New 911 Analysis Confirms The Planes Were Graphics

This analysis of 911 came in from Me in comments. It is totally convincing. The earlier analysis from September Clues demonstrated that the footage of the 911 planes, broadcast worldwide by the media, was not 100% real but partially graphically created, using software from the movie industry that directs real images through a filter or informational overlay. Think of ‘Avatar’ the movie, and you should get the picture!

What September Clues didn’t do, however, was show what kind of craft did hit the Twin Towers, if they weren’t passenger jets as the media was claiming. Critics of the pictures presented by the media pointed out strange humps on the bottom of the plane pictures placed on view, whose purpose has never been revealed. In the new ananlysis from Richard Hall, the question as to what the images we saw ten years ago really consisted of, starts to be answered in dramatic fashion.

This newer analysis shows that a round-shaped remote-controlled anti-gravity propelled drone was used to hit the second tower. It was caught on camera from a helicopter as it flew down into the South Tower. Until now the footage of the round ball-shaped object has never been satisfactorily explained.

The Richard Hall analysis is a great video, and what more suitable moment to see it for the first time than on the tenth anniversary on 911 (the clip I’ve embedded is the more dramatic, second clip in the Hall series..see the first video also if you are technically minded to see in more detail how the analysis was done).

The pilot of Chopper 7 which captured the footage died when he was hit by a taxi (see video in previous post for more details of the death toll amongst 911 witnesses), dodging a black car which has since disappeared. The cameraman refuses to talk to anyone from the media.

Here is the reason the government doesn’t want you to know what the helicopter crew saw and what they filmed. This was the actual weapon that created the explosion in the tower that we saw, not a plane, which was superimposed onto the ‘ball’ using movie graphics.

And here is the original post from The Tap, posted when a reader sent me to watch September Clues for the first time. The evidence of fakery, with this latest analysis added to September clues, is incontrovertible. Thanks to the readers who have sent me so many links to find out the things we have done. There is a lot more to come out about 911, and the ongoing death list of its witnesses, and the strange treatment of the victims’ relatives. But thanks to the internet we have access to the best minds who have addressed the key issues as to what happened on the day that we will never forget.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

18 Responses to “New 911 Analysis Confirms The Planes Were Graphics”

  1. Me says:

    Perhaps the engine which was found was added to the ball with the explosives to be found as part of the wreckage.

  2. Me says:

    As you said before, the engine was a mystery because it was not of the model-type of the passenger plane that was claimed to have been destroyed in the attacks.

  3. Tapestry says:

    The engine could have been added to the flying ‘ball’. The wrong type of engine was added though and it didn’t match the aircraft. The aircraft type was the business of another department, which was working in full secrecy. It would be e easy for a few cock-ups to creep in, as this appears to be.

  4. georgesilver says:

    I am a total believer in the fact that 911 was an inside job. There is overwhelming evidence.

    The video regarding the “ball” is fascinating but how do we know that this is not a fake also. Wouldn’t a cruise missile been an obvious choice. If it was a “ball” then we must assume that they would have used the same thing at the Pentagon. The Pentagon strike looks very much like a missile.

    The general public may be warming to the idea of cruise missiles hitting the Twin Towers. If there then is an effort to say it was an “anti-gravity” ball instead, then a lot of the waverers would go back to the position of thinking that all ” conspiracy” theorists are just “tin-foil hat” wearers.

  5. Twig says:

    What about all the people who had family and friends on the planes?
    And the eye witnesses?

    I’m not saying it’s a cut and dried case, but some of the theories seem to be ignoring some of the facts.

    And as for the anti gravity ball, well, if someone wanted to make it look like the towers had been hit by a plane, then they would have used a plane!

  6. Me says:

    Twig, those are interesting questions. If it has been proved that Tower 2 wasn’t hit by a plane, that TV footage of an airplane striking Tower 2 was definitely faked, then attention must turn to the question what happened to the victims on the plane that was claimed to have hit it.

    This question doesn’t make the new best theory less likely and the disposed of theory more likely again, because the disposed of theory was proved incorrect. However, it is an interesting question.

    Those who want to dispose the ball theory have to explain why the video that shows a ball is showing a bad image. Why the ball came in at an angle that the plane took on the close up amateur footage of the Tower 2 strike; an both angles which contradicted the TV footage (so one of them must be faked)!

