"No Planes" - Will anyone attempt to fill in the gaping holes?

[Ohio Joe]

So... I've gone round and round trying to get answers but... I don't seem to be able to get any of the "no plane" people to admit the issues in their "theory" exist, much less try to fill in the gaps. I thought to myself, perhaps with an OP whos intent is to present a platform for filling in the massive holes, I might see if someone takes a try at just some of the massive gaping holes.

The Photos/Videos. They are obviously fake, every single one of them. Anyone can see it and there are a number of websites with all kinds of proof they are all fake. Yet... I don't see one single expert coming forward to agree that they are all obvious fakes. Not one coming forward and saying, "here is how it was done, its shoddy work". How can this be? Why does no one try to hire one to examine them?

The Live Witnesses. I've seen it suggested that they were all mind controlled by TV. Every single one of them... New Yorkers... The very idea is simply laughable. Where are the witnesses for no planes? I don't mean cherry picked quotes. I mean why have not people come forward to say "I was there, there was no fly-by, there was definitely no plane, the tower simply exploded" or "I was there, I saw it clearly, there was a fly-by and then the tower exploded, the plane clearly never hit the tower"? Really, there should be large numbers of these people making the rounds at "truth" gatherings. Is there even one?

The Cover Up. Why is there not one single video showing no planes? How were the perps able to be 100% effective, not only at finding and confiscating every one but doing it in a way that there is absolutely no one that knows of the effort?


OK, just a few of them, all I have time to do right now but enough I think.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

1. Joe

Why do you let them bother you so much?

[Ohio Joe]

2. There is a reason for it

Be it good or bad I will leave up to others to decide.

I am unemployed, have been for nearly a year (ugh... only a few more days till it is a year). I lost everything I owned in a fire last Aug. I am STILL fighting with the insurance company (well... my lawyer is and that bastard will now take some of my money). I have health issues and no insurance and no money but since they are not really threatening, I cannot get them fixed. I drink too much lately as well.

With all of this, I find that way more then it should, those that have ideas that include my friends and family being either liars or fools get on my nerves.

That is the truth of the matter.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

3. Joe, I've read some of the

things you've said about your friends in NY.

I know there where planes. I try to brush off those who for some reason want to believe, or convince others to believe in their other dimensional universe.

Try not to take it so personally.

Good luck on the job search.

[Ohio Joe]

4. Thank You!

I try... though it does seem to me to be a reasonably harmless way to relieve some stress.

[wildbilln864]

5. Good luck Joe with the job hunting!

I wish you the best in your struggles.

[Ohio Joe]

6. Thanks wildbill

It is much appreciated!

[Marksbrother]

7. Videos show no real planes

"Why is there not one single video showing no planes?"

Because the most important part of the conspiracy involved convincing

the public that hijacked planes crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon and that the best way to "prove" that planes did crash

was to have composite videos with CGI planes inserted into them and then show the doctored videos on TV and present them as

genuine videos. Interestingly, the perps must have decided that it wasn't prudent to have the media "explain" to the

public why the videos had such an other-worldly look about them. Trying to "explain" why, even though 9/11 was a clear sunny

day in NYC, the background and sky in the videos were in weird shades of various colors, might cause people to question other

strange things in the videos. Such as planes that appeared to simply melt into buildings, missing wings, bright explosions of

light which appeared a fraction of a second before the plane melted into WTC2 etc.



The way the Pentagon "plane crash" was explained was equally curious, and dishonest. Apparently the reason why no videos were

shown on TV is because of the technical difficulties in producing altered videos with CGI planes shown from the many different

angles of all of the video cameras at the Pentagon. Another reason is probably that the public would expect to see high resolution

video images from the Pentagon (if necessary, they could probably give a plausible explanation for why the NYC videos were of

such relatively poor quality - exigences of the situation, no fixed cameras in the right places etc.).


The two known videos filmed from outside of the Pentagon weren't shown on TV. One was immediately taken from its rightful owner

and has never been seen by the public. The other, which has been seen on youtube, doesn't show a plane crash, but does provide

evidence that conflicts with the BUSHCO story of what happened at the Pentagon. Therefore, whenever it is mentioned on sites such

as DU, True Believers immediately try to suppress its implications and thus its evidentiary value.

[MrBig]

9. What about the people in person

The people on the ground in New York who saw what happened. Do you believe every single one of them was mistaken? Do you think they've all been paid off?

You would think, if there were no planes, that the people who actually saw the second tower explode would say SOMETHING. Right? The masses wouldn't just sit there and let the media report a second plane if there wasn't.

[Marksbrother]

11. The people on the ground couldn't have seen what didn't happen

If they saw what actually happened, then how could they be mistaken?


The people who reported having seen explosions and fires were telling the truth, but since no real planes crashed, that's all

any eyewitnesses could have possibly seen: shock and awe explosions and fires.


The only "plane" that anyone saw "crash" into the WTC was the faked video that had a CGI plane inserted into it. So anyone who

saw that, saw it on TV.

[Ohio Joe]

15. So all of the witnesses are liars? - nt

[MrBig]

24. You're using backwards logic

You are starting with the conclusion and using that conclusion to create factual support.

There are people who said they saw planes flying into buildings. Many of them. So you are stating that they are lying or mistaken because they couldn't have seen planes flying into buildings when it never happened. Do you believe them all to be liars or confused?

And, using your premise, again saying that they never saw planes go into the tower. Why wouldn't these same people who never saw the planes go into the building say so? Why aren't they telling people, "Hey...everyone...there were no planes."

It seems the only people who are saying there were no planes were people who weren't there.

[Marksbrother]

25. You didn't prove that any planes crashed

Unless and until you prove that any planes crashed, it's ludicrous to argue about whether any claims of people having seen

such an event are credible.

[Ohio Joe]

26. Please produce one expert that can prove the videos false

Just one?

Should be easy, they are so easily proven false.

[defendandprotect]

29. Why don't you get an "expert" to prove they are real . . . maybe the NOSE OUT video?????

:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

35. Because I am not making the extraordinary claim

Refusing to do such a simple thing to prove an extraordinary claim makes no sense. In addition, if anyone not in the truth movement, produced such an examination, it would be dismissed by the truth movement. Would it not bring more people around to the truth if video experts said they were fake?

[defendandprotect]

37. You are making the extraordinary claim that these videos haven't been faked .. .

And, yes, there are people studying the available videos --
the NOSE OUT film makes that clear --
want to try explaining it?

Just give us your "eye witness" review . . . did friends and family see a "NOSE OUT" . . . ???

[Ohio Joe]

38. Excellent

Extraordinary - beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraordinary

"And, yes, there are people studying the available videos"

Please direct me to the experts reviewing the films, I am unaware of who they are and it is exactly what I have been asking for. Thanks in advance!

"the NOSE OUT film makes that clear --
want to try explaining it?"

I am no expert regarding video. I do consider myself an expert regarding mainframe programming, should you ever have questions needing expert answers there, please let me know.

"Just give us your "eye witness" review . . . did friends and family see a "NOSE OUT""

I have no eyewitness review to give, I did not witness the events in person. As to people I know that saw it live, none of them can view anything in real time and process it one frame at a time in their minds. Regardless, my friends and family are not the topic of this post and I will not address any further comments about them. I would also request that you do not bring them up here anymore, they have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[defendandprotect]

47. You don't have to be an "expert" to understand demoliton when you see it nor the NOSE OUT . . .

Experts have confirmed demolition at the WTC - among other mysterious elements such
as Thermite used by the military.

However, the NOSE OUT is visible to the human eye. Quite an extraordinary event!

You do understand the concept of the NOSE OUT, I presume?

The NOSE OUT is visible on film -- therefore it must have been visible to anyone watching
the plane.

Meanwhile, a plane cannot move past a building intact while at the same time supposedly
having crashed nose first into said building.


PS:
Excuse me . . . but YOU INTRODUCED THE SUBJECT OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY AS WITNESSES TO
THESE EVENTS. Let me suggest to you that YOU rethink having offered them as evidence here.
Not believable and not very wise.

[Ohio Joe]

51. Please stop stalling and present your experts

You accuse others of crimes for hiding the truth, why do you hide it?

[defendandprotect]

58. Playing "Johnny One Note" isn't going to convince anyone here . . .

neither you nor I have "experts" -- we are simply aware of information developed
by others.

The 9/11 panel was obviously put in place -- alas Henry Kissinger didn't make it!!!! --
to coverup 9/11 and that it was obviously a "false flag" operation.

You don't see Bush and Cheney as criminals?

That's certainly a unique opinion at DU!!!

[Ohio Joe]

61. You have nothing then

I give you a thread to fill the gaps in your "theory" and you have nothing. No proof. Nothing. Insinuations I support bush and cheney... Nice. If you know the truth, why do you keep hiding it? Answer the OP.

[defendandprotect]

65. If you want to debate "NO PLANES" do that . . .

If you want to play games, do it elsewhere --

Yes, I do think you've been going "round and round" in trying to avoid the answers.

Where are these "massive gaping holes" that you're talking about?

Could it be missing debris from in front of the Pentagon?

Could it be aluminum wings slicing thru steel at the WTC towers?

As for the photos/videos . . . the NOSE OUT is blatant evidence of fakery -
you don't have to be an expert to see that.

Which is also true in regard to demolition -- when did the hijackers have time
to wire the WTC towers which would take weeks? And quite a bit of intrusion into security!?

The videos have a cartoon nature -- and, need we remind you of the "devil" in the details of
the smoke? Was that a bit of overplaying of the cartoonist's hand?

How about the "planes" slicing thru steel like butter? That happens every day, right?

Witnesses? Evidently, you avoided or simply missed the planted witnesses on the streets.
Couldn't be more obvious that they had an acting assignment and were reading from scripts.
And . . . one legitimate guy on the street telling the reporter quite clearly that there was
"NO PLANE" is simply walked away from. The reporter then misses his next assignment with a
fake witness and the actor has to back track down the street and turn around heading back
towards the reporter again!!! There are at least two or three or more of these fake witnesses
pegged in films so far.

As far as amateur film, why would anyone be taking a photo of a "no plane" event?
That would be unusual for someone to simply have a camera trained on a building waiting for
another plane to hit? People were busy trying to get out of the building and away from the
scene - especially as the explosions increased.

Again -- the film shown by the corporate-press is cartoon like and unlikely - especially as
aluminum wings slice thru steel!









"No Planes" - Will anyone attempt to fill in the gaping holes?
So... I've gone round and round trying to get answers but... I don't seem to be able to get any of the "no plane" people to admit the issues in their "theory" exist, much less try to fill in the gaps. I thought to myself, perhaps with an OP whos intent is to present a platform for filling in the massive holes, I might see if someone takes a try at just some of the massive gaping holes.

The Photos/Videos. They are obviously fake, every single one of them. Anyone can see it and there are a number of websites with all kinds of proof they are all fake. Yet... I don't see one single expert coming forward to agree that they are all obvious fakes. Not one coming forward and saying, "here is how it was done, its shoddy work". How can this be? Why does no one try to hire one to examine them?

The Live Witnesses. I've seen it suggested that they were all mind controlled by TV. Every single one of them... New Yorkers... The very idea is simply laughable. Where are the witnesses for no planes? I don't mean cherry picked quotes. I mean why have not people come forward to say "I was there, there was no fly-by, there was definitely no plane, the tower simply exploded" or "I was there, I saw it clearly, there was a fly-by and then the tower exploded, the plane clearly never hit the tower"? Really, there should be large numbers of these people making the rounds at "truth" gatherings. Is there even one?

The Cover Up. Why is there not one single video showing no planes? How were the perps able to be 100% effective, not only at finding and confiscating every one but doing it in a way that there is absolutely no one that knows of the effort?

b]

[Ohio Joe]

106. Still running from the topic

It must really bother you.

[Ohio Joe]

46. Sometimes I am sooooo slow

"Just give us your "eye witness" review"

You know folks... Sometimes things just take me a little bit to catch onto. I thought the word "review" was a strange one to use when I first saw it, heh I did not get defendandprotect's joke. Just to make sure everyone is in on it... and to give myself some shameless promotion... I also post a lot in the Gaming Group and have done a few reviews there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=248

Please feel free to also join in over there, it is full of gaming goodness and I give my heartfelt opinions on all the gaming news DU'ers need to know... or at least the gaming news that interests me :D I look forward to seeing each and every one of you there!

