Jimmy Walter - No Planes

[kookomula]

According to the Loosechange forum, Jimmy Walter stood on stage in LA and claimed that "all the planes impacts were special effects trickery".

Any more information or opinions on this?

I wonder if he shared this with Chavez?

Reading a little more somebody 'clarified' it a little by saying that JW insinuated that no planes hit the buildings.

Scholars out there - what's this about remote controlled drone planes?

[Wokeman]

Yes, look at webfairy's pics. The "planes" are seen hitting and crashing into the WTC, but there is something not right about the way they do it. It's like a knife through butter, and real planes don't crash like that. So, yes, what you saw could have been animations.

[kookomula]

I heard David Shayler say something on Islam TV about how the planes 'melted' (something to that affect) into the buildings, it kind of bothered me at the time.

I'll have a look at the videos again, I find the idea that they were animated a little hard to believe.

[paul wright]

I've promoted the no planes theory endlessly - to my personal perception, the 'knife-through-butter' scene is preposterous - I could well be wrong
Beware, when it comes to the video trickery theory it's a completely no-go area. It's completely disprovable
The only explanation is a theoretical, as far as provability goes, technology that puts observable simulcra or apparent objects in the air at the time and space demanded
This remains a theory which would explain a lot of the conficting reports and observations from both WTC and Pentagon scenarios
While pertinant to insider discussion, it is not worth a hoot to the main public thrust any more than mininukes or Tesla Howitzer theories are to the Tower collapses
Assume real remote-controlled planes of some kind and thermite, and for the Pentagon other, explosives as the furthest out explanations. This works well enough in the public domain where we should be aiming ourselves as much as possible

[kookomula]

So if the planes were animated what did the people in NYC on 9/11 see? Please explain in very basic terms how this animation/bluecreen theory works. I'm pretty sure this is a bulls*** conversation and I'm kind of annoyed that I'm actually having it but it keeps coming up so I'd better familarise myself with it.

[paul wright]

[Abandoned Ego]

Im not sure we should rule anything out here. I hate the hologram Idea personally, but that isnt to say that I rule it out.

And It might be useful for every single one of us to take the same position, as reluctant as we may be to do so.

The bottom line is this. Whatever we might think as individuals, one thing we all know for a fact is that the official version of 9/11 is bovine excrement

Meanwhile, the technology for such illusion DOES exist.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/projectbluebeaminpipeline23jun06.shtml

This isnt meant as any kind of distraction post. Merely information.

The focus is still the LIE that is the official story !

[blackcat]

No Planes = disinformation PERIOD!!!!

[paul wright]

Yeah - Bluebeam represents the ultimate hoax
Time and again its pro-genitors are rendered

[Belinda]

I don't have science for this, I only know this intuitively - are there any others more on the intuitive than the science side who will corroborate this?

I sense that:

They were REAL planes = flying machines, not holographic images;
They were not passenger jets but military aircraft/drones, dressed up as civilian aircraft (like the 'missile' that hit the Pentagon);
They were unmanned and directed to their targets by remote control (the first unmanned flight went from Cape Kennedy to Sydney in April 2001);
On nearing their target they shot out an explosive charge ahead of them to open up the building as they entered it - the 'melting-into-the-building' effect. (NB both planes entered at the side/corner, neither went straight into the middle where the core columns were)
This explosive charge had the function of blowing up the planes in situ and preventing them from carrying on on their headlong course right through the building and out the other side, which they might have done otherwise.

Now, can the science endorse my intuition??

(PS I have no problem if my intuition turns out to be incorrect!)

[paul wright]

Jeezus- Belinda- you are the most beautiful espouser of our cause with your homemade sandwich board and all
And the uranium leader is clearly visible in the earliest videos
Yours is as good a theory as any

[kookomula]

I agree, pretty good theory.

Thank you for addressing my post, I may have been a little worried that David had joined the bluescreen brigade. It was just that he did not expand on the 'melting' issue on TV.

[Wokeman]

No, I now don't believe that there were any planes at all. AMAZING as it may be. I truly believe that they were animations.

