The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think

Evidence

1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am (see Team8plus.org)

2) the footage of "flight 175" hitting the south tower is clearly fake (planes shouldn't slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact; the explosion takes place too far from where the plane impacted; there are videos that show contradicting flight paths; all the videos have a flat cartoonish character; the plane never has any significant detail; other camera oddities (see 911hoax.com))

3) in the footage of the first and second hits on the towers, the "planes" slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics (unless the planes completely disintegrated upon impact-- but then they wouldn't have left plane-shaped holes)

4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It's not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed-- NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions. (the rumor that black boxes were found and kept secret is likely a psy-op meant to prop up the planes story)

5) plane wings shouldn't slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint (certainly if plane wings could easily cut through steel columns and floor slabs, it is not clear why the planes didn't pass all the way through the towers)

6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble-- when the rubble was SIFTED for human remains (see the book "9.11 Revealed")

7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but never saw a plane

8) plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used?

9) a very good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville-- very little to no clear plane debris, suspicious (too small) holes

10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes the way they did according to the official story


Logistically, for a false-flag operation:

1) using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes and managing a real hijacking situation

2) having no planes avoids problems with air traffic controllers seeing something they shouldn't see (for instance if there was a plane-swap)

3) having no planes is the easiest way to avoid military interception, and much easier than a stand-down that would involve thousands of military personnel

4) psy-ops effect of the attacks is stronger if it defies a certain logic (the bizarre plane crashes)

5) having the media distribute a set of fake videos of the south tower hit is sufficient to plant the meme

6) having the media complicit in the operation helps ensure that they won't question the event

7) "big lies" (such that there were no planes) are often more effective than smaller lies (i.e. planes were used but they were controlled by remote control)

8) the paradigm shift required for people to question whether real planes were used in the attack helps keep the actual nature of the event hidden and the perpetrators safe




Evidence that planes were used:

1) the gov't told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact

2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles

3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears to show a plane hitting the North tower

4) witnesses claim to have seen planes

5) a small number of plane parts were found at each crash locale

Counter arguments to "evidence that planes were used":

1) gov't and media often work togehter and lie together

2) yes, this was how they planted the meme that planes were used

3) the footage is blurry and what hits the tower is not clear

4) some witnesses were planted as part of the operation; other witnesses may have seen a missile flying in the air; eyewitnesses may hvae seen a plane that happpened to fly by at the same time as the event occurred; possibly some sort of high-techhologram-cloaked missile were used instead of planes; in any case, eyewitnesses are of course notoriously unreliable

5) some plane parts were planted to support the idea that planes were used


Summary

The idea that no planes were used in 9/11-- that the crashes were faked with bombs and missiles-- is clearly counter-intuitive. However, logistically, avoiding the use of planes has many benefits if you presume that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Moreover, there are many pieces of evidence to point to some sort of fakery with regard to the idea that real planes were used.

Note-- real planes may have been used as part of the operation as "fly-bys" -- these would give eye-witnesses something to "grab onto" that they saw a plane that was involved in the event.

Major problem with the no-plane theory-- requires a complicit media and more people involved in the plot. But clearly 9/11 was a huge operation and conceivably many people were willing to lie in service of some operation of which they didn't know the extent. After 9/11, speaking out would mean death.

What this theory DOES explain is the complete inability of the mainstream media to question the official 9/11 story in any way-- because they were in on it!

I think it's pretty accurate to state that nearly no one in the United States, outside of military personnel, has actually seen a missile in flight. On the other hand, I bet 99%+ have seen a commercial airliner in flight. Most of the witnesses describe an airplane and not missile. And some people are so unable to describe what they've seen that they use the wrong words.

(And don't get all prissy on me. We're not talking about missiles like the nuclear missiles in silos or rockets out of Cape Kennedy. We're talking about winged flying machines. Like a tomahawk cruise missile or similiar missile launched from a fighter aircraft.)

About your descriptions on the the tower impacts. Simple physics should show that the planes wouldn't just stop in mid flight upon hitting a building. The kinetic energy would require that the planes continue forward, although they would slow rapidly, as they are resisted by the steel exterior and interior columns. Plus the fact that ignition of the fuel would take time to occur. First the fuel has to atomize enough to ignite and then the fuel has to be consumed. Neither of these are instantaneous activities.

The videos look like crap because they're extremelly compressed, either at the source or in the process of making available on the web. I have seen very little video that's of a file size that indicates anything close to full resolution. It would be interesting to get a non-web copy of some of the CNN footage of the second plane impacting the WTC. Also, most of the camera views are very far away from the action. That's due to several reasons. The fact that the towers were so high makes getting a good close up view hard to get. It's easier to get a distant view. Also, a lot of the network feeds were probably taken by cameras located in midtown, where the next highest buildings are. None of the video was taken at a distance that we're used to seeing on TV. Just look at how close cameras are located to the subjects in a studio. Christ - some of the photos argued about were taken from either NJ or Brooklyn. The Hudson is over a mile wide. Even the Brooklyn end of the Battery Tunnel is over a mile away from the WTC site.

