No Planes theory

[teslafire]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This is the first time I've really looked into this theory and I think it holds water!

Its very curious that others like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones VEHEMENTLY disagree with this thesis...

[28th kingdom]

Yea... that was really scientific... wow.

[teslafire]

What kind of response is that?

Closely look at the top video and notice that the nose of the plane comes out of the explosion.

It doesn't on the second.

[teslafire]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Here watch this one...its a helluva lot clearer...watch between 3:00 to 7:00 if you're ancy...

;)

[masonfree party]

i didn't give much credence to the no plane theory but changed my mind after speaking with Andrew Johnson www.checktheevidence.com ...i now think how stupid i was to believe that they would have risked flying 2 planes into the twin towers...there are so many fake shots of planes hitting the buildings its hard to know where to start but www.livevideo.com/socialservice would be good for starters

[graflok]

I think the no-plane theory has some valid evidence to support it (such as
shown in the above video). I have seen other evidence as well in the form of
eye witness accounts.

I suspect many people won't believe it though, even if they believe it was
an inside job.

[neutron flux]

I was expecting some kind of ground breaking info and all I got was a pretty lame video.

The split-screen part showing the two planes are not at the same distance or angle - and seeing that the plane hit the tower also at an angle the wing may look shorter in one video than the other.

What of all the other footage, some taken from helicopters and some on the ground, all at different angles? How do you fake live video feed? What of all the eye witnesses that were actually there? The logistics and technical knowledge to fake an aeroplane seems like to much work when you can just easily take control of an areoplane through remote control - i.e. Global Hawk type technology.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations:

I am inclined to 'believe' the external control of aircraft. Dov Zeikinds company is very involved in that area of expertise( Global Hawk). A Trillion Dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget would fund serious 'Covert' operations.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth also have considered this aspect. The expertise exhibited in the respective flight paths does indicate amateur pilots were NOT in control of these aircraft.

I have tried, and failed, to grasp the No Planes Theory.

Respectfully: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[teslafire]

I was expecting some kind of ground breaking info and all I got was a pretty lame video.

Take a look at the first part of 'September clues' linked in second post.

Fast forward to the shot at 6:45 (the counter descends) and watch until the 6:00 mark. 45 seconds of absolutely groundbreaking footage...

[erikneo]

First Computer control Plane





Airplane Crash - YouTube

[graflok]

Look at these 2 videos.
I don't see a plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIKen_q_C6M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcuOapEyp1o

[adimon]

Take a look at the first part of 'September clues' linked in second post.

Fast forward to the shot at 6:45 (the counter descends) and watch until the 6:00 mark. 45 seconds of absolutely groundbreaking footage...

Yes, the second clip is very interesting. I think it might be worth doing what I wanted to do a while back, which is to ask the news corps for their footage, including some non-us ones who might have happened to catch the 2nd plane/missile etc..

The most convincing part for me was not actually the 'nose' - because that COULD have been debris or editing by the poster, but actually the zooming. That seemed very coincidental to me. Hm...

[teslafire]

Yup, the fox news chopper shot. First, he cleanly zooms from harlem all the way to the second tower within seconds. Then the "plane" crashes beyond the towerwall and just as you see the nose peek through the other side of the building they fade to black for eight seconds?

Watch the whole documentary, there are several 'WTF?' moments, and most of the other questions concerning 'eyewitnesses' are addressed.

Here are all the parts of September Clues:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=september+clues&search=Search

[adimon]

Here are all the parts of September Clues:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=september+clues&search=Search

Thanks for this. I'll watch it after my run tomorrow. I might be quite tired though - it will be my second marathon this week! :eek:

[teslafire]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Now Fetzer is someone whom Alex Jones has promoted and has spoke with in the past.

Its important to note that Jones and Dylan Avery VEHEMENTLY disagree with 'no-plane'.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[dave52]

I got banned from the Loose Change Forum last week for asking about no-planes in my first ever post. I think I lasted about five minutes.

Dylan Avery has removed the section on alternative theories but, interestingly, left the Skeptics section up.

I believe that the powers that be have infiltrated the Truth Movement in an attempt to control exactly what truth is exposed to the masses. That way, with the exception of the few scape goats and fall guys, the guilty will not only walk free but will be heralded in as the new bringers of truth.

Aluminium Planes cannot punch through steel structures, it is against the laws of physics. It is likely that missiles were used for accuracy and effect and fake footage was shown on tv around the world. The few doubters who witnessed what they thought to be missiles were shouted down and pummeled with tv footage until they started to doubt their own eyes and admit that it must've been a plane. Sheep eh..?!

[neutron flux]

Take a look at the first part of 'September clues' linked in second post.

Fast forward to the shot at 6:45 (the counter descends) and watch until the 6:00 mark. 45 seconds of absolutely groundbreaking footage...


I'm still not convinced as they only use two pieces of footage - what about the other footage from multiple angles? Every network would have to be "hijacked" by the CGI footage with different perspectives at the same time.

As for the CNN banner - well, they do have a banner and is there footage of them showing it without later on?

The aeroplane nose is also not in any way conclusive proof of anything - if it is the nose to begin with.

It's just easier to use a plane.

[graflok]

Every network would have to be "hijacked" by the CGI footage with different perspectives at the same time.


Bingo.

Every network has been hijacked. They created the networks.

Show me the plane here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIKen_q_C6M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcuOapEyp1o

[neutron flux]

Also, what of all the eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit with their own eyes? New York and downtown Manhatten would have been transfixed on the towers.

And what of this picture?

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3269/250pxwtcdebrisoz6so4.jpg

Looks like a bit of plane to me.

[graflok]

I got banned from the Loose Change Forum last week for asking about no-planes in my first ever post. I think I lasted about five minutes.

Dylan Avery has removed the section on alternative theories but, interestingly, left the Skeptics section up.

I believe that the powers that be have infiltrated the Truth Movement in an attempt to control exactly what truth is exposed to the masses. That way, with the exception of the few scape goats and fall guys, the guilty will not only walk free but will be heralded in as the new bringers of truth.

Aluminium Planes cannot punch through steel structures, it is against the laws of physics. It is likely that missiles were used for accuracy and effect and fake footage was shown on tv around the world. The few doubters who witnessed what they thought to be missiles were shouted down and pummeled with tv footage until they started to doubt their own eyes and admit that it must've been a plane. Sheep eh..?!

Very interesting! Thanks for posting that.

[neutron flux]

Bingo.

Every network has been hijacked. They created the networks.


How do you mix in footage without some sort of cut-away?

As for the two vids, The first has the plane hit from behind so you wouldn't see it, and the second it could be from a different angle where you can't see it or it's doctored to fit this silly theory.

Or I'm completely wrong - but - there seems to be more data to fit the planes hit than the no-plane theory - hands down.

[dave52]

I'm still not convinced as they only use two pieces of footage - what about the other footage from multiple angles?

There were only a couple of "Live" shots. Everything else came in later, generally from "ametaurs with home videos".

The "Live" shots were the Fox chopper (which has the impossible punch out as well as the impossible plane arrival) and another one where the plane comes in from the right and hits the second (left-most) tower. The problem with the second one is that you only see the plane on later re-runs of the shot. In the original live shot there is no plane (hence the banner).

Watch all 8 parts of September Clues...

[neutron flux]

There were only a couple of "Live" shots. Everything else came in later, generally from "ametaurs with home videos".


Really? There's fox news footage from another angle and WB11 footage in this compilation:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[dave52]

Really? There's fox news footage from another angle and WB11 footage in this compilation

Clips in that montage:

1. Not live.
2. No Plane visible.
3. Live? Maybe, maybe not, that is the shot where the plane skips across frames and looks fake.
4. Same as shot 3, interestingly the interviewee on the phone only saw the explosion.
5. No Plane.
6. Fox Chopper, impossible zoom / nose-out fake.
7. No Plane (possible missile / blob shot).
8. No Plane.
9. Plane? Impossible to tell.

[dave52]

You already did buy it....

September Clues Can Be Found Here (http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice)

[teslafire]

I didn't buy this about a year ago because the voice inside my head told me I was an idiot for thinking *how* the towers fell. was insignificant.