[defendandprotect]

49. Maybe you'd like to be a bit clearer about your game-playing as it relates

to this thread?

Let's try coming back to the subject --
try dealing with some of the information --

NOSE OUT? No comment?

Report by CNN reporter at Pentagon site -- "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" . . .
still no comment?

[Ohio Joe]

52. Claims without proof

Please answer my questions in the OP and stop trying to de-rail the thread... or have you nothing to offer?

[defendandprotect]

55. Which is exactly what you are presenting . . .

You're delivering an official conspiracy theory offered by criminals in the White House.
Do you believe them on other issues, or just 9/11???

Debate is a two-way street -- if you have a response to the NOSE OUT, present it-

If you have a response to the reporter for CNN who was at the Pentagon given the news

of a plane traveling the skies for an hour or more and headed in the area of DC --

please give it.

Was this reporter suddenly hallucinating?

Did he need glasses which he wasn't wearing?

Where is the evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon?

[Ohio Joe]

62. Please stop changing the subject and address the OP - nt

[defendandprotect]

67. Stop the farce . . . this isn't about the purity of your OP . . .

which, btw, is simple nonsense . . .

move on -- address the debate --

[Ohio Joe]

107. So you have nothing then

For one that loves to pick at minutia you sure do have an amazing ability to ignore the obvious.

[snooper2]

74. ROFL ROFL ROFL

you really do believe this shit

just watched your "nose in nose out" nonsense.... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


"The apparent nose-out deformation is caused by overlapping blast pixels"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


What do you do for a living defendandprotect? just curious.....just speak TRUTH TO POWER on the intertubes or do you have a real job :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

75. Isn't she a hoot?

I read her just for comic relief.

[snooper2]

77. you and I both :)

nt

[defendandprotect]

129. Oh, yeah . . . it's not a NOSE OUT ....

It's a Mickey Mouse ear jutting out --

Wow, really glad you straightened all of us out -- !!!



:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

28. And have you spoken to "every single one on the ground" . . .???

Of course not -- and if you've seen any of the video of the questionable
witnesses at WTC, you see at least two or three obvious "ringers" who may
even be actors who are framing the event in quite unbelievable scripted ways.

Additionally, you see an interviewer ignorning a man who is saying quite clearly
there was "no plane" while quite obviously setting up an interview with someone
who is an obvious false witness.

So, why would there be even one questionable/actor witness -- leave alone two or
three planted near the WTC and just COINCIDENTALLY selected for interview?

Additionally at the Pentagon you have the FILM OF THE CNN REPORTER -- and I'm sure
you've seen that -- who is making clear that he has been at the Pentagon and
"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON." We also have myriad photos of the Pentagon with essentially
no debris outside on the lawn . . . except that which could be and was hand carried!

Nor does a 44' high plane disappear into a 20X15 foot hole with no trace of debris -
luggage, wings, bodies, etc.

Granted, later the CNN reporter is forced to retract his eye-witness account -
making his earlier report all the more convincing.

Meanwhile, one of the female employees who sat right behind where the "explosion" at
the Pentagon took place -- presumably a bunker buster - is suing because there was no
"alarm" given to employees to evacuate the building. Minetta is ON RECORD IN HIS
TESTIMONY making clear that he was with Cheney and that Cheney was alerted a number of
times of "incoming."

Additionally, the Pentagon would of course have had an anti-ballistic system -- the
White House had one -- and even the night before when Bush stayed at a hotel in Florida,
anti-ballistic missiles were set on the rooftop of the hotel!

Is the American public really idiotic enough to believe that our Pentagon had no defense
system -- and a camera that didn't work?????

Don't think so --



There are also witnesses to the Pentagon "explosions"

[Ohio Joe]

12. Perhaps I was not clear

When I said:

"The Cover Up. Why is there not one single video showing no planes? How were the perps able to be 100% effective, not only at finding and confiscating every one but doing it in a way that there is absolutely no one that knows of the effort?"

None of this refers to existing videos. In NYC, the odds of pulling off an event such as this without one single civilian catching it on tape is so high, it falls into the realm of impossible. So, perhaps not only were my questions were backwards but maybe I also need to state they go together, lets try this:

The Cover Up. How were the perps able to be 100% effective, not only at finding and confiscating every video but doing it in a way that there is absolutely no one that knows of the effort? Why is there not one single video showing no planes?

Clearer?

[defendandprotect]

30. You are quite clear as to your "belief" . . . however .. .

"belief" is the end not the beginning of all wisdom.

Unfortunately, people "believe" what they see on TV . . . in fact, they're still
waiting for the idiot box to confirm for them the 50 years of political violence
in America which took JFK - which was actually a coup on our "people's" government --
and Martin Luther King -- as well as Robert Kennedy, a presidential candidate!

Now, if you have faith in the idiot box, you're all set.

[Ohio Joe]

34. I don't understand what that has to do with the question? - nt

[defendandprotect]

36. Yes, that's clear . . .

[Ohio Joe]

39. Would you please explain it? - nt

[defendandprotect]

50. The quote means that when you have ....

a "belief" that you are correct, it doesn't lead to being open to new information.

It's the opposite of an open mind.

[Ohio Joe]

53. Please make even a feeble attempt to answer the OP

or do you have nothing to offer but nonsense?

[defendandprotect]

54. I know we are supposed to believe that you're superior in ...

intellect here -- that seems clear from your tone --

however, forgive me my stupidity when I imagined that you were asking for an

explanation of the quote--!!!!


Now, when you get time from your busy schedule of not debating what is being said

to you, try to pick up the issues -- the CNN reporter, the NOSE OUT, the demolition,

the Pentagon "no plane."

[Ohio Joe]

63. Please stop changing the subject and answer the OP - nt

[defendandprotect]

130. And that's what you call "debate" . . . .

That's not debate . . . it's whining and foot-stomping -- !!!

:rofl:

You've moved yourself onto "ignore."

Bye!

[Ohio Joe]

133. I make an OP...

You continualy bring up different topics while I try to keep a focued post. You name call, you make insinuation, anything but address the OP. When you fail, you run and hide... bet that will help you spread your bullshit.

[Marksbrother]

134. Sounds like another TBer here. The dude yourself guy.

At first, that's who I thought you were referring to.

[Ohio Joe]

136. WTF?

Are you just stringing random words together now?

"Sounds like another TBer here. The dude yourself guy."

What is that supposed to mean?

[balantz]

13. In the thread at the following link Simon Shack shows what technology was likey used

to prevent all but shielded cameras to operate at key moments at the towers on 9/11:

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1975&st=825

[Ohio Joe]

14. Incorrect

The article is dated 2003 and clearly states:

"People caught in the burst of a microwave weapon would, by contrast, be untouched and might not even know they'd been hit. (There is, however, an effort to build a microwave weapon for controlling crowds; a person subjected to it definitely feels pain and is forced to retreat.)"

This would not have worked on all of lower Manhatten as well as the Jersey shore two years prior.

Fail.

[balantz]

16. Not to stun people, but to disrupt electronic equipment:

Simon Shack:

"Ok folks, here we have it. Thanks to MartinL for finding this precious article.

If you still wondered what kind of existing technology could have impeded any private cameras from filming the events of 9/11, here is the definitive answer. Remember that no cell-phones functioned on 9/11 nor did the Firefighters' Motorola radio-transmitters. I have recently launched an appeal for people in NYC who experienced malfunctions with their video cameras and already 3 such testimonies are on record.

Please contact me/or this forum if your digital photo/videocamera failed on 9/11."



From the article to which he refered:


- clip -

In these media-fueled times, when war is a television spectacle and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon, the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair. Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets, yet still leave buildings, bridges, and highways intact. It would strike with precision, in an instant, and leave behind no trace of where it came from.

In fact, it almost certainly is already here, in the form of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. As their name suggests, HPMs generate an intense "blast" of electromagnetic waves in the microwave frequency band (hundreds of megahertz to tens of gigahertz) that is strong enough to overload electrical circuitry. Most types of matter are transparent to microwaves, but metallic conductors, like those found in metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS), metal-semiconductor, and bipolar devices, strongly absorb them, which in turn heats the material.

An HPM weapon can induce currents large enough to melt circuitry. But even less intense bursts can temporarily disrupt electrical equipment or permanently damage ICs, causing them to fail minutes, days, or even weeks later. People caught in the burst of a microwave weapon would, by contrast, be untouched and might not even know they'd been hit. (There is, however, an effort to build a microwave weapon for controlling crowds; a person subjected to it definitely feels pain and is forced to retreat.)

- clip -

[Ohio Joe]

17. Again, Fail

From your own 2003 article:

"it almost certainly is already here"

Almost? But yet all they had was one big enough to do a person at a time? So you think two years previous they were able to do all of Manhattan, stretching across to the Jersey shore? Yet there is zero reports of all electronics failing?

Fail.

I will give you some credit for at least trying. D-

[balantz]

18. I think you're maybe picking the information apart to make it look like this technology wasn't

available for electronics disruption at WTC on 9/11. I'll leave it for others to go to the link and check it for themselves.

[Ohio Joe]

19. The scale needs to be much larger

The towers were able to be filmed from a great distance by a great many people. The technology to disrupt only video recorders did not and does not exist. So, I agree, others will be able to reason that for themselves. Thank you!

[Marksbrother]

20. I checked out the link. Thanks. It's informative & persuasive.

At Dealey Plaza, people were asked to turn over any photos and film of the assassination, and most did so voluntarily. Some

reported that their camera was grabbed and film was exposed. Others said that their photos/film was never returned or that

some of their photos were missing whenever they asked for it to be given back to them.


On a slightly different note, some researchers believe they have found evidence of "hidden" people and hidden cameras in various

strategically located positions in Dealey Plaza. Apparently, just as it is alleged that Bush may have been shown a CCTV

shot of the WTC event, there may well be film footage of the assassination of JFK that the perps have and the public will never see.

Some have speculated that secret film footage of the murder there was taken for the purpose of use in training professional

assassins.

[Ohio Joe]

21. I suggest everyone read it as well

It disproves itself very nicely. It is quite plain that a unit designed to burn one person in 2003 could not have disrupted only video cameras over a massive area in 2001 no matter how much fantasy is put into the story. Facts do have a way of speaking for themselves. Please, everyone read the link.

[defendandprotect]

32. Correct . . .

Zapruder film seems to be the dummy/faked film . . .
and they think there was other filming going on nearby at at least
one post.

[hack89]

23. So what shielded all the computers, medical equipment, car engine control modules

and all the other electronic devices that did not stop operating on 911? From your link:

Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets

Are you really saying it worked only on video cameras? Really?

[defendandprotect]

31. Thanks . . . microwaves aren't actually quite in public awareness as yet -- !!!

[hack89]

149. Especially magic microwaves

that stop video cameras but not any other electronic devices.

[MrBig]

8. Great thread!

I've seen the "no planes" thing brought up so many times. I thought at first the people who were trying to arguing it were joking or just being sarcastic. I came to realize that they truly believe there were no planes that hit the towers. I just do not understand that theory at all. I'm glad you made this thread. Hopefully it will be addressed.

By the way, I hope your job search goes well and everything works out with those fucking insurance people.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Thank you!

I appreciate the support and well wishes. DU is always a great place for that when its members are having hard times.

[Kalun D]

22. More Questions

According to SimonShack there were 5 known live videos shown by the news outlets when the 2nd plane hit the tower. How did they alter the video by
removing the "cruise missile" and inserting the jet planes AND show the footage live?

SimonShack shows some videos he says are manipulated. Why couldn't the videos he shows be manipulated to seem like they've been manipulated?

If the perps were capable of editing the videos to remove missiles and insert planes wouldn't it be much easier to just tweak jet plane videos just a bit to make it seem like they were edited?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the videos are edited. If we've never seen the original videos how do we know they started with videos with jet planes in them or with videos with cruise missiles in them?

If there are about 45 videos that show the 2nd plane hitting, how did the perps confiscate ALL these videos and remove the "cruise missile" and insert the planes without ANYONE ever saying anything? How did the perps find the vids before they were released? If a vid was released showing a cruise missile and then deleted don't you think it would have spread virally?

How are you going to confiscate and hide 45 videos if they all show a cruise missile and then all get deleted and re-appear showing a fabricated jet plane?