Elsewhere in the 911 forum I linked to two high resolution still photos of the second plane. If you look at those, the detail of the UA plane is pretty amazing. But those two files are 18 MB apiece.

The planes didn't leave perfect impacts like you're saying. They match the general outline of the aircraft (approximate wing span, approximate fuselage diameter, approximate engine locations). They certainly don't make the approximate shape of a cruise missile, or anything other than an B-767 type of aircraft.

Tell me, what makes a particular piece of airplane part "look planted". Hell, everything can be said to be "planted". The engine pictured on the NY street doesn't look any more planted than the street sign next to it. Except for the fact that you expect a street sign and don't expect an engine there. Without finding detailed technical documents that probably aren't available on the web, it looks like the central core of a high bypass engine. Doesn't make it so, but it looks like one.

You know, everyone throws out these "high tech" holograms / faked videos lines of thought. But the simplest "high tech" theory is never mentioned. That the hijackers knew enough about the autopilot that they were able to program in a GPS Latitude / Longitude coordinate for either tower. And then activate the autopilot and let the machine fly you straight into the building. A person with little or no english skills and little or no flying ability can be taught to program an autopilot. After all, the equipment is made to be easily used with a little training.

Now, I'm not saying that the entire official explanation is the way things went down. I think it's nearly criminal that the FAA and military took so long to respond. And I'd love to see more camera footage of the Pentagram crash. Even if it doesn't show much. But it's taken so long for any of this information to come out that the conspiracy folks will never accept the evidence, if for no other reason that it took time to come out. I sure wish that the NTSB could release an accident investigtion on the PA crash.

This:

is a photo of something OTHER than a big ol' jet airliner with a wingspan 3/4 the width of the Tower.
Agreed?

is a photo that has either been intentionally distorted, or was already so distorted that making any sort of judgment from it is unwarranted.

... along with all the other frames at
http://missilegate.com

This is public domain. You can get the DVD and see it for yourself. I would be interested in your proof that it's been retouched. I think "distorted" is simply your way of saying it's showing you something that contradicts your preconceived notion of what it should be showing.

Here is an enlargement for comparison...



...to your "ice cubes" picture:



I do agree with trotsky's assessment that the pictures are not of sufficient quality to make judgments based on them.

- Make7

The set of four Flash Frame images from missilegate:
http://missilegate.com/051.htm

includes this UNenhanced frame from the Naudet dvd:


Even in your blurrier version, how can you say that thing even might have a 767's wingspan equal to about 3/4 of the Tower width? Whatever it is, you could put four or five of them side by side and still not cover the whole Tower width.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Which was that the picture you posted is not of sufficient quality to base any judgments on it whatsoever. And I agree with that assessment. There is nowhere near an adequate amount of resolution within that particular picture to determine the dimensions of the "object" in question.

- Make7

when well over half of the Tower's width, looking just like all the rest of the Tower surface, is visible to the object's left and right?

http://missilegate.com/051.htm

then I think you should get an immediate eye exam instead of posting anything more here.



http://missilegate.com/051.htm

I thought since the point had already been made, you would understand that I was referring to the "object" which you believe is shown to be too small in the picture. In light of the question of yours in the post to which I responded, I believed that the meaning of my reply would be sufficiently clear. Apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.

To clarify, here is one example of my previous statements:


You did not seem to acknowledge this argument when it was presented before, therefore I see very little reason to believe that you will recognize the obvious deficiencies in trying to use that picture to analyze the "object" to which you have been referring.

- Make7

"There is nowhere near an adequate amount of resolution within that particular picture to determine the dimensions of the 'object' in question."

I ask again, do you not see Tower surface to the left and right of the object, looking just like all the other surface of both Towers, and easily exceeding half of the Tower width, thus implying the object was easily less than half the Tower width, and in particular could not have been something with an approx. 150 ft. wingspan when the Tower was only approx. 200 ft. wide?

It's no wider than the little street sign!

Oh, that's right - there is an 'object'. Perhaps the statement of mine that you quoted in your post would be a clue as to whether or not I believe there is an object visible: ""There is nowhere near an adequate amount of resolution within that particular picture to determine the dimensions of the 'object' in question." Notice how I said that there was an object in that sentence.

Let me ask you this - using the picture shown below, what is the exact number of perimeter columns that are spanned by that object horizontally?



- Make7

but I don't happen to know how many columns wide the tower was.

Now how many more questions of yours do I have to answer before you'll answer mine, which was, can't you see over half of the tower width visible to the object's left plus right, putting the object at less than half the tower width wide, whereas a 767 is 3/4 of a WTC tower wide?

Why are you insisting on changing the unit of comparison from FEET (in which we know both the measurements, 767 vs. Tower) to COLUMNS (in which we don't)?

Here is a picture of the towers:



Just count the number of perimeter columns.

And then count how many are spanned horizontally by the 'object'.

I believe that this will be a very good method to determine the width of the 'object' since we can easily look up the distance between adjacent perimeter columns.

So - how many columns are spanned by the 'object'?

- Make7

now purport to be able to discern individual PERIMETER COLUMNS in the photo?! Wait, actually you don't purport to be able to do so. You just challenge ME to discern and count perimeter columns. Cute diversion attempt.

