U.S. and Russian satellites collide

[jibbguy]

Hutchinson Effect?

I don't feel too bad going off-subject (...and maybe it's not so off-subject for this site after-all):

The most interesting aspect of the 9/11 attacks imo is the possibility of the "Hutchinson Effect", or something along the lines of Col. Beardon's "Scalar Interferometry" (ala HAARP) being used to drop the towers and Bldg 7.

The Journal of 9/11 Research and 9/11 Issues

I'm far from sold on this theory (although i believe it was an inside job no matter how it was done); but there are strange and seemingly unanswerable parallels to what happened to the structures and surrounding area and what John Hutchinson noted of his effect. The major proponent of this theory, Dr. Judy Wood, does not come out and say it was an energy weapon using the Hutchinson Effect on her website, but strongly implies it; and everyone knows that is what she is really saying.

If this technology is "real"... Then we know that the U.S. government has had it at least since the late 1970's / early 1980's when Hutchinson first went public with it. Or if we take into account Col. Beardon's work on the subject, the Soviets had it years before; since these two technologies would seem to be based on the same thing (intersecting & focused standing longitudinal wave fronts).... And in fact the genesis could go all the way back to Tesla's "Death Ray" from the 1930's .

Is this the reason they won't let us have free energy (...because of the awesome destructive power of this technology)? I don't believe it is; at least not generally. The study of "Magnetic Motors" or "Hydroxy" does not lead back to it; and LENR or plasma energy doesn't lead back to it any more than other "traditional" sciences would. But some have made this leap....

... And it leads some to a conclusion that we are "better off" without free energy: To that i say "Bull". There is nothing that can be of greater help to us. And that is the problem: Those that would engineer "false-flag" operations for their own ends, obviously don't want what is best for us. And we certainly shouldn't believe anything they say unless we can verify it ourselves!

[everwiser]

Its hard for me to take the video of UFO's serious with Dan Akroyd doing the lead in...

I keep waiting for the green goblin eating the hot dogs and Ghost Busters theme to rush in!

All conspiricy theory beside. The point of space junk and possiblities of collisions is very real and is ever more present dangers as more satellites enter the space.

The concept of a space "Traffic Cop" is what is needed. Something tragic will have to occur B4 this is addressed by UN or G8 or some authority

What exactly makes you think those authorities are any different from U.S./E.U. authorities? No legislative or dictatorial government, coalition, consortium or whatever they choose to call themselves can stop bad things from happening. No matter their professed intentions, it's all about control for their benefit; rarely, if ever, ours.

The world is being controlled by a very small group of persons or else all this technological phenomenon that all of us have been developing on our own would be everywhere. Any one country's government can prevent/suppress people/technology in their own country but worldwide? Not very likely. The majority of the people in the world are duped. Those that aren't duped have to maintain a low profile or else they just won't exist anymore.

Take it from Tommy Lee Jones in MiB: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

[wpage]

Roles & Responsibilities

Who's job is it to police the world?

Who has the assignment to oversee space?

Anyone who accepts these positions invites great expense and exposure to pundits and monday morning quarterbacks.

"Where ignorance is bliss tiss folly to be wise" So in a world full of fools the best future for a sound space doctrine is to have consumer reports design future satellites with crash rated bumers.

Like the owners of cars on the road the best prevention in space is probably let the owner of the valuable satellite beware!

[rickoff]

Reply to CitizenDC:

Not talking about it will only lead to less awareness and the likely hood of the same tactic being used again. We need to become more aware by speaking more openly about these matters.

A common method for securing population support for ANY conflict is to employ false flag operations. These operations can be active with the government staging the event or passive, with governments knowing full and well there is a threat and allowing it to happen.

You are quite right, of course. There probably are a great many people who haven't been exposed to the fallacies and inconsistencies regarding the "official" explanations of the 911 attacks. If it weren't for some of the 911 documentary videos, such as Loose Change, and 911:In Plane Sight, there would be very little light shed on the subject. After watching these videos, I felt compelled to watch them again and again, and to do further research. I set my focus on determining what could actually be proven concerning the 4 flights said to have been hijacked, and felt that it would have to be something of a visual nature - something that would be conclusive enough to be irrefutible. It was a difficult task, because the only videos showing plane crashes on 911 were very short clips of the planes that struck the WTC towers. The first plane, which hit the north WTC tower at 8:46AM (said to have been American Airlines flight 11), was captured on video by Jules Naudet, who was interviewing NYC fire department employees at street level before the crash. This video is not clear enough to determine identification markings on the plane, so I turned my attention to video footage of the south tower impact. The "official" story is that United Arlines flight 175 struck the WTC south tower at 9:03AM. Several individuals and TV news crews captured brief glimpses of the south tower impact from varying angles, but most of these failed to capture a clear image of the plane. An exception, though, is shown in footage which appears in the documentary video 911:In Plane Sight, and which is said to have been taken from a 2002 CNN video titled America Remembers. At the start of the video sequence, the video camera is trained on the WTC towers. A jet plane can be heard approaching, and the camera pans left to capture a side view of the plane. When the plane is first focused upon in this side view, the tail markings are visible. Below is a still frame view of this:

At first glance, the plane does appear to have similarities to a United Airlines Boeing 767-222ER. The plane seems to have a grayish upper surface, a darker underside, and a blue tail. But look at the lettering on the tail. The letters appear to be large and white, and to span the width of the tail view. Now look at the tail markings on the photo below, which shows an actual United Airlines 767-222ER.