No planes is absolutely ludicrous on it's face. The only ones pushing it are the technologically misinformed and the disinformants doing the misinforming.

It's disinfo and nothing else. An easily debunked sham of a theory. Put out so it can be ridiculed by the OCTers. Who then try to pin it on real truthers to make real theories look like a sham by supposed association.

You won't get any gaping holes filled because those holes are intentional. This info isn't to convince real truthers it's to convince the technically ignorant and uninformed and to make real truthers look bad to the average person that has never looked past their TV.

[defendandprotect]

33. These are good questions-- but why not start with the NOSE OUT video . . .

and explain what was going on there . . . !!!!

[Kalun D]

40. Nose Out

The nose out video is from SimonShack, not from the video archive he links. He doesn't give a source for it, just that it's supposedly the original Fox live broadcast.

It's the only vid he can show any real possible manipulation, AND it's the only video he doesn't link to a source. Therefore he could have easily added the nose out himself. Cuz I don't see it anywhere on the video archive site.

The question remains, regardless of source, if this was a supposed live broadcast, how did they remove cruise missiles and insert planes AND run the video live?

I could see given about a minute that a skilled operator could add the nose out anomoly to a video of a jet plane and run it almost live. IOW, disinfo. I can't see where anyone could remove an entire cruise missile approach/impact and insert a jet plane approach/impact short of at least an hour.

[balantz]

41. Too many people had seen the infamous FOX "nose-out" before it was removed from the archives. n/t

[balantz]

48. The FOX broadcast of the nose-out that is investigated in Shack's work

can be seen in the collection of second strike videos at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M&feature=related

[defendandprotect]

57. One video showing manipulation puts all of the videos in quesiton . . .

I don't know who SimonShack is but the NOSE OUT video has been known for quite some time
and has been well and truly linked to actual footage from that day. In fact, quite quickly
thereafter, a banner goes up to hide the NOSE OUT.

Who said there were cruise missiles?

Yes, there was speculation in looking at the cartoon planes that something was attached to
them -- and that there was a "flash of light" which might have signalled a missile being
activated. But that would be a missile attached to a plane. I haven't seen any discussion
of just a missile. Are there witnesses who say they saw "missiles" being fired into the WTC?

IMO, these were explosives -- as one witness on the street made clear -- "no plane" . . .
just explosions.

Now. . . why would a network which is trying to get you to believe that planes attacked the
WTC do a NOSE OUT intentionally?

I think we have to get that video up here because I think there was some acknowledgment at
the time of an "oops!" -- ???

Maybe tomorrow --
some film would help this discussion --

[Kalun D]

68. Planes

From looking at all the vids of the 2nd plane again I think all of SimonShacks points can be explained logically without any use of video editing.


""In fact, quite quickly thereafter, a banner goes up to hide the NOSE OUT.""

In how many different instances? This couldn't be explained by incompetence? After all everyone, including all these news people are freaking out when the 2nd plane hits. Couldn't the guy responsible for the banner be freaking out also? I also think it could be an early attempt at disinfo if it only showed up when the vid was shown after the live event.

""IMO, these were explosives -- as one witness on the street made clear -- "no plane" just explosions.""

I believe there are more witnesses that saw a plane and an explosion than there are those who just saw an explosion. And it would certainly be possible to be in a position on the ground where you would see the explosion and not the plane. Some of the vids even show this.

""Now why would a network which is trying to get you to believe that planes attacked the WTC do a NOSE OUT intentionally?""

What makes you think it was really the nose of the plane and not just something that looked like the shape of the nose of the plane from that angle?

from the "all known footage" 2nd plane impact vids that Balantz provides the best one that shows something coming out the back side is at 3:20.

There's definitely something that penetrates out of the backside of the building. Now everyone who doesn't know any better thinks an aluminum jet airplane is never going to penetrate a steel building, especially not in one side and out the other, this is one of SimonShacks key points, his entire nose out theory rests on it. But to realize this is possible you have to understand physics. I have trouble describing this in highly technical terms but I can do it in simple shade tree engineering terms.

If you've lived in hurricane country you may have seen this. During a hurricane the hurricane force winds will rip up blades of grass and stick them into tree trunks. Now try to pull some blades of grass and see if you can get them to stick into a tree trunk. You can't do it, why? Because a hurricane is moving the blades of grass at 150+ mph. and you can't do that by hand. It's the velocity that allows the grass to penetrate the wood. I'm guessing this happens with tornadoes also but I've never seen it.

Now compare the relative strength of a blade of grass to a tree trunk.
Now compare the relative strength of an aluminum alloy jet to the WTC outer steel wall.

There's also a couple of other factors that most lay-persons don't realize. All aluminum alloys are not alike. Most aluminum that the average person is familiar with is 6061-t6 or lesser strength. 6061 is used for a lot of everyday items. It's a little stronger than an aluminum can. Jets like these Boeings are made with alum alloys like 7050-T7 which is about TWICE as strong as 6061-T6. Pound for pound 7050 is stronger in certain respects than the steel used in the WTC construction. And these planes are also constructed with titanium which is way stronger than steel. Now granted the skin of these jets is thin but there's other parts of the construction like ribs, bulkheads, and connection joints that are as thick or thicker than the outer walls of the WTC at the impact height.

What this tells us is that the strength of the planes materials is a lot closer to the strength of the WTC, than the comparison of the blade of grass to the tree.

Now add the velocity of the planes. And keep in mind this is an unprecedented event. Never before in history has anyone seen a full size passenger jet go head on into a steel building at 500 mph. That's because it's never happened, because jet planes normally fly at 250 mph at sea level so that is the history of most plane crashes into stationary objects, which BTW have also never been caught on video, at least not this widely distributed. IOW we don't know what it's supposed to look like, so you have a pre-conceived notion that a plane is similar to an aluminum can. And you're not aware of how fast something is going at 500 mph, you've never seen it before, it's surreal.

Let's add one more factor just for fun. The method of the WTC's outer wall construction. It's built in channels with glass windows between them.

So let's review.

The plane's construction materials are pound for pound at least as strong as the WTC's steel.
The velocity of 500 mph is over 3 times the 150 mph velocity that will stick weaker grass into a stronger tree.
The outer wall of the WTC is made of channels of steel with glass between them, IOW it's not monolithic.

Add one more item, the angle of impact meant the jet fuselage missed the heavier center core of the building, all it had to penetrate was the channel construction outer curtain walls. Certainly one of the engines went into one side and out the other, just like a bullet, it was found on the street below. Who's to say what that is coming out the back side of the impact in all these vids, it's either some part of the plane or the buildings walls being pushed out. The resolution is just not good enough in any of the vids to tell for certain.

""I haven't seen any discussion of just a missile.""

SimonShack has video he edited with a cruise missile.

What is the alternate theory to jet airplanes? All those eyewitnesses, all that video that shows a plane. No video that shows no plane and no video that shows a cruise missile.

So what did the perps do? All those hi-rise apartments in all of Manhattan. Did they go door to door confiscating all the videos and add planes to them and then release them?

How did they manipulate the 5 or so vids that were shown live? How do you grab a vid live, edit a plane into it, then show it live?

And why would you make the whole operation magnitudes more complex than necessary, by having to hide and dispose of jets with passengers and fabricate videos, when just having the actual jets hit the buildings would work fine? What would be the purpose?

IT'S LUDICROUS!!! The original source of "no planes" is probably perpetrator disinformation. DON'T BUY INTO IT!!!!

dis·in·for·ma·tion (ds-nfr-mshn)
n.
1. DELIBERATELY MISLEADING information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an INTELLIGENCE AGENCY in order to influence PUBLIC OPINION or the government in another nation:

When I find more time I'll continue on with the Pentagon and Shanksville, it's just as easily explainable.

[Marksbrother]

69. Oh brother. The old "incompetence & negligence" excuses

just won't die. The first time I ever visited DU was in late 2001 or early 2002, and I was struck by how certain people

with a seemingly odd faith in BUSHCO kept using incompetence and negligence to defend the Bush 9/11 fairy tale.


You can of course BELIEVE anything you want to, but the FACT is, very few witnesses said they saw a plane crash, and those

witnesses have not been examined for their credibility. If thousands of people saw a plane crash, then there would be a

very large number and percentage of accounts that include having seen a plane, but the FACT is, only a relatively small

number of those thousands said that they witnessed a plane crash.

[Kalun D]

104. Incompetence

Incompetence of the person in charge of video banners. Not bushco. Get real, everyone knows I'm MIHOP.

[defendandprotect]

78. So you're saying the NOSE OUT was a natural event . . . ?

Nothing unusual there, eh?

Yes . . . the NOSE OUT does look like "incompetence" on the part of those manipulating
the video the public saw.

While all those "news people were freaking out when the 2nd plane hit" . . . keep in mind
that at least a some of them commented on the "demolition" look to the WTC towers falling!
I think the guy who added the "banner" either was covering his prior mistake or was told
to cover it.

Again -- if there was any truth to the 9/11 official scenario, there wouldn't be a need for
having actors giving fake interviews to reporters in the streets. Nor would a legitimate
reporter just give a blank stare to a witness who tells him clearly there was NO PLANE -
just explosions.

Oh -- I see, we're all hallucinating a NOSE OUT ... ???
Maybe it was a Mickey Mouse ear?

So . . . let's see . . . you're also trying to suggest that an intact NOSE OUT is seen,
but it went thru the building first?

Right . . . and a hurricaine wind would permit aluminum wings to cut thru steel like butter!

OK . . . you win . . . aluminum wings are stronger than steel!!!

And, I know this is difficult for you to understand but the WTC towers were built to withstand
not just one commercial jetliner flying into it -- but many. See the reports by the architects
who designed it and those who built it. And, then did NOT take fuel into consideration because
it was IRREVELANT!!! Repeat ... the kerosene fuel was irrelevant.

One thing we do know that bounced out of the WTC towers was the PASSPORT of the alleged
hijacker! "Coincidence," you say?

You're saying Simon Shack has video of JUST A CRUSE MISSLE . . . NOT ATTACHED TO A PLANE?

Again, not all of the people in the area of the WTC were interviewed so we don't know if any
of them saw a plane -- until they got home and saw TV.
There's also lots of video that shows demolition at the WTC towers as confirmed by many
demolition experts -- but obviously visible to the human eye.
Again, any video that has been widely seen has come from TV networks --
Any video that showed a blank sky - no plane - would mean what to you?

What happened after the JFK coup? How many films were confiscated?
Same with the RFK assassination -- presume you've read about that?
What about the immediate confiscation of the videos at the gas station and the hotel
nearby the Pentagon? Presumably the FBI would have had more urgent and important things
to do at that moment?

Presumably the videos which would present a "plane" crashing into the towers were prerecorded
and ready to go? Again, refer to what other posters are pointing out to you about jumps and
discolorations in the transmissions.

And seeming here you make clear that you've never read any of the reasons why . . .

And why would you make the whole operation magnitudes more complex than necessary, by having to hide and dispose of jets with passengers and fabricate videos, when just having the actual jets hit the buildings would work fine? What would be the purpose?

If it was so easy to simultaneously hijack four of our commercial jetliners -- and presumably having
a crystal ball that tells you what day our Pentagon is running four simultaneous training programs
which coincidentally are about hijacked planes being flown into skyscrapers -- I would think the
Russians might have tried it!
Presumably the plane or planes were landed at other airports -- one was in Cleveland, if I recall correctly. The other may have landed at Iran-Contra airport/DC.
Additionally, planes making manuevers such as these planes supposedly did would have to be automatically controlled.
And, again, because "actual jets" would not have brought the buildings down.
In fact, the firemen make clear that they had reached the scene of the first "plane impact" and
that they only needed one line to put the fire out. It was contained.

Many other reasons - try reading or watching the video.

It would be "ludicrous" if you are presuming that anyone with any gray matter would find your
explanations at all plausible.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. "NOSE OUT" is a straw man. That didn't happen.

It simply did not. The nose of United 175 did not emerge intact from the other side. It did not happen. No one but you is claiming that this happened.

[balantz]

80. Looks like a pretty accurate match to me (and to many others)

As has been shown here for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ&feature=PlayList&p=02330024F0FA4A22&index=0

[Bolo Boffin]

82. That doesn't matter. What matters is what happened and what is claimed.

No one is claiming the nose popped out the other end except for you.

[balantz]

83. Of course the nose didn't pop through, that would be impossible.

Only the cartoon nose popped through.

[Marksbrother]

86. Funny thing is, it really does LOOK like a 'toon!

That's because, as you said, it IS.

[defendandprotect]

92. Wait a minute . . . you just said "except for me" . . . now it's him, too??????

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

90. Thank you for posting this NOSE OUT .... best I've seen yet ---

[Marksbrother]

81. You are correct, bolo boffin. It did not happen.

It COUDN'T have happened, because no plane crashed into WTC1 or 2. Doesn't matter what some of the NOZE Brotherhood members

say, it simply could not and did not happen. I can't be totally certain of what the NOZE knows, but I do know that there's

no real nose cohen coming out the WTC.

[defendandprotect]

91. It didn't happen, though we can all see it happening . . . because . . .

you say it didn't?

:rofl:

No one but you is claiming that this happened.

Evidently you missed "September Clues" . . . ??


:rofl:

I had to take you off of "ignore" to read some thread --
don't get excited, you'll be back on ignore as soon as possible.
Especially, with "debate" like this -- !!!

The NOSE OUT is a "strawman" ....

:rofl:

Bye --

[Kalun D]

103. Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Please read my POST on a theory of what happened on 911. Please don't assume that because I don't buy "no planes" that I'm not MIHOP.


""Yes . . . the NOSE OUT does look like "incompetence" on the part of those manipulating the video the public saw.""
""Presumably the videos which would present a "plane" crashing into the towers were prerecorded and ready to go?""

You can't have it both ways. If the manipulation was pre-recorded it wouldn't have had these supposed mistakes.

So did they pre-record ALL 45 videos of the 2nd plane strike? Did they confiscate all of the real videos without anyone hearing about it? Or did they just pre-record the 5 live videos and then confiscate the other 40 and match them up?


""Oh -- I see, we're all hallucinating a NOSE OUT??? So let's see you're also trying to suggest that an intact NOSE OUT is seen,
but it went thru the building first?""

I didn't say intact nose out, don't put words in my mouth. I said something that's shaped like the nose from that camera angle. It could have been another part of the plane, it could have been the steel of the building pushed out by something. I don't think it could have been the actual nose.

I also don't think any of the vids are clear enough, close up enough to tell exactly what it is. Why don't you link to one that shows clearly what it is. The one that SimonShack is all excited about shows just a profile, it's not sharp/clear enough to tell what it is.


""Right . . . and a hurricaine wind would permit aluminum wings to cut thru steel like butter!""

no 500 mph is 3 times the speed of a hurricane.


""OK . . . you win . . . aluminum wings are stronger than steel!!!""

7075-T6 aluminum:
Tensile Strength (Ultimate) = 83 ksi
Tensile Strength (Yield) = 73 ksi

Guessing the exact steel used in the curtain wall of the WTC at impact height.
It's probably the GR.42, but for the sake of argument we'll go with the stronger GR.50

ASTM A 572 GR. 50 structural steel:
Mechanical Properties:
Tensile: = 65 KSI
Yield: = 50 KSI


""And, I know this is difficult for you to understand but the WTC towers were built to withstand
not just one commercial jetliner flying into it -- but many.""

I'm already aware of this. The buildings were designed to adsorb the impact by allowing fuselage penetration. The architect described it as a pencil penetrating a window screen. What I don't think he accounted for regarding the wings was the speed at impact. The design was for an accident which would be 250mph, not intentional impact which was 500 mph. Regardless the buildings weren't brought down by the planes or fires, they were brought down by unconventional controlled demolition.


""See the reports by the architects who designed it and those who built it.""

Read some of my posts, I've stated this in recent arguments.

"I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it."
---said Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer, addressing a conference in Frankfurt, Germany


""And, then did NOT take fuel into consideration because it was IRREVELANT!!! Repeat ... the kerosene fuel was irrelevant.""

no kidding, on the 2nd plane about 3/4 of it spilled outside the building and fireballed.


""One thing we do know that bounced out of the WTC towers was the PASSPORT of the alleged
hijacker! "Coincidence," you say?""

that's called a straw man when you argue against something you say someone said, but they didn't really say it.



""You're saying Simon Shack has video of JUST A CRUSE MISSLE . . . NOT ATTACHED TO A PLANE?""

Failure at basic comprehension of what I've written AND what SimonShack shows. Please go back and revue.


""Again, not all of the people in the area of the WTC were interviewed so we don't know if any
of them saw a plane -- until they got home and saw TV.""

So how do we know more people saw only explosions compared to those that saw the planes and explosions?


""There's also lots of video that shows demolition at the WTC towers as confirmed by many
demolition experts -- but obviously visible to the human eye.""

barking up the wrong tree. I agree controlled demo.



""Again, any video that has been widely seen has come from TV networks --
Any video that showed a blank sky - no plane - would mean what to you?""

Disagree, there were more privately shot videos than news crew videos, about 45 total, guessing only about 5 to 10 of those were news crews.

I have not seen ONE video with no plane, HAVE YOU?
please post a link here >>>>>>>



""What happened after the JFK coup? How many films were confiscated?
Same with the RFK assassination -- presume you've read about that?

In the 1960's video cameras were not near as common as today.

And compare the one square block area of JFK, and the inside room of RFK to the entirety of lower manhattan with all the hi-rise apartment buildings. What are you going to do, cordon off all the hi-rises and go door to door? LUDICROUS. You think we would have heard about that, you think a couple of original vids would have got out.



""What about the immediate confiscation of the videos at the gas station and the hotel
nearby the Pentagon? Presumably the FBI would have had more urgent and important things
to do at that moment?""

they obviously knew where all the security cameras were beforehand and the fact the Pentagon hadn't been attacked yet so private individuals weren't filming like the 2nd WTC.



""If it was so easy to simultaneously hijack four of our commercial jetliners -- and presumably having
a crystal ball that tells you what day our Pentagon is running four simultaneous training programs
which coincidentally are about hijacked planes being flown into skyscrapers""

Uhh, read my theory on 911, I think the perps themselves scheduled some of the 911 training exercises, they didn't need a crystal ball.



""Presumably the plane or planes were landed at other airports -- one was in Cleveland, if I recall correctly. The other may have landed at Iran-Contra airport/DC. Additionally, planes making maneuvers such as these planes supposedly did would have to be automatically controlled. And, again, because "actual jets" would not have brought the buildings down.""

barking up the wrong tree. My preferred theory is that the planes were ROV'd. And that means they did not even need hijackers in the cabins, they could take control away from the pilots with the ROV system alone.

AND I don't think the planes and fires caused collapse, it's was un-conventional controlled demolition.



""In fact, the firemen make clear that they had reached the scene of the first "plane impact" and
that they only needed one line to put the fire out. It was contained.""

barking up the wrong tree again. Again I agree, the fires were dying down, mostly just smoke before collapse.

Let's play a game called...

What is more difficult?

A:
Hi-jacking 4 planes using ROV technology.
flying them into buildings using the ROV technology.
collapse the buildings using top down un-conventional controlled demolition mainly using thermite cutter charges.


B:
Rig explosives in the towers in the shapes of tilted airplane silhouettes and rig timed explosions to partially come out the other sides.
Create 5 "live" videos of planes hitting the towers. Confiscate ALL video shot by all the media. Confiscate ALL other private video of the 2nd plane impact in ALL of lower Manhattan, go door to door of every hi-rise apartment and search them all for video cameras. Confiscate all videos. WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT. Release another 40 edited videos that show fake planes. Presumably you would have to do this without search warrants, or did they have search warrants for EVERY hi-rise apartment in lower Manhattan? How come we've never heard of the perps searching all of lower Manhattan?
Land 4 planes at alternate airports, hide/destroy all 4 planes and kill all the passengers, WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT.
Get the airlines to go in on it when they have to release the passenger manifests after you landed the planes at their airports and destroyed their planes and killed their passengers.
Get dozens if not hundreds of people in the media to ignore the no planes videos and go along with the faked videos, WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT.

LUDICROUS DISINFO

[Marksbrother]

114. Your problem is that you are arguing against the ONLY evidence

that is available, and that evidence does not show any real planes crashing anywhere. Think maybe it's YOU that has been

taken in by DISINFORMATION?

[defendandprotect]

174. Hi -- I just reviewed your "What happened" post . . .

And though I didn't reply to it when it was posted for some reason, we seem to be in total agreement.
"Exactly" is the key word. No one ever knowns anything "exactly." Just deal with your kids on
the question of "What happened" and you understand that!

My comment was on the "Nose Out" . . . not on what you might overall think MIHOP/LIHOP/OCT --

And, in regard to that . . .

""Yes . . . the NOSE OUT does look like "incompetence" on the part of those manipulating the video the public saw.""
""Presumably the videos which would present a "plane" crashing into the towers were prerecorded and ready to go?""

You can't have it both ways. If the manipulation was pre-recorded it wouldn't have had these supposed mistakes.

I think you've misunderstand what I was saying. Yes, they would have had FILM of a plane ....
but it had to be inserted into live coverage.
Someone evidently wasn't paying sufficient attention and thus we got the "nose out."

Again -- whatever was available to be put into the live coverage - that still had to be "manipulated" . . . tended to. And someone seemed to have misjudged timing.


So did they pre-record ALL 45 videos of the 2nd plane strike? Did they confiscate all of the real videos without anyone hearing about it? Or did they just pre-record the 5 live videos and then confiscate the other 40 and match them up?

First of all, we do know that they confiscated videos from the area of the Pentagon, so I don't
see any reason why they wouldn't have withheld film which bystanders may have submitted to
government as information/evidence from the WTC areas.

Additionally, the film by the French producer also seems to be in question. And, I agree.
I don't know much about photography, but I just recently saw film of a live event where the
camera goes from focus of nearby objects to something happening in the sky and it is quite
blurry. However, those who know more about film/cameras suggest that it is unlikely that he
just happened to be in the exact spot to catch the plane and the crash. A narrow window --
and he was trained on it.

If you're talking about 45 videos which have turned up from public I'm not that aware of them--
I am aware that many have been questioned because of the i.d. of those who supposedly filmed
them and almost exact duplication between the videos.


""Oh -- I see, we're all hallucinating a NOSE OUT??? So let's see you're also trying to suggest that an intact NOSE OUT is seen, but it went thru the building first?""

I didn't say intact nose out, don't put words in my mouth. I said something that's shaped like the nose from that camera angle. It could have been another part of the plane, it could have been the steel of the building pushed out by something. I don't think it could have been the actual nose.

I also don't think any of the vids are clear enough, close up enough to tell exactly what it is. Why don't you link to one that shows clearly what it is. The one that SimonShack is all excited about shows just a profile, it's not sharp/clear enough to tell what it is.

Something shaped "like the nose" of the plane which was striking the building . . . but not
the nose of the plane? The SimonShack video is doubly interesting because it compares the "nose"
with the "nose" and it's clearly a match. Certainly it's not a Mickey Mouse ear -- certainly it's
not the tail of the plane!

""And, I know this is difficult for you to understand but the WTC towers were built to withstand
not just one commercial jetliner flying into it -- but many.""

I'm already aware of this. The buildings were designed to adsorb the impact by allowing fuselage penetration. The architect described it as a pencil penetrating a window screen. What I don't think he accounted for regarding the wings was the speed at impact. The design was for an accident which would be 250mph, not intentional impact which was 500 mph. Regardless the buildings weren't brought down by the planes or fires, they were brought down by unconventional controlled demolition.

The idea that the architechts didn't "account" for velocity is inane.
Therefore, I've omitted the discussion of it.
However, I do agree there was demolition -- and presumably so sophisticated/innovative as to
have been done by at least military.

""And, then did NOT take fuel into consideration because it was IRREVELANT!!! Repeat ... the kerosene fuel was irrelevant.""

no kidding, on the 2nd plane about 3/4 of it spilled outside the building and fireballed.

I repeat that because so many continue to buy the misinformation that kerosene brought down the WTC towers!

""One thing we do know that bounced out of the WTC towers was the PASSPORT of the alleged
hijacker! "Coincidence," you say?""

that's called a straw man when you argue against something you say someone said, but they didn't really say it.

You suggested a lot of stuff flew out of the side of the building we couldn't see.
Nowhere in the streets is there plane debris - luggage - passengers -- but still worth
noting, the "passport" flew thru the air while everything else was turning to dust -- and
it was intact!

