View Full Version: I Thought The 2nd Plane Had No Windows?

Loose Change Forum > Alt. Theories: "How it was done" > I Thought The 2nd Plane Had No Windows?


Title: I Thought The 2nd Plane Had No Windows?
Description: According to FOX's Mark Burnback


TheQuest - August 31, 2006 05:20 AM (GMT)
It just struck me the other night while looking at the below pics that show a piece of a plane fuselage on a wtc building roof that Mark Burnback claimed the plane didn't have windows and yet look what we see below.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-g...5-wtc5-roof.jpg

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

Now, either we have a case where a witness is lying or we have evidence planted to lead us to believe it was from a plane - with windows. Of course Burnback could simply be mistaken but the word is out already that a fuel tanker is what hit the tower.

Of course if we have a plane with windows that would also suggest the part was planted because we KNOW that 19 arabs with boxcutters didn't hijack the planes. What this means is that we clearly have a piece of planted evidence.

Anyone care to weigh in on this?

zootalures - August 31, 2006 05:34 AM (GMT)
I would think, the only reason to use a military jet or fuel tanker is if the towers were to be evecuated before impact. But seeing they didn't care if they killed the people in the towers, why wouldn't it be the passenger planes?

And if it was for a bigger fire, wouldn't it have been one. Wouldn't the entire block be on fire with all that fuel? Even down on the ground around the towers?

TheQuest - August 31, 2006 05:48 AM (GMT)
According to FOX's Mark Burnback...

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm

QUOTE
One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."


Either we have a 'witness' who is mistaken or he's lying or we have planted evidence.

Which is it?

zootalures - August 31, 2006 07:08 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TheQuest @ Aug 31 2006, 05:48 AM)
According to FOX's Mark Burnback...

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm

QUOTE
One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."


Either we have a 'witness' who is mistaken or he's lying or we have planted evidence.

Which is it?

The only 767's with a blue logo near the nose could be NATO. Funny. only 707 AWACS images can be found on the net, even though NATO does have both 767 tankers and AWACS. There is a small blue logo under the cockpit windows.

A 707 with logo:
http://www.zap16.com/beau05/beau05%20AWACS%20NATO%203.jpg

TheQuest - August 31, 2006 01:51 PM (GMT)
I belive Mark Burnback lied.

In fact he didn't lie once, he lied twice. He lied in a followup converstaion and he reiterated his claim that the "plane had no windows" or "I didn't see any windows." He called attention to that detail. Yet, we have a windows in the fuselage section. MArk Burnback was not mistaken, he lied. Plain and simple.

Here's where it gets interesting.

IF it is accepted that Burnback lied, why would the perps have someone lie that a fuel tanker or cargo plane was used instead of an airliner?

So here's what we are left with. Either Mark Burnback lied, or he was mistaken and the evidence was planted. How do we know the evidence was planted? The perps know that they couldn't count on inexperienced ameture pilots to find thier targets so if plane wreckage was found it shouldn't have included a fuselage section with passenger windows in it . Not only that, the perps knew they couldn't count on the 'hijackers' to carry out the exercize. So no, no passenger plane with "muslim fanatics" flew that plane.

So why the lie?

behind - August 31, 2006 02:36 PM (GMT)
It is just very hard for me to belive, that a plane debris will lend like that from the 2.tower.

A plane fuselage on a wtc building roof .......engine on the road like that etc

For example... the engine went through two steelwalls etc... through all the building and travelled al long distance from the tower ??

I am sorry... but I simply dont buy that!

And a nice little plane fuselage on a roof...?

To me it is just common sense to figure out, that it makes no sense.

(But it is just my opinion)


TheQuest - August 31, 2006 02:54 PM (GMT)
I agree behind.

All we've seen is a wheel, an engine part and suppossedly a part of the fuselage that has windows which "proves" passenger plane hit the tower. How convenient. Plus, the engine and wheel are far from the scene and with all the attention around the towers, it would be easier to plant the parts as suggested in Operation Northwoods.

And how about some photos of bodies, luggage, seats, clothes, etc? Nope, you wouldn't want to show those because the natural follow up question to those findings would be," OK, now show us some bodies or remains of bodies". True?Nope. Can't have that! The researcher must be left to think that ALL SUCH EVIDENCE was left in the tower so don't even bother to look; and yet, the ONLY part to make it out is a fusalege piece with windows! Give me a break! :D

To reiterate, we find a peice of fuselage with windows in it to let everyone know it was a passenger airliner. But again, if it was a passenger airliner either we have a witness in Mark Burnback who when questioned twice about the event called attention the the fact, "he didn't see any windows and it didn't look like a plane you would see around here". I believe he knowingly lied. We also know the government lied that it was a passenger plane because there is no way they would entrust the shock and awe mission to ameture pilots who might either chicken out or not even find the target.

