MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[marky 54]

in the fireman documentary by those brothers(sorry dont remember there name) theres a scene which i saw on channel 4 uk channel, where a man is stood next to what looks like a piece of an engine on the ground before either tower collapsed, just mentioning it because that could of been the object seen going through the building, the guy stood next to it says to the people stood around something like, clear the area this is evidence.

[Ally]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Paul Watson seems to be a highly intelligent young guy - I can only conclude that Prison Planet wish to distance themselves from anything that is not on the public record and provable.

We have a lot of possibilities being put forward

1. - The hijackers did it with the original planes - Official Theory
2. - Original planes flown by remote control - with passengers
3. - Original planes flow by remote control - without passengers
4. - Substitute planes flown by remote control
5. - It was just a missile
6. - It was a missile cloaked by a hologram
7. It was a missile with a plane added using CGI
8. It was just a hologram (no planes or missiles)
9. It was just a plane added using CGI (no planes or missiles)

So to add some structure to the debate - let's have contributers to the debate stating which option they believe (and why)

If you have another version not listed - then lets have it

Ally - you seem to be the most clued up on this subject - can you set the ball rolling with what you believed happened?

[Andrew Johnson]

TTW,

That's a good list! Thanks.

My current feeling is that the evidence supports

7. It was a missile with a plane added using CGI

One of the key factors is the possibly the still images - can we show their sources to be dubious?

I think because of the anomaly of the flight paths between Fox and ABC coverage, that would probably detract from it being a hologram.

[marky 54]

hard question, i dont really think it matters if they were real planes or not, it wasnt that part that made me suspecious, it was the fall of the towers and the pentagon trying its hardest to hide the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon which we are still waiting for, well at least something you can see clearly, lol like they dont have better cctv there. and flight 93 crash site didnt look like a plane had hit, then all the witness contridictions, way does the witnesses raise concerns?, simple because when something happens and is true people dont tell differant storys. if i was a conspiracy theorists i would be saying steve irwin was done over, but why dont i say that, because you didnt get on saying it was a stingray and an other saying it was a shark.

[andrewwatson]

A member has sent me a private message saying that in his opinion mine was the best post in the whole thread.

i would not make such a claim myself, but I do think it is worth repeating my observation since it has been lost in the general hubbub.

[Mark Gobell]

Andrew

I am astonished.

I have never seen this picture before. The link you gave needs re-work, so here it is:

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

Are we sure that is the "exit face" of WTC2 ?

Are we sure the pic has not been doctored ?

Any corroborating pics ?

If so it is evidence of nothing coming out the other side.

That would mean no aircraft. No missile. Just an explosion.

All the videos, photgraphs and eye witnesses are fake / mistaken.

Pure and simple.

Help !

Comments ?

[Mark Gobell]

OK forget about the provenace question, I've just realised that killtown's gallery of pictures are from the NIST reports here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5FDraft.pdf

This is a PDF > 50Mb - I only have carrier pigeon internet access so someone else can look at it.

There are other NIST pictures of the north face of WTC2 that verify that there is in fact no exit wound.

This cannot be ignored.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The list is now extended to 10 with Graphics theory of a smaller plane from which a hologram was produced

We have a lot of possibilities being put forward

1. - The hijackers did it with the original planes - Official Theory
2. - Original planes flown by remote control - with passengers
3. - Original planes flow by remote control - without passengers
4. - Substitute planes flown by remote control
5. - It was just a missile
6. - It was a missile cloaked by a hologram
7. It was a missile with a plane added using CGI
8. It was just a hologram (no planes or missiles)
9. It was just a plane added using CGI (no planes or missiles)
10. It was a smaller plane from which a hologram was produced

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

John

Check out this NIST link if you can: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5FDraft.pdf

They are from the NIST report NCSTAR 1 Version 5 Draft

Also, killtown has a gallery of NIST pics here, all showing no exit wound:

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html

[John White]

This is the NIST report pic:



It was a bit of a b* to get hold of since the webpage kept snarling up...I think its from p84

this is Killtowns pic



So ????

There are certainly plenty of images on Killtown's page...wether none of them show an exit wound I'll half to take a close look at them all, which will take time, so I will have to report back later

Generally though, an initial review of the link shows plenty of evidance for planes...

[John White]

The NIST photo is the east face...so the plane should have impacted on the left hand side on the south face and the exit wound should be on the right hand side north face (which is the "east side of North face" shown in Killtowns picture)

Theres certainly plenty of smoke on the left for the initial impact, and considerable blackening on the right that could be an exit wound

[andrewwatson]

No, the area where the exit wound should be is fair and square in the middle of Killtown's picture, where the steel cladding has come of the perimeter columns. Look at where the 'cone' is in relation to the corner.


There is no shadow of doubt about it. None of the perimeter columns are missing, though one has been