Jump to content
DC Message Boards
Sign in to follow this  
Ron Cey

A remote controlled drone triggered the south tower explosions

Recommended Posts

Ron Cey    0

This was released under FOIA.

 

It first appears as some faint grey thing and quickly morphs into a horsefly in the following 8 seconds. It doesn't get much better than this. Never try to prove a negative because you'll always lose and provide the truth more weight in evidence.

 

fake-bird-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcbirdplane.jpg

wtcfakeblackplane.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

Four flying bombs 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 bogey did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion.

 

The final 14 seconds of approach by nist was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

 

kfhbvbdyhshdshsdh_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

orb-cbs_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

fake-175-flight-path_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the bogey was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

 

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the orb moves directly east and cgi more left/north.

 

wb-926-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wb-927-morph_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcwb11926.jpg

wtcwb927.jpg

wtctruth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the perps wanted us to believe. The nose-out was exposed during live coverage and faded to black upon noticing their mistake. That supports that it wasn't supposed to come through. I believe it was Aaron Brown who said it was an illusion.

 

Only one relevant point has been made besides the simple truths I've posted on the live footage clearly showing a bogey coming from the west. The fake plane could not explode because it wasn't a plane, it was a computer generated image. Had they created an impact explosion, they would have had to explain why no plane parts fell to the ground on the south side. They logically could not create an impact explosion because there was no plane to produce any plane parts in real-time. Note the drone just right of the southwest corner of tower one. It casts its own shadow left of the north hole with just fire coming from the northeast corner, no NOSE-OUT in any north view footage, live or not.

 

orb-nbc-slow_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

nose-fake-out_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

new-no-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

I'm the first 911 researcher to capture the bomb igniting in the south tower. Watch the northeast corner as it illuminates during ignition. The bomb farted backward and created explosions along the east side and drone's impact area on the southeast corner. BOO-YA! The bogey was used as an ignition device and to have something in the area moving toward the buildings even though it wasn't a real plane. It was at least something people could eyewitness and call a small plane or remote controlled drone like Dick Oliver had.LOL

 

north-bomb-t2_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

The inboard flap track on the right wing of fake 175 clearly has the inboard flap not between it and the fuselage (YOU can see it, clear as day), thus it's too close as the faked image shows. The left engine nacelle also does not connect to the underside of the wing at a point outboard of the flap track, exactly as it can't be. The rearmost point of the nacelle attachment footprint is clearly not abaft of the leading tip of the flap track fairing, also impossible and fake. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

 

wtcrightenginefake.jpg

wtcboeingcgi.jpg

wtcrearflap.jpg

 

The hinged control surfaces are used to steer and control the airplane. The flaps and ailerons are connected to the backside of the wings. The flaps slide back and down to increase the surface of the wing area. They also tilt down to increase the curve of the wing. The slats move out from the front of the wings to make the wing space larger. This helps to increase the lifting force of the wing at slower speeds like takeoff and landing. The ailerons are hinged on the wings and move downward to push the air down and make the wing tilt up. This moves the plane to the side and helps it turn during flight. After landing, the spoilers are used like air brakes to reduce any remaining lift and slow down the airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

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."

 

She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

 

There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.

 

wtcwidewestdrone.jpg

new-west-drone_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcnynjmap.gif

circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

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

 

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 live broadcasts showing the drone do just that from the north view. It's logical with so much footage being released that something from the south would show the bogey's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

 

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.

 

circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtc07.jpg

wtc-no-plane-south_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

 

41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

 

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

I took the work from September Clues and made it into something simple instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.

 

ny1-rewind_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=126&feature=plpp_video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Cey    0

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, 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 was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

 

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×