Research & Links for JFK and other unsolved cases

[frisco kid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

Advance to 5:33. This is the best evidence of idiotic CGI I found. The same sequence is re-run about five minutes later. I believe WPIX is the parent company.





Maybe a different video caused Cairo protests.

Al Qaeda-linked jihadists helped incite 9/11 Cairo protest | The Long War Journal

Middle East protests: meet the hardline 'tele-Islamist' who brought anti-Islam film to Muslim world's attention - Telegraph

[frisco kid]

This comp was done a few years ago by a guy named Equinox. What he failed to point out was the barge, (left of tower 2) which is 150-200 feet long. The towers were 208 ft wide and a boeing 767-222 is around 168 ft. The plane would have to scale to around 80% of the towers. It is literally a dot compared to the towers and other objects near them. This is full proof of what so many people saw and described, whether they laughed at it, said it was a much smaller plane or mistook it for a chopper. The object was considerably smaller than a Police Helicopter.

Barge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







This was recorded by a CBS NY affiliate. This orb is even more clear than Chopper 4's ball. No wings, just nothing but a slow moving ball that rises in altitude.

[frisco kid]

The object was moving at a snails pace compared to a real plane. The object disappears behind the north tower at 2:21 and four seconds later (2:25) fire starts in the front of T2. It took four long seconds to circle around between the rear of the towers. Let me spell this out for you in clear English: It travelled 208 ft across the rear of T1, then the distance between the towers, around 100 feet. It then turned right along the west side of T2, and finally left across the rear of it. That's at least 600 feet in four seconds. 150 ft. per second is around 100 mph. Its laughable speed and movement bear no resemblance to a chopper or plane. You can't change facts and real aircraft comparisons such as these. The object was not a plane, never will be, and you full well know it, by now at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF9OT7GeW4
https://www.google.com/#q=feet+per+second+to+mph

[/URL]




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei5Vuyu-J-E 3:15





Even if I gave you 200 ft per second, you are stuck with the object moving at a mere 140 mph. The vertical black line appears between the towers when the ball passes east of the north tower. No plane could be between the towers and still make it to the rear of T2. The ball disappears at 2:21 and by 2:23 the black line begins.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU

[frisco kid]

The plane images are ridiculous fakes. Much of the footage was from the news, therefore the low quality excuse can't be explained without admitting the footage was purposely degraded. The amateur and broadcast footage all looks the same because it was all manufactured by the same sources that produced the forged content.



There are likely hundreds of fakes to post. They are all fakes. You could have a million fakes and they'd all still be fakes. Absurd is a great word to describe the FAKES FROM 911.

[frisco kid]

https://www.google.com/search?q=robe...w=1536&bih=770

Gammy made an attempt a few years ago by demonstrating how a fake plane image could align with a real one. This was done by using a real plane (notice that AIR CANADA is backward) after reversing it. He simply reduced the fake image to make it unclear that it was NOT TURNED toward the camera the same way air canada was. This simple deception was exposed by using an enlarged pic of fake 175 compared to a real boeing at or nearly the same angle. It's very important to understand that he didn't alter any evidence back then, just used an easily detectable attempt to make the angle the same. THE FAKE IMAGE IS CREDITED TO ROBERT CLARK. If there is a difference in angle, the fake image is pointed more away from the camera which would make the right wing appear further from the tail section, but it overlaps it and is angled impossibly upward.





Note, the fake left engine is too rear of the right compared to the real boeing. It's not aligned properly, and yes they were retarded in all this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rob+...h=748#imgdii=_




These two are at the same angle and they aren't same. The black fake has no windows or markings. Every single part on the fake image is positioned different than the real plane. That's only possible if one is fake.

[frisco kid]

I can fully accept that William did not take a picture of a plane because of his slip up that he didn't see one, even though he supposedly captured it right before it impacted the South Tower. All these people were forced into a life time of lunacy after getting back these obvious fakes added to their pics. No one took a picture or shot video of a plane crashing into either tower on 911, and this tidbit of proof fits perfectly with all the evidence that points to no boeings being present near the towers before they exploded. Just imagine how completely stupid you'd sound trying to explain how a man took a picture of something he didn't see, even though he pressed the button to capture it. Nobody saw any planes, meaning that many lied and pretended to see one or more.

William D. Nuñez — amateur photographer 9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.

- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.

[frisco kid]

"And then heard this noise that seemed to come from everywhere but didn't...had no idea what it was and then the south tower just exploded, it just it just, it just blew up. And somebody said that was a plane and I was like, "I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane."

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one. He would have heard the roaring engines coming in at over 500 mph. NO AIRLINER HIT THE SOUTH TOWER.



911stealth David Handschuh Propelled in Air a Block by Explosion & Saw No Plane - YouTube


These pics are 11-14 seconds before a decent sized fireball and show the circular bomb well west of the dive bomber myth. This proves two different flight paths beyond any doubt .

[frisco kid]

There cannot be any evidence whatsoever that refutes flight 175 and all of it does, absolutely. There is an acceptance that planes were there, but no real proof that they were really there.

