MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[wepmob2000]

What Minimauve says! The amount of effort and organisation for the no-planes theory to work would have been tremendous. Its pretty obvious that any conspiracy would have been kept as small as possible, the KISS idea, obviously the less people knew, less chance of leakage of information and the less that could go wrong. If you know a cell of terrorists is going to crash aircraft into the WTC, let them do it. Far more deniability all round. If an aircraft had missed and pancaked in, say, Queens, so what, still major-league evidence of an Islamic conspiracy, with no real repurcussions for the powers that be. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that there were definitely no aircraft that day, at best there are some slightly odd visual anomalies, although have no doubt an aircraft with the kinetic energy of that 767 would have sliced through the comparatively flimsy facade of the WTC like a hot knife through butter.

I don't know, I'm asking here, but has anyone ever sought the opinion of professional cameramen and cinematographers (as opposed to film-makers) on the technical aspects of the footage of the 767, and the apparent visual anomalies?

I know its boring compared to holograms and missiles but in my view the likeliest scenario is still that the U.S. Government was quite happy to allow the terrorists to carry out their scheme, maybe with some quiet assistance.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Minimauve said

how would private video footage taken by people with camcorders get faked?

You are so naive - any genuine amateur videos would have been confiscated by the FBI (remember the Sheraton Hotel by the Pentagon)
The only amateur footage you would see would be bogus - or do you not think they would be devious enough to do such a thing?

Wise up

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html

visit this site for more evidence

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The 911 Video Footage of the
Planes Striking the WTC
was Fake
Tragedy can teach us many things. Some of the lessons we draw from September 11, 2001 are surprising.

For starters, jets flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings make no noise on impact. This is verified with two sources. If you rent the Naudet Brothers’s documentary “911”, fast-forward the tape to where the firemen investigate the gas leak. Seconds later Gedeon Naudet presumably shoots American Airlines 11 (AA 11) flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). We hear the sound of the plane. We hear the explosions. We hear people yelling with astonishment. However, there is no audio of the impact.

Similarly, CNN broadcast footage which shows the same anomaly. (This is said to be from an amateur shooting from the Battery; i.e., the famous shot of United Airlines 175 striking the South Tower seen from the south.) In the audio sequence we hear the sound of the jet plane arriving, the explosions and then people reacting with horror at the spectacular fireball. However, there is no impact sound.

All of the other footage that the TV networks aired of planes striking the WTC disaster is silent. There appears to be no audio of the impacts of either Flight 11 or Flight 175 striking the World Trade Center.

Another lesson learned from 9-11 is that jet planes flying 450+ M.P.H. into steel buildings do not have any parts break off and fall to the ground below. Let’s begin with the already-mentioned CNN video from the south. When reviewing the videotape we can see that UA 175 actually enters the South Tower without any part of a wing, no part of the fuselage, not even a beverage tray breaking off on impact.

Previous experiments on land with heavy objects (e.g., cars, rockets) striking walls at high speed all show large amounts of metallic confetti produced at the juncture of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Still, all of the video footage aired by the news networks capture UA 175 striking and entering the South Tower like a hot knife cuts through melted butter. The extent to the trauma caused from the plane's impact with the building is typically a single flash which quickly appears and disappears in the span of a single frame.

Another surprise with the video footage of UA 175 striking the South Tower is that it is silver. This is the color of American Airlines’s fleet. Unfortunately, United Airlines has a grey and dark-blue color scheme.

Strangely, UA 175 is also not affected by the Sun. For example, sometime during the day of 9/11/01 CNN broadcast more “amateur” footage of UA 175 from a position east of the WTC. In this footage we see the jet arriving in silhouette. It remains in shadow until it disappears into the South Tower.

Yet, UA 175 presumably struck the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. on 9/11/01. It was a beautiful day. The Sun was coming low and to the east at that hour. When shooting UA 175 from the same compass point it should not be in silhouette as it arrives. Now, perhaps the WTC blocks its light as UA 175 draws near. Still, with UA presumably hundreds of feet away from the Twin Towers there is nothing to block the eastern light. The video footage with it arriving from this compass point should not be showing a jet in silhouette.