""You're saying Simon Shack has video of JUST A CRUSE MISSLE . . . NOT ATTACHED TO A PLANE?""

Failure at basic comprehension of what I've written AND what SimonShack shows. Please go back and revue.

All right . . . I'm totally stupid. So repeat this for me . . .
Are you saying that SimonShack has a video of just a cruise missile?
Or are you saying he has video of a "suspected" cruise missile attached to a plane?


""Again, not all of the people in the area of the WTC were interviewed so we don't know if any
of them saw a plane -- until they got home and saw TV.""

So how do we know more people saw only explosions compared to those that saw the planes and explosions?

We don't know either way . . . but we do know that there were "actors" in the streets giving
set up interviews and framing for the public that the towers came down because of jet fuel
fires!

Nor did I say that "more" saw only explosions ... what I did note was that the one guy in the
street who had been standing there reported to the journalist filming that there was "No plane"
-- just explosions. An the journalist just did a "huh?" and walked away.


""Again, any video that has been widely seen has come from TV networks --
Any video that showed a blank sky - no plane - would mean what to you?""

Disagree, there were more privately shot videos than news crew videos, about 45 total, guessing only about 5 to 10 of those were news crews.

I have not seen ONE video with no plane, HAVE YOU?
please post a link here >>>>>>>

Again . . . there is film of WTC with blank skies -- and explosions. What does that mean
to you?

In fact, there is very interesting video of a helicopter hovering over the buildings which seem
to be setting off the explosions.

And, again, there is no chain of evidence for any film/video of planes. In fact, they are being
questioned as near duplicates of one another.


""What happened after the JFK coup? How many films were confiscated?
Same with the RFK assassination -- presume you've read about that?

In the 1960's video cameras were not near as common as today.

But video cameras were common near the Pentagon. And what does the CNN journalist tell you
about what happened there? "NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon is his report.

Also, Pentagon supposedly had a video camera -- what did you see?

Further, videos from gas station and nearby hotel were confiscated and presumably "fixed."

And compare the one square block area of JFK, and the inside room of RFK to the entirety of lower manhattan with all the hi-rise apartment buildings. What are you going to do, cordon off all the hi-rises and go door to door? LUDICROUS. You think we would have heard about that, you think a couple of original vids would have got out.

Understand that the press bus and photographers/media were all moved back in the line farther
away from the presidential limo and too far back to quickly photograph what was going on.

And, as we see with RFK, a video of a CIA agent has only recent come to the public's attention
after more than three decades!

We've also seen Daryl Gates of the LAPD handling evidence as though it was garbage --
purposeful destruction of it.

You're saying that 45 videos did get out. However, they are all in question as far as I've read.

""What about the immediate confiscation of the videos at the gas station and the hotel
nearby the Pentagon? Presumably the FBI would have had more urgent and important things
to do at that moment?""

they obviously knew where all the security cameras were beforehand and the fact the Pentagon hadn't been attacked yet so private individuals weren't filming like the 2nd WTC.

Why would the FBI have been wasting their time confiscating film on 9/11?

As you've mentioned, we largely agree -- if you don't "buy" no planes -- good for you.


Let's play a game called...

What is more difficult?

As for this "game playing" . . .

In order to successfully hijack the planes you would have to know that NORAD wouldn't immediately
intercept. And/or that control would have been taken from the hijacker -- as you so clearly point
to the possibility of happening in hijacked events. In fact, it would be what should have happened
immediately - had there actually be hijacked planes.

So we have failure of NORAD -- a standdown.

And failure to take control of the planes?

Two of the planes, in fact, were not scheduled to fly that day -- #11 and #99

The "no plane" theory which I've read and generally agree with is that one plane was flown around
and photographed -- presumably flying towards the WTC in one direction and then from the opposite
direction. It would have been the "impact" which would have been dummied.

And presumably this plane was also flown down to DC to fly over the Pentagon as explosives were
triggered.

And this is interesting . . ..

Confiscate ALL video shot by all the media.

No. Presumably the "media" corporate-press were cooperating together. Or one network was picking
up video from another network - from helicopter reports?

And talk about "strawmen" . . . who ever suggested this to you . . . except you?

Land 4 planes at alternate airports, hide/destroy all 4 planes and kill all the passengers, WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT.

There are reports which suggest that two planes were landed - and that the passengers would
have disembarked safely. Also reports that two flights weren't scheduled for 9/11 -- #11 and #99.
"Kill the passengers/destroy the planes" . . . ????????

Nor do we have any evidence that any plane went down in Shanksville - no debris, again!

As far as I'm aware the passenger manifests didn't include the names of the alleged hijackers . .
their names were added later! Additionally, a number of these alleged hijackers were on the
FBI 24 hour watch list!

That's about as much time as I have for repeated nonsense --

Again, we agree on the main factors of MIHOP ...


Coming back to your post of the 12th . . . I would just point out that the WTC attack of '93
took place before Oklahoma '95 . . . and IMO Oklahoma should still be an open case and more
thoroughly investigated. The reality behind the WTC '93 attack is also a large question -
FBI seems to end up financing the "bomb." Someone who uses a Ryder truck to set the bomb goes
back the next day for his deposit! That even was also used by PNAC/neo cons to try to push
Clinton into attack Iraq -- which he refused to do.

The fact that the Pentagon either had no "incoming" defense -- anti-missile system - would be
quite difficult to believe, especially in that the White House has such a system -- and the
hotel that Bush stayed at in Florida the night before 9/11 had anti-missile system installed
on its rooftop to protect Bush!

IMO we're also looking at the active participation of a large part of the corporate-press in
these events -- similar to what we saw in '00 with the Fox Network/John Ellis recall of Gore
in Florida and the switch to Bush.

Additionally, I presume that the Patriot Act was also written before 9/11 and ready to go.

[Kalun D]

180. VIDEO

""Yes, they would have had FILM of a plane but it had to be inserted into live coverage.""

Physically impossible. Do you know how long it takes to insert a plane into a video this long? At least an hour for a top expert. No way to do it AND show it live.


""First of all, we do know that they confiscated videos from the area of the Pentagon, so I don't
see any reason why they wouldn't have withheld film which bystanders may have submitted to
government as information/evidence from the WTC areas.""

45 separate individual videos, why would everyone submit them? You'd think if someone has vid of something besides planes they would freak out and hide them, then release them and let them go viral. Once on the web it can never be hidden again. Why have we never heard a single word about someone filming something other than planes? All the hi-rise apartments in lower manhattan, how come we haven't seen or heard something?

And to be effective you have to confiscate ALL videos IMMEDIATELY like they did at the pentagon, just one getting out would ruin it. This was a physical impossibility considering the territory is all of lower Manhattan.



""If you're talking about 45 videos which have turned up from public I'm not that aware of them--
I am aware that many have been questioned because of the i.d. of those who supposedly filmed
them and almost exact duplication between the videos.""

There's 45 separate vids of the 2nd tower strike. Please post info that shows duplication or otherwise.


""The SimonShack video is doubly interesting because it compares the "nose" with the "nose" and it's clearly a match.""

It shows a profile of something. But it's too blurry and far away to tell what it is. Reasoning says going in it's a plane, but going out it's just something with the same rough shape. If you were presented with that shape alone with no foreknowledge of what it was could you ID it as a plane?

I can make shadow puppets (profiles) with my hand that look like a dog. Does that mean my hand is a dog?


""The idea that the architechts didn't "account" for velocity is inane.""

RE-READ. I said they accounted the velocity at 250mph. The precedent of planes being a hazard to buildings was the Empire State Building, which was an accident. An accident would be 250 mph cuz that's the normal sea level speed of passenger jets. It is highly unusual for them to be going 500 mph at sea level.


""You suggested a lot of stuff flew out of the side of the building we couldn't see.""

It shows in the vid, and a jet engine was laying on the street. There's photos and firefighter testimony. The firefighter stuff is credible because so many of them say they heard timed explosions in the buildings before collapse.

the passport is different. The chances of it happening are very slim, but I've heard of a piece of paper being left on a table in the middle of a tornado. The thing that makes the passport unbelievable is they "found" similar evidence at all 4 plane crashes. The chances become astronomical.


""Are you saying that SimonShack has a video of just a cruise missile?""

did you actually watch the vid you are trying to discuss?


""we do know that there were "actors" in the streets giving set up interviews and framing for the public""

Yes the media is co-opted. But there's plenty of witnesses that saw planes, many more than those that did not. And there's plenty of angles the planes would not have been visible and the explosions would.


""Again . . . there is film of WTC with blank skies -- and explosions. What does that mean to you?""

The only one that I've seen is a really long shot, the plane is coming from the other way, the resolution and zoom are so bad the plane is indistinct because it's so small and blurry. Please post a link.


""In fact, there is very interesting video of a helicopter hovering over the buildings which seem
to be setting off the explosions.""

I think the remote control came from WTC 7. The biggest news event in history will bring out dozens of news copters.


""And, again, there is no chain of evidence for any film/video of planes. In fact, they are being
questioned as near duplicates of one another.""

How hard have you searched for chain of custody (is that the word you wanted?)?

Have you seen the collection of all the 2nd strike vids? Some of them are similar but none are the same.


""But video cameras were common near the Pentagon.""
""Also, Pentagon supposedly had a video camera -- what did you see?""

Two separate kinds of video, security video and private individual video. There wasn't any people filming the Pentagon because nothing had happened there. WTC 2 already had something that everyone was filming, the burning of the first tower.

the lack of Pentagon vid screams cover-up and disinfo


""You're saying that 45 videos did get out. However, they are all in question as far as I've read.""

45 is not a surprising number considering all the hi-rises in lower Manhattan and that the first tower was burning. Why is this not to be expected?

How are they in question? post a link.


""Why would the FBI have been wasting their time confiscating film on 9/11?""

Because it was possible at the Pentagon and what the vids showed didn't match the official story. OR they wanted to create disinfo. It was impossible to confiscate all vid at the WTC so the plan could not and did not call for it. The outward appearance, planes into buildings was how it happened. 911 was a very complex event, why make it unnecessarily more complicated?


""In order to successfully hijack the planes you would have to know that NORAD wouldn't immediately
intercept.""

They controlled NORAD by distracting with exercises. And by giving final order power to the executive.


""So we have failure of NORAD -- a standdown.""

failure is unintentional, standdown is intentional, it was intentional.


""And failure to take control of the planes?""

They did not fail, only with 93 because of the delayed departure.


""Two of the planes, in fact, were not scheduled to fly that day -- #11 and #99""

a single unsourced document?

The criteria of "chain of custody" vacillates with the desire to believe something.


""The "no plane" theory which I've read and generally agree with is that one plane was flown around
and photographed -- presumably flying towards the WTC in one direction and then from the opposite
direction. It would have been the "impact" which would have been dummied.""

magnitudes more complex than necessary. Suppressing numerous eyewitnesses and videos. When the event as outwardly portrayed would have been easier to carry out and more effective.


>>Confiscate ALL video shot by all the media.

""No. Presumably the "media" corporate-press were cooperating together.""
""And talk about "strawmen" . . . who ever suggested this to you . . . except you?""

Key people near the top in the media are in on it. You can't involve everyone, that's ludicrous.

It's not a strawman because the theory of no planes requires ALL video to be confiscated immediately.

All the camera people, helicopter pilots, beat reporters, studio newscasters, their ALL in on it. They've all been told in advance their going to film cruise missiles, and turn in the video so it can be changed to planes, then their going to report that instead. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!


""There are reports which suggest that two planes were landed - and that the passengers would
have disembarked safely. Also reports that two flights weren't scheduled for 9/11 -- #11 and #99.""

let me guess, a single unsourced document?


"""Kill the passengers/destroy the planes" . . . ????????""

a requirement when the witness's story doesn't match the official version. Look at all the people that died early deaths because of connections to the JFK story.


""Nor do we have any evidence that any plane went down in Shanksville - no debris, again!""

because it was shot down mid air, the debris field was 6 square miles. Do you realize what a plane is going to look like when it's spread over 6 square miles?


""As far as I'm aware the passenger manifests didn't include the names of the alleged hijackers . .
their names were added later!""

they were never added to the airline's lists.


""The fact that the Pentagon either had no "incoming" defense -- anti-missile system - would be
quite difficult to believe, especially in that the White House has such a system -- and the
hotel that Bush stayed at in Florida the night before 9/11 had anti-missile system installed
on its rooftop to protect Bush!""