It doesn't matter because we know who must have taken it down by virtue of all the broken security protocols...but now when I look at it and can see telltale CGI masking in the background and I see the stalwart mindset against this theory I'm forced to objectively wonder why there is so much resistance to this by the 'truth movement leaders'...

There was no plane at the pentagon, there is no plane wreckage from flight 93 (even loose change highlights this), and there was no plane for WTC7. The only reason we think there are planes at the towers is because of a couple of shots we are shown over and over again, but those can easily be faked IF you control all the live network feeds from a central command, are able to take down all the local broadcasting networks, AND especially if there is a 17 second tape delay from moment of live shooting to moment of broadcast. All of these things can be fact checked by even official sources.

It is reasonable to believe that this is a possibility...NOW, look at the shot from the fox five chopper where the plane's nose comes out the other side of the building after impact and then the camera decides to fade to black for eight seconds. That is the smoking gun.

[narcolepticwatchman]

To me, NPT is the only way they could have pulled it off. They could not plan for real planes to hit the building....the outcome could not have been known.....that is far too big a risk for them to have taken when they needed all parts of the plan to develop ie 3 buildings falling to the ground.....or more accuratley ......turned to dust. How they did that is another story.....i'll give you a step for a hint....explosives probably were NOT the major factor to bring them down.

After the initial disbelief, I now stand by the teory 100%. Most interesting of all is the fact that people troll forums to specifically argue against it.......using the perps tactics of slander and scarily, the 'disrespectful to the victims' card gets played an awful lot. Then there is the trail of bodies.....

Why so much opposition to the theory from people within the movement who are supposed to be open minded. The TV fakery case has some absolutley irrefutable evidence. Part 7 of Setember clues is the most convincing I have seen so far. My friend is reveiwing the archive footage and he discovered there are telephone witnesses who are being coached their lines :D its shocking.

911 Pentagon witness's fake phone ins - YouTube

Listen to these guys. They all identify the plane by model, airline and all say it accelerates when headed to the pentagon.....quite good observational techniques eh? Not only that, but the 2nd witness is being told what to say by a guy in the background.

Have a look at some of his other videos. Some have links to the higher resolution stuff as well. This one is particularly interesting......

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

and the rest of his stuff is here....

http://www.youtube.com/user/nanoprobe73

[neutron flux]

It doesn't make sense to me because:

1. You have to make sure your footage blends to match the live footage with the explosion -make sure it fits from multiple angles.

2. Eye-witness reports - you have to make sure no one in downtown New York notices no plane. No one. Yet, when I was watching live on the news there were many eye-witness accounts from all types of people from construction workers to city types to firemen saying they saw a plane hit.

3. You have to make sure that no footage appears with no plane - as far as mossad and co were concerned they couldn't be sure that hundreds of footage could come to light (and not the no plane footage that you wouldn't see the plane anyway if it happened from behind the building that you're focusing on)

4. Amateur footage - as the no-planers are concerned every amateur footage is faked by the PTB - I suppose no one owned a camera in New York.

5. What of the first plane hitting? Looks like a plane to me. (even though it's not live, you hear the plane and the fireman looks up and you see a plane hit)

6. Wreckage photographed (see post on last page)

7. It's easier to use planes.

Just my two pence of course.

[teslafire]

It doesn't make sense to me because:

1. You have to make sure your footage blends to match the live footage with the explosion -make sure it fits from multiple angles.

2. Eye-witness reports - you have to make sure no one in downtown New York notices no plane. No one. Yet, when I was watching live on the news there were many eye-witness accounts from all types of people from construction workers to city types to firemen saying they saw a plane hit.

3. You have to make sure that no footage appears with no plane - as far as mossad and co were concerned they couldn't be sure that hundreds of footage could come to light (and not the no plane footage that you wouldn't see the plane anyway if it happened from behind the building that you're focusing on)

4. Amateur footage - as the no-planers are concerned every amateur footage is faked by the PTB - I suppose no one owned a camera in New York.

5. What of the first plane hitting? Looks like a plane to me. (even though it's not live, you hear the plane and the fireman looks up and you see a plane hit)

6. Wreckage photographed (see post on last page)

7. It's easier to use planes.

Just my two pence of course.


You really need to watch the whole september clues documentary...

[narcolepticwatchman]

It doesn't make sense to me because:

1. You have to make sure your footage blends to match the live footage with the explosion -make sure it fits from multiple angles.

2. Eye-witness reports - you have to make sure no one in downtown New York notices no plane. No one. Yet, when I was watching live on the news there were many eye-witness accounts from all types of people from construction workers to city types to firemen saying they saw a plane hit.

3. You have to make sure that no footage appears with no plane - as far as mossad and co were concerned they couldn't be sure that hundreds of footage could come to light (and not the no plane footage that you wouldn't see the plane anyway if it happened from behind the building that you're focusing on)

4. Amateur footage - as the no-planers are concerned every amateur footage is faked by the PTB - I suppose no one owned a camera in New York.

5. What of the first plane hitting? Looks like a plane to me. (even though it's not live, you hear the plane and the fireman looks up and you see a plane hit)

6. Wreckage photographed (see post on last page)

7. It's easier to use planes.

Just my two pence of course.


How on earth is it easier to use planes when nothing of the likes has ever been attempted in history......and the buildings were designed to withstand such an impact?? Is that easier? Who is telling you its easier.....your 'self', or your ego. Intuition, or rational mind? Rational mind does not work well in irrational situations.

The naudet brothers film does NOT look like a plane. It has no wings at one point.

No-one said that the explosions were not real. They just did not come from planes.

Read my last post. watch the videos. watch September clues parts 1 to 8. that should raise far more questions about your witnesses etc than all of your previous 'witness' research has given you answers

[stickylolly]

I posted this ages ago!!http://www.coffinman.co.uk/holes_in_the_towers.htm

[stickylolly]

sorry ... above video has been removed

[neutron flux]

How on earth is it easier to use planes when nothing of the likes has ever been attempted in history......and the buildings were designed to withstand such an impact?? Is that easier? Who is telling you its easier.....your 'self', or your ego. Intuition, or rational mind? Rational mind does not work well in irrational situations.


Common sense says it's easier to have:

a) Global Hawk style tech to remote control the planes.

b) Mind controlled pilots.

As for a plane hitting the towers - no matter if the towers were allegedly designed to withstand a plane (why comes to mind) - it still would have exploded. Or so I think.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Common sense says it's easier to have:

a) Global Hawk style tech to remote control the planes.

b) Mind controlled pilots.

As for a plane hitting the towers - no matter if the towers were allegedly designed to withstand a plane (why comes to mind) - it still would have exploded. Or so I think.


Well done....you just agreed with me......what exactly is common sense but the rational mind? This is exactly how they want you to think. Ego prevails.

Look at the videos again in his res to test your rational mind. upon impact of a plane, laden with fuel, you would see instant ignition......you don't. in all videos of the 2nd impact, there is a delayed fireball. The plane is entirely inside the building before there is any type of explosion. not even the wings which were supposedly ripped to shreds ignited upon impact......is that what you would expect?

Oh, and you would expect to see the wings....to the TIPS, slice through structural steel?

These are plane bird strike damage photos....

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/plane-duck-strike.jpg

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/pa28-bird-strike2.jpg

Finally....what do you think hit the pentagon?

[stickylolly]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/13491FF768384B09A8243B4701627BFC/wtc-2nd-hit-cnn-ghostplane-stabilised.aspx

look at this ... is this a real plane ? no way! it would have crumbled....

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

narcolepticwatchman;
Finally....what do you think hit the pentagon?[/QUOTE]

Definitely NOT a 757 or 767.

I do not think 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' have embraced the NPT as regards the WTC. If this group were to come to the conclusion of NPT, there would be enormous weight given to the NP Theory.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[adimon]

Without a doubt, it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

I've never met anyone who thought so, having looked into it even a little bit.

As for WTC1&2, I'm still not sure, but the videos above are certainly very interesting.

[adimon]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/13491FF768384B09A8243B4701627BFC/wtc-2nd-hit-cnn-ghostplane-stabilised.aspx

look at this ... is this a real plane ? no way! it would have crumbled....

Yes that's fairly convincing, but is it definitely not doctored?