One thing Burnback's lie does is it gets 911 researchers argueing about what kind of plane hit and the 2nd tower and leaves "conspiracy theorists" looking like kooks.

However, something is not quite right with this story either........

profit - August 31, 2006 03:25 PM (GMT)
What about the dozens of helis flying inside the heavy smoke near the roof top?
Any idea that they never haven't tried to rescue people but successfully delivered the "evidence" of that never seen passenger plane there? I'd even suppose they simultaneously fired the RC-controlled explosives from these helis, because the heavy explosions started exactly when they are passing the smoking gun!
Anybody out there who knows where these helicopters have been from? If there have been NYF-helis, then LS' statement on Fox-tv makes much more sense, that he had spoken to the chief of the NY firebrigades just before "they decided to pull it"!

Phil Jayhan - August 31, 2006 06:03 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (TheQuest @ Aug 31 2006, 05:48 AM)
According to FOX's Mark Burnback...

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm

QUOTE
One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."


Either we have a 'witness' who is mistaken or he's lying or we have planted evidence.

Which is it?

Quest,

Your forget a possibility, 2 actually.

And let me say before I start that I really don't preach the no windows thing, for various reasons, although I don't believe the plane at the 2nd tower had windows. I don't preach it because all that has to show up is a single picture with windows, and blam...This is Robs puppy, and don't knock him for preaching it, and believe it myself.

We already have enough literal proof to show that the plane which struck the WTC was NOT flight 175, and I stop with that.

But the possibilities you left out, 2 of them are below, and am surprised you didn't list these as they are not hard to see.

1. The wreckage, allegedly showing windows is from the FIRST WTC strike, from a smaller different jet than a 767-200ER.

2. That they are not windows from ANY plane at all, but are remnants of part of the structure of the building.

I believe #2.

Why? Because the 'windows' show an industrial bend below the 'window' line which isn't present in a 767-200ER. Plain and simply NOT a 767-200ER set of windows.

We did research with this subject at my forums a long time ago and the best hypothesis we could come up with is that what you are looking at is an IT cabling rack/IT Cabling Tray (The things that run along the top of the hallways and support all the computer cables) from inside one of the towers, who knows which one, and it doesn't really matter.

user posted image

Whatever it is, it isn't windows from Flight 175, which was a Boeing 767-200ER. Look at the pictures of one of them and you will find no industrial bends in the metal below the windows.

cheers-
phil :)


TheQuest - August 31, 2006 06:35 PM (GMT)
Hi Phil,

QUOTE
But the possibilities you left out, 2 of them are below, and am surprised you didn't list these as they are not hard to see.

1. The wreckage, allegedly showing windows is from the FIRST WTC strike, from a smaller different jet than a 767-200ER.


I don't disagree but can you provide a link that states this piece is from the 1st strike?

QUOTE
2. That they are not windows from ANY plane at all, but are remnants of part of the structure of the building.

I believe #2.


I'll admit I hadn't considered this but it certainly LOOKS like a piece of the fuselage with windows. Did you read the following article? Can you give me some feedback on it?

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

QUOTE
Why? Because the 'windows' show an industrial bend below the 'window' line which isn't present in a 767-200ER. Plain and simply NOT a 767-200ER set of windows.


You could be right that it's not from a 767-200ER but according to the previous link it was nonetheless found on the rooftaop on bldg 5 which makes more sense for WTC 2 than WTC1.. Do you have information indicating the part is from the WTC1 strike? Link?

QUOTE
We did research with this subject at my forums a long time ago and the best hypothesis we could come up with is that what you are looking at is an IT cabling rack/IT Cabling Tray (The things that run along the top of the hallways and support all the computer cables) from inside one of the towers, who knows which one, and it doesn't really matter.


You could be right but again, what do you make of the previous link?

behind - August 31, 2006 08:06 PM (GMT)

johndoeX - August 31, 2006 08:21 PM (GMT)
all planes are built with windows as far as i know. They get filled in if they convert the aircraft to a cargo plane.

You can see them here filled in. So if a plane crashed that appeared to have no windows, you would still see window frames on fuselage parts.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1096...next_id=1095957

TheQuest - August 31, 2006 08:53 PM (GMT)
Jdx,

Take a look at this one.

http://www.zap16.com/beau05/beau05%20AWACS%20NATO%203.jpg

You're the pilot but can you tell me if it's certain series/models of planes are built with windows and the windows are filled in after the basic model if fitted with the hardware for that specific model?

