They "found" some generic mystery debris. It may be history's first "plane crash" where one engine landed in New York and the other in Washington.
The second hit cartoon "planes" vanish into the building intact, without exploding, with wings merging into the building instead of breaking off. This is not possibly real. It turns out that Flight Simulator planes vanish exactly like that when Flight Simulator planes hit the World Trade Center. http://thewebfairy.com/911/butterplanes http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment The World Trade Center and the World Financial Towers are the only buildings in Flight Simulator that a plane can vanish in one side and emerge on the other. Flight Simulator simulations can be exported into more sophisticated animation programs. The second hit "live shots" http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash http://thewebfairy.com/911/saltergate are live insertion, no different than flying an imaginary blimp above a football game. The timing of the various cartoons, their size, coloration and approach are all different. They have studied human nature long enough to know the trauma would make people believe whatever explanation they were told. There are even people who were asleep in their bed until woken by explosions, and still they believe they "saw the plane." Gerard Holmgren wrote: > > It’s not really a new theory, just a refinement. > > You should talk to Nico and WF to get a clearer idea of the exact > techniques they are talking about. Some of the finer points are beyond me. > > But this is it basically. No holography. No-ones been saying that for > more than a year. Its all done with fake video. My understanding is > that live shot was done with commercial real time animation technology. > > Here is my link for it, but WF knows more about the various > technologies for doing this. > > Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato MIT's Technology review. July/August 2000 > > *http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp* > > The other shots, it is believed were generated with a flight simulator > program. > > I haven’t followed things all the way through to the exact finer > points of how the illusion was created, which is why you need to talk > to them. But here’s the line of development > > 2002. WF realizes that the plane is a fake. Thinks it was probably a > hologram. > > 2003 Scott Loughrey and I come on board. Scott thinks it’s a fake > video. I am undecided between the two. > > 2004. The realization that the plane is fake gains popularity but the > hologram vs fake video debate is still undecided. > > Feb 2005. WF and I notice that it is against a still background, which > puts an end to the hologram theory. > > Mid 2005. Marcus Icke produces flight simulator tests which give the > same results. This is where I start to lose the finer points of it. > > Then Nico starts to narrow it down to “bluescreen “ video technology, > which I still haven’t got the hang of exactly how it works. > > I’m really still at the stage that it’s not a real plane, and it’s a > fake video, an animation. > > The finer points you’ll need to discuss with them. I hope that helps. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Nick Kollerstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 March 2006 8:26 PM > *To:* gerard holmgren > *Subject:* new theory from Nico > > Dear Gerard, > > This new line that Nico is advocating, > > http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html > > is this the thesis that you have been saying all along? > > Could you in any way summarise what he is saying then I could put this > up onto our nineeleven.co.uk? I always thought there were quite a few > cameras pointing towards the Towers when the 2nd plane struck, and > that therefore no-one could risk using a fake-video. (we all agree > that there is something phoney about the 'merging' into the Tower that > happened at 'impact') > > People have surmised that it was some missile with a 'holographic' > image around it somehow. My understanding is that any 'outdoor' > hologram would have to be transparent. > > But, Nico is not here talking about a hologram. He is alleging that > (please correct me) > > 1. a fake film was used to simulate the plane - and I've seen a good 4 > different films/pics of this plane approaching, it looks wierdly > different in each one; > > 2. That a gash apperared appeared in the South tower just where the > pic showed the 'merging' > > 3. that a huge explosion billowed out from the building imediately after. > > - also there are pics of something emerging from the other side of the > 2nd tower, as if it were a solid DU-tipped missile that just went > straight through. I also heard that someone found a bit of engine a > block or two away, that could credibly have come from such a missile > (but not a plane) > > Any thoughts you might have would be most welcome, > > Yrs in bewilderment, > > Nick K. > Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