[John White]

Essentially its a jump from:

"I saw a plane hit the building but that wasnt a credible reason for the buildings collapse"

to:

"I saw a plane that was a techological illusion hit the building but that wasnt a credible reason for the buildings collapse"

Either way we get:

"wasnt a credible reason for the buildings collapse"

I can imagine the technology: I can even imagine how such technology might work. Given that, its good odds that the technology exists, as indeed it appears to do

However, in our guts we also know its one spin around the fruit-loop too many and the damned theory just "will not fly"

So its firmly on my "who knows, one day we might find out" pile and thats where the filthy beast is staying

I might know this reality is an illusion of quantum waveforms, as may you, but think of the poor b****** were trying to communicate with...how much can we torture any particular rigid mind?

[Ally]

Still doesn't explain why all footage of a plane hitting the Sth Tower is fake.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=2 94533639&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/06/whered-it-come-from.html

http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/

[James C]

[Justin]

For those of us who have studied in depth the Illuminati/NWO/PTB, it is widely accepted that they have' black' technology which is ten, twenty, fifty years ahead of what is admitted to and that you cannot buy in the market place. Simply put, they have at their disposal inventions that they can use but we can't.

However, that said, John White is absolutely right. Let's not go down this 'no plane' path - let's stick to what we REALLY know and the near freefall collapses of 1,2, and 7 are our best evidence to date along with the other 300 plus smoking guns ranging from the failure of the missile defence system at the Pentagon right through to the reaction of the Secret Service 'protecting' the President when it was confirmed that America was under attack. The fact that so many SOPs (Standing Operational Procedures) were suspended that day is itself enough to prove an inside job or at the very least compliance from elements within.

And just for the record, I studied Aircraft Crashes as part of my Disaster Management Course at Cranfield University - and, unlike the Pentagon where I have real problems with the damage to the building and the lack of wreckage, I have no problems at all with the way the aircraft entered the buildings and the resulting fireballs etc. IMHO, they may have been military aircraft disguised as airliners, but they WERE 3D solid aircraft. If I'm proved wrong in years to come once the public exposing of the Illuminati/NWO is underway and the truth is finally coming out, then I shall eat adequate portions of humble pie!

[Ally]

what about all the footage that blatantly shows the nose cose exiting the WTC, uttery impossible IMO, yet another signature of fake footage. Among the films there are at least 3 flight paths featured on the approach to WTC2. In the 15+ shots I have on tape none seem to show the same aircaft twice.

[James C]

[Ally]

Here's one example of the nose exiting the WTC, it's featured on a few of the hit shots, the moving footage appears at the start of Zwicker's The Great Conspiracy and LC2 has versions of it.
For time people debated the plane must have been a special military plane made out of titanium to pass through concrete and steel but it makes more sense it's a cartoon plane performing cartoon like stunts.

http://investigate911.batcave.net/nose.html

[James C]

Thanks Ally,

In my opinion, there is no proof that these pictures show the nose cone or that it explodes. It could be any part of the aircraft or even a bit of the building itself which becomes obscured by the firball as it moves to the right. Just my thought anyway.

Also, the building is not made of concrete on the outside. The concrete is in the floors only. The outer skin is only 14" thick being made up of 14" x 14" box sectioned columns using steel which is only a few millimetres thick. Each piece of steel is riveted to the next piece. I don't think it is silly to assume that the mass of any plane that size travelling at that speed would easily break those joints and fatally deform such thin outer steel work.

I'm no expert but I did used to be an architect and have seen pictures of gas and unvented hot water cylinder explosions causing more damage in steel buildings than that.

Try separating your hands by 14" and compare that with the size of an imaginary Boeing (although granted it probably wasn't a Boeing). No wonder each plane just disappeared into the building!

[Ally]

You're right to be skeptical but it's one thing a plane disappearing inside the WTC and quite another it emerging from the otherside. This footage isn't the only time this anomaly was caught.

[GEFBASS]

Now IMO let`s not get hung up debating whether planes were real or not.

Facts are two aircraft of whatever description hit the buildings. (Twin towers I mean, not The Pentagon and not WTC 7 obviously).

The Twin Towers were 208 ft *see note, across, A 767 has a wing span of 157 ft.
Just look at the pictures and you will see proportionally that is very likely to be a Boeing 767. I believe myself that they would have been drones.

*It`s not the half inch image we all see on the videos and photos.

Secondly most agree we saw a flash, (missile), before the plane (s) entered the building (s), this surely was to allow the nose of the plane to break into structure without too much trouble. IMO.


Thirdly the plane (s) would have been going roughly 300/400 mph and again once the nose and fuselage was on it`s way are you truely going to say that the leading edge of a wing with a minimum (170,000 lb plane or 81200 kg) behind it could not just slice through what basically was steel cladding ?

Surely it`s just physics really, pounds per square inch of a surface area ?
Knife through butter and all that.

I`m not a mathmatics genius (obvious) or a physicist (obvious) but I do use common sense once in a while.

Just one more point that may be of interest is that at some video angles of the second plane `flight 175` just as it approaches the second tower it makes an adjustment, only slightly.
I think this is odd because if a `fanatic` was on course to hit it any way
why would a quick adjustment have to be made?

I put it to you, IMHO, that the `remote controller` had to bank it down slightly so that wing (starboard) did not hit the corner of the tower.
IMO to keep stuctural integrity of the corners, and/or was it to not set off the thermite etc, prematurely.

I try not to speculate, I look at what is there, and try not to make it any more complicated.

Geoff.

I also posted this about possible missile.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2272&start=0&postday s=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[Ally]

[James C]

[freddie]

I've seen a couple of people mention missiles in this thread - Why? - Where is the evidence for this? .... I thought the dreaded 'pod-theories' had disappeared, but it seems some people think that is a possibility.

Can anyone who believes this theory point me to a single piece of evidence? - Yeh, there appears to have been a flash before impact but where is the missile? Where is the tail?

I suppose the biggest question is 'why the need for a missile' - A missile (if that's what you believe the flash is) would only have made a hole big enough for the main body of the planes, so the wings would still have had to 'cut through like a hot knife' -- So if the wings could make it, why not the nose -- and those planes were going over 400 mph! I can see no reason why they wouldn't enter the building.

Peace

PS: IMO talk of 'nothing hitting the buildings but light' (holograms) is beyond rediculous and really should have been put to bed a long time ago, as it requires one to ignore so many pieces of evidence that large planes hit the towers; eye witnesses, ear witnesses, aircraft debris, huge fire balls etc etc...

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I said this on another thread that those mystery pre-impact to the upper right of the impact point flashes/explosions may have been something to do with the drone plane's homing mechanisms. It was surely imperitive that these planes hit the target and presumably at the correct point in the towers with all those explosives in place. Subscribers to the official conspiracy theory (which it is now we learn the FBI have no hard evidence on OBL re. 9/11)are trying to sell us that those flight school flunk out Islamist terrorists flew their "hijacked planes" directly to the lower left of these mystery explosion/flashes with identical pre-impact timing in both towers! Has anyone established the epicentre of these flash/explosions? were they located in the false ceilings of their respective floors?

Has it been established that the underside of that south tower 767 had standard Boeing 767 underside markings if the 'pod theory' has been dropped? were there not several witnesses who testified it was NOT a United Airlines plane and who stand by this claim?

[Wokeman]

I post this from Gerard Holmgren. I feel uneasy with the so-called "planes". In Webfairy's vids they don't act like planes would, so maybe, almost unbelievably, they could be animations.


Why they didn't use planes.

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Is there a link for what Jimmy Walter said at this meeting and in what context? I get the feeling someone is up mischievous 'David Ike' tactics! Of course the BIG QUESTION is why don't the accused sue Jimmy Walter for "falsely accusing them of mass murder and high treason in the first degree" and achieve closure to all this? I can't fathom it.


(have google blocked all 9/11 videos?)

[Justin]

Well said Sheriton Hotel - the same reason why the PTB will not sue David Icke as well!