[neutron flux]

Look at the videos again in his res to test your rational mind. upon impact of a plane, laden with fuel, you would see instant ignition......you don't. in all videos of the 2nd impact, there is a delayed fireball. The plane is entirely inside the building before there is any type of explosion. not even the wings which were supposedly ripped to shreds ignited upon impact......is that what you would expect?


To be quite honest I wouldn't know exactly what to expect with a plane hitting those particular towers travelling at 500 odd miles per hour, it would be just my speculation.

Finally....what do you think hit the pentagon?

It seems a small plane (or drone) made to look like a 757 that fired a missile.

Which begs the question: if they made CGI videos for the other planes, why didn't they come up with a CGI version of what hit the Pentagon? If they can allegedly create this fantastic CGI production in practically real time then to do the Pentagon would have been child's play. Why haven't they already?

[neutron flux]

Also, what about the flight patterns of the planes that hit the WTC? Just made up I suppose?

[stickylolly]

watch this ...... http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/619A3823499448EDA75584AB929E38BE/an-independent-analysis-of-long-shot-with-missing-plane.aspx

[stickylolly]

and this .....http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/AFF0EE94BC234E71BFD7384EEA418D1C/nose-out-clips.aspx

[teslafire]

Also, what about the flight patterns of the planes that hit the WTC? Just made up I suppose?

Maybe that's why Norad really stood down, they were just as confused as you are now...

Not only did the 9/11 perps have to fool the general sheep population, but more challengingly, also the various levels within the government.

[stickylolly]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/C108C2F04B1D4EA2BA65849A2E8501F6/wtc-outer-wall.aspx ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

[neutron flux]

Maybe that's why Norad really stood down, they were just as confused as you are now...

So, are you saying Norad stood down because really they weren't detecting any planes? If so, why make up irrational flight paths?

I'll reiterate a previous question to you:

If they made CGI videos for the other planes, why didn't they come up with a CGI version of what hit the Pentagon? If they can allegedly create this fantastic CGI production in practically real time then to do the Pentagon would have been child's play. Why haven't they already?

[adimon]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffinman/C108C2F04B1D4EA2BA65849A2E8501F6/wtc-outer-wall.aspx ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

What is this video saying about the walls? It's very short.

[stickylolly]

look at the size and thickness of the walls they are made of steel ... a airplane is made of aluminum

[adimon]

look at the size and thickness of the walls they are made of steel ... a airplane is made of aluminum

Sorry, I thought it was something else. I was looking for men with C4 or something.

The big questions for this forum are:-

1. Do we have any eyewitnesses who are registered?
2. Does anybody know someone who was there or who has footage?

I still find it quite hard to believe ALL the amateur footage is faked.

Cool thread though. Certainly interesting.

[neutron flux]

If you look at this:

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/6695/911planenc4.gif

You'll see that the camera tracks the plane perfectly, so that would mean that the cameraman would have to know exactly when the explosives would go off and track something that's not there - indicating that the cameraman is part of the conspiracy along with engineers, switchers, directors, etc.

The logistics of this make the whole T.V. fakery seem asinine.

This seems like a COINTELPRO operation to me.

[dave52]

So, are you saying Norad stood down because really they weren't detecting any planes? If so, why make up irrational flight paths?

Ok, firstly there were a number of wargames going on at the time. They were using real and simulated planes, hijackings, gaming for planes being flown into buildings and even false blips being inserted into radar screens. People were really, really confused, there was even a wargame that simulated an attack from Russia over the Arctic (which took a number of fighters out over Alaska).

The flight patterns are really wierd, definately designed to confuse people, but as the Transponders were off, they could've been any planes flying around in circles. There is even evidence to suggest that none of the suspect planes even flew that day (this opens a whole can of worms about where the people went, but hey).

At the time of the explosions in the towers there were plenty of 737 type planes flying around (at least one witness report of a close approach before the plane climbed quickly). This would've been enough to raise doubts in peoples heads about the missiles they thought they saw (coupled with the constant repeateing tv footage).

If they made CGI videos for the other planes, why didn't they come up with a CGI version of what hit the Pentagon? If they can allegedly create this fantastic CGI production in practically real time then to do the Pentagon would have been child's play. Why haven't they already?

Great question, to which I have no answer. The 9/11 myth is so deeply ingrained in peoples heads, maybe they didn't need to bother. Maybe they're holding some fx blockbuster back, just to spin us out a little longer, if they need to buy a little more time before "Truth" is unvieled for us...

Other areas of study. The alleged landing of Flight 93 at Cleveland (together with Delta 1989), and the "processing" of passengers at the nearby NASA building. The rediculous "lets roll" holywood script, complete with missing plane (yet with an intact evil-doer's passport). The use of "Live" footage which was quite obviously pre-recorded scenes including bad cutting. The somewhat dodgy still photos from the Pentagon etc... etc..

There is so much wrong with the official story and so many anomalies and mistakes throughout (either by design to confuse or whistle blow, or just by rushed and sloppy work).

I watched Heroes the other day, and one of the guys can fly, I saw it - it was amazing...

[dave52]

The logistics of this make the whole T.V. fakery seem asinine.

Ahh, but did you know, that that exclusive CBS footage from an amateur was origionally shown as still photographs. It wasn't until later in the evening that CBS were showing the video.

That means, assuming that it's a real plane filmed by a real amateur, The amateur either sent in stills as a taster for the big event (how much work is that?), or CBS got the video and decided to show some stills of it first in order to whet the viewers apetite.

Hmmm.... or the fake wasn't completed quick enough, so they panicked and showed some stills in the early afternoon until the finished product was ready...

Incidently, that "plane" is supposedly moving at 500 miles an hour. No-one knew the first strike was a "terrorist" attack, so no-one was expecting another plane. How did that amateur manage to keep that plane so centred in the shot. Also, this was apparently a hand-held camera, I think that has to be tripod for it to be that steady. Why lie about that...?

[adimon]

Incidently, that "plane" is supposedly moving at 500 miles an hour. No-one knew the first strike was a "terrorist" attack, so no-one was expecting another plane. How did that amateur manage to keep that plane so centred in the shot. Also, this was apparently a hand-held camera, I think that has to be tripod for it to be that steady. Why lie about that...?

Although you're right, and it seems unlikely, a friend of mine who is a professional photographer and does weddings etc. for a living, once filmed the flight of a bat around in a pine forest at dusk, for about a minute, never once losing it from the center of the shot. Its certainly very hard to do, and requires excellent reactions and coordination, but not impossible.

[neutron flux]

Hmmm.... or the fake wasn't completed quick enough, so they panicked and showed some stills in the early afternoon until the finished product was ready...


And yet the other live so-called fakes were allegedly finished in real-time. Why even the need for extra footage?

Incidently, that "plane" is supposedly moving at 500 miles an hour. No-one knew the first strike was a "terrorist" attack, so no-one was expecting another plane. How did that amateur manage to keep that plane so centred in the shot. Also, this was apparently a hand-held camera, I think that has to be tripod for it to be that steady. Why lie about that...?

Well, the plane would have been heard before hand so (IMO) it would have been quite easy to track the plane and it's not out of the realms of possibilty that the camcorder had an image stabilizer on board.

[teslafire]

If they can allegedly create this fantastic CGI production in practically real time then to do the Pentagon would have been child's play. Why haven't they already?

I don't know.

[teslafire]

Although you're right, and it seems unlikely, a friend of mine who is a professional photographer and does weddings etc. for a living, once filmed the flight of a bat around in a pine forest at dusk, for about a minute, never once losing it from the center of the shot. Its certainly very hard to do, and requires excellent reactions and coordination, but not impossible.

A bat's top speed is maybe 35mph?

Not only that, but its an impossible pan from a fixed point. To cover that much distance in a pan while keeping the same perspective angle would only be possible if the camera was tracking parallel to the flight path.

[adimon]

A bat's top speed is maybe 35mph?

Not only that, but its an impossible pan from a fixed point. To cover that much distance in a pan while keeping the same perspective angle would only be possible if the camera was tracking parallel to the flight path.

Dude this bat was flying in all directions!

But regardless, I said only that it was possible. Not likely.

[teslafire]

Dude this bat was flying in all directions!

Oh...that's a damn good cameraman.

