted charges,
    which had the very same impact shape like at North Tower.

    Note also, that if a weaponized entomopter (-formation) was used, that would explain why many different sources (and footage) did not include or prove ANY incoming sound (noise from either missile or commercial aircraft).

    In this case, an argument for an incoming missile will be OUTDATED.

    nico aka ewing2001
    March 16, 2006