Pentagon most likely had surface to air defense. If it did it was stood down.


""IMO we're also looking at the active participation of a large part of the corporate-press in
these events""

just like the Kennedy's. 75% of Americans think conspiracy. To this very day the news only says lone gunman. It's controlled from the top, all the others aren't "in on it".


""Additionally, I presume that the Patriot Act was also written before 9/11 and ready to go.""

agree

[tenseconds]

179. height of fuselage

Doesn't the height of the fuselage exceed the height of one tower floor? The fuselage would have had to penetrate through at least one floor .

[defendandprotect]

56. Tell that to the CNN reporter . . . it must have been his first day on the job . . .!!!

No planes is absolutely ludicrous on it's face. The only ones pushing it are the technologically misinformed and the disinformants doing the misinforming.

Of course, they probably used their least experienced reporter to cover the Pentagon.

And, of course, the poor little Pentagon had no defense system in play!!

:eyes:

[LARED]

27. I think the gaping holes are only found

between the ears of no-planers.

[JackRiddler]

42. Has it occurred to you that the people who made up these claims knew they were fictional?

It's a scam. Not that some very few people don't actually believe it.

If you had followed the evolution from Phil Jayhan's bogus discovery of "the pod" through holograms to no planes at all, you would have seen the authors of these fictions consciously trying out progressively more outrageous scenarios, simultaneously becoming more energetic in their attack on all other 9/11 researchers and activists.

They are out to destroy and discredit. It's a game. Of course you're not going to fill the holes in. You play into their hands, you give them what they want by raising this nonsense as though they'd ever have an answer.

[Ohio Joe]

43. Yes, it has

I think there are some very deceptive videos and websites that promote this stuff and there are people that can get taken in by it. I also think there are a fair number of people that read this forum without posting, looking for either confirmation or refutation of things they see on the web. I felt that putting out some of the largest gaps (as I see it), combined with a complete inability for them to be filled in might prevent some from being taken in by it.

It is, how I view this forum in general. I do not think any of the active participants will ever change each others minds, but do have the ability to sway the silent readers.

Perhaps I am wrong about this, you are not the first to say so. Enough have that I am giving serious thought to no longer doing what I do in this forum. Thank you for your input.

[defendandprotect]

59. But, Fox News can be trusted --- !!!!

Where were you in 2000 when John Ellis/Fox News helped steal the election?

Evidently, you're having problems understanding that our corporate-press is simply a bit more
than biased????

[Ohio Joe]

108. Oop's another try at changing the topic - nt

[defendandprotect]

93. And what are they out to "destroy and discredit" . . . ??? The Bush/Cheney OCT . . ..

based on a conspiracy by a guy in a cave with a computer - while on a dialysis machine?

If Bushco had told you that the Russians had done this you'd be ....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As we all would be!!!

[chrisa]

158. The only fairy tale in this thread is the "9/11 truth movement"

and their usage of false logic and half-truths in order to try and turn 9/11 into a fictional conspiracy story. They accuse non-believers of being sheep, but are themselves not open to attacks on their ideas, because everybody attacking them for their bogus logic must be an idiot or paid government agent.

That's how the bogus conspiracy logic continues. The false idea that those who believe it are more "enlightened" than everybody else.

[Marksbrother]

160. Yes, and with good reason, especially in comparsion to you.

"those who believe it are more "enlightened" than everybody else."


PLANE HUGGER Alert!

[Ohio Joe]

163. Now with more attempts at insults and still zero content!

heh, too funny.

[SDuderstadt]

164. I don't think MB can hear you anymore, OJ...

I believe he pressed his luck one too many times, if-you-know-what-I-mean...

[OnTheOtherHand]

165. gee, I was beginning to think he'd make it to the end of June n/t

[Ohio Joe]

166. oop's, I guess not - nt

[JackRiddler]

167. Who's "they"?

"They accuse non-believers of being sheep, but are themselves not open to attacks on their ideas, because everybody attacking them for their bogus logic must be an idiot or paid government agent."

Actually, there are such people who accuse all OCT defenders of being sheep or agents (note that these categories are close to mutually exclusive). And they're wrong. However, others do not. Why don't you tell us who you're talking about, maybe I even agree with you on some of your choices. What have you read in the world of literature expressing skepticism about the official story, for example about The 9/11 Commission Report?

The presence of idiots on either side of a question doesn't tell you which is the right answer. People who call everyone else sheep don't affect the fact that the official story (stories) as told are deficient and suspect.

.

[chrisa]

168. It's fine to question the official story,

But throwing out outlandish, ridiculous fiction and claiming that A- It is absolute proven fact, and B- Anybody who doesn't believe these facts, despite a complete lack of evidence to support them, is a government agent or idiot is pretty common amongst the 9/11 truth movement. I know they're not all like that, but they're not representing themselves well, crashing live shows like Bill Maher screaming crap at the top of their lungs.

In all normal logic, the idea that the US government perpetrated 9/11 is not only ridiculous but bordering on insane.

[balantz]

44. All one has to do is compare the different 2nd impact videos to see

that there are some serious problems with them.

They are fabrications:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M&feature=related

[Ohio Joe]

45. Another complete evasion of the questions

Why am I not one bit surprised.

[defendandprotect]

95. Yes . . . you're evading the questions . . .

and the only surprise is that you keep pretending that you know anything about 9/11 -

and that you have any legitimate questions which deserve to be called questions!!

[Ohio Joe]

109. blah blah blah

Insults? That all you got? Keep evading, it points out the sheer stupidity of no planes.

[defendandprotect]

60. Thanks for the film . . . we need more video in this thread . . .aluminum wings cut thru steel --!!!

[Ohio Joe]

64. We need one person willing to address the OP - nt

[defendandprotect]

66. We need debate -- try answering some of the questions . . .

[defendandprotect]

96. Why?

Have you read your meaningless meanderings?

[Ohio Joe]

110. bwahahahahaha

This from the same guy that beleives in fantasys with zero evidence.

[Kalun D]

70. VELOCITY

""aluminum wings cut thru steel --!!!""

it's the velocity of the aluminum that allowed it to cut through the WTC outer wall.

ever heard of a water jet cutter? If water can cut through titanium if the velocity is high enough, why can't aluminum cut through steel if the velocity is high enough?

How much stronger are the aluminum alloys jets are made of, like 7075-T7 amd 7050-T7, compared to the aluminum you are familiar with like aluminum cans? About 3 times as strong?

[defendandprotect]

97. Ah, yes, "velocity" which the architects never thought about . . .

are you kidding?

The WTC towers were built to withstand not one but multiple jets flying into it.

Read what the architects and those who built the WTC towers say about that.

Also, the thing about aluminium planes is they can shrink up and then you find

that an entire aluminum plane -- 44 feet high -- can get thru a 20X15 foot hole

in the wall of the Pentagon!

That's another little known fact about "velocity" and aluminum planes.

:rofl:

[Kalun D]

105. PENTAGON

The Pentagon and Shanksville is just as explainable as the WTC.

The Pentagon was up-armored concrete/steel with a masonry facade. They had just finished up-armoring, with a bomb-proof design, the outer wall of the wing that was struck.

The Pentagon is just like the WTC, an un-precedented, never before seen event. No historical precedent means no-one knew exactly what to expect. The primary unprecedented thing about both events was the 500 mph impact speed, when 250 mph is the normal speed of passenger jet aircraft at sea level.

The main difference between the WTC and the up-armored Pentagon is the wall construction. The WTC exterior wall is relatively thin steel and glass, with the wall area divided about 50/50 steel/glass. Estimating 1/4" to 3/8" thick steel channel at impact height. With it's huge height the WTC had to be relatively light weight especially in the upper floors. Most of the strength was in the thicker core columns. The exterior wall was designed to adsorb the impact of a jet by allowing penetration of the fuselage and distributing the consequent extra load to other columns. I think the wings cut through because the design was for 250mph impact not 500mph.

The Pentagon is much different. It is only a few stories high so weight is not an issue. After bomb proofing it was probably about 18" to 36" thick (est). In addition the windows take up less area by percentage, about 25% glass, 75% reinforced concrete. And that is bomb proof glass.

From an structural engineering standpoint it is most likely that if a 757 struck the Pentagon most of the wing area would not penetrate. However where I think it's certain that planes struck the towers, it's not certain that a 757 struck the Pentagon, there's no certain evidence that it did or did not, it could have been a cruise missile, in fact that's what the 5 frame vid appears to show.

The circumstantial evidence is for flight 77 to have hit because that's the radar track and the witnesses, and it's more problematic to dispose of 77 if it didn't hit.

The main point being no-one has ever seen what really happens when a 757 strikes a bomb proof reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph, or what happens when a 757 strikes a steel/glass channel wall at 500 mph. So pre-conceived notions of what it should look like have to be backed up by structural engineering expertise.

And it seems sort of silly for people to argue that a jet wing shouldn't cut through a 5/16" thick steel and glass wall but it should cut right through a 24" thick bomb proof reinforced concrete wall. Even one of these scenarios is unlikely and people want to claim both, LUDICROUS.

[Marksbrother]

115. If it hit, then where is it?

You continue to make some many blatant errors in logic that I'm beginning to wonder whose team you're really on.

[Kalun D]

121. Errors

""If it hit, then where is it?""

It was obliterated into small pieces mostly the size of a 50 cent piece and smaller.

Have you ever visited a crash site where a plane has hit a rock wall (cliff) dead on? I have been to two of them, Albuquerque's Sandia Crest. and Mt. Slesse in Canada. Prop planes, and it was much lower speed like around 150 mph. They were obliterated, little chunks, except for the tail. The Pentagon is essentially a rock wall, and the plane was going 500mph, probably took most of the tail out because of the speed.

The evidence is sketchy, there should be video but it's being with-held, probably because there's no pilots in the cockpit if it was flown by ROV.

Note I have said it could also be a cruise missile.

""blatant errors""

a background in engineering is helpful to analyze the crashes.

please point out from an engineering perspective where I've made blatant errors in logic.

please point out from a logical perspective how you manipulate 5 live videos and confiscate 40 other videos without anybody hearing about it.

""whose team you're really on.""

agents don't argue MIHOP, agents don't write extensively about disinfo which shines a light on the exact MO's of agents.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Hey, Kalun!

I have relatives that live there and my late aunt told the story of that plane crash from the 50's or 60's, I think. She believed it was TWA. Is the wreckage visible from the Tram? How about La Luz Trail? I assume it crashed during take-off from what would have been called the ABQ Sunport back then. I have never been able to see it in visits there. Thanks in advance.

[Kalun D]

150. TWA flight 260, 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_260

It was poor visibility, on IFR and before ground proximity warning. If I'm not mistaken they initiated ground proximity warning because of this crash. Think they just took the wrong compass heading or the compass was messed up. Hope they all Rest In Peace.

You can see the wreckage from the tram but you have to know where to look cuz it's kind of down in a canyon and is only visible for a few seconds. The tram operators know where it is and will point it out. It's about 500 yards south of the LaLuz, straight below the tram and about 500ft down from the top. It's kind of hard to find.

It's a strange story when I hiked down to see it on the ground. A buddy of mine had always wanted to go to the site and I'd heard about it and knew where it was but had never been. My buddy had tried to find it before but never could. I agreed to take him and his GF and son. We drove to the top of the crest and hiked down to it. Found it right away and my buddy was excited but as soon as we got to the site he started to get real sick, like bad flu symptoms and he had been just fine before. Even though he was feeling like crap he still wanted to get a good look around and we did. The biggest pieces are of the tail, but it's just like parts of the tail, maybe 3'x 5' with red and white paint. There's also some broken off engine cylinders (radial engines) and prop blades stuck in the ground. Most of the pieces were small like no more than 2" across, mostly metal but a few pieces of deteriorated nylon like seat belts and seat covers. I think we also found a small piece of bone, but I refused to handle it, we left it there, in fact we didn't take anything. I think it's a protected site.

We ate lunch and took some pictures and then hiked up and out. My buddy was really sick and had trouble hiking out, but as soon as we got to the car he made a fast and full recovery, it was really weird. But that's not even the strangest part of the story. It was the weekend and I didn't see him till the next Monday at work. On Monday he had a really bad look on his face. Turns out a close friend of his had just crashed his kit plane head on into a mountain in Arizona, killing him and his wife. The really eerie thing was it happened at the exact same time we were at the crash site on Sandia Crest.