To my eye, the Tower width (a concept you must grant since you ask me to count how many columns are in it) would easily exceeds four copies of the object (another concept you must grant since you ask me to count how many columns wide it is too) laid side by side. But easily not eight.

That is, to my eye,
8 object widths > 1 Tower width > 4 object widths

That is,
I am saying the object width looks more than 12.5% of the Tower width but less than 25% of the Tower width.

What upper and lower bounds do YOU place on the object/Tower width ratio?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

which is,
How many side-to-side Object copies would equal Tower width?

Fair enough? Or do you think questions are a one way street where you get to ask as many as you want without having to answer any in return?

... to that picture. When trotsky responded after you first posted your 'ice cubes' picture, he commented on it by saying, ".. making any sort of judgment from it is unwarranted." And I very much agree with him - that picture does not allow enough detail to be seen about the 'object' in order to make any conclusions regarding its dimensions. You have not responded with any sort of reasoning or evidence to show that the picture actually does show enough information to reach the conclusion that you have made.

My questioning has been related to this original point concerning the lack of quality shown by that picture negating the usefulness of any measurements made from it. Unless you can show some reason why dimensions measured using that photo can even come close to being accurate, asking me to make my own measurements is not very reasonable considering the fact that you are still failing to take into account that I don't think any measurements that can be made are useful or representative of the actual object.

It would sort of be like asking an atheist how tall he believes God is. First you must convince him that there is a God, and then ask him how tall God might be.

If you do not wish to answer my questions, you are more than free to ignore them. But I should think that anyone who has read the conversation up to this point already knows the answer to my last query. Just because you choose not to respond doesn't mean that the answer is not known.

- Make7

where that picture came from since no one (except for one long distance at the last moment) so where does this picture of the north tower come from? fakery perhaps?

It's called the Naudet 1st Hit film, aka the Fireman's Video. It was taken from 7/10ths of a mile away at the intersection of Church and Lispenard Streets. No one disputes this. You just hadn't heard of it yet.

Full frame-by-frame sequence at
http://missilegate.com

yes i have heard of it, never seen a close up shot of it.

do you agree it must be something OTHER than a photo of a big ol' jet airliner with a wingspan 3/4 the width of the Tower?

"Elsewhere in the 911 forum I linked to two high resolution still photos of the second plane. If you look at those, the detail of the UA plane is pretty amazing. But those two files are 18 MB apiece."

These are some very good photographs. They leave little doubt as to the paint scheme matching United Airlines, down to the logo on the tail.

NTSB was excluded from the investigations of the 9/11 crashes.

They have an unfortunate tendency to assemble the crash pieces into a reconstuction of the aircraft.

Couldn't have that. After all, we knew why they crashed. Right?

Yet again, this bears repeating ..

http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

I don't understand why you think it would be so difficult to fly a plane into the largest structure on the East coast. The WTC is easily located by "IFR", I follow river. I hope that SAIC doesn't rely on physics911 as a research tool.

Strange how this witness who was in the South Tower and who was looking to North Manhattan did not see Mohammed Atta's flying circus!

Got to my desk at 8:45, got a cup of coffee, went to sit at my desk and my office faces north. And I remember looking out the window, commenting what a beautiful morning it is and 'cause I could see the George Washington Bridge from my office. And right before my eyes the building just exploded looking at it. I didn't see the plane hit but I saw the building just go up.
http://www.documentnewyork.com/story.php?primaryKey=51

Maybe it was because he was looking down, whereas the aircraft was above him.

So let's take a witness who was practically underneath "fl175" and who was "looking up" at the WTC at the time of the explosion and has a photo to prove it.

Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318

Check out this witness..............

But in that first instant, it was fast. A glimpse. A SPEEDING BLACK PROJECTILE, MAYBE TWO, shooting from left to right into the side of World Trade Center One. An instant later the sonic noise crescendoing in an enraged screaming roar of explosion. An orange plume bursting from the face of the tower like the blossom of a carnation.

Then the second explosion. This time, I didn't see the plane; the impact took place much lower, which gave it the appearance of being less severe. But it was then, that moment, that emotions became unhinged.



http://www.contactpressimages.com/sept11/wtc_journal.html

Tell me somethin' Kev..........

How does the silver fuselage of AA11 change to black?

I have an in-built distrust for anyone who can craft a sentence like, "An
orange plume bursting from the face of the tower like the blossom of a
carnation." He can't even remember how many things hit the North Tower. As
far as I can see, he seems to think something hit the North Tower. Do you?
If not, why are you quoting him?

Here's an AA plane:

.....of the belly of the plane is a piss poor excuse...

Here..chew on this image of Atta's flyin' circus approaching WTC1:



Gee.....I never knew 9/11/01 was such a cloudy day!

Face it......certain images are pure bullshit...like the one above.

It's obviously a fake - the plane is approaching the wrong tower from the wrong direction in the wrong sort of weather. The website doesn't even contain a discussion of it or a claim that it is real, as far as I could find.

In an interview in his office the Governor related he was at a meeting of his cabinet on Sept 11th. “Word came in dribs and drabs,” he said, referring to the news updates. “The first picture literally looked like a small plane went into the World Trade Center, it was an AP wire photo.”