[graflok]

How do you mix in footage without some sort of cut-away?

As for the two vids, The first has the plane hit from behind so you wouldn't see it, and the second it could be from a different angle where you can't see it or it's doctored to fit this silly theory.

Or I'm completely wrong - but - there seems to be more data to fit the planes hit than the no-plane theory - hands down.

You're not looking at the videos.

[dave52]

Well, the plane would have been heard before hand so (IMO) it would have been quite easy to track the plane and it's not out of the realms of possibilty that the camcorder had an image stabilizer on board.

Look, enough already. I know what I believe, I don't need to convince you or anyone else. Simple yes / no question, have you watched September Clues?

If the answer is no, spend an evening watching all the parts, take a deep breath, then formulate an oppinion. If you are happy to believe planes were flown into the towers - cool, no problems. As long as we all agree that the official conspiracy theory on 9/11 is a lie, we should all get along and expose the liars together.

:D

[john white]

September Clues proves nicely that even the most "hardened" conspiracy theorists can be spoon fed manure whilst being TOLD it's honey, lap it up, and then ask for more. Mind manipulation is alive and well and always ready for the in-cautious

[teslafire]

September Clues proves nicely that even the most "hardened" conspiracy theorists can be spoon fed manure whilst being TOLD it's honey, lap it up, and then ask for more. Mind manipulation is alive and well and always ready for the in-cautious

Stop with the crap.

The least you could do is properly refute the 'no-planes' observations, if you're so sure of yourself.

[john white]

Stop with the crap.

The least you could do is properly refute the 'no-planes' observations, if you're so sure of yourself.

Tesla, i'm on a website that has reptillians, underground bases, hollow earths, aliens, and everything else on it. What's the point? Some people want to believe, if someone can't watch september clues part 1 alone and see what a bogus load that is, theyre hardly any use as real 9/11 activists, and theres definately no point to debunking parts 2 through 8: so let em get on with it. so go on, go for it! Holograms and Space Beams Ahoy!

Who cares about details like frame removal rates of over 75%, messing with the resolutions, editing clips to remove the prior and before context that show faking to be impossible, let alone getting all excitied about telephoto lens distorions and spinning fantasy rather than dealing with how cameras actually work, or seeing a massive conspiracy in a second of live footage blackout when a plane has just hit the building where the live signal is being sent to the tv station from! (big ariel thing on the roof). NPT is being TOLD what something is and believing it like a sponge 'cos its "exciting". End of story. Disinformation from people who, being charitable, have already disinformed themselves. Thats what the evidence and the quality of that evidence says

And yes, it means the only effort I'm prepared to make is my "grumpy old fart" act: even that's being generous. Thought you had a bit more sense though

But by all means, "Believe on!"

Small point though: why do NPT theorists never take their theories to the serious debunking sites and debate them there? CD Theorists do. Commission cover up theorists do: and they WIN those debates on the strength of the facts. In fact, I've never seen NPT'ers win any debate on evidence anywhere to date: all that happens is a whole load of faith statements followed by attacks on the character of anyone who doesnt agree

All the NPT'ers ever seem to do is hoover up the vunerable whose critical thinking skills arnt fully developed yet

Here's a resource anyone who can be arsed can go check out:

http://www.911disinformation.com/

And now I'm off to do something more useful with my life

[geo2]

;) Thank You, Major J White { MI5 } so kind of you to 'pontificate' on the 'subject'................................

:p Now, Major, you know that the 'operation' would not have been able to be done 'right' with 'live-planes'/Etc, therefore 'HOLOGRAMS' were used.............

:cool: 'Controlled-Demolitions'.....

:eek: " Wag-the-WTC " brought to you by the same people who gave us-all the "Apollo-Moon-Program-Show"/JFK-112263/Etc

:) Keep-on, Guys !

BTW Alan Watt was really-down-home on the 9/17 show...
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/index.html

[john white]

Thank You, Major J White { MI5 } so kind of you to 'pontificate' on the 'subject'

See what I mean Teslafire?

Its a truthseekers kindergarten

[adimon]

if someone can't watch september clues part 1 alone and see what a bogus load that is, theyre hardly any use as real 9/11 activists, and theres definately no point to debunking parts 2 through 8: so let em get on with it. so go on, go for it!

Hi John

I'm not 100% on any of the 9/11 theories as I described in the thread I started the other day.

What's your opinion on this matter? Also, as you're so sure NPT is BS, then could you please indicate why? I know you've said you're reluctant to discuss it, and if so then fine, but you'd certainly be doing me a favour by bringing your views to the table, since I've found them useful in the past.

Not being a huge online researcher (preferring to do most of my work covertly) I'm maybe not as savvy on 9/11 websites as others, so wouldn't know about the NPT guys avoiding the others or whatever.

I've watched the Sept Clues and found it interesting, but not conclusive, or for the matter am I as yet able to dismiss it.

I'm currently looking into MoD sources direct to get a feel for whether they have any decent moles.

Anyway, your input is welcome, if you change your mind.

Thanks :cool:

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ladies & Gentlemen, Cordial Felicitations:

Colour me Curious! Has a contingent of the: No Plane Theory, taken their evidence and arguments to the: pilotsfor9/11truth.org forum?

My opinion is, this is the 'Battle Ground' where this Theory will: Stand or Fall.

It is a most informative website, Forum, concerning matters Aviation as to that most shameful event.

I do urge all researchers to examine that site as it provides a plethora of information concerning the alleged Planes that were involved. Plus the personal experiences of Professional Pilots.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[teslafire]

stuff

Right, thanks for your insultingly dramatic blanket opinion that lacks any real substance.

You know, I would say that its this type of stereotypical judgement of character versus proper debate of the facts which is the real impediment to critical thinking.

Please don't bring boring, unsubstantiated drama into an otherwise interesting thread.

:)

[teslafire]

Ladies & Gentlemen, Cordial Felicitations:

Colour me Curious! Has a contingent of the: No Plane Theory, taken their evidence and arguments to the: pilotsfor9/11truth.org forum?

My opinion is, this is the 'Battle Ground' where this Theory will: Stand or Fall.

It is a most informative website, Forum, concerning matters Aviation as to that most shameful event.

I do urge all researchers to examine that site as it provides a plethora of information concerning the alleged Planes that were involved. Plus the personal experiences of Professional Pilots.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

I don't see why pilots would be good expert witnesses to video manipulation.

[john white]

Right, thanks for your insultingly dramatic blanket opinion that lacks any real substance.

You know, I would say that its this type of stereotypical judgement of character versus proper debate of the facts which is the real impediment to critical thinking.

Please don't bring boring, unsubstantiated drama into an otherwise interesting thread.

:)


http://www.911disinformation.com/

Did you miss it?

[geo2]

:) most pilots that i looked at say, flying one, let alone two Planes either 'maned' or 'robotic' is just about IMPOSSIBLE ............{ the-way-it-was-done}

:cool: with that i'll fly back 2my "Wag-The-WTC" Thread.............just had 2put it 2the 'major', LOL/lol { Sgt J White [Salvation Army] omg ! }}}:rolleyes:

:eek: n my 4square-thing at 'Wag-the-WTC', it's really-so-simple, it was/is a Hollywood-Show/Soap-Program with real-live/dead people................

cub-reporter

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations!, Teslafire:

Supposition on my part; Technologicaly sophisticated personages, Pilots of commercial and military aircrafts. Also the interface of the NPT with known empirical evidence of that day, eg. Radar tracking of these flights.
This would seem the logical forum to present the best evidence of the NPT, Captain.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[teslafire]

http://www.911disinformation.com/

Did you miss it?

An ironically apt address. Its a strawman because you're not taking on the footage head-on, but I'll dissect it anyways.

Counter-Evidence to the No planes theory

1. Pictures of Plane Wreckage

So there were explosions in the building that caused the WTC's steel cores to melt and pulverized the building to a fine dust, but identifiable plane parts are conveniently strewn about the rubble.

I think they found Mohammed Atta's passport just to the left of that engine.

2. Pictures of Planes in lower Manhattan

One of the theories presented in 'September Clues' are that plants posed as 'eyewitnesses' (like the witnesses to the plane that hit the pentagon) and submitted fake pictures to the press. This would be the easiest manipulation of them all.