[defendandprotect]

127. If it was a "cruise missile" why did they plant an airplane engine inside the Pentagon ..???

Why the fake "debris" outside on the lawn . . . handcarried by FBI agents??

[Kalun D]

151. You got me dude.

Maybe they want us to think it was a plane

maybe they want us to think it wasn't a plane, who really knows for sure.

[Marksbrother]

153. Believe anything. Know nothing. That's a common strategy

used by propagandists everywhere. "Let 'em believe anything they want to. We don't care as long as they know nothing for certain."


They can count that day won whenever the most that someone who is seemingly well-informed says "who really knows". It's even better

when that happens, because if a seeming opinion leader expresses doubt, then those who are easily influenced will believe likewise.

[Kalun D]

169. Agree

that's what they did at the Pentagon, left it up in the air where it's not really clear what hit the building.

One thing for sure, something is being hidden cuz of the absence of video

no doubt it was either a 757 or a cruise missile

no doubt there should be high quality video showing exactly what it was

no doubt that since they're not showing the video, either it doesn't fit with the story or it's being withheld solely to create disinfo

[SDuderstadt]

170. MB can't hear you, Kalun...

he pressed his luck a tad too far, if-you-know-what-I-mean.

[defendandprotect]

175. Since a 44' high plane can't go thru a 20X15 foot hole . . .

I'm tending to agree with those who suggest it was a "bunker buster" . . .
used by military.

The fact that there was no real debris outside the Pentagon - no tail section,
no luggage, no bodies, no interior furnishings of the planes/plane seats, etc.

Agree with you on videos.

[SDuderstadt]

176. It wasn't a "20 X 15 hole"....

D&P. You're only looking at the upper circular hole and totally ignoring the more rectangular hole below it.

[Kalun D]

181. PRECEDENT

There is no precedent for a fully fueled 757 hitting a up-armored brick wall at 500 mph.

It's never been seen before, how do we know what it's supposed to look like? That said it could have been a missile also.

AGAIN IT'S THE VELOCITY. Normally 250 mph at sea level it was 500 mph.

[AZCat]

118. We don't really know what the design parameters for an impact of the WTC towers were.

We know that several of the designers have claimed analyses were done of possible impacts, but nobody seems to agree what was actually done nor has anyone found the calculations. Regardless, I think any engineer worth his/her salt understands that no design is "bulletproof". Automotive designers have been discovering that for years.

[Kalun D]

119. Parameters

""We don't really know what the design parameters for an impact of the WTC towers were.""

We know EXACTLY what the design parameters for an impact of the WTC towers were. Because we have the as-built plans of the towers and the jets and we can reverse engineer from there with a complete fully accurate 3D model.

the fact that this hasn't been done is one of the damning circumstantial points of evidence.

[achtung_circus]

120. OK, then,

what are the design parameters?

Aircraft type?
Speed?
Attitude?
Loading?
Specifics?
Math?

[AZCat]

142. You're talking about modeling the actual impact.

I'm talking about the design parameters for the hypothetical impacts examined by the WTC towers designers - two separate things.

What do you mean a "complete fully accurate 3D model"? (we'll ignore the obvious error here) You do realize NIST did exactly that?

[Kalun D]

148. Solids Modeling

""You're talking about modeling the actual impact. I'm talking about the design parameters for the hypothetical impacts examined by the WTC towers designers - two separate things.""

whateva

either one, both it doesn't matter, both should be do-able


""What do you mean a "complete fully accurate 3D model"? (we'll ignore the obvious error here)""

layman's terms


""You do realize NIST did exactly that?""

NO THEY DID NOT.

This has been recently argued and you guys lost, would you like a repeat performance?

[AZCat]

157. Either we could go through it again...

or you could point me to the previous discussion. Your choice.

[Kalun D]

173. Previous Discussion

THREAD

starting at post 77 and debating with you and Theobald

You guys said it was a Solids model study, it wasn't, it was a "simple 2D drawing"

You guys said it was peer reviewed, it wasn't, other studies in the article, about what to do in the future were, but not the 2D drawing "study"

You then went on to try to convince us 2D FEA was a viable way to study the WTC collapse. LOLZ!!!!!

All the FEA packages I know won't even do structural 2D FEA. LOLZ!!!!!

[AZCat]

177. I think there is some confusion.

I thought we were talking about the impact study. It appears you haven't read the NIST report, because this is clearly not just a "simple 2D drawing". Try NCSTAR 1-2B, for example.

You're "LOLZ" are quite laughable. Why don't you try talking to an actual engineer before making an ass of yourself?

[Kalun D]

178. NIST

N-I-S-T

N-ot
I-ntended to
S-how the
T-ruth


""Try NCSTAR 1-2B, for example.""

I went right to NCSTAR 1-6D

Their isolated FEA tests of the walls and core did not show collapse.

Their global tests only collapsed when they pulled in the outer walls "based on the observed evidence"

IOW the model didn't fail on it's own from heat or buckling, they applied force like the photo showed until it failed.

They didn't get the model to pull the outer walls in on it's own, they pulled it in based on the evidence of one photo.

And it looks like to me they pulled it in across a much broader section than the photo shows.

One last question AZCat, where's the peer review of this study? Isn't sound science always peer reviewed?

[defendandprotect]

128. The WTC architects are on record -- and there is film -- stating that

not only would the WTC towers have withstood a commercial jetliner crashing into them . . .

but would withstand MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL JETLINERS CRASHING INTO THEM.

[AZCat]

141. Who gives a shit what an architect thinks?

When it comes to technical questions like this they're irrelevant.

[defendandprotect]

126. Where are you picking up this nonsense . . .

The 20X15 foot hole in the Pentagon looks like the work of a "bunker buster."
Where's the plane debris?

Again, the WTC towers were built to withstand any PRECEDENT of a commercial jet liner --
even multiple commercial jet planes -- flying into it.

Now . . . let's see, your "velocity" theory now depends on WTC being "glass" -- ???

:rofl:

Did you also notice that the Pentagon anti-ballistic missile system was turned off?
Or do you think we put anti-missile systems on the White House and rooftop of Bush's hotel
in Florida on 9/10 -- but we just didn't bother with the Pentagon?

Maybe the "terrarists" found out how to turn off the Pentagon system?

:rofl:

And evidently we also got the Pentagon the cheapest video cameras we could find!!!

:rofl:


So . . . now you're saying that the impact was actually a "cruise missile" . . .
Then why was there some fake pieces of a plane -- logo and coloring - which could be
"hand carried" on the lawn??? Who might have planted those.
Don't tell me . . . the "terrarists" . . . ???

:rofl:

Flight #77 and #11 were evidently not scheduled to be flown on 9/11 -- according to the
airline data.

I'd say the cartoon planes make it pretty clear that the cartoonists had no idea what
a plane entering a skyscraper might look like!! But the little "devil face" touches
were cute!!!

[Kalun D]

152. SIMPLE TERMS

"""The 20X15 foot hole in the Pentagon looks like the work of a "bunker buster.""

According to an engineering background, or according to something that was seen or read on the internet?

Before 911 had anyone ever seen what it looked like when a 757 crashed into a 2 ft thick bomb proof reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph?

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE?

WHAT IS YOUR ENGINEERING BACKGROUND?

""Now . . . let's see, your "velocity" theory now depends on WTC being "glass" -- ???""

quote correctly, "steel and glass"

Sorry an engineer is not going to ignore an important part of the equation.

"""Maybe the "terrarists" found out how to turn off the Pentagon system?
And evidently we also got the Pentagon the cheapest video cameras we could find!!!
So . . . now you're saying that the impact was actually a "cruise missile" . . .
Then why was there some fake pieces of a plane -- logo and coloring - which could be
"hand carried" on the lawn??? Who might have planted those.
Don't tell me . . . the "terrarists" . . . ???
Flight #77 and #11 were evidently not scheduled to be flown on 9/11 -- according to the
airline data."""

all side issues I did not discuss. Not relevant to what I discussed.



""I'd say the cartoon planes make it pretty clear that the cartoonists had no idea what
a plane entering a skyscraper might look like!!""

Before 911 had anyone ever seen what a 757 looked like hitting the WTC and Pentagon at 500 mph?

CLUE, it's probably not like in the movies.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE?

WHAT IS YOUR ENGINEERING BACKGROUND?

And how did the cartoonists search all of the hi-rises in lower Manhattan and confiscate the 45 videos without anyone saying anything?

[Marksbrother]

154. Evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon

Wherdy go? Few people ever witness a plane crash, but most people have seen the aftermath of one. The only evidence at the

Pentagon is very suspicious and was almost certainly planted.


If you only "discuss" selected evidence then you have no right to claim a specific finding.


Have you always been a plane hugger?

[Kalun D]

159. Engineering

"" most people have seen the aftermath of one.""

No they haven't. In real life or on the TV? Real plane crashes or fictional ones?

I've seen two plane crash sites in real life, how many have you seen?

Before 911 had anyone ever seen a 757 hit a bomb proof concrete wall at 500 mph?

what does it look like?

""If you only "discuss" selected evidence then you have no right to claim a specific finding.""

???????????? The only trouble is there's been no answers to my selected points. I have answers to yours but they don't apply to the point I raised in the first place.

this is not discussion. Real discussion is when you answer ALL of someone's points.

I've made dozens of points on this thread, I've got answers to about 2 of them.

""Have you always been a plane hugger?""

Have you always believed something you saw or read on the internet without having an engineering background to back it up?

Does SimonShack have an engineering background? do any engineers back him up? How about some video industry experts? I know a top vid expert who's MIHOP, and he says no planes is disinfo all the way.

[Marksbrother]

161. Are you really THAT dense?

I guess I'm surprised that you were unable to grasp that when I used the term "aftermath" I meant photos, movies, videos etc.



Have you ever read anything about how to reason logically? What other explanation could there possibly be for using the kind

of reasoning (sic) you're using here? Before you go on with the engineering nonsense, PROVE that a plane crashed at the Pentagon.

You may believe because BUSHCO and the TRUE BELIEVERS Brigade here say it's true, but there's no credible evidence to substantiate

such a claim.


Have you been seduced by DISINFORMATION or are you intentionally trying to promote an unproven claim?

[Kalun D]

171. Engineering = Nonsense ?????

""when I used the term "aftermath" I meant photos, movies, videos etc.""

Those methods don't give you a complete picture, you have to be there on the ground to really understand what happens when a plane is obliterated.

Movies are fictional, it's doesn't happen like that in real life. I really think that's why people can buy no planes, they're so used to the fiction portrayed in movies, they think impossible things can happen in real life.


""Before you go on with the engineering nonsense""

Engineering is one of the best ways to analyze what happened when you have a limited amount of evidence.


""PROVE that a plane crashed at the Pentagon.""

I thought I made it clear there's not enough evidence to prove what exactly hit the Pentagon? Why do I have to keep repeating myself?


""there's no credible evidence to substantiate such a claim.""

failure to comprehend what I said. Quote where I said it WAS a plane.

you haven't addressed any of my points directly where I stated the reasons why it was probably a plane, just general nay-saying.


""seduced by DISINFORMATION""

the definition of "no plane'rs"

[SDuderstadt]

172. Kalun...

you are addressing a ghost. MB was "invited to leave DU" by the mods.

[Marksbrother]

71. Plane-Hugger ALERT!

[spooked911]

72. ANSWERS

1) the photos and videos. First, lots of people have analyzed them, and there are lots of discrepancies. You just don't trust those people who say they are faked. The BIGGER PROBLEM is the complete lack of high resolution/high quality video for any 2nd hit film. You can't properly analyze compressed little videos for digital fakery. This is why Ace Baker has started a petition to get the networks to release the videos and why he has offered $100,000 for original videos. You can't even get the amateurs to come forward with original video. Weird.

2) the live witnesses who really saw a plane saw a fly-by plane that was going around. Other witnesses were fooled by TV. Some people saw no plane hit the tower, (e.g. David Handschuh) but thought they missed it because everyone talked about the plane they saw on TV.

3) the cover-up-- obviously it would be critical to cover this up, but be assured that there are ways- much like they did for the JFK ass'n. We don't know who has been bought off or even killed. Another way is that there was an EMP-type device used to block amateur videos of the plane. This device was described by the media as being used by the military to control videos of a battlefield.