“We knew that the first plane was a commercial airliner and then we saw the second plane,” he recounted. “My brother was here in Florida. So I was worried about him, I was worried about my whole family and I was just angry that something like this could happen to our great country.”
http://www.info-strategies.com/articles/climate21.htm.

I clicked on the link, it said "Jewish Single Dating". What gives?

In an interview in his office the Governor related he was at a meeting of his cabinet on Sept 11th. “Word came in dribs and drabs,” he said, referring to the news updates. “The first picture literally looked like a small plane went into the World Trade Center, it was an AP wire photo.”


http://mindlace.com/articles/climate21.htm

Was this the ap wire photo in question?



If so......it was obviously fake.....which is alarming considering it was released as events were unfolding.

... the link doesn't contain the photo and the photo doesn't match the description, which is of a hole - there is no hole is visible in the photo. Why on earth would that be the AP wire photo in question?

But then again......

Something allowed people in Sarsota to witness "stuff".

ws at work in a building right behind the Sarasota, Florida, airport and President Bush was in town speaking to school children. As I passed in front of the television in the employee lounge, I saw the tape of the first plane going into the World Trade Center. As we all stood there, we watched the second plane. I was frozen because my boyfriend from Long Island was on a cross country plane that morning.


http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=58174&start=320

where the approach path differs to the building. There are other anomalies as well, for instance, the timing is off in some videos where the plane enters too early for the explosion. The bottom line is the whole thing looks like cheap CGI. There really isn't much doubt if you analyze the videos carefully.

If the planes were run by GPS and autopilot, why did flight 175 take such a circuitous route, and why did it turn at the last second?

Yes, the plane should slow very rapidly, but it doesn't AT ALL. That is a problem. Explosions typically occur immediately as well, in a fraciton of a second. The plane should have exploded upon impact.

I would like to see your 18 MB photos of the planes, could you provide the links?

Lots of people think it's weird, they don't want to say anything because they will be called crazy.

doesn't make much sense to me.

we get attacked for it.

WARNING! The following links are to 18 Mb photos. Not dial-up friendly.

?pic
?pic

- Make7

but I must say I disagree. I really only have one question for you. Where were you on 9-11-01 and did you see the plane crash into the tower live? Either in person or on TV.

Operation Northwoods?

but I do understand the pretext and am familiar with black-ops from my study of the JFK case. Here's the thing with me. I get bothered when somebody say's no-plane hit the building. I watched it with my own two eye's. Where there people on the plane? I don't know, but please don't tell me a plane didn't fly into that building.

Black-ops have been around since the end of WW II, maybe before that. Our intelligence community is VERY good at conducting covert operations. Do they fuck up? Sometimes, especially on long term missions, i.e. Iran/Contra, but for the most part they get away clean.

The reason? They plan not only the mission but the subsequent investigation and cover-up. Who has the evidence? Who conducted the investigation? Who controls the distribution of information?

We can argue till we are blue in the face about planes, no planes, missiles, rockets, explosives, etc. but if they did their jobs well and continue to do their jobs well we will never find out the TRUTH.

in Atlantic City NJ.

......and I like you saw it on TV here in Cambridge(UK).

At the time I never questioned those images until I started to sift through literally 100's of eye witness testimony and started to come across accounts by people who saw the explosion and only an explosion but who imply that just by seeing the explosion.....that they have seen the plane(that caused it)!

Here is an example of a witness who looked from his window/balcony (yeah I know he was in Newark):

And then I saw another flame go up. And from the television I could tell a plane, although I didn’t see the plane had come by to do it.

But look how this same witness then summarises his testimony(at the beginning of his account)!:

Then from the balcony I saw the second plane hit the building.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty12102003.pdf


Now I know there are literally 100's of other eye-witness accounts that are on-line that testify to a plane.....that can bury this kind of testimony that I have shown you above.....

Still..... no stone should be left unturned......and testimony like this should not be marginalized and ignored.

testimony. Myself, like anyone who see's an event live, either on television or in-person has certain aspects that are indelibly burned into their memory. I am certain there are parts of that period that I have forgotten or have no memory of. I could not tell you what color the plane was because it appeared on the screen for just a moment before it hit the south tower.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Two people can watch the same thing happen and give conflicting testimony as to what occurred. It happens all the time. 500 people witness an event, 450 of them give essentially the same statements while the other 50 see something else. Who is lying? Perhaps no one, they each are telling what they remember seeing. Everyone processes information differently, this is what causes the conflict.

When a vast majority of eyewitnesses give essentially the same description of an event, the probability of this being what has happened is proportionately higher then them all being mistaken. This is not to discount the other witnesses statements, but they must be factored in their correct context.

It's very important to remember that we are missing the physical evidence of two of the supposed four jets.

This is a fact. And "the government just isn't showing us because of National Security" doesn't cut it.

I saw nothing live, I was pretty unaware of what was going on until I walked into my class and they told me what happened. I said it sounded like a movie-- that was my first reaction.

As I started looking at the news, I realized how damned weird the whole thing was, but of course was mostly in shock at the whole thing.