From: A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured
control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC?

As stated earlier in the thread, all the video of the planes crashing was controlled by the major networks with a seventeen second tape delay (more than enough time).

But this isn't the debate.

The debate is the damning video footage.

[teslafire]

Cordial Felicitations!, Teslafire:

Supposition on my part; Technologicaly sophisticated personages, Pilots of commercial and military aircrafts. Also the interface of the NPT with known empirical evidence of that day, eg. Radar tracking of these flights.
This would seem the logical forum to present the best evidence of the NPT, Captain.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

No one is saying that its impossible to fly planes into the towers. If we were then it'd be a good idea to ask an expert to see if its possible.

What we are talking about is video manipulation, which would necessitate an animations expert, like someone who worked post-production on the last Die Hard flick.

Flightpaths were made public in the official version of the attack.

[john white]

This would be the easiest manipulation of them all.


Not quite: the easiest would be buggering around with a few genuine images and using them to try and discredit all the rest: now thats a doddle! Some egotistical loon sitting at home on his PC could do it

Come on Tesla: do you really find it credible that there were no planes hittting the towers that morning? That everyone who thought they saw one: didnt? That everyone who thought they heard one: didnt? That every peice of plane evidence: wasnt? That every single image: every one: is fake. Well you can only do that if you don't think it through: and there is NO evidence in "September Clues" other than evidence of your gullability

No Plane at the Pentagon? Sure, the evidence is threadbare

No Plane at Shanksville? Evidence is so scanty we might as well say there isn't any

No Planes at the WTC? An ORGY of evidence says otherwise

9/11: Half faked, half real = guarenteed divide and rule and all the moonbats looking in the wrong place

Gotcha Tesla!

[adimon]

Come on Tesla: do you really find it credible that there were no planes hittting the towers that morning?

John, what do you make of the video that stickylolly posted?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/Coffi...tabilised.aspx

Disinfo? Fake? Real?

I find it hard to imagine that there wouldn't be some crumpling, but I'm not sure. Its high speeds were talking about.

[teslafire]

Mr. White:

For all your arrogant and petty posturing, you haven't been able to explain the anomalies in the videos hitting the towers, such as the nose popping through clear the other side followed by an ridiculously unorthodox live television FADE TO BLACK.

Second, I was living in NYC during the time and have several friends and acquaintances who all woke up to explosions, later to be covered in WTC soot as they were literally less that five blocks away from ground zero. None of them saw planes. Not just three of four people, but dozens upon dozens of people that were all at a common college dorm.

Third, don't bother replying if you're going to continue setting up strawman and avoid the groundbreaking footage, the meat of this theory.

[auron]

If you look closely enough in every video, you can see the planes shapeshifting into reptiles before they hit.

[teslafire]

Please give us insight into the video rather than offering generic insults.

[auron]

I'm sorry. Feel free to kick my ass.

I don't defend. :D

[narcolepticwatchman]

Notice that Mr white posts a link to a site which only focusses on the energy weaponry and no plane theories. that in iteslf should be a red warning light to anyone researching this stuff. i doubt he has even watched september clues because ANYONE would come away from the viewing with more questions about the official story AS well as the main conspiricy theories.

i have already had it out on numerous occasions with him....each time he dodges questions and bails from arguments.....then starts posting about how he has 'blown me away' when the dust has settled.

Remember people.....a half truth is still a lie. TV fakery & Energy Weaponry WERE used.

[dave52]

TV Fakery - yes. Missiles and demolition, probably. Planes - I doubt it. Energy weapons, I really don't know, but I can say that the demolition of wtc7 looks pretty damn standard when compared to wtc 1 and 2.

No one can really debate this unless they've seen September Clues (and maybe, 9/11 Octopus [er... the original feature length one]). And if anyone mentions Loose Change, they can bugger off, I got expelled from their forum for just suggesting No Planes, so don't expect an open debate over there...

[adimon]

TV Fakery - yes. Missiles and demolition, probably. Planes - I doubt it. Energy weapons, I really don't know, but I can say that the demolition of wtc7 looks pretty damn standard when compared to wtc 1 and 2.

No one can really debate this unless they've seen September Clues (and maybe, 9/11 Octopus [er... the original feature length one]). And if anyone mentions Loose Change, they can bugger off, I got expelled from their forum for just suggesting No Planes, so don't expect an open debate over there...

Loose Change is a terrible film. Though it makes some valid points, more than half the footage has the camera filming pieces of paper and the internet. I believe it also started out as a fictional film and then they changed their minds.

[sidlittle]

well done teslafire for giving it some genuine individual thought. You may also start to notice old forum stalwarts who for some bizarre reason do everything to try to persuade you to avoid this subject.
silly wankers.

[narcolepticwatchman]

just for reference.....note that the link that Mr White keeps on posting has NO names behind it. Ie, no-one is taking credit for the collation of the information on the site. The 'contact' page simply has an anonymous Gmail address. The 'exclusive' report states that the author wishes to remain anaonymous yet Mr white feels that this is a genuine truthful source for information and feels the need to direct everyone to it..........while he pours scorn on the NP theorists who dare to be named and stand by their research. How does he know who pulled this together? How does he know they can be trusted. I know he is not an engineer, therefore, he has to be trusting these report writers an awful lot if he believes their information against his own eyes and the clear TV fakery exposed in September clues.

Here is the WHOIS lookup for 911disinformation.com

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: 911DISINFORMATION.COM
Created on: 14-May-07
Expires on: 15-May-09
Last Updated on:

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration 911DISINFORMATION.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration 911DISINFORMATION.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2599

Why the privacy? Stinks big time to me.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ladies & Gentlemen, Cordial Felicitations:

Narcolepticwatchman: Get some rest, the most ardous part of the Journey lies ahead.

Consider: REAT

Consider: Reverse Engineered Alternative Conspiracy Theory

There are known 'Absolutes'. This is the Granitic Bedrock upon which everything else must rest upon.

Would not one Absolute be the Historic Fact: Donald Rumsfeld altered Intercept Protocols, altered Chain of Command? Which played a role in the events of 9/11. These were very longstanding Protocols.

I propose that all Absolutes, be gathered together, not one piece can be less than Graniticly Solid. 100% Consensus, A Granitic Bedrock Foundation is neccessary to provide the Gravitas(weight) for the projection of 'Theories', that are 'Startling'. eg: No Planes, Concrete Core, mini-nukes.....

A very solid Benchmark, Base-Line 'Standard'. A robust Fall-Back Position. A Redoubt.

We are all 'Certain' two large buildings fell down in NYC, unless that was a Holo-Graphic Illusion and the buildings are actually still there just 'Cloaked' with a Tesla Technology Electro-RazzaMaDazzler MagnetoTron. Who really 'Knows'.

"Before you can pour concrete, you have to build a good Foundation". Boris Blackshadow.

If this has been helpful, that has been my intent, I have to go hump some legs now.

Later!, & Kind Regards. Snoopsnuffleopagus

[adimon]

Ladies & Gentlemen, Cordial Felicitations:

Narcolepticwatchman: Get some rest, the most ardous part of the Journey lies ahead.

Consider: REAT

Consider: Reverse Engineered Alternative Conspiracy Theory

There are known 'Absolutes'. This is the Granitic Bedrock upon which everything else must rest upon.

Would not one Absolute be the Historic Fact: Donald Rumsfeld altered Intercept Protocols, altered Chain of Command? Which played a role in the events of 9/11. These were very longstanding Protocols.

I propose that all Absolutes, be gathered together, not one piece can be less than Graniticly Solid. 100% Consensus, A Granitic Bedrock Foundation is neccessary to provide the Gravitas(weight) for the projection of 'Theories', that are 'Startling'. eg: No Planes, Concrete Core, mini-nukes.....

A very solid Benchmark, Base-Line 'Standard'. A robust Fall-Back Position. A Redoubt.

We are all 'Certain' two large buildings fell down in NYC, unless that was a Holo-Graphic Illusion and the buildings are actually still there just 'Cloaked' with a Tesla Technology Electro-RazzaMaDazzler MagnetoTron. Who really 'Knows'.

"Before you can pour concrete, you have to build a good Foundation". Boris Blackshadow.