Look carefully at the large tail image. Now look at the smaller tail image, which more closely approximates the proportions of the tail in the top photo. Still not quite sure? Try looking at the next image, in which I show the two tail views side by side.

Any way you look at it, is the lettering the same?

And what about the apparent two-tone paint job? Is the darker area at the bottom of the fuselage really painted dark blue, or is this a shadow effect? Notice that the underside of the wings also appears dark, but a United Airlines 767-222ER's wing undersides are only painted blue in the area of the engine attachment, as is seen below.

The remainder of the wing underside is unpainted aluminum. Now keep this in mind as you view the next photo. This still photo shows the plane as it closely approaches the WTC south tower, just before impact. The plane banked sharply left at this point of travel, and in doing so it allowed the right wing underside, and the fuselage underside to be illuminated by sunlight from the east. This removes the shadow effects, and we can see that both the wing underside and the fuselage underside are unpainted aluminum.

This does not match the color scheme of N612UA, the United Airlines Boeing 767-222ER which is said to have been flight 175 on the day of the WTC attacks. For a comparison of the correct markings, the following link will display a large photo of the actual N612UA plane, as taken in March of 2000.
Photos: Boeing 767-222 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Also notice, in the photo showing the unpainted aluminum fuselage underside, that there are 4 dark squares along the left side of the fuselage. These correspond to the cargo door locations of a 767, but why do they appear dark as compared to the fuselage? I can only offer two suggestions for this - either the cargo doors are painted darker, or they have been removed.

To my knowledge, none of the above mentioned anomalies have been publicly discussed by anyone previous to this post. If anyone wants to take a crack at explaining how these anomalies have no real significance, and how the plane in the WTC approach sequence can still be presumed to be UAL flight 175, then by all means go for it. I'm all ears.

Rick

[dambit]

Hi Rick,

I agree that the whole 9/11 thing is bull****, however I have some issues with your pictures.

As a person with a background in commercial aviation I have seen these aircraft quite often and the underside of the United aircraft wing is not painted dark blue. The engine and the engine spur are painted dark blue and this is why in the photo of the aircraft about to impact the building there is no paint visible on the wings.

Also the fuselage of the aircraft in this picture is painted, however the polished finish is reflecting its surroundings and looks as if it's not painted. If you look back towards to the elevators you can see the dark blue colour in the paint. As for the four dark squares I'm not sure. The cargo doors are positioned on the left side of the aircraft but the 767-200 only has three of them.

Sorry to dissagree but this is what I know.

Cheers.

Steve.

[rickoff]

Hi Rick,

I agree that the whole 9/11 thing is bull****, however I have some issues with your pictures.

As a person with a background in commercial aviation I have seen these aircraft quite often and the underside of the United aircraft wing is not painted dark blue. The engine and the engine spur are painted dark blue and this is why in the photo of the aircraft about to impact the building there is no paint visible on the wings.

I agree, Steve. I never said that the wing underside is blue, and the close-up photo of the wing clearly shows that it is not blue. So in this instance you are simply reiterating what I already have said and shown. Here is what I said: " a United Airlines 767-222ER's wing undersides are only painted blue in the area of the engine attachment, as is seen below."

Also the fuselage of the aircraft in this picture is painted, however the polished finish is reflecting its surroundings and looks as if it's not painted.

I'm not convinced. What evidence can you show to support your statement that the fuselage is painted? It would be painted dark blue if in fact the plane was a United Airlines 767-222ER, but that certainly can't be established as fact from a review of the tower approach video. If it is painted, then it would appear to be aluminum colored paint. Sunlight can cause a dark, polished surface to appear light when viewed at a reflected angle, but it will only cause a bright reflection at one angle on a curved surface such as a fuselage. A bright, reflective glint is in fact seen at the upper right rear surface of the fuselage, where it narrows, but the remainder of the fuselage underside is not exposed to direct sunlight.

If you look back towards to the elevators you can see the dark blue colour in the paint.