I was on my honeymoon in Atlantic City. My wife said, hon a plane hit the World Trade Center. I came out of the bathroom and saw the north tower with smoke pouring out of it. Two thoughts went through my mind, how did the pilot not see that big fucking building and why aren't the sprinklers putting out the fire.
I am sitting on the bed watching this building burning when out of the corner of the screen the second plane comes in and I watched it slam into the south tower. I remember telling my wife, what the fuck is going on. Shocked is a good word.

I do not remember which network I was watching but, all of the feeds show basically the same thing, to think that somehow they were all doctored, to me, is a stretch. To many people would have to be involved to keep Plausible Deniability.

... but I think I'll just start with one point.

You write:
"planes shouldn't slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact"

Why do you think a plane should "explode on contact"? Please answer this question with reference to the materials that comprise the WTC's walls (aluminium, steel, glass) and those that comprise the plane (aluminium, instrumentation, seats, people). I don't see why an aluminium plane should explode on contacting an aluminium/steel/glass facade. Should the explosion not wait until the fuel is spilled and ignites?

I haven't seen it in a while but where's all the glass that should be photogenically flying around?

AFAIK spooked911 thinks the initial explosion was caused by something inside the tower, he isn't arguing that no explosion occurred. I don't see why an explosion inside the tower should result in less glass. More, perhaps, but why less? In any case, on the photos (taken from some way away) I've seen I can't really tell what a specific shard is made of.

I have, including one old geezer who hopped a curb and drove his Lincoln into the plate glass front of a liquor store (wrong pedal, I guess. No injuries.)

Anyway, in every case, a cloud of stuff went flying, including strips of metal, chunks of foam, and a huge spray of sparkly glass.

So where is it?

in any case. It looks like a cannon being fired from within the building. The debris cloud I'm talking about spreads radially from the collision, not laterally behind it.

Strange that the photographer says he has no recollection of taking the picture.

first, the plane would have impacted the core, which was constructed of heavy steel box columns. I don't think the plane would have sliced through these, so it should have exploded after going about one-third of the way in, see here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/02/767-impact-on-south-tower-would-have.html

Why have you got express elevators in your diagram (the first one), when there were no express elevators where the planes hit in either tower?

It makes no difference whether the fuselage hits a floor slab, because it's going to break up anyway, it's important whether the engines hit floor slabs, though.

You've got a picture of a core column, but we don't know which floor it was from and it's hollow inside anyway.

"I don't think the plane would have sliced through these, so it should have exploded after going about one-third of the way in, see here:"
That doesn't make any sense to me. Why are you measuring it from when the nose hits - there's no fuel in the nose? You should be measuring it from when the fuel tanks hit. You don't even mention how many frames it is per second? Would that be 29? Why should it explode after x frames? It's supposed to take a second or two to explode.

within a frame or two.

If you look at this frame-by-frame analysis:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion/
the wing tank should have hit the core by frame 9. We should see an explosion by frame 11 or so.

In any case, why doesn't the plane slow upon impact? Why doesn't it even show any deflection in path or disturbance in its frame? Do you really think the plane's tail will slice into the building like that?

In case you think Webfairy altered the video, here is another source:
http://www.hybrideb.com/content/evidence/strike-two-cnn.avi
and this person promotes the idea that a plane hit.

The express elevator issue is irrelevant, I just got a standard picture of the core.

"It makes no difference whether the fuselage hits a floor slab, because it's going to break up anyway, it's important whether the engines hit floor slabs, though."

What is going to break up-- the floor slab or the fuselage? Either way, why hitting a floor slab slow the plane?

Show me the other plane crash footage where it explodes within 2 frames, whilst also saying how many frames per second there are on the original WTC 2 footage and the other plane crash footage.

Show me any credible claim the plane was going at 600 mph or admit you made it up.

Show me a photo of the building where the plane, including the wingtips and tail, severed the perimeter columns or admit you made that up too.

Both the floor slab and the fuselage should break up. The part of the plane that hits it should slow down. I don't see why it should have a marked effect on the rest of the plane, which should keep travelling in the direction it was going.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

slice the holes so perfectly?

No way they were missiles. Most likely they were cargo planes or empty passenger jets.

The jets will in fact cut through the steel beams. (which in fact proves a jet DIDN'T hit the Pentagon)Lots of inertia!

You also missed a very important point. There is no video evidence of the passengers getting on the supposed jets. VERY IMPORTANT! Couple that with very low pasenger list totals. (you can't make money traveling cross country with half {or more} empty jets)

did you ever see the results of a hurricaine? a piece of straw can get driven thru a tree cleanly. which should win that battle normally? the tree of course. but with enough force the straw goes thru the tree cleanly.

i flew on jet blue recently the day before a blizzard was due to hit NYC and it was about half full (and i made a last minute switch to get on the plane ahead of the storm) planes have flown half full in the past, its part of the reason why these big airlines are in such poor financial shape.

Thanks......you just proved my point!

I hope your boss doesn't get mad?

The fact that "gov't and media often work together and lie together" doesn't prove they did wrt this particular detail.