If this has been helpful, that has been my intent, I have to go hump some legs now.

Later!, & Kind Regards. Snoopsnuffleopagus

I'm all in favour of that but there are people here that might find it difficult to eat hard facts - i.e. that Silverstein is worse off because of 9/11, not better.

I'm curious about one thing - what is humping legs? :confused:

[graflok]

Here is an odd video. You hear the plane but you don't see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSYZzPrvVCI

[irie_dave]

I'm all in favour of that but there are people here that might find it difficult to eat hard facts - i.e. that Silverstein is worse off because of 9/11, not better.

I'm curious about one thing - what is humping legs? :confused:

Silverstein is not worse off, when the Freedom Tower is finished he make millions from renting it out watch Ring of Power part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549), plus there's no telling if he got any undisclosed extra payments for going for going along with this crucially important & massively profitable op.

[damagedbrainn]

I personally think that the No Planes theory is crap for reasons that have been adequately explained by others in this thread (the biggest of these reasons being the decent amount of footage, both amateur and proffessional). But why spoil the fun.

Here's an ambiguous video that both sides of the debate can find evidence in:

Rare video of second plane hitting the South Tower - YouTube

In that video, the camera is at an angle where you cannot see the plane actually hitting the tower, but you can clearly hear it (or something) flying in just before the explosion (both are pretty loud). Afterwards, the two men behind the camera argue about what happend: One insisting that it just blew up, while the other insists that it was hit by another plane.

[clint web]

Planes or no planes, the important fact here is that it's an inside job of course.

[veritas2007]

Well, first of all, thank you to those of you who have posted video links for the NPT. When I first read this, I was a little shocked. Having begun to research the incident on 11th September several months ago, I was still coming to terms with the fact that evil bastards at the top had perpetrated such an awful crime under the noses of the world population. I thought that the NP theory may be stretching the imagination a little too far but then I watched all of the September Clues videos.

To me, it actally makes a lot of sense and answers the question that has been puzzling me from the beginning: Where did all the paseengers go if this was a hoax? Those fade to black sequences, the audio cues, the eveidence of edited background and foreground etc, etc are pretty damning in my opinion. Missiles seem to me to be the obvious choice by the perpetrators.

I'm totally convinced that the media is controlled so I do not find it difficult to believe that the footage they showed was doctored. The "amatuer video" sources could have easily been provided by the perpetrators. Aircraft wreckage at ground zero is meaningless. They could have already been in one of the unoccupied floors of the towers prior to the attacks. And to offer an answer to the question: "why didn't they come up with a CGI version of what hit the Pentagon?"

Simple really:

The twin towers had already suffered an attack which focused the attention of the media. I've not come across any information to state that the Pentagon was a legitimate target therefore, no film crews, no news helicopters were on the scene.

I will continue my research anew. Let us not forget though the 3,000 + people who lost their lives that day and the countless thousands who have, are and will as a result.

[gremlin]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

JUST LOOKING AT THIS VIDEO MAKES ME WONDER ABOUT ALOT OF THINGS.

To believe their was no planes, i cant take this leap. i saw on tv when the first plane went in, (STOP I KNOW IT WAS TV) then saw a second plane hit the tower, and the guy who survived the plane entering the same floor he was on.

i cant by this i really cant.

you cant put a plane into a building and be sure the building would collapse, thats why their was the detonators????? which were put into place to bring it down.

[veritas2007]

[........and the guy who survived the plane entering the same floor he was on.

I hadn't heard of this before. You wouldn't have a name or a link please?

And the misdirection video is very good.

[heart]

What sort of missile makes plane shaped holes and dumps landing gear

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/gz-plane-tire.jpg

and a large part of a jet engine

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/images2/wtc9.jpg

into the street?

Did i mention the fuselage piece

http://www.jonesreport.com/images/050906wflight1752.jpg



?

[veritas2007]

What sort of missile makes plane shaped holes and dumps landing gear, and a large part of a jet engine into the street?

Did i mention the fuselage piece

?

They are indeed valid questions and the mysteries surrounding that day raise so many. I am ruling nothing out at this stage of my research. One thing I am clear on though; that the NWO are capable of almost anything. In a world of misdirection and double talk, everything has to be taken into consideration.

IMHO.

[synak]

What sort of missile makes plane shaped holes and dumps landing gear

and a large part of a jet engine


Maybe....

Aircraft wreckage at ground zero is meaningless. They could have already been in one of the unoccupied floors of the towers prior to the attacks.

[clint web]

This is a massive COINTELPRO campaign, please be careful here as it works in favour of the NWO. Please don't spread this shi+t.

[heart]

The large jet engine part was found a considerable distance away from the towers it certainly did not just fall with the buildings. The part landed on a corner between Murray and a street i cant remember the name of. Look on Google maps to see how far Murray is at the closest from ground zero.

Heres some more bits of a jet engine.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/911-14.jpg

[geo2]

Murray St...it's only about 3short blocks as i recall or so....pre-placed/push-out 'junk' 4the the TV 'junkies'.....just like 'Atta's passport.................:rolleyes:

[picha]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RhLeS9slszI/AAAAAAAAAMs/gbxz03jyNgc/s1600-h/44.jpgIf dews werent used, then explain the wilted fire truck:

[helloperator]

How many people were lost their lives on the street from impact debris?

[john white]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RhLeS9slszI/AAAAAAAAAMs/gbxz03jyNgc/s1600-h/44.jpgIf dews werent used, then explain the wilted fire truck:

There is no wilted Fire truck: its a fire truck that suffered a blaze and was crushed by falling debris

Judy Wood's theories are a farce

[boots]

NPT I dont think so. It's pure cointelpro why would they risk putting in holograms but only to discredit the true movement to waste 2 planes { military planes] means nothing to these bastards. Who said there were any passages any way, the flight list's could have been faked and the hole in the towers look like the shape of a plane. To fool that may people in NYC would have been to risky:(dont forget when you have an object travelling at 700 plus kph it will demolish any structure and look as though it disappears into the object it is hitting thats the law of pyshics. The Dark Agender are smart and they can fool even the smartest people in this forum:(

[barbitone]

dont forget when you have an object travelling at 700 plus kph it will demolish any structure and look as though it disappears into the object it is hitting thats the law of pyshics.

:D

[adimon]

i saw on tv when the first plane went in

Are you telling me you saw the first plane hit live on TV? :confused:

[narcolepticwatchman]

(dont forget when you have an object travelling at 700 plus kph it will demolish any structure and look as though it disappears into the object it is hitting thats the law of pyshics.

Yeah right.

800 KM/H CRASH TEST. PLANE AGAINST WALL - YouTube

Looks like you should study physics again bro.

Notice the explosion UPON impact. Flames. Where were they on 9/11??

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

How many people were lost their lives on the street from impact debris?

Good question. I only know of a woman who was bathed in the burning fuel that cascaded from the Tower to the street below.

She was at a Bus stop. She survived only a few weeks and succumbed despite excellent treatment at Westchester County Burn Unit. A Hospital specialising in Burn injuries.

At that time of day, the streets and sidewalks are dense with pedestrians and vehicles.

Thus all the 'Eye-Witness' reports of Aerocrafts Aloft on Intercept Trajectories with Stationary Structures.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[howie]

The videos shown on CNN & Fox/ITN showing the "nose-out" are fake.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3930/13e635030wh0.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2109/noseout3e61f860gl2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9966/whathole3e60fc5dvb8.jpg

[dave52]

Are you telling me you saw the first plane hit live on TV? :confused:

Yeah, it was just GWB and Gremlin. Everyone else had to wait an entire day...
:D

[jerichoforce]

me reckons they were pockets of collective airliner fart juice summoned forth by techno vikings :rolleyes:

[boots]

The plane that hit the tower was fuelled up not like the Tomcat on the video. As for the flames you can see the telltail signs of a kero burn black smoke. The building was'nt solid concrete?

[challand]

This thread is blatent dis-information designed and propagated to make us look like fools.

[gordonfreeman]

dis-info or not, the Elite are way too intelligent and evil. They can fool us so easily.

[boots]

This thread is blatent dis-information designed and propagated to make us look like fools.