It clearly had no wings. Her describing it as a chopper authenticates this footage.

"I believe that could be a police helicopter".







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM

As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames.

She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight: “I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.” And she’s got a lot more to say. - See more at:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/9110048.PDF

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02...nside-wtc.html

KT: After the attacks when things were starting to settle down for you and after the government and media was telling us what had all happened, did you ever look back and think what were all those explosions from the WTC 5 and 6 you witnessed were all about and why there was never any official mention of them?

PO: No, I didn't watch the news. I was a bit shell shocked to say the least. In fact the very first time I have revisited that day was when I found your site.

WTC 7

KT: You mentioned you left the WTC area before the North Tower collapsed. When did you hear about the WTC 7 collapsing, in which you were parked across the street from on 9/11?

PO: When I stumbled onto your site 3 weeks ago.

Witnesses Saw People ?Vaporized? on 9/11 « Just Wondering ? Alternative News and Opinions

COBAIN
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti..._campaign=1490

[frisco kid]

Four flying balls were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS ball did not air live. The Today Show aired it but changed camera angles before the explosion. Chopper 4 is the only footage that looks untampered with. The others look like degraded cartoons.

THE BALL NEVER TURNED LEFT/NORTH AT ALL. It would have either impacted the west side of #2 or flew east of towers. It made two turns along tower 2, the west side, and finally across the rear/south side.

The final 14 seconds of approach by the 911 commission was south to north, not west to east.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919UzVAfCuI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su-fa10-pvs



911 Commission Hearing Flight paths into WTC - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU

Nothing has changed one bit about chopper 4 filming an object that was neither a plane or helicopter.

Minute 2:12, a small object enters the frame from the upper right corner --
Rapid Direct Decent, No Banked Turn

This clip of raw, uncut footage was obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.

The running time is 3:15. At minute 2:12, a small
object enters the frame from the upper right corner.
It moves in a straight line, swiftly moving from a
higher altitude to a lower altitude, coming from a
southwesterly direction (around Elizabeth, NJ).

The object makes no "banked turn," as famously
recorded by so many other cameras - nor has it any
visible wings, for that matter.

Then, it plows straight into the south side of
the South Tower, with explosions emanating from the
north side, in the vicinity of the 60th floors.

[frisco kid]

The visual of the ball is one thing, sure, but what's even more irrefutable is the object passing east of T1 less than 2 seconds before the explosion and the media acknowledging that fact, but still pretending it was a plane. That is the simple and factual stupidity they'd be covered in. The vertical black line is the ball moving between the towers. It is seen quick at top right of T1.

Three ways to deal with this object: Ignore it, accept it was real and not a plane, or say it was faked.

8:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY1D6HHL94E

"There you see the plane...between the two buildings...and then you see the explosion...right there, unbelievable."

https://www.google.com/search?q=smal...MQsAQ#imgdii=_


[/URL]





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dah...eature=related



Of course people like you have to admit certain evidence doesn't matter. That's one of the greater points of my work. A real plane could never be where the ball was a mere five seconds before the south tower exploded. The ball is right of T1. The red dot shows fake 175 four seconds before explosion. They cannot be the same.

[frisco kid]

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement.











#43 911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

Slow Motion/Close-Up View Of 2nd Plane Impact - YouTube


This view from the south matches the ball's magical movement behind the towers, except it would've been coming from the west or left of them from this angle. Only a small drone could've made these wacko turns. Manos, personally released this to the internet, not the government.

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, then turns right/east moving across the entire width of the tower 1. It must then turn right again to face south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It lastly turned left (east) across the rear of T2.

The nose would have been facing north, east, then south, and finally east again to reach the southeast corner of T2. All that kookiness with only 500 feet to cover.

That's two right turns, a left turn, and the goofy bee-bop across the rear of the south tower. Of course the video was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got back this stupidity.




#43 911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

Slow Motion/Close-Up View Of 2nd Plane Impact - YouTube

[frisco kid]

The ball is not visible to my eye. An incoming plane would have been seen and heard.

3:08 Projectile after explosion.

4:55: "Ya, it was an explosion. A piece of the plane must have fallen off."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJMv2rEe9Jg

WHITEHALL

http://wirednewyork.com/images/skysc...ry_19apr03.jpg
404 Not Found
http://www.youdontknowjersey.com/wp-...in-Towers7.jpg


Nothing was witnessed in this video either. The male witness says something to similar to the above video. There's a convienent edit before the explosion.

4:56 "It got hit by the wing...the plane probably broke apart and went into the..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLShmNzxBwo

[frisco kid]

CNN.com - Transcripts

Mark, cryptically chuckles at the end of his description, further proving that he didn't see flight 175, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it wasn't really a plane at all.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

Eyewitness Describes First Plane: No Windows, Blue Logo - YouTube

Let's go back a little in that video and see what the REAL context of that quote was and who actually asked the question shall we?