All that you present is a not very convincing attempt to make "no plane" plausible - but you presented no evidence.

RC planes a la "Northwoods" is much simpler to do then faked *live* MSM broadcasts.

Trying to get ahold of and doctor all of the video is almost impossible. How do you know there isn't somebody with a camera on a rooftop somewhere who's film would show no plane just an explosion.

It is much easier, for the planners, to use RC planes. Please do not confuse this administration with the planners of this. The idea for this came from the administration but the plan, did not.

is anyone else tired of your BS?

i have been for a long time. i like that you post a lot, but man - you're really full of it. you know it and most people here with half a brain know it.

so why don't you slow down a little and try to introduce some real meainingful BS into your stew... try working in how JFK had a role in 9/11... i know you can do it, mon.

let er rip!!!!!!!

b.

So why do you stay?

Is it your job?

If there are points in the OP you disagree with, point them out to the author. Provide your evidence that the points he is making are incorrect. This is a civil forum, conducted between intelligent adults. From the look of your post I believe you are in the wrong group.

The Comic Book Group is in the DU Groups, under Personal Intrests.

sorry they are not deep enough for you.

:)

swiped the outer wall at 600 mph, would you expect the wing to:
1) cut through the outer steel columns
2) cut through the outer steel columns without the plane slowing?

what the videos show is the plane smashing full-speed into the WTC, the plane does not slow at ALL yet the plane disappears inside-- then we see an explosion occur on the other side of the building and no more plane.

But the plane leaves a plane-shaped hole where it went in-- even the very wing-tips of the plane cut through steel columns.

So the plane SLICED into a steel building at full speed. It completely disappeared inside after cutting a shape of itself through steel and concrete. We never see the plane lose any integrity outside the building. But apparently the plane disintegrated once inside?

This makes no sense.

If the plane can slice into the building full speed and disappear inside, why can't it simply slice ALL the way through the building?

The length of a 767 (160 feet) is about 3/4 of the width of the WTC (208 feet).

The plane seems to cleanly go into the building for its complete length, but then COMPLETELY breaks apart in the last 50 feet?


The only way this could happen at all is if the plane hit something inside the building that was much harder than the outer wall and floor slabs-- perhaps the core structure with its huge box columns. Indeed, the second plane would have hit the core on the southeast corner.

But here's the thing-- the core was only about 40 feet inside from the outer south wall.

So the only way the second hit would make ANY sense is if the plane smashed through the outer wall, then struck the core and tore apart. But since the core was 40 feet in, and the plane was 160 long, we SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLANE SLOW ITS ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING AND there should have been a huge explosion coming out of the SOUTH WALL first. The explosion should not have occurred on the northeast corner.

So what we saw was a cartoon.

Maybe this doesn't convince you by itself, but when you put together everything else, such as the discrepent plane paths, the other video anomalies, the case is overwhelming that at least some of the videos were fake. And if some of the videos were faked, you have to ask WHY.

.........that stopped ua175 exiting the other side!



Stanley Praimnath

"I saw this giant airplane," Praimnath says. "I saw it coming towards me at eye-level ... and I'm frozen. I drop the phone and I screamed and I don't know why but I said: 'Lord. I can't do this - you take over!' and I just dove under my desk."

That desk would save Praimnath's life. United Airlines Flight 175 veered, then slammed into the south tower, straight into Praimnath and Clark's floors.

http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/ctv_lopes_survivors.html

But seriously.....you do raise good questions.

Thanks for bringing him up! He's is clearly full of **it.

Don't have time to find the references, but he gave a few conflicting stories of his experience with the second hit.

the plane outline could have been created by shaped charges...

which is neither outside nor inside the building.

You raise a few good points, but asserting that according to the 'yes-plane crowd' the plane must have disintegrated after it had fully entered the building, is disingenuous.

There is a very popular website devoted to these things, and they could well provide an answer to your questions 2 and 3. The reason the South Tower Plane penetrated the building so smoothly is that milliseconds before a missile was launched to weaken the structure. So the plane sliced like butter into the tower...

Does this sound crazy? Maybe, but at least not as crazy as a huge optical illusion projected onto the skies of Manhattan. There was always the question for the purpose of the missile...this could be the answer.

The other way round, if the South Tower Plane was just an optical illusion, why to equip it with a missile?

as the "Let's Roll" people say. In some angles, there clearly is a pod thing on the belly of the plane that is abnormal, not just a photo artifact. But I think the pod is in an artifact, perhaps placed intentionally, on the CGI plane.

no pods. there was a plane. accept it already will you. or are all the eyewitneses "duped, deceived"

there are a lot of problems with the 911 report. the idea that there were no planes is not one of them.

and I am keeping my mind open.

I have studied this extensively and I strongly think some videos of the second plane were faked.

Also I don't think a plane should slide into a steel building like that.

I know this no-plane idea is hard to accept. I am just trying to work out what I think are serious anomalies.

I understand people saw a plane. That's fine.

a correction of myself, i had stated it was a 757, but i meant 767.

you understand people saw a plane, but yet you dont accept it.

there are many that are unable to accept that a plane hit the WTC 1 and 2, i understand that, but they are wrong.

no pods on planes.
the so called "pods" are a normal part of a 757 airplane



notice the underside of the plane?