Finally--
115 Reasons Why I Am a No-Planer
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

[SDuderstadt]

73. Dude...

now you're conflating "didn't see the plane hit the tower" with "saw no plane hit the tower. It's a subtle difference, to be sure, but it simply isn't true that someone who didn't see the plane hit the tower concludes that "no plane hit the tower". In Handschuh's case, he states that he was looking thru the viewfinder of his camera and didn't have his camera aimed at the impact zone, but you selectively mine his quotes to make it appear his saying something different. If your have evidence that he is, in any way, a "no-planer", please produce it.

[snooper2]

76. the Inner Circle

:rofl:

Slander Campaign

In a recent campaign of intimidation and lies, Baker emailed dozens of 9-11 activists with claims that '"Killtown", "Webfairy" and "Fred BSRegistration" were disinfo trolls.

For the full-text of Ace Baker's slander please see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/message/23398

Baker made attempts to join the inner circle of the 9-11 Truth Movement by presenting plagiarized research at the 9-11 Truth Madison Conference and by gaining the trust of Prof. Judy Wood.

http://forum.911movement.org/ar/t2919.htm

You guys really do have your own World on the Intertubes :)

What do you do for a living again spooked? I'm in Telecom FYI

[spooked911]

84. there are likely agents all throughout the "movement"

just like there are here. That is how the PTB control the truth.

Not sure what your point is overall.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Damn it....

I wish I had known the term "likely agent" back when DU was permitting screenname changes. That would've been cool.

[Ohio Joe]

113. Why thank you spooked

I really mean that. It is refreshing that you do not resort to insults, insinuations and evasions, and instead actually address the OP.

1 - Sorry, but I think Ace's offer is a sham. There are a few things with it. First, I believe it is not sincere, I think it is something he wants to be able to point to and say "see, no one comes forward" and then make whatever insinuations he wants as to why. I also thin the whole "take my word I have enough credit to pay 100k" is not going to convince a lot of people. He also wants people to sign over all rights to the video... kind of dodgy, some might go for it but that will turn off a lot of people. He then wants to do the analysis himself and he is simply not qualified. Anyone that takes a look at his blog would figure out that he is not a very trustworthy person and be very hesitant to make themselves his target. He would have much more luck if he made the offer so that he never does the analysis but rather an actual expert, he would also allow the owner to retain rights and possession of the original. He might also try advertising his offer somewhere besides his obscure corner of the internet.

I do not find it weird at all that anyone with amateur video does not come forward to the no plane community. Intended or not, anyone that was there who takes a look at any of the stuff out there is going to be insulted... not just insulted but insulted on a very personal level. The concept says they are either a fool or a liar, not going to get much co-operation from those that fall into that category.

2 - David Handschuh... He does not believe there were no planes hitting the towers in NY on 9/11. This is what I meant by cherry picking quotes. Not one person that saw a fly by after all this time has come forward... Do you really not find that troublesome for the theory?

3 - I am unsure what you mean by "much like they did for the JFK ass'n" as there are many many various theories and I do not know them all... None of the ones I know fit in with any context, so it cannot be any of those. Could you flesh that out a little?

As for the device... I've seen the link... its up thread somewhere (unless you mean something different) and the device described simply could not do the job in 2003 much less in 2001. As far as I know, it still can not do it today, certainly not for the size of the area it would have to.

Again, Thanks.

[victordrazen]

87. How can there be a photo proving no plane?

It would either be the side of an ordinary building or an explosion in progress, that is why they made the plane disappear into the building, whereas it would have crashed against and , at least partially, fallen down. Then someone would have been able to catch it because there would have been an "in between" where there were falling debris, instead of plane out then plane gone. Those videos are showing something impossible and don't bring up the Purdue animation - all they were paid to do is illustrate what they were told happened, it wasn't a proof of anything and it was done by a computer animator.
The footage was made in advance, possibly the military used the executive order for emergencies to do this since there had been the FEMA exercise. But those media companies are filled with Pentagon/military people anyway, it's a revolving door. That is why you only have five live shots, shown in "real time". Why didn't individual stations get their own footage?
The witnesses were not "brainwashed", they were related to media or actors, I have posted a list before of who they were, it should be in the archives. Also there were a great number of them who did not see a plane and were shocked to hear there was one; even one of the reporters- Dan Dahler(?). Another reporter was trying to get the word out that there may not have been a plane and they cut him off (Dick Oliver)
This information is available and you can figure it out if you watch the footage from that morning but you are hoping that no one will have the time to answer you and that it will look like you "won". It takes a long time to explain it, but once you have figured it out, you understand it, you just have to watch the f**** footage and look things up. Your attitude that someone has to explain it to you while you sit there is typical of the Americans who just accept everything that's shoveled down their throat like huge babies in high chairs.

Also, the Evan Fairbanks "hit" that he caught with the man who doesn't notice it until the explosion, that is an impossible shot- he would not be able to get the top of the towers from where he stood - the foreshortening is extreme compare it to a shot of the wtc from the ground looking up you can't get someone's head in 5 five in front of you AND the top of the tower. Later he goes into the wtc and people are going UP the stairs to work it probably wasn't even 9-11. Use your brain and your eyes and stop assuming that everything is what you're being told. Why didn't any real photographers get close up shots that day just wedding/barmitzvah unknowns.
Also Peter Jennings when introducing Fairbanks (who never before or after produced ANY work, neither did the Naudets except one documentary) comments on how photographers were unable to get near the wtc- there was no transportation in and all the photographers from Magnus (which published Fairbanks stuff although he wasn't one of their photographers) were unable to reach the wtc and had to take shots from far away.

One last thing - from Hoboken and Brooklyn the wtc was too far to notice a plane- go look on google maps and go to Hoboken and point it to south Manhattan- it is way too far to notice a plane,it would not have been that noticeable if it did happen, the television is the great deceiver it makes it look like the twin towers were visible from everywhere because they are shooting from a helicopter or plane or (or you're looking at a computer program from the air as point of view )most people did not have that kind of view. But everyone who watched it on tv thinks "oh you can see that from everywhere" over there. You couldn't even see the wtc from a few blocks away because of the density of buildings.

[balantz]

88. Yep. What you said. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

89. You misquote him. He said "no video", not "no photo." n/t

[victordrazen]

94. Oh well there IS video without a plane

I've seen several. They were televised on the local NY stations because they were not getting the national feed I suppose. The announcer says it's another explosion or something like that then they start the Oh I guess there was a plane bla bla...you can find a few plus september clues has one.

and really if you count the absurd "amateur" shots with the black thing that's supposed to be a plane that really should count as a video without a plane because that sure as hell ain't no plane.

[defendandprotect]

99. Great info . . . . but now they're going to want to know . . .

was it video of "no plane" or just video of no plane --

:rofl: :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

100. LINK TO THEM. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

112. Link?

or just more bullshit?

[defendandprotect]

98. I presume you know what an embarrassing question you're asking . . .

and the fact that they don't even get it???

[Ohio Joe]

111. As allready pointed out, video not photo

The towers could not be seen from Jersey? heh... hahahahahahaha..... bwaaaahahahahahahaha Gee, I wonder what "NY Skyline" would get from google images?

The towers could only be seen within a few blocks? Holy fucking crap! Perhaps the stupidist claim yet.

[victordrazen]

101. There are supposedly "millions" of witnesses

yet they had to get people who worked for CNN/Fox, etc... How hard would real witnesses be to find?
No "brainwashing" necessary. Just a promised promotion and a raise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuB4jLAuVLk&feature=PlayList&p=FAFFDE39F342242C&index=3

[SDuderstadt]

102. Think this through, VD....

if your claim is true, why aren't thousands of people coming forward and saying, "Hey, I was a witness and I saw the Towers explode even though no plane hit it". Do you guys think these things through?

[Marksbrother]

116. If YOUR BS were true, why isn't there even ONE credible video

of an actual plane crashing into the WTC or the Pentagon?

[SDuderstadt]

117. DONE, dude...

I cannot make it any simpler other than to put it in Braille.

[Marksbrother]

131. Silence is consent.

You COULD be a little more gentlemanly about it, but I'll take that as a concession win even so.

[SDuderstadt]

137. DONE, dude...

only you could regard someone tiring of your bullshit as a ''concession''.

[Marksbrother]

138. You never answered the questions. That's a concession.

It's presumed that you are conceding the points.

[SDuderstadt]

140. Done with your silliness, dude...

n/t

[victordrazen]

123. Why "experts" don't say anything

This should have it's own thread
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

[SDuderstadt]

124. You should start your own thread...

you could title it ''Guy repeats totally discredited 9/11 bullshit and claims he is being persecuted''.

[Ohio Joe]

125. What a strange story

A lot of odd things about it. He start off with the extradition but does not say why and I can't find anything about it. He keeps mentioning a crime that did not happen but not what the crime he is accused of is. He then kind of glosses over his arrest, saying his wife suicide was obvious but his first arrest for her murder was apparently dropped because of a note that was found behind a picture that is really kind of vague... odd for a suicide not both in content and location but, who knows, certainly reason to doubt murder. I was also able to find that he was arrested a second time for her murder but not why, nor what happened... is that why the govt wants to extradite him? Not sure, he never even mention the second murder arrest. He says he has a lot of support in Argentina helping him with the extradition but what is the support based on... his 9/11 claims? His innocence? No extradition treaty? I don't know and he does not say. He also claims hardship and trouble for almost ten years but then also says he suspected nothing and nothing happened until his arrest in 2005 but does not explain. He also admits to stealing documents and video that was not his, then claims his home was broken into and some tapes stolen but not all... thats odd, why leave any behind?

He then goes on to talk about 9/11. Some of what he says, I don't know if it is true, will require some looking into. Some is simply false and is repeating BS long debunked (only small fires in WTC7). He then makes some real interesting claims that are hard to believe, like the vault... how did he know who owned the vault... Like how he knew on 9/11 how the federal agencies there operated (were they all even there? I don't remember who was in 7, would have to check). Then comparing himself to Bobby Fisher does not do much for him... Fischer is a nut job.

I do look forward to finding out what is on his tapes, it will be interesting to see who he gives them to for examination and what the results are. I am curious why he has not already done so.

Your implication here though, is that the govt has intimidated every expert in the world not to reveal the 9/11 videos are fake. Everywhere? The govt is able to intimidate every video expert in the world? In every country? No, I don't think so. They could not even do it just in America. All it takes is for one expert to post the analysis on the web and its out, its a done deal and there would be no taking it back. Nope, don't buy it for a second.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

135. More insinuation

A shame you have nothing substantial to add.

[Marksbrother]

139. Speak for yourself, Ohio Joe.

Are you a Plane Hugger?

[Ohio Joe]

143. Your funny

I sometimes wonder what color the sky is in your world. Attempted insults, insinuations that anyone that disagrees in a right winger, anything but address the OP. heh, plane hugger, too funny, sad in ways as well.

[SDuderstadt]

144. OJ, I love you, man...

but you're trying to reason with a "no-planer". You need to invoke "Lared's rule"

[Ohio Joe]

145. ahhh crap

I missed that secret meeting and ate the memo before reading it, what is Lareds rule?

[SDuderstadt]

146. When encountering a "truther"...

right off the bat, ask them if they are a "no-planer". If they say yes, then you can eliminate the ones with whom reason does not work.

[Ohio Joe]

147. heh, I should probably remember that - nt

[Marksbrother]

155. When encountering a Plane Hugger...

right off the bat, ask them if they're a PLANE HUGGER. If they say yes, then you can eliminate the ones with whom

reason does not work, but DISINFORMATION and PROPAGANDA do. Depending on where you encounter such a PLANE HUGGER,

you might add other reasons to eliminate them as someone who is driven by something far different than reason.

[chrisa]

156. It's so obvious that they were planes.

The thing I love about "no plane" troofers is that their biggest piece of evidence for the no plane theory is the pentagon crash. Do missiles bounce? Do missiles fly that low to the ground and hit buildings from the side?

I hate to tell you "truthers" that missiles aren't even that big. What's clearly shown in the videos are airplanes.

When you have to claim that 100,000 + people are lying, all videos were faked with no leaks by now, and 100,000+ people are in on the conspiracy with nobody leaking anything, I find your theories to be 100.00% full of shit.

[Marksbrother]

162. It's so obvious that you are way out of your league, unless

you are intentionally promoting disinformation.