I get that feeling too lets all stick to the facts [so we wont get fooled again]:eek:

[teslafire]

I think its a very good idea to stick to the facts.

Why do you see nose-outs on the original footage from that day?

[challand]

Nose-outs?

[boots]

Thats not the facts I'm referring too teslafire you know what I mean. It was an inside job.thats it plain and simple

[teslafire]

@challand

The 'nose-outs' refer to the plane being able to penetrate the building and
have its nose, still perfectly intact, puncture through the other side.

If you think this is physically possible then you believe that actual planes hit the towers.

I don't know how you missed this following post or how you don't know what 'nose out' refers to, but here you go anyways:

The videos shown on CNN & Fox/ITN showing the "nose-out" are fake.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3930/13e635030wh0.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2109/noseout3e61f860gl2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9966/whathole3e60fc5dvb8.jpg

Thats not the facts I'm referring too teslafire you know what I mean. It was an inside job.thats it plain and simple

Stick with the facts, go from there. You sound like you are trying to protect something...the integrity and mass support of the 9/11 truth movement would be my hazarded guess.

Right, well, who's to blame for the inside job then?

[john white]

Hmmm... well firstly, the exit hole is just to the "10 o'clock" position of the blue circle and can be discerned where a beam is seen projecting outwards

There is no "nose out" the claim is a gross misrepresentation of what is in fact the doem of the fireball surrounding the engine as it exits the building

As for facts and evidence, the entire "No Planes" argument has now been thoroughly exposed as an act of fraud

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564

Ignoring the thread does not, of course, make the facts go away

So as for "people sounding like they are trying to protect something"...

Well protecting their right not to agree with a bunch of bs propogated by fakers seems reasonable to me

[boots]

No telsafire I will not play these games of[protect the truth movement] thats not my agender. Facts are facts as john white points out the nose out is the engine exsiting the building sounds like you might have been doing some nose cones LOL ha ha. But seriously who do you think would pull this off and then fool smart people like yourself with cleaver dis info? trust your intuition Bro.

[teslafire]

Discussion of angles and improbable camera zooms aside explain why just after the nose-out there is a live TV fade to black...

(here's the original video btw
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.)

[boots]

lt,s the engine coming out the other side man 1 channel shows a blackout and the others dont so what's the point. l'll tell what it's about lt's dis-info from September clues.

[barbitone]

What's all this about dis-info? No planes theory is probably a bit of an advanced situation for people that don't research all this underground information so much, so it would be best not to put the theory on the fore-front of the movement, absolutely, but I'm not in favor of all this anti dis-info stuff. It just divides us.....

Conclusion of mine:

No planes theory - Shouldn't be dismissed, yet shouldn't be promoted to people that aren't already aware of the conspiracy. I would put it in the section; advanced theory (after the fact).....

Lets just take a deep breathe and step back shall we?

I agree that NPT should not be put forward as a primary theory.
I disagree that we should be waging info wars against people that are putting theories forward that ultimately agree with the general stance just because you want to make up for other peoples own (possible) reception of the information.

Peace my friends.
We all want the same thing so lets just get on with it...:)

[teslafire]

t,s the engine coming out the other side man 1 channel shows a blackout and the others dont so what's the point.

For that to have happened, the engine would have to come off, go through the debris and emerge through the other side at the same velocity as if it had no resistance and the same trajectory as the hunk of metal it purportedly just separated from.

[john white]

For that to have happened, the engine would have to come off, go through the debris and emerge through the other side at the same velocity as if it had no resistance and the same trajectory as the hunk of metal it purportedly just separated from.

No it wouldnt: and the news is, that the right hand engine on the WTC2 impact had a clear passage through office void space, and its own momentive force to keep it zipping along as the wing sheared where the main body impacted the central core

There's nothing even remotely hard about it to understand!

[john white]

I would put it in the section; advanced theory (after the fact).....


What is the point of an advanced theory based on fruadulently manipulated evidence? I understand what your saying, but NPT doesnt deserve the "don't dismiss it" status when everything that's been put forward to try and prove it is a crock: at what point do we say "actually this "advanced theory" is pointless, becuase there simply no likelyhood of it being true"

[barbitone]

and the news is, that the right hand engine on the WTC2 impact had a clear passage through office void space

What news is this?

Didn't the engine already sheer right through solid steel frame? Should slow down a bit though shouldn't it?

I'm not arguing on any side of the theory.
I'm just genuinely asking these specific questions in light of your reply.:)

[john white]

What news is this?

Didn't the engine already sheer right through solid steel frame? Should slow down a bit though shouldn't it?

I'm not arguing on any side of the theory.
I'm just genuinely asking these specific questions in light of your reply.:)

Well it got fucked up, yes, but a titanium rolls royce engine is not easily stopped! it was an incandescant fireball when it emerged from the other side, and exploded into three seperate segments on the way down... the part that hit the street, for example, is an internal part, not the outside

The thing is, when the footage called "the nose out" is presented in low res with 75% of the frames stripped out and stopped literally on the microsecond where it would become clear that actually, no this is not a "nose cone" error but an event captured from mulitply consistant angles we gotta ask: which is more likely? a truth that can only be told shrouded in decepetion or and spin, or the observable, the likely and the obvious with evidence from multiple sources to back it up? (the second part is the engine explanation btw)

[teslafire]

: and the news is, that the right hand engine on the WTC2 impact had a clear passage through office void space

Did you remote view that one, White?

and its own momentive force to keep it zipping along as the wing sheared where the main body impacted the central core

There's nothing even remotely hard about it to understand!

Psst, it would have changed trajectory after impact..not only that, but the smaller piece of metal (smaller mass) would've traveled perceptibly slower than the rest of the plane.

;)

[barbitone]

Is the "nose out" footage different to the original from the network then?
Has it been altered?

Have you got a link to the unaltered version at all?

[john white]

Did you remote view that one, White?

No, I researched it. The design of the twin towers is a well established matter of record, as is exactly where the PLANE hit WTC2 and the angle involved. Clearly the RH Engine could not hit the core and oh look! There it is coming out the other side! (right on the corner for the exit hole btw, as weve covered so many times before)

In the meanwhile, something else for you to play with, might snap you out of it, we never know!

September Clues - Busted!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Ah excellent, anthony's got it finished

check this comment:

plufiffer
6 hours ago Mark as Spam
this video thuroughly destroys the september clues series, which i had been foolish enough to take seriously before i saw this video.
To the creator of this video, great job exposing and destroying the deceptive liars who push september clues

Nice one matey

[teslafire]

@barbitone
What is linked on the last page is the original footage. ;)

[john white]

Is the "nose out" footage different to the original from the network then?
Has it been altered?

Have you got a link to the unaltered version at all?

It's been altered in that the resolution and the number of frames has been reduced considerably, and its edited with a distinct aim to decieve.

I'm sure I can find some better footage somewhere, theres loads of threads on the uk 9/11 forum www.nineeleven.co.uk

In the meanwhile, why not check out the new film (half an hour) linked above?

[john white]

9/11 ● Investigation ~ WTC 2 Plane Impact : Annotated & in 3D(3D sucks) - YouTube


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


South Tower Impact from North East - YouTube

There's some other views of the same event

[adimon]

As for facts and evidence, the entire "No Planes" argument has now been thoroughly exposed as an act of fraud


Hi JW

What about the analysis of the Fox footage, and the fact there is no plane in the wide shot, when several researchers have calculated independently that there would be?

For that to have happened, the engine would have to come off, go through the debris and emerge through the other side at the same velocity as if it had no resistance and the same trajectory as the hunk of metal it purportedly just separated from.

Yes, I agree. For the engine to go through so cleanly without much reduction in speed seems highly dubious.

No-one has commented much on NarcolepticWatchman's clip posted several pages ago? :confused:

No it wouldnt: and the news is, that the right hand engine on the WTC2 impact had a clear passage through office void space, and its own momentive force to keep it zipping along as the wing sheared where the main body impacted the central core

There's nothing even remotely hard about it to understand!

OK, but why is there no crumpling upon impact at all to the wings and the other non-titanium components?

It's been altered in that the resolution and the number of frames has been reduced considerably, and its edited with a distinct aim to decieve.