It's the best still I've seen thus far of the second plane prior to impact.

Here's the caption that goes with the photo:

This image was taken by my father who is a new york city cop in the 84th pcnt in Brooklyn. This picture has been keeping my thoughts on that fateful day alive from then on till forever more. All gave some and some gave all, Unitied We Stand!

Cite as: Dan Perez, Image #2447, The September 11 Digital Archive, 23 February 2004, <http://911digitalarchive.org/images/details/2447>.
Archival Information: 3712 pixels wide, 2416 pixels high, format: pjpeg, size: 535140 bytes

http://www.911da.org/images/files/2447.500px.pjpeg

The smoke is blurred, but the plane, which is moving at least ten times faster, is in focus. Nope.

But for all I know the smoke is fake too. Cops are like that. :)

it is actually crazier. it is unreal that this many people have been duped by a insane idea of no planes. when the second one was seen, by eyewitneses from many different angles and positions.


come back to reality. planes struck the towers. once you accept the reality of planes, then a true investigation of the failures of the * administration and its incompetance and corruption from day one of their taking office can take place.

but if you are unwilling to accept reality then how can you fairly investigate anything?

One day you imply that it was only your friends that saw ua175 "in person":

In the words of Sabbat Hunter:
Sun Oct-30-05 01:38 AM
Friends who went to NYU and had a perfect view of the airplane hitting. another friend at the empire state building who was looking right at the buildings.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x58123#58153

......and on other days you say that you yourself saw it:

In the words of Sabbat Hunter
Thu Dec-15-05 04:19 AM
A plane hit the WTC2!!! i saw it. thousands saw it in person. millions on TV. it wasnt a F***ing hologram! it was a plane! it didnt "disappear" it didtn suddenly appear!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x63350#63505

Did you mean that you saw it on TV?......or in person?

i saw it on TV. my friends saw in in person. sorry if i wasnt clearer. thats what happens when you are posting at work when the boss isnt looking. :P

.........failed to see what caused the explosions on either the 1st or 2nd WTC:

I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the Supreme Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane.
http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html



I was under the impression that the BQE bridge offered a prime vantage point for either the 1st or 2nd hit.......

the bridge is not called the BQE bridge it is called the brooklyn bridge. no one who has ever actually taken it or lives in ny would ever call it anything but the brooklyn bridge. unless she was on the BQE itself and not on the brooklyn bridge. if she was on the BQE then she could have easily been blocked.

personally i think she is full of shit. too many holes in her story, things called the wrong name. and if she was headed to jersey she wouldnt be on the brooklyn bridge. she would have taken the varrazanno bridge thru staten island, or the midtown tunnel to the lincoln/holland tunnel. possibly the manhattan bridge.

but the fact that she gets the bridge name wrong probably means she has never even been to NY never mind driving over the BROOKLYN bridge.

Apologies......

Because maybe it was me who made the mistake saying that the witness in question was on Brooklyn Bridge.

Maybe she was on this:


BQE Manhattan view

www.deerparkschools.org/.../ friends/photos2.html

Or this:


This is from I.278, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE), looking over to Manhattan and the Twin Towers.

www.mikiemetric.cc/ Signs4.html


BTW......this same witness goes onto say the following:

Finally at around 4pm , I was able to contact my sister on her cell phone. She told me that she got stuck at the Holland Tunnel on the NJ side. I was so relief. She told me that she watched from Jersey City. She actually saw the second plane crashing into the Tower and witnessed the collapse of both buildings.

http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html

So Sabbat my friend......

Is the above witness still full of shit!

;-)

Shalom!

Are you really implying that one person not seeing the plane equals the plane didn't exist?

From 6th Street,New Jersey:

Out of the corner of my eye an orange flash erupted from the second tower.

"Oh my God, did you see that shit?"

"Oh my God."

"Holy shit." He crossed himself in the Catholic manner.

"Damn."

As we began to speculate about the cause of the second fire, a banged-up taxi stopped at the intersection. The driver shouted, "Jumbo Jet," and smacked one hand into another to indicate an impact.

http://www.jerseycityonline.com/wtc/911_story.htm

And here is a view from New Jersey.....could be different to the angle that the above witness saw.

That is not a witness.

They say they saw a flash out of the corner of their eye. Meaning they were not looking but saw something in their peripheral vision. In other words they were are a witness only to the flash.

Seeing as the testimony from your "friends" ranges in the quantity of these same "friends" and the distance that they were from the WTC at the time of impact......depending on when you recount their testimony:


In the words of LARED:
Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noise, you've entered fantasy land.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
]I know a dozen people working in NJ that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Next.

to understand what defines a witness.

And then I saw another flame go up. And from the television I could tell a plane, although I didn’t see the plane had come by to do it.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121...