I don't see any dark blue colored area on or near the elevators, and the larger photo of the 767-222ER tail section clearly shows that the elevator undersides are unpainted aluminum. So if you could in fact point to a dark painted area on the undersides of the elevators, then this would obviously, in itself, be conclusive evidence that this is not a UAL 767-222ER. If you are talking about the underside of the fuselage at the tail end of the plane, where the fuselage narrows, this area is shaded from sunlight and of course would appear to be darker, even on unpainted aluminum, but it certainly is not blue.

As for the four dark squares I'm not sure. The cargo doors are positioned on the left side of the aircraft but the 767-200 only has three of them.

You may be right about a 767-200 series only having 3 cargo doors. I couldn't find a picture of a 767-222ER that clearly showed the outlines of the cargo doors, and supposed that the four shiny metal objects along the left underside were latch actuators for 4 cargo doors. They may in fact be for another purpose. The existence of the four dark squares on the fuselage in the bottom photo, however, is undeniable. Like you, I'm not quite sure what this indicates, other than darker painted surfaces, or openings in the fuselage, as I stated. If these 4 dark squares are cargo doors, or cargo door openings, which would seem to be the only reasonable explanation for their existence, and you are certain that a 767-200 series plane only has 3 cargo doors, then this would prove that the plane was not a 767-200 series commercial passenger aircraft. How many cargo doors does a 767-200 series cargo or military plane have? How many does a 767-300 have? And how about a 767 tanker? Any idea on these? It would be interesting to know, but I haven't been able to locate this information. Perhaps you may have better luck.

Best regards,

Rick

[Aromaz]

In support of Rickoff, In this video the 2nd aircraft is seen from a different angle
and more visible as gray-metalic and there are also some distorsion that looks
there is something else under the fuselage.
YouTube - It was a Military Plane!

http://letsrollforums.com/south-towe...y-t16911.html?

A number of witnesses also stated it was a twin engine, gray colour, and no
windows? All with interviews or speaking direct at the occurance or soon after. Weeks and months later there were other contradictions in stories, but....

Also still no word about the E4B that passed by earlier and later?
YouTube - It was a Military Plane!

And still very little about Tower #7, which was very different.
9/11 Key Witness Murdered? (Barry Jennings R.I.P.)

[wpage]

What happend to real planes under this premise?

So if these theories are true. What happend to the planes and the passengers that allegedly were hijacked and killed?

Your proposition is that not only did the government use its own aircraft and personell to attack NY City...

The same group of evildoers and it would have been a concerted effort. Somehow managed to make several large commercial airliners some filled with passengers. Some of these passengers notebly the one that crashed over Penn had made calls to family's describing in detail the Arab terrorists and made heroic attempts to thwart the hijack & 2nd planned attach on Washington DC.

The effect of light and shadow is extreme. 9-11 was a beautiful clear day here in the NY area. If the shots on the light side are examined it is evident clearly what occured.
For the familys and friends of those who were lost or injured on that terrible day. This kind of conjecture is hurtful & not positive.
To think that citizens of this countrys government and military would have participated in this activity is ludicrus.
9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[wpage]

What happend to real planes under this premise?

So if these theories are true. What happend to the planes and the passengers that allegedly were hijacked and killed?

Your proposition is that not only did the government use its own aircraft and personell to attack NY City...

The same group of evildoers and it would have been a concerted effort. Somehow managed to make several large commercial airliners some filled with passengers. Some of these passengers notebly the one that crashed over Penn had made calls to family's describing in detail the Arab terrorists and made heroic attempts to thwart the hijack & 2nd planned attach on Washington DC.

The effect of light and shadow is extreme. 9-11 was a beautiful clear day here in the NY area. If the shots on the light side are examined it is evident clearly what occured.
For the familys and friends of those who were lost or injured on that terrible day. This kind of conjecture is hurtful & not positive.
To think that citizens of this countrys government and military would have participated in this activity is ludicrus.

[dambit]

Hi Rick,

You got me on the engine paint, I misread your post. oops,

As far as the fuselage paint goes I'm not sold but you could be right. I've been looking over some of my old L1011 photos I have from my early Cathay days, (In the old Cathay Pacific colours the underside of the L1011 is polished aluminium) and in some shots the underside takes on a similar appearance to the aircraft in your shot. So maybe.

I have attached your pic with the three dark spots circled. Personaly I can only see the three and suspect that your forth is the undercarrage bay door. I dropped the ball again in my last post saying that the cargo doors are on the left side of the fuselage, they are normaly always on the right side of the fuselage. So I am still questioning what these could be. (unless this image is mirrored) FYI all three variants of the 767 (200, 300 & 400) have three cargo doors. The cargo variant has three lower doors and forth door on the upper fuselage (not visible in this pic).The only other difference is the length of the aircraft.