I'm sure I can find some better footage somewhere, theres loads of threads on the uk 9/11 forum www.nineeleven.co.uk

In the meanwhile, why not check out the new film (half an hour) linked above?

I will look at the film JW. Could you please answer my questions though? Cheers.

[john white]

We are deaing with a Plane impacting on a 200ft wide tower at 570mph: exactly how much would we expect to see? How many frames of video footage should be captured? How long should it take for debris to exit the other side of the tower? These are the basic questions that have to be answered before any claim of irregularity in how much collision detail is captured on film and how debris could be expected to exit could be answered: but they never are by NPT: its always "seems to" and "appears": its all, in fact, suggestion. add on compression effects and resolution issues, and its no suprise the plane can be claimed to just melt into the building etc. How much time would there be to observe any crumpling, across how many frames of footage on a video camera usually shooting 24 frames per second? The same people often claim there was no debris. Is that really the case?

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2976/tower2impactalthj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I'm just gonna leave that open to be pondered upon for now

Meanwhile adimon, your point raised about the approach footage is an interesting one, as you'll find that convincingly debunked in anthony's film

[adimon]

Meanwhile adimon, your point raised about the approach footage is an interesting one, as you'll find that convincingly debunked in anthony's film

I've just watched the Lawson vid. Very interesting. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced by it either. Btw, I wasn't 'convinced' by NPT either. I think there is interesting ideas in both Lawson and September Clues. I disagree with the notion which Lawson, among others, and presumably you too JW, that any concept or video is a waste of energies, or disinfo, or whatever.

I think it's good to have a look at all vids and theories in order to make your research complete. This was my approach on JFK, and probably the reason why I'm currently debating Greer on my JFK thread! It really is discussion of the finer details that moves the truth movement forward IMO.

My current problem is seeing how the plane penetrated the steel walls without any noticeable crumpling. Some of the vids show the whole plane going inside before any explosion occurs. That doesn't seem right to me.

Then of course, we have the whole debate about why the buildings fell. Do those who believe in planes hitting WTC believe the buildings fells as a result of fire? Do they believe a PLANE hit the Pentagon?

Just wanna hear people's thoughts, cheers. :)

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations Adimon:

Have you read the book: 'Men of Steel'?

Written by Karl Koch lll, scion of a Steel Erection Company from Da Bronx. The Koch Steel Company erected the Steel for the Towers.

A definitive book of the construction of the Towers, which was performed publicly, with thousands of witnesses and participants.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[adimon]

Have you read the book: 'Men of Steel'?

Not yet, but it is actually on my reading list. Can you summarise what conclusions it has helped you draw?

I have watched various documentaries on the construction and they vary in their approach and conclusions. Certainly I think there are lots of clues in the construction.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations Adimon:

My 30 years of Experience as Heavy Construction Labourer in NYC is my Bedrock Database for forming my conclusions.

Rock Socket Caissons: EVERY Vertical Column sat on a Rock Socket Caisson. Troof-Seekers must find and post a Map/Blueprint of the Rock Socket Caissons.

Any Reinforced Concrete Core was more a 'Retaining' Wall, Barrier Wall, around the Core Area filled with Box Columns.

Probably according to Fire Codes for Building Safety. 'Burn Through Rate'.

Urban Legend: Ever since the '93 attack, the intent of which, was to 'Topple' a Tower. The Legend is: The Towers where then, 1993>....., 'fitted' with neccessary 'technology' to 'drop' the Towers into their Basements.

I do think: The 'Ball' is moving, slowly, down the Field.

And as you Sagely noted: All thoughts must be examined.

I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999% sure a Boeing Airliner did not hit the Pentagon.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[adimon]

Cordial Felicitations Adimon:

My 30 years of Experience as Heavy Construction Labourer in NYC is my Bedrock Database for forming my conclusions.

Rock Socket Caissons: EVERY Vertical Column sat on a Rock Socket Caisson. Troof-Seekers must find and post a Map/Blueprint of the Rock Socket Caissons.

Any Reinforced Concrete Core was more a 'Retaining' Wall, Barrier Wall, around the Core Area filled with Box Columns.

Probably according to Fire Codes for Building Safety. 'Burn Through Rate'.

Urban Legend: Ever since the '93 attack, the intent of which, was to 'Topple' a Tower. The Legend is: The Towers where then, 1993>....., 'fitted' with neccessary 'technology' to 'drop' the Towers into their Basements.

I do think: The 'Ball' is moving, slowly, down the Field.

And as you Sagely noted: All thoughts must be examined.

I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999% sure a Boeing Airliner did not hit the Pentagon.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

I thank you and respect all that you have written, but you are being a bit too cryptic for me as regards the construction of WTC1&2.

I take it you're talking about controlled demolition, but what is your view on what happened? And what does this mean for NPT?

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations Adimon:

Had to take a Work break, hence delay in reply.

As for constuction of the Towers, the book: 'Men of Steel' covers that in depth by the very people who erected the Steel.

The Towers & their construction were very innovative.

The 'thrust' of my intention about the Caissons: Every vertical Column would have sat on a Rock Socket Caisson.

Find the Plans for the Foundation, count the Caissons in the Core Area, this will inform you how many vertical Columns were in the Core. This will validate or invalidate the 'Concrete Core' Theory.

A Concrete Core would have neccessitated one King Hell Footing.

There would be a Plan for this, if this is the case.

I tend to agree with Dr. Griffiths(?) Theory: Thermate

The Urban Legend provides a 7+ years window of opportunity to place charges. Plenty of time for even Government Work.

The removal of the Steel is suspicious:

Trucked away and shipped to China without forensic investigation. Even the venerable Journal of FireFighters & Fire Safety Proffessionals: 'Fire Engineering' were amazed by how the Steel was removed and destroyed.

The Concrete Core and No Planes are Theories I do not embrace as concerns the WTC Towers.

I know personally the Engineer who did the Ground Survey work for the layout of the WTC.

I will attempt to interview him about the Core Area.

After the First of the Year, I shall also interview members of the Steel & Iron Workers Unions, and also the Labourers Union that would have done the Rock Socket Caissons.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[thirdwave]

this thread has been split into two threads... the other being "Official story true" ..by request..

[helloperator]

I didn't like the tone of voice in the Busted video. Disprove a theory, don't be smug and pseudo funny or condescending while you do. Just outline the facts and get off.

[penfoldhearts]

No, I researched it. The design of the twin towers is a well established matter of record, as is exactly where the PLANE hit WTC2 and the angle involved. Clearly the RH Engine could not hit the core and oh look! There it is coming out the other side! (right on the corner for the exit hole btw, as weve covered so many times before)
Do you mean this corner?
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/31_NIST_leak-resized.jpg

I don't think so, because there's also no hole, where it could have gone through.

[masonfree party]

No, I researched it. The design of the twin towers is a well established matter of record, as is exactly where the PLANE hit WTC2 and the angle involved. Clearly the RH Engine could not hit the core and oh look! There it is coming out the other side! (right on the corner for the exit hole btw, as weve covered so many times before)

In the meanwhile, something else for you to play with, might snap you out of it, we never know!

ANTHONEY LAWSON= ESTABLISHMENT SHILL

[ukor]

Mason Free Party = No argument, just character attacks

[masonfree party]

ukor...you're obviously new to researching 911 hence this disinfo link Black boxes were reportedly found at the WTC and subsequently 'disappeared'.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

next time try going to a proper 911 truth site like http://www.checktheevidence.com

[ukor]

ukor...you're obviously new to researching 911 hence this disinfo link Black boxes were reportedly found at the WTC and subsequently 'disappeared'.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

next time try going to a proper 911 truth site like http://www.checktheevidence.com

AFP has had some questionable links but nevertheless, I think I'll tend to believe inteviews with workers who were actually at ground zero rather than Andrew 'no planes' Johnson's hobby conspiracy site, thanks.

[davidm]

I looked deep into the no-plane-topic and I have to agree, that there wasn't a single plane hitting anything. Only the planes that flew over the scene at the same moment. But this might be a bit too much, when you want to tell someone, with no clue, the truth about 911, so we hide how badly staged it actually was, and pretend there were planes for a moment.

[davidm]

PS: this "september clues busted" video is stupid. It only busts some of the small things, but ignores many of the big ones.