Mysterious "ball" hit the towers?

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ark is looking at it and says there are a couple of frames where he can see wings... more later when he has finished checking it out. But, like Perceval says, if they can insert a plane they can insert a ball. But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.
 

RyanX

The Living Force
You know, the pod thing reminds me of what John Keel describes about the MIB vehicles or attire. He mentioned that there was always something "off" about what they wore or the vehicle they drove. What if the "pod" was just one of these 4D "mistakes" like those noted in the MIB phenomena?

There have been cases of airplanes or ships disappearing in mid flight or mid sail. It's not implausible to think that these flights were just abducted and then replaced with some other quasi-physical object.

How much of 9/11 could have come straight from 4D?
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
Perceval said:
If they can insert a plane over a ball, they can insert a ball over a plane, or rather replace a plane with a ball.

That would explain why we've never seen this 'ball' footage before...
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Ark is looking at it and says there are a couple of frames where he can see wings... more later when he has finished checking it out. But, like Perceval says, if they can insert a plane they can insert a ball. But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.

I thought I could see wings in some of the frames as well. So I wondered if it was just a plane, which looked like a "ball" on video. The one thing that goes against this is the flight path trajectory. If Hall's calculations are correct, it looks like the 'ball' came in at a steeper angle than what appears in other videos (the plane looks like it approaches straighter/head on than his 3d reconstruction). So if it was the plane, and if his reconstruction is correct, it still doesn't explain the apparent difference in trajectory/flight path. However, I haven't been able to find an image of the projected official flight path in the final minutes/seconds of approach, so they could match up.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
anart said:
Perceval said:
If they can insert a plane over a ball, they can insert a ball over a plane, or rather replace a plane with a ball.

That would explain why we've never seen this 'ball' footage before...

I've seen something similar before.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.
That looks like the most solid evidence of tampering in the whole video. The bubble under the planes, at least for me, is still questionable, but the background switch seems blatant. So is it evidence of covering something up, or evidence of them messing with our heads to throw everybody off track? One possible danger of introducing balls to videos is that they can accidentally go too far and create damning proof of tampering which might ultimately hurt the coverup. Considering the many holes of 911 already, and that the US government was surprised by Mossad's moves to some extent, would they risk introducing stuff like this? Then again, it constitutes noise, and the more noise the harder it is to find signal.
 

RedFox

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Well that was interesting.

Laura said:
Ark is looking at it and says there are a couple of frames where he can see wings... more later when he has finished checking it out. But, like Perceval says, if they can insert a plane they can insert a ball. But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.

Yeah, I saw the documentary he mentioned about the doctored live footage a year or two ago...it was really quite compelling. Although I couldn't draw any conclusions from it.
It can be seen here _http://www.septemberclues.info/ or search September Clues on youtube.
 

Laurentien2

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Could be that the plane was a holographic image produced by the ball whit sound effect and all. Just a thought.
Laura said:
Ark is looking at it and says there are a couple of frames where he can see wings... more later when he has finished checking it out. But, like Perceval says, if they can insert a plane they can insert a ball. But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.

And the nose of the plane that seem intact after the impact on the other side of the WTC tower.
 

Niall

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laurentien said:
And the nose of the plane that seem intact after the impact on the other side of the WTC tower.

Yes, and the 'fade-to-black' that was supposedly inserted ASAP that morning (I'd seen that oddity pointed out before, but reasoned that it could have been more noise introduced long afterwards to fuel the no-plane theory).

What struck me about Hall's presentation was that his theory seemed to be building up to an ET hypothesis... but he ended it by crisply stating that it supported the argument that it was "an inside job", a joint Israeli/US affair i.e. very much a 3-D terrestrial event. Why go all the way "out there" only to come back to the probable culprits? To tarnish the (probable) truth by association?
 

eternusphoenix

Padawan Learner
At first my gut reaction was "more cointelpro to discredit all 9/11 evidence along the lines of the laughable laser theory." I then continued to watch the entire video and the author does make a good case. Maybe cointelpro laser theories were inserted to cover up this possibility. As the old saying goes "truth is stranger than fiction."

anart said:
The only thing that tugs me in the 'no way' direction is the eye-witness accounts of people who saw the plane - could all those people really be agents? Maybe they are - to pull this off, they certainly planned far in advance and could have had people in place. I don't know. It is definitely in the 'far out' area. I'd not seen that 'ball' before in any footage, though...

Could the HAARP mind control apparatus have been used directly on those who could have witnessed what actually occurred to cloud their mind and judgment with fear so that the legitimate witnesses immediately tote the official story that the agents were promoting on the ground? I don't think their could have been that many agents however I think a couple handfuls of well trained agents (along with the main stream media) could have effectively suggested that it was a plane and then that's what everyone saw.

I remember a portion in volume 1 of The Wave where Laura described a session in which a person was hypnotized into believing that there was not another person in the room (when there was) & then Laura went on to describing how people can only perceive that which there conditioning and belief system allows them to see. My point in bringing this is up is that maybe since the object was disc shaped & people are trained to believe that flying disc shaped objects are "hollywood fantasy" & stuff that only "conspiracy theorists" believe in, anyone that actually saw the ball / disc immediately dismissed it due to their conditioning & belief system.

Thanks for sharing the video Spiral Out, it is definitely food for thought.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Ark is looking at it and says there are a couple of frames where he can see wings... more later when he has finished checking it out. But, like Perceval says, if they can insert a plane they can insert a ball. But I didn't like realizing that they had changed the video by removing the background. Didn't realize that had been done.

I'm not sure about that claim either. It looked to me like the two shots were not from the same camera at the same time. Sure, he could line up the towers, but one of the shots (the one without the background) definitely seemed to be from a higher angle. From a higher angle there would be no background and I suspect that that one was a zoomed in on the towers.
 

Mikey

The Living Force
Some time ago there was a Red Pill Press promotional video for the book "9/11 The Ultimative Truth". In the beginning it shows footage of the second WTC impact, and it looks more than a missile rather than a plane. I doesn't even look like a "ball". I have a local copy of the video here on my computer and could not find it online. I was wondering if someone knows if it is still online?

With this footage we would have more data to support or reject Richard D. Hall's "ball" analysis.
 

Niall

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Plane or no plane?

Missile3.png


Missile4.png


Missile2.png


Missile1.png


Missile5.png


Shouldn't its impact area be far bigger (to account for the wings)? Or did they fold back on themselves a la Pentagon?!
 
Top Bottom