As far as this type of talk causing pain to the families of the victims, well, they don't have to read all this. And I would think that not questiong the painfully obvious flaws and omissions in the official report (such as building 7and the total lack of aircraft wreckage or bodies in Pennsylvania) would be doing a greater disservice. IMHO

Cheers,

Steve

[jibbguy]

Airplanes are rarely so under-sold

One of the most damning pieces of evidence imo is that all 4 planes were lightly peopled. I've flown on jets over 600 times in my business career; from Logan, JFK, Cleveland, Newark.. Every airport that these planes came from. And lemme tell you: They are very, very rarely so under-sold. In fact, what usually happens when there are only 30% occupancy or so of passengers is that the plane has a mysterious "break-down" and the flight is canceled. This has happened to me more times than i can recall... It is illegal for the airlines to do this; but they do it all the time time anyway to save money... Their favorite excuse BTW is the "Auxiliary Power" gas turbine unit in the tail... It apparently has a very dismal durability record, hehehe... Despite being out of the elements and in a closed environment.

As for the idea that 9/11 Truthers are "pissing" on the memory of those who died: this is a matter of viewpoint. To those who believe that this was an inside job: What is worse: Ignoring it and remaining silent...? Letting the murderers go unpunished, letting the deaths be meaningless?

These accusations are leveled by two sorts of people: Those who honestly believe it is outrageous and hurts the memory of the dead, and those who are just using any ad-hominem personalized attack they can think of against the Truthers (...because they really don't have much else to use in the way of facts or debate points).

I am willing to believe that those here who think this way are the "former" (...who are honestly outraged over it), but i would ask that you try to look at it from the other side: And you will see that if we ARE right; that 9/11 was an inside job... Then talking about is not disrespectful, and in fact required to honor the deaths... And to eventually punish the murderers.

Another interesting thing i have seen is that some of the very same people who 10 or so years ago were telling us that "Pearl Harbor" was masterminded or allowed to happen by FDR... Are now denying 9/11 being an inside job; and attacking the peeps who believe this as "conspiracy nut jobs" lol.

I guess they don't see the irony there

Lol, ironically i personally don't believe Pearl Harbor was an inside job However, i didn't call the peeps who believed that names, i just thought they were wrong in their judgment. I think this is an important concept to understand: We are all the same in that our beliefs and opinions are shaped and molded by our experiences, childhoods, pet-peeves, and disappointments. To really be successful at debate and discussion, we must strive to try to see the others' views from their vantage point. When this is understood, differences of opinion and belief thus become a challenge; and not an affront.

[Aromaz]

Getting people on a 'special' plane is not difficult.

Let us say you are booked to fly AA from NY to FL. Passengers check in and go to boarding. As they go on board the plane - which happens to be not AA but say "Nifty Air". How many people will notice this change of aircraft? Then of those few that does notice it, how many will turn around and disembark saying "This is not an AA plane, therefore I will not fly on it"

jibbguy has a very good point with the number of passengers; I did not notice that before.

Very little bit of anything but pulverized dust found at WTC site! The whole forensics science was completely absent; contrary to any other occurrence ever, anywhere in the world involving USA sites. They were working for 8 months at the embassy bombing site in Nigeria! In NY they were absent?

Then there is the mysterious case of all four sets of flight recorders. All stated to be found, none revealed. In case of WTC firemen did find them, did hand them over to FBI – but officially not found! That is very strange; the CSMU are made in such a way that they can withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees, salt water for at least 30 days, immersion in a variety of liquids such as jet fuel and lubricants, and an impact of 3,400 G's.

Anyway, this is a field on its own and I do not have much faith in the truth even be known.

In the mean time, the space agencies are awfully quiet about space junk, damages and the interesting meteorites coming our way. Funny that there are more and more revelations form Chinese and French space agencies than NASA. Are they just better; or is it that NASA is so embedded in their 'intelligence operations' that they just can not get out of it.

[ashtweth]

Guys there is many docs here with EVIDENCE also
911- September 11
we are helping collect LEGAl pressure for re investigation.

Ash

[Aromaz]

Guys there is many docs here with EVIDENCE also
911- September 11
we are helping collect LEGAl pressure for re investigation.

Ash

You will certainly make the Bush family looking more scared!
War is coming their way.

All of the best, i do think that will be a big can of anacondas.

[everwiser]

You will certainly make the Bush family looking more scared!
War is coming their way.

All of the best, i do think that will be a big can of anacondas.

Out of sight and out of mind...

No charges will ever be brought forth against a former sitting President and there will be no more investigations. If there is a cover up, it's being kept covered up by nearly everyone in Congress regardless of which side of the aisle the people sit on. Every loss of liberty cited in the last eight years had bipartisan support and even the "Big O" as well as a majority of his party voted for FISA. Add to this the relatively recent authorization to use U.S. military forces for domestic "peacekeeping" and you've got all the signs you should need to realize that the U.S. government is no longer "of the people" or "by the people".