The guy who asked the question was NOT in the Newark control tower, but in New York and on the phone with Bob in Newark. Bob, walked over to the radar and saw the object over the Verrazano bridge for himself. Check out this killer stock vid of the Big V.

Bob Varcadapane was the supervisor in Newark tower that morning, in charge of eight controllers.

At Newark tower, Bob Varcadapane is still on the phone with a controller at the New York center, and learns that a second plane has been hijacked and is almost on top of Manhattan.

Varcadapane: He says to me, As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge. "I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk

Traffic / Verrazano Narrows Bridge / New York City / Aerial | HD Stock Video 871-099-242 | Framepool Stock Footage



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtGoRUjaA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1mcCBLU3tY watch video from 20:00


The 911 commission disagrees with you and offers proof that chopper 4 did not capture flight 175. You must prove that all footage lines up together as only one thing being near the towers. You cannot do this because the ball was at the southwest corner of T1 five seconds before T2 exploded in the front. They cannot be reconciled as being one. It is impossible.

The fake plane nonsense has it behind/south of T2 where it had to be, of course. These simple facts debunk your beliefs and guarantee they cannot be proven in reality.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4

And he doesn't quite get geometry or direction either.

Trust me, nothing could be a bigger waste of time than indulging this fantasy. You can not reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

It has nothing to do with geometry or perspective. It has to do with where the ball was only seconds before the south tower exploded and then trying to match up the other angles to that. I used the divebomber clip because that's what the government used.

The media acknowledged that the ball went between towers and its shadow is proof that it did just that. The divebomber failed to travel between the towers, which proves that the official flight path is different than the real one captured live on NBC.

The vertical black line appears between the towers when the ball passes east of the north tower. No plane could be between the towers and still make it to the rear of T2. The ball disappears at 2:21 and by 2:23 the black line begins. The fireball begins at 2:25.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU






http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

[frisco kid]

You exposed nothing! Here's another exercise for you. Download Sketchup and install it. Then get any plane model and rotate it around. You can get the same view you show. Your incoherent ramblings mean absolutely nothing.

It has nothing to do with any plane models. You need a real plane at the same angle to match your fake image. You don't have a real image that can do that. You proved that clearly by altering an image that was at a different angle and then claimed it was at the same angle. That's called lying, you pinhead.

Your problem is you have a hard time understanding scale and viewpoints when discussing photos. That translates into misinterpreting what they show as has been pointed out here. Anyone can get a 3D model and produce the same image view you claim is fake.

Your main problem is wanting to believe something you know is false. It was scaled years ago by an honest person who actually did something of worth. That work proved your fake image can never be authenticated. Any pinhead can take an image and distort it all to hell and pretend it's something it's not. That's all you did. Your claims are not only sad, but stupid and crazy.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac

Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtGoRUjaA0 0:53 6:30 2:00 3:58


FLIGHT 175 RADAR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7NH0PnMFm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcnrCMtyGV0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIcDFralwc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suE7...01053#t=15m58s

5 East of Europol http://www.merchantcircle.com/busine...8-448-5003/map


Great Verrazano view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sap7n4Dymnk


Traffic / Verrazano Narrows Bridge / New York City / Aerial | HD Stock Video 871-099-242 | Framepool Stock Footage

Traffic / Verrazano Narrows Bridge / New York City / Aerial | HD Stock Video 298-967-825 | Framepool Stock Footage

[frisco kid]

Clifton Cloud would say there was a plane because a fake image of one was added to his pathetic video. He could never claim he saw one while filming and that's all that matters as it concerns Clifton Cloud's eyewitness account. The videos are awful fakes...all of them. A zoomed plane from a mile away on a clear day would never look like a blurred, black blob. It's nonsense. NBC only having around two hours to alter this footage would explain why it's one of the worst fakes from that day.







http://static2.businessinsider.com/i...50/rtrnef3.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n-Tower-01.jpg
https://www.wired.com/wp-content/upl...1970_630px.jpg
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpre...trip=all&w=780
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...82a117a9ce.jpg
http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...ist-attack.jpg SAVE
http://monovisions.com/wp-content/up...ction-1975.jpg SAVE
https://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpre...win-towers.jpg woolworth
http://www.sights-and-culture.com/Am...rk-twins-1.jpg LOL
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/21867087.jpg LOL
http://www.floornature.eu/media/phot...28_2_popup.jpg LOL
http://www.photoscapes.eu/wp-content.../nyc99_008.jpg right wing
http://philosophyofmetrics.com/wp-co...before-911.jpg right wing
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sPLvdKuea5M/maxresdefault.jpg """
https://firstlightforum.files.wordpr...eitcrashes.jpg east
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...19_964x639.jpg south
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpre...trip=all&w=780 south
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A97XGF/aeri...ted-A97XGF.jpg north
http://images.latintimes.com/sites/l...win-towers.jpg south
https://nytsyn-production.s3.amazona..._525_350_w.jpg east old


http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-ge...21505bc001.jpg

http://imaprofessionalparent.com/wp-...de-highway.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjLFQWTyg4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2TaA4Gl3w