  7. Twig says:

    I found a YouTube clip without backing music: Nose in – Nose out

  8. Tapestry says:

    It’s not too hard to make a few air hostesses and cabin crew disappear, and drop off their IDs (not their bodies) at the ‘crash’ sites.

    The second tower was hit by the ‘ball’. The Pentagon was hit by the missile as shown on film. The first tower’s method of despach is unknowable at this point in time.

    WTC7 was hit by nothing except explosives.

    Flight 93 was shot down by a pilot disobeying his orders, with no bodies visible in the wreckage by eye witnesses.

    That’s the current score according to the videos and interviews that have become available.

    The collapse of the towers is another story, with many aspects still not explained, such as the toasting of many cars nearby alongside one side only, and the steel columns turning into dust.

    The questions will not all be answered quickly, but some are starting to resolve.

  9. Twig says:

    What about the plane shaped entry hole?

    And why use an anti gravity ball when you could just use a jet?

  10. Me says:

    Twig, a plane has been proved not to have struck WTC 2. There are only two videos of the strike that have the correct trajectory (the third is faked). In one the object is a ball. In the other the plane is bad CGI – it has a bobble underneath it where they tried, but failed, to completely hide the ball.

    So why keep talking about a “plane” as if it is a serious theory? A saucer shaped craft that is roughly ball shaped but wider than it is high – as Richard Hall drew it – could have caused a crack like that.

    Richard Hall also answered your second question – use secret technology because it is easier to organize, involves less people, less planning etc.

  11. Anonymous says:

    No plane theory is a crock devised to discredit truth movement.Shame on you guys for falling for it.

    September clues busted

    by the same guy – the absurdity of NPT

    Ace Baker musician and No planer debated by a cameraman

    Nico Haupt assaulting we are change

  12. Tapestry says:

    I think you’ll find one of those counter videos in the blogpost complete with errors such as the flying engine coming from the wrong type of plane!!!! Typical meaningless phrase like ‘crock’ with the necessary list, and critical tone, but no points made.

    Hard to argue with nothingness.

    What are your killer points, anonymous. I see a blank page.

  13. Tapestry says:

    sent in Bob –


    The tenth anniversary of the greatest civilian loss of life on American soil is just around the corner. The case is supposedly closed, but the manner of collapse of World Trade Center building 7 offers strong proof that it should be reopened. Not unexpectedly, the high ideal to “follow the evidence wherever it may lead” encounters considerable resistance at the mention of this building.

    Controlled demolition (CD) enables condemned tall buildings to be brought down quickly in a manner that will not cause damage to surrounding structures. The procedure requires a high level of knowledge and skill in the correct distribution of the right amount of explosive charge, and split-second timing of its ignition. Executed properly the building drops like a horse shot in the head – straight down, at almost free-fall speed, under a combination of its own weight and the sudden destruction of resistance in all its support columns at once….

    go to blog to read rest of article

  14. Tapestry says:

    The hole made by the ‘plane’ expanded after impact as if by magic. Watch September Clues once more, or for first time if you missed this point.

    The images were delivered via a software borrowed from movie creation where images can be manipulated, mixing live feed with mouse copied and inserted items.

    Other things tampered with were background, and the conversion of the ball into a plane. At last we have the explanation of what the bump consisted of.

  15. Tapestry says:

    If you don’t get the concept watch Avatar.

  16. I am really not a believer in any of the more unusual theories, but I do have two questions.

    1. On WTC 7, if buildings that burn simply collapse straight down, why does anyone bother with demolition engineers? Why not simply burn your own building?

    2. How many cameras are there on the Pentagon? This is the HQ of the US military, logically the most sensitive and secure building in the world, so I am guessing hundreds. When you consider a shopping mall will have a scores this does not seem outlandish. So how come the footage is unreleased?

    Anyone have any ideas? I really don’t know the answer.

  17. Tapestry says:

    Elementary, my dear Watson.


  18. tadsy1 says:

    Richard has updated this info to take into consideration radar info it is easy to find on you tube and he put it up in may. There is also conversation with Andrew Johnson, auther of 9/11 finding the truth. For the most detailed analysis of WTC evidence Dr Wood’s book “where did the towers go?” is esential.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.