firsthitflashframe/Web Fairy!@

Comment

Comment by Curtis Sherwood on June 22, 2009 at 2:06am

But really, folks, stop the name calling already. Just take in the information and good is. ANY info can be disinfo. To call one another disinfo agents is certainly counterproductive.

On with the show, without name calling. My two cents.

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 11:56pm

Namecalling, eh>
The feeling is certainly mutual, Bill.
http://google.com/search?q=Michael+Riconosciuto
http://webfairy.org/haarp/beamweapon.htm includes a lot of different strange effects paralleled at OKB and WTC. If you can't bring yourself to read the links, tough.

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 7:14pm

http://webfairy.org/uav
pre-911 article about secret drone craft

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 7:12pm

Sandy, understanding the uavs may well require reading about the uavs, their size and their capability.
The official story has "predator drones" being really big. But they are really much smaller than we are supposed to think they are. They are flown from a console that looks way much like a video game. The people flying them would not know if they were performing a simulation, or a real act.
They were probably located in one of the secret government bunkers in Building 7, and turned to dust when that building got poofed. The official record would have them as passengers in one of the fictional planes that never even took off. There were a number of people with virtual reality/remote flight experience. The software program that allowed them to fly in such close formation they can be mistaken for a single object from a distance was called "Global Hawk", just to give things a little extra layer of confusion.
Then you need to also read
http://webfairy.org/haarp/beamweapon.htm
that tells the nature of the weaponry used by these little drones: a powder/gas concoction called "A Neutronic" by it's inventor, mad scientist Michael Riconosciuto.
The article has lots of parallels to the 911 attack, even tho it is written about the Murrah Building attack.
Sorry I can't just "convince" you like the spookums are always good at.
For this you have to read, and use what you learn to guide your observations.
Rick of 911eyewitness had a friend who was a musician with a band that was undercover spooks -- they even played for the Queen of England! He said he was in Korea while his hosts were demonstrating "flying bombs" -- duck size objects they would fly into North Korea to blow stuff up and freak out the North Koreans. But that is just say-so, and not really evidence. The real evidence is in close observation of how the dust pimples are forming discretely from one another. The objects creating the dust pimples are too small to be seen.
I think nano-thermite is an ingredient in "A Neutronic Bombs" as described in http://webfairy.org/haarp/beamweapon.htm
I call them dustpimples.
You can see what they look like from the side:
http://webfairy.org/presentation

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 6:36pm

Planes that begin their "life" in Microsoft Flight Simulator can fly through the World Trade Centers and out the other side.
They can also fly through the World Financial Towers, but any other building makes them crash with a sound "game over."
http://webfairy.org/butterplanes
http://webfairy.org/marcus/perspective
planes created in Flight Simulator can be saved and be used in more sophisticated compositing programs.
They match the GPS coordinates with pre-chosen camera angles.
But the timing was just a wee little bit off, so the "plane nose" pops through before the fireball (a real fireball, from a real beam weapon attack) overtakes the frame.

Comment by sandy rose on June 21, 2009 at 3:20pm

ok bill, but if it was a whatever you called it bomb on the 2nd hit that went
thru and oot the other side, howcome on the nosed out video it looks
preciseamundo like the very nose of the fake plane? or do you think they
did that to cover up the whatever? have you seen the nosed out video?
i have it on file here, lemme see if i can paste it here..
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7441869F563747B3AF0D66...
gee, that's a long one. hope the 'link' works pasted. if not i can try try agin.
but what good is a bomb that goes out the other side, or do you mean for special affects
to make the humongous explosion? remember, georgie porgie's fun brother marvelous
marvin had access to the building(s?) and time to rig it up just right with explosives, too.

Comment by sandy rose on June 21, 2009 at 3:05pm

thanks, Rosalee, i consider you a pro at all of this, and appreciate you
spelling things out for us non-pros. i looked at some of that uav stuff,
honestly i can't see myself getting thru all of that, do you have any close
up pictures of the flocks you refer to? i need the dick and jane variety! :)
i'm still interested in why you think that, even tho i don't see it. and if there
was a flock, what was their mission? blowing stuff up or what?
and yeah, i remember Ray from jobbers maybe. would Ray consider joining us?

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 12:19pm

The first hit footage is full of evidence.
This is why they are so careful to either ignore it, or holler fake at it.
The first hit is decimated. This means many frames have been removed.
We can tell because the continuity of the object(s) is so poor.
They wanted to get the action over quickly - a fool the eye trick.

But each surviving frame is unique.
Each frame is made of two "fields."
The camera makes two passes to film each frame.
These passes can be separated out into distinct half-size views.
In the first hit footage, every field of every frame is unique.
No duplicates.
Duplicated frames are a sign of animation. All the second hit cartoons lack enough frames. They appear to hippityhop.
http://webfairy.org/2hit

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 21, 2009 at 10:24am

to Curtis, who wants to see the first hit flash frame without enhancements, and side by side comparason:
http://missilegate.com/051.htm

I believe the sequence shows a flock of uav craft and not a single object because they show as blue in the air and gray in front of the building. The object(s) in front of the building separate and go in different directions to blow the "dust pimples".
The "Pavel footage" shows what these stalked dust pimples look like from the side.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/presentation.htm
Incidentally the Pavel first hit footage was taken from a firetruck
http://webfairy.org/pavel

To Julie, I believe those calling the first hit "fake" are covering up for all the evidence of beam weapon damage.
The first hit has unique fields in every frame, no duplicate frames.
Fakes feature duplicate frames, and the fields in these frames are also duplicates, giving a hippityhopping effect.
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/jetcrash/act_one/pages/jetcrash_001_...
Later versions of the same second hit cartoons are "improved", another indication of their fake nature.

The first hit footage was manipulated differently.
http://webfairy.org/noplane
Some footage is missing the flash frame, which appears in one field only. When the footage was de-interlaced (one field removed from each frame) sometimes they took out the field featuring the flash.
Each field is different. Differences come every 60th of a second, unlike fake stuff that updates 15 times a second.

Comment by sandy rose on June 21, 2009 at 7:53am

i've thought for a long time that that video was a keepsake for the
criminals, and it's incredibly interesting and has a lot of stuff to hash
over. i know a lot of (us) have already done so for many years, but
i think that would make an interesting group subject, with so many
individual parts of it to talk about. anyone who hasn't seen it should.
like a dum ass i lent my tape of it, from 5 years after 9/11 to one mike
cook and have asked for it back numerous times to no avail, dang him,
but that is one piece of work, criminal as can be in my book. i hafta
check out the group section of this forum, that would be a 'great' subject.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page