Shooting video of jet planes which are not affected by sunlight and which do not leave any sound (or material) behind when colliding with immense steel towers might be a challenge for some videographers. However, most of the known amateurs who managed to shoot this highly unique catastrophe employed the professional technique of zooming-out just prior to the arrival of the moment of maximum visual interest.

Consider the spectacular footage of UA 175 striking the South Tower that is currently being sold by Camera Planet. We see (silver) UA 175 arriving. It quickly disappears behind a building. The camera operator suddenly executes a manual zoom-out. The zoom is accomplished in only one second. A small fraction of a second after the camera is zoomed-out UA 175 briefly reappears (in shadow). Then it strikes the South Tower and a spectacular fireball results.

What’s unusual about this? Let's remember how they are made. Zooms are either made manually or automatically. Manual zooms are made by reaching for the lens and turning it. Automatic ones are accomplished by reaching for and then holding down a button on the camera. The Camera Planet zoom-out was made in one second suggesting that it was a manual zoom.

The camera operator starts out presumably holding the camera with two hands, using the stronger of the two as the primary one. While holding it this way he follows the once-in-a-millenium-low-flying jet coming in to strike the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The moment the plane disappears from view he grabs his lens and radically alters the picture. Fortunately, this alteration concludes milliseconds before the plane reappears. There is no problem with grabbing the lens and turning it without hesitation in the correct direction. The zoom-out also doesn't go too far. Finally, the subject does not need reframing mid-way through it. (I'm assuming the author is male because a man takes credit in Camera Plant's voiceover.)

Perhaps this footage was simply a miraculous fluke. Curiously, almost all of the other footage that the TV networks broadcast of UA 175 striking the South Tower features an interesting zoom-out just as the action gets most interesting. New York City was chock full of amateur videographers that day who are highly skilled at making zooms midway through sensational subject matter.

CNN’s infamous view from the south shows the camera is examining the WTC in relative close-up as the North Tower burns. Suddenly, the amateur shooting it expertly zooms out. A second later UA 175 arrives.

Other footage aired by the TV networks from a vantage point east of the WTC show the North Tower close. Then the camera zooms-out, briefly waits and UA 175 arrives.

Pavel Hlava, the lucky Czech immigrant construction worker who managed to shoot both the North and South towers getting hit (between taking the Brooklyn Battery tunnel) has allowed his video to be screened exactly once on network television (09/13/03, Good Morning America. Also Fox News has reported that his agent, Walter Karling, will not give out his phone number and will not speak to the Associated Press.). Still, Hlava’s footage of the South Tower hit, which was very similar to CNN’s footage from the south, follows the pattern. Hlava features a close-up of the North tower burning. Then he expertly zooms out just as UA 175 arrives.

Why did all of these amateur videographers risk losing their subject zoom-out just as UA 175 arrives? Didn’t they feel that the subject matter was already of intense interest to them? Surely this scene didn't need dramatic embellishment added.

The lessons learned from 9/11/01 are unbelievable. The video documentation reveals that jets can fly into steel buildings silently and as efficiently as a hand enters a glove. The Sun also doesn't shine on UA 175; UA 175 remains largely shrouded in shadow even when it is videotaped from the direction of the morning light on a cloudless day. In addition, there are many amateur videographers in New York city with proven credentials with live footage that rival the professionals who cover the Super Bowl. Space precludes mentioning other serious logical problems with the footage.

Either all of these things are true or the TV networks screened video sequences that were fabrications. Thus, tragic events of international consequence are no longer being covered by the news media today. They are being manufactured with needed deceptions taken care of with the assistance of the national news media.

Cinema has come along way since Billy Bitzer was shooting innovative footage for D.W. Griffith at the Biograph studio.

Scott Loughrey


2006 2005 2004
2003 2002 2001
2000 1999 1998
1997 1996 1995

[scar]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I disagree

The Sheraton Hotel (and others) who had their Videos confiscated by the security services is highly relevent because it proves that the perpetrators had got their team in place to confiscate any evidence that might disprove "the official story"

I have no doubt that the security services were strategically placed to moniter Joe Public in at and around WTC with orders to confiscate any home made videos that would contradict the official story.

And please don't come up with "it's far too big an area to cover" - when it comes to surveillance they have had lots of practice and they no doubt had an unlimited budget

I find it incredible that on none of the Amateur or professional coverage that nobody was able to zoom in on the subject matter - despite their equipment being suitably equipped.

Most of the footage I have seen has very conveniently zoomed out half a second before the critical moment to ensure that a crisp and detailed image of the plane was not shown.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

In answer to myself

It would impossible to zoom in on something that was not there

Using this scenario by definition - anything purporting to be footage of the plane amateur or otherwise would have to have been put together by the perps

As they say Truth goes through 3 stages -

- First it is ridiculed

- Then it is violently opposed

- Then it is accepted as self evident

Seems to me we are between phase 1 and 2 for the no planes theory

A lot of the for theories put forward are incorporating far too much rocket science which will put most people off - what is needed is an easy to understand "loose change type presentation"

This subject aint going to go away - get used to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wepmob2000]

There is audio of the first aircrafts impact into the the WTC, it was present on CNN footage of the attack aired at the time......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAWnekxa2A&mode=related&search=

The audio is clearly present on this release of the Naudet brothers footage, and it is clearly present on a video I have of ITN broadcasts at the time, why it was edited out later is a mystery to me.

However it sounds exactly like something large and explosive hitting something solid at high speed......

[James C]

[wepmob2000]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Please watch this clip and give your comments




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjKeBS1JwE&eurl=

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Please check this clip and give your comments


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ARQ6anxEA&mode=related&search=

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This is a CGI does it look real to you


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7XVU7ExYN4&mode=user&search=

[James C]

[Bufordt06]

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Good read

[James C]

[Bufordt06]

Its answers all arguments to this ludicrious notion, and also sums it up nicely for people new to this idea.

I could cut and paste bits but take 10 minutes to read it yourself. No planes is a waste of time.

[wepmob2000]

[Bicnarok]

I personally think some sort of planes flew into the buildings, im sure the forces that be arn´t that arrogant to presume they could pull the whole thing off otherwise. The things that interest me though are:- why are there no windows on the plane, no markings or colour, and whats that wierd yellow glow on the buildings before the plane hit it?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

JamesC Wrote

I guess it depends where the reporter on the ground was standing. He might have been on the other side of the south tower to the direction the aircraft was travelling in. He would have seen the explosion, probably pretty hard to miss from any angle, but not been able to see the cause of the explosion.


Thanks for looking at this clip James - what is your view on why the reporter was not alerted to the jet approaching by the noise of the engines and also the absence of any jet noise on his microphone

[prole art threat]

Maybe the laser projector was situated inside wtc7?

[wepmob2000]

My view on the absence of jet noise from certain angles is a simple one born of experience. Living in a provincial town where the RAF flies its Tornadoes over at low altitudes and high speeds, sometimes you can hear the jets but not see them, and at other times you can see them but don't hear much if anything. Its strange but true. I guess it has something to do with the noise footprint of the aircraft at that time, sound absorbtion by buildings and myriad other factors. Thats one possible explanation.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

wepmob2000 wrote


My view on the absence of jet noise from certain angles is a simple one born of experience. Living in a provincial town where the RAF flies its Tornadoes over at low altitudes and high speeds, sometimes you can hear the jets but not see them, and at other times you can see them but don't hear much if anything. Its strange but true. I guess it has something to do with the noise footprint of the aircraft at that time, sound absorbtion by buildings and myriad other factors. Thats one possible explanation.



Well wepmob

I have this theory that the absence of the noise of jet engines was due to the absence of a jet plane - do you think this is possible?

[wepmob2000]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Can Jimmy Walter demonstrate this 'blue screen' technology?

(Any word from our friend and radio star from 'Popular Mechanics' and his "terrorist DNA"? I really would love to have been a fly on the wall when he got carpeted back at the office!)

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Bongo please explain your theory about the speed of light and sound being relevant - I DON'T GET IT

[James C]

[scar]

I already posted that on page 7 and it got ignored then so dont hold your breath James: