MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Let me give you a clue why missile rather than plane.

Check out (do your own research) the speed of the planes approaching impact

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Ally]

[Ally]

[James C]

[James C]

[andyb]

Ally,


That is preciseley my point. Your understanding of the events are far greater then most as you have been researching this for such a long time. I have said that I have not had time to look into this area yet and I don't dismiss it, I just think that it will scare sceptics. It's hard enough convincing people the towers were CD, even with building 7. Throwing in another big change in thought from their original view may just be a bit much and they can convince themselves were conspiracy nutters and move on.

I'm not going to be spouting nonsense at anyone next week. Ally, I apologise if any offence was taken and I will gladly sit down with you and listen to your thoughts on the no plane theory, like I said I'm open minded on this. All my views here are my own personal opinion and you may disagree, with them, which is fine, people have differing opinions. See you next week fella

[Andrew Johnson]

[James C]

[wepmob2000]

[andrewwatson]

I have been reluctant to join in the debate on no-planes at the wtc because I am told by many that it is divisive - and so it is. But when I saw these pictures I felt sure there must be a kernel of truth in what Killtown, Nico Haupt and others have been saying. Something does not add up.

The nose cone plane that hit the South Tower appeared to pass right through the central core ( itself almost an incredible fact) before being ejected the other side, as shown in these stills from a video shown live on TV.

http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-4.html

You would expect to find a hole on the east side , but there is none.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-30_wtc2-n orth-face-exit.jpg

We must assume that one of the two images has been faked.

I am no saying that no plane hit , but that it was probably not a 767 and that the TV footage looks impossible.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

It's ironic that this subject which many posters say we should stop talking about is getting a lot of traffic.

Can James please explain (from Ally's earlier post) how the left wing had gone into the building without causing any damage or explosion.

Can he also explain from the link on my earlier post how the on the spot journalist did not hear (nor did his micophone pick up) the sound of the jet (which would have been deafening and why did he not see the jet

If James cannot explain then maybe somebody else can

If nobody answers then I must be right

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Bt the way I must confess that I was not calling James a star, I was being abusive and calling him something ending in er because he was annoying me so much.

I do apologise for my insult

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Andyb wrote

"I have said that I have not had time to look into this area yet"

So why are joining in the debate if you have not checked out the evidence?

[Mark Gobell]

I have resisted this topic simply because I do not consider myself anywhere near up to speed on all of the angles. Pardon the pun. I was intending to "wait and see" before I said anything.

One of the most common responses I have got when mentioning the planes that crashed into the buildings is that they looked weird.

I remember first seeing the images down the pub I still recall how people reacted to those planes going into the buildings. They didn't look real. They just went straight in. Like a hot knife through butter.

I would ask everyone to consider how they perceived those images back then. My gut reaction was they didn't look real. They still don't look real to me.

I suspect a lot of people agree on this if they were honest.

But what did we know? I have no idea what a plane should look like when it crashes into a skyscraper. So I guess I just buried those thoughts and moved onto pods and flashes and stuff.

Now I'm here.

I have read some of the no plane arguments but I admit to being put off initially by the webfairy holograms and orbs.

I admit that it was too much even for my deeply conspiratorial mind.

When I came across Marcus Icke's work with the Flight Simulator software I became very interested again.

Also, the still pictures seem to show anomalies that I do not understand. Wings one minute, no wings the next etc. Ditto tail fins.

I dismissed these as probable video distortion from compression techniques. Also, I had no idea about the sources of these frames, so they could all be disinfo.

I have since understood more about the context of the Naudet film which I never questioned before simply because this was among the primary "evidence" that brought me into this in the first place. I know differently now.

I have no problem at all with video mixing or CGI technology. I understand what can be achieved with these methods.

Equally the insertion of a data stream into a live camera feed is entirely possible and I have yet to see a reason why the studio based pundits need to be involved in this, after all they would be watching the composite video themselves.

I do have a problem with the "quality" of the images of both planes.

I have never been able to understand why they are so poor, especially as the Naudet cameras would have been of sufficient quality for "film makers" to use and produce an acceptable film.

We are also led to believe that a WESCAM device may have been used, for the second hit. From what I have read WESCAM cameras are high quality gyro-stabilised cameras with multi chromatic optics (infra red etc), capable of being integrated into other systems.

I fail to see why WESCAM is a key to this at all. Any digital data stream can be mixed with another, regardless of the camera system used to generate one of those streams.

WESCAM's integration capabilities may make it technologically easier to do but the WESCAM "clue", if it is to be interpreted as Nico Haupt seems to suggest may well be a red herring.

I see no need to mix the real "background" shots and any CGI data on board a helicopter. Indeed this may require further human implication.

Although I remain confused as to why the WESCAM clue would be shown to a doubting world deliberately.

I am not an expert, but technically, you could mix any road runner CGI into your digital wedding video very easily, in real time if you like, and show this composite to the guests outside the church. That's not a problem.

I do have questions about synchronisation with a high speed missile though.

I have yet to find out about cruise missile speeds, but would guess that they would be very difficult if not impossible to see with the naked eye from up close at least.

I remember reading/hearing about a US Carrier being stationed off the East Coast at the time, purportedly in response to the attacks as I recall.

Anyway, how would we go about triggering a CGI data feed into a background data stream just at the right time to cover for a missile ?

Accepting that this would have been rehearsed to the finest of details the required effect would absolutely dictate an automatic trigger to begin the mixing sequence.

There is no way to achieve real time mixing of a "CGI data plane" to cover for an incoming missile by pressing a button. No way.

I'm not saying that the mixing in itself is impossible just that it couldn't be triggered "by hand" or manually as it were.

It would require an electronic trigger and that would have to be very accurately and automatically synchronised at the moment the incoming missile come into the camera's field of view.

Even with a deliberate delay before the composite video is fed into the studios, this would still present difficulties. No time for checking etc.

Having considered some of these things for some time I asked myself this question:

If we are thinking about no planes for a minute, then why do we need to have a missile too ?

Indeed, having a missile creates massive problems if you are trying to cover it's flight with a CGI as I have described.

If you have no missile all you need to do is combine your prepared images of the flight of some distant and obscure looking plane into the camera feed to the studio.

As soon as you think the time is right, press the button and kaboom, your pre planted fuel bomb explodes in the skyscraper.

Given that we all seem to accept CD which requires meticulous planning and positioning of explosives it's certainly possible that the roadrunner cut outs could have been achieved prior to the event.

This of course requires that no real plane evidence exists, any eyewitness evidence to planes needs to be disproved and all "videos" of the incoming planes are fake.

[MiniMauve]

I've watched a couple dozen different videos of the plane hitting WTC2. There is no way these were all faked. In some of them, you can see the reflection of the fireball on adjacent buildings. You can see expected trajectories of the debris on all of them. The shot's of the damage on the tower is consistent with where the plane hit. A half a dozen of the videos are familiar to me as live footage on THE day of the tragedy, therefore, they would have to have been faked BEFORE 911 occurred. The implications and logistics of that are not tenable. It's possible but unlikely that it's not a 7x7, but it most definitely was a plane.

The 'no plane' theory is ridiculous. It's a waste of time and it sullies by association the REAL evidence of a 911 conspiracy. I don't know why you continue to push this pet theory of yours but it's not a help. If you want to keep researching this angle, go ahead, but please don't bother us again until you have something of substance. I won't be wasting my time with this drivel any longer.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Mark Gobell]

I forgot to mention this thought.

One of the problems I have always struggled to answer is this:

Using aircraft would present an unacceptable level of risk.

We all agree on CD.

Implicit within that understanding there must also be the following reasoning about Controlled Demolition.

The principle requirement is for CD to work properly, exactly as planned.

You could not risk a half baked CD with errors.

CD had to work not only to achieve the destruction but to absolutely gurantee that everything that did or did not occur in those buildings would be turned into dust.

As I have already said, I see no need to use missiles at all.

If I was planning this operation, using aircraft, piloted or not, I think there is a high possibility that they would present an unacceptable level of risk regarding exact impact levels, attitudes and angles, explosive effect on the building etc.

Therefore I have never understood how, in the aftermath of an aircraft impact, anyone could absolutely guarantee that the uncontrolled and unpredictable result would not compromise the pre-planted CD charges in any significant way.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Minimauve wrote

I've watched a couple dozen different videos of the plane hitting WTC2. There is no way these were all faked. In some of them, you can see the reflection of the fireball on adjacent buildings. You can see expected trajectories of the debris on all of them. The shot's of the damage on the tower is consistent with where the plane hit. A half a dozen of the videos are familiar to me as live footage on THE day of the tragedy, therefore, they would have to have been faked BEFORE 911 occurred. The implications and logistics of that are not tenable. It's possible but unlikely that it's not a 7x7, but it most definitely was a plane.

The 'no plane' theory is ridiculous. It's a waste of time and it sullies by association the REAL evidence of a 911 conspiracy. I don't know why you continue to push this pet theory of yours but it's not a help. If you want to keep researching this angle, go ahead, but please don't bother us again until you have something of substance. I won't be wasting my time with this drivel any longer.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.


Please explain why a reflection of the fireball on an adjacent building proves there was a plane.

You also imply that it is not possible to superimpose an image of an aircraft into a real time television feed and that it would have to have been faked prior to 911 - you obviously have not done your homework on this subject because it is possible.

Pleasehk the evidence before posting comments

[John White]

Its interesting

Reading through this thread reminds me of another situation i came across earlier today...a friend of mine has run into hot water on the Chomsky forum trying to discuss Webster tarpley and the "Left gatekeeper" hypothesis

http://chomskytorrents.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1258

In many ways the pasions on this "Planes vs No Planes" debate feels like the same kind of thought patterns

You see, I reckon its simple enough to picture Prof chomsky chewing on it at his desk. He knows about false flag operations (how can he not?). He probably knows that the gulf of tomkin never happened, but he saw vietnam unfold in front of his eyes

Maybe he even knows that the moon landing is not what it seems...but hes got this idea that these truths are too far from the norm, and his focus is nudging things along from where they are, not dreams of where they could be...should he then declare 911 to be an inside job? Or does he do more good staying out of that and exposing the military industrial complex's agenda in what follows?

Seems to me that there is an interesting conjecture on this No Planes theory...but in the same way that Chomsky thought it would "damage the left" to call 911 an inside job, so theres us truthers who consider declaring "No Planes on 911" would "damage the truth campaign"

And you know what?

Both POV's were right for the situation at the time, and I agree with them

(Or at least dont blame Chomsky for his pragmatism)

Not that I think "No planes" shouldnt be discussed: far from it, of course it should: everything should be discussed, or freedom of expression is just a sham

But "No Planes" is going to have to find something one heck of a lot more concrete before it shifts to being my most likely balance of probability, and theres no way Im going to say "there were no planes on 911 you know" to anyone I have discussions with outside the internet unless that situation changes dramatically

[scubadiver]

The "no-planes" theory has to exclude all the eye witnesses in Manhattan.

Witnesses are seen on the Naudet documentary saying they saw planes hitting the towers!

[MiniMauve]

I suppose I shouldn't say "no planes" theory shouldn't be discussed, that' not really what I mean. Sure, everything reasonable should be looked at, but there also should be a heirarchy of theories. i.e. the theories of CD and no plane at the pentagon actually have merit b/c they have fairly telling evidence that support them, and therefore should be discussed as serious theories. The no planes theory OTOH has some very significant implications which are severely challenged by the evidence (e.g. myriad tapes, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, etc.). This is a nicer way of saying, " It doesn't make sense!". If it doesn't make sense, discussions of it should more correctly be framed in the context of, "what if...." as sort of a mental/imaginative exercise.

TRUTH, there is a difference between possible and probable. Yes, it is technically possible for the conspirators to have faked all the tapes I viewed including faking them in real time into live feeds. It's even possible they dubbed them as well to include the voices of 'eyewitnesses'. It's possible they smuggled the jet engine and other plane parts onto the streets of NY in the confusion. It's possible that these masters of CGI were inexplicably unavailable to make the same sort of fake tapes for the pentagon plane. It's possible that no private videos ever made it onto the internet, despite the potential hundreds of amatuer cameramen in NY who, one would imagine, would already have been taping WTC1 burning. You see where I'm going here? It is all incredibly improbable. Why don't you do your homework by investigating til you find some REAL evidence before you come here and post unprovable nonsense that does nothing but damage the credibility of us all.

The problem with the truth movement and why it will always have difficulty getting into the mainstream, is that it treat itself as if it's a writer's workshop instead of a serious scientific analysis of the evidence. This allows evert crackpot theory to have it's say, and given an equivalent weight to theories that actually have merit and have had at least some scientific analysis brought bear on them. This IS damaging to the serious, plausible theories. The other problem with the movement is that it tends to be insular, so that the way in which these crackpot views are seen by mainstream people isn't recognized or understood. If your goal for this blog is to have a place where people can trade entertaining ideas but not really have much real world affect, then continue to allow cranks, like TRUTH, to have his say. But if your goal is to honestly expose what really happened with 911, allowing marginal theories the same merit as scientifically tested theories is a huge mistake.

[Mark Gobell]

Minimauve

Just for the record I am schizophrenic about no planes ok. So I am in no way endorsing the idea but at least I have looked at some of the arguments.

Have you ?

[Garrett Cooke]

MiniMauve,

The video footage of the plane strikes on the two towers were faked - this has been proved.

Largely aluminium planes would not cut through steel and concrete buildings like a knife through butter - parts would fall off; the planes would decelerate etc etc.

I have always respected Gerard Holmgren's analyses. I will quote an article by him from http://www.911closeup.com/ below - he writes better than I can (some bold added for emphasis by me):

[JimB]

Almost five years after the event and you folks haven't yet decided whether anything did actually collide with the towers. And between those of you who are persuaded that the collisions weren't hoaxed, there's no consensus over whether it was planes (passenger airliners/substitute, piloted/autopilot) or missiles. Is it any wonder that you "look like nutters" (as Bufordt06 puts it) and your incoherent theories sidelined?

I'll call in again in a couple of years time and see if any agreement on what happened has been reached or whether you're all squabbling over who is a shill for which disinformation agency.

A first time visitor.

[numeral]

[MiniMauve]