But the above testimony does not stop this very same witness from saying the following:

Then from the balcony I saw the second plane hit the building.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121...

full of shit.
1) she claims to be on a nonexistant bridge, headed into manhattan to nj.
2) one would not go over the brooklyn bridge to get to nj
3) there are plenty of place on the BQE where you couldnt see the WTC


the quote you posted originally was a cut and paste no? therefore it is wrong.

here is the quote again, right from the website "have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan,"

so i repeat she full of crap
no such thing as the BQE bridge. the woman is full of shit.
you dont go to nj via chinatown. the woman is full of shit

We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors above the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a candle.

The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the footage of the attack).


http://www.panix.com/userdirs/timothy/wtc.html

Out of thousands of people on the ground and in other buildings it is very obvious that the plane would be seen by some and not others.

If one wants the truth of the matter, then go ahead and do research with an open mind. But don't latch onto only the things that make your pre-concieved notions look beter to you. If you find a thousand witnesses who saw a plane and 3 that didn't, which would you believe?

There were no bombs other than the planes relating to impact. They went in one side and parts of the planes came out the other side, which is to be expected.

In the words of David Handschuh:
Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318

after the impact. explosion from hit is already going out the other side of the building (mainly obscured by angle)

i would think that one thing everything could agree upon was that a plane hit the south tower.. but i guess some would rather belive in holograms, and fantasy.

The above photo is looking at exactly the same face of WTC2 as this photo here:



So how did David Handschuh not see the plane?

picture was taken AFTER the impact. explosion from hit is already going out the other side of the building (mainly obscured by angle)aka the explosion on the far side of the building is obscured.

even read the caption "photo is taken after WTC 2 is struck by airplane)

........and from this same angle David Handshuh should have seen fl175 because all TV footage:



............ shows that this same fl175 entered the WTC from this same face that Handshuh was looking at.

But Handshuh did not see the plane!

I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318

1. The top photo, with no plane, looks like a still; the bottom photo, with the plane, looks like a video frame, like Carmen Taylor's photos.

2. From the dispersion of the debris, the top photo looks like something was fired out of the tower, not flown into it.

3. Why would the orange flash be way behind the plane, when the fuel was in the wings?

4. Where are the wings, anyway?

5. And where's the rest of the plane?

And why would the photographer have no recollection of taking the picture?

doesnt even remember taking the picture should speak volumes about his reliablity as a witness.

Mind telling me how the reflection of the plane is seen?

look at this map, you can see that 278 (that's the bqe)runs along the edge of queens & brooklyn and connects to the Williamsburg and the Brooklyn Bridge, then you go through Chinatown/lower Manhattan, then you go over the Holland tunnel and see the arrow pointing to New Jersey? makes perfect sense and that is EXACTLY how you would go if you lived near one of those bridges in B'lyn or Queens.

whether people "accept reality" or not.
and, I'm not saying that I believe the no plane theory, but there are a number or different reports on what was seen, including "nothing". That is one of the reasons this idea came about.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the woman in this quote"...Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane.
http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debat... .."

is full of shit. there is no bridge called the BQE bridge in nyc. one does not go thru chinatown to get to jersey (one would take the LIE to the midtown tunnel or the williamsburgh bridge to the lincoln/holland tunnels)
and that is just one BS report. i am sure with just a bit of looking one can find a lot more.

which you get on from the brooklyn queens expressway, then through the LES to the Holland tunnel. Plus, there is a bqe bridge, but it doesn't go into manhattan, it connects brooklyn queens.

there is NO BQE bridge. the BQE aka brooklyn queens expressway connects brooklyn and queens. but along its whole length there is nothing called the BQE bridge.

she also specifically said she was going into chinatown. you dont go thru chinatown to get to jersey. that is just insanity.

... The reconstructed area of the BQE stretches from Broadway to 25th Avenue, said Haran, as the Winter/Spring 2001-02 progress included a westbound Grand Central Parkway connector, an eastbound BQE bridge over 35th Avenue along with a concrete deck, steel erected and a concrete deck placed for the Grand Central Parkway, and a connector bridge placed over 30th Avenue.
Current work in progress, Haran said, includes steel beams placed for the eastbound bridge over 35th Avenue.
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/Archives2002/Apr.-Jun.2002/053002/NewFiles/BQE.html

look at a map, if you want to go to jersey city you go through chinatown then through the holland tunnel, you're nuts! There was a train from the wtc that went into jersey City or hoboken I took when I lived in NY.

is an elevated highway over many stretches. the part they are talking about is all the way near the queens end of it. a bridge over 35th avenue. but not called the BQE bridge. go look for yourself. there is not a bridge called the BQE bridge. hells half the road is a bridge (ie rides up and over another road way)
however in this case that they are describing you would not be able to see the WTC attack. you would be north of the towers. all you probably could see would be an explosion coming out of the south tower. maybe not even that as it would be of on the horizon.


the williamsburg bride lets you off past china town. it is the best route to the holland tunnel. the brooklyn bridge is too far south.

and then took the ramp which lead her to the bridge, so she just called it the bqe bridge. her command of english is not very good. I am a 4th generation Seattle and I still forget the names of the two bridges that cross lake washington and call them by the vernacular names which I have always used. If you look at a map you can see if you are in queens headed for Jersey City, you would take the W'burg from the bqe go through C'town and onto the Holland tunnel, it makes total sense and you are making a big deal out of nothing.