Also, take a look at the above link that claims this part was found on top of WTC5 and is a result of the WTC2/flt175 crash.

WHat do you think?

THanks Jdx. [salute]



Phil Jayhan - September 1, 2006 06:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (behind @ Aug 31 2006, 08:06 PM)
A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5.

Why is it you trust a wikipedia website, that anyone can upload their story to in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wtcdebris.jpg

And why would you trust a wikipedia website that has fingerprints of the US government on it?

QUOTE

user posted image

This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government. This applies worldwide. See Copyright. Note: This does not apply to works of U.S. state or local governments.


And Quest:

Can you provide me a link which shows this WASN'T wreckage from the 1st airplane?

What can YOU prove from this picture? Are you trusting a MSM source? Wikipedia seems like an open bucket of shit to me. I can make a write up of 'TheQuest' tonight if you don't believe me?

And old, but now withdrawn Wikipedia story said I was a FEMA agent. So whats the point?

Can you show me and prove to me this WASN'T an IT cabling rack from the WTC? See how this works?

Touche-
phil :)

TheQuest - September 1, 2006 01:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
And Quest:

Can you provide me a link which shows this WASN'T wreckage from the 1st airplane?


Not meant like that Phil. I just thought that this had been verified as fact. No problem.

QUOTE
What can YOU prove from this picture? Are you trusting a MSM source? Wikipedia seems like an open bucket of shit to me. I can make a write up of 'TheQuest' tonight if you don't believe me?


I can't prove anything. It was just a question.
QUOTE

And old, but now withdrawn Wikipedia story said I was a FEMA agent. So whats the point?


Good point. Needs more research.


QUOTE
Can you show me and prove to me this WASN'T an IT cabling rack from the WTC? See how this works?


No. However, lack of evidence for one assertion is not proof for another.

Just questions, that's all.

behind - September 1, 2006 01:41 PM (GMT)
This fuselage story is from FEMA...this is the official story.www.fema.gov/pdf

WTC1
It is known that some debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, life jackets and portions of seats from the aircraft were found on the roof of the Bankers Trust building, located to the south of WTC 2. Part of the landing gear from this aircraft was found at the corner of West and Rector Streets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-18).

WTC2
It is known that debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, a landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 was found to have crashed through the roof of a building located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church Streets. The extent to which debris scattered throughout the impact floors is also evidenced by photographs of the fireballs that occurred as the aircraft struck the building (Figure 2-28). Figure 2-29 shows a portion of the fuselage of the aircraft, lying on the roof of WTC 5.


TheQuest - September 1, 2006 05:14 PM (GMT)
Thanks Behind.

Next question is, going on the assumption that FEMA know's it's dupa from it's elbow as far as that being a plane part and wouldn't lie to us about how that piece got there ;) , what type plane has windows with that shape and distance from each other?

Anyone?

Phil Jayhan - September 1, 2006 09:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (TheQuest @ Sep 1 2006, 05:14 PM)
Thanks Behind.

Next question is, going on the assumption that FEMA know's it's dupa from it's elbow as far as that being a plane part and wouldn't lie to us about how that piece got there  ;) , what type plane has windows with that shape and distance from each other?

Anyone?

This is of course assuming it is even wreckage from a plane, which of course cannot be stablished as this evidence is gone, and been destroyed, and if not so, then it is unaccesible to any of us.

user posted image

John Doe made a great point! And the answer to it is self explanatory! Are they going to take a completely manufactured jet, and then TEAR IT APART & MAKE WINDOWS on it? OR, are they going to make windows on every jet, and then place punchole covers over them, in case the jet is eventually turned into a commercial airliner? I believe the answer is self evident.

I have spoken to the guy who actually picked up the engine on Church & Murray streets. And he was adament it was not a Hologram nor a CGI hoax. [whistle] It was a very real and very heavy piece of the aircraft. He picked it up with his 30 ton Streets and Sanitation truck and delivered it to to Justice Department on Wall Street if memory serves me.

And unlike this piece of wreckage which is allegedly from Flight 175, it IS an identifiable piece of equipment from the plane which struck the world trade centers!

As for the plane with no windows is concerned, I told you this, to me is going beyond what is necessary in proving this wasn't flight 175.

The plane has two pieces of equipment on its bottom which should be there. The Pod, or appendage you are aware of and another one next to the port engine.

user posted image

1st piece seen above. 2nd piece of equipment seen below next to the port engine.

user posted image
It is spraying some sort of liquid from its fuselage, in 2 locations, which I assume is jet fuel, as these planes are no water tankers and carry only enough to flush a few craps down the toiled during flight.

user posted image

And can we trust a single thing which FEMA has stated or declares? Can we?

cheers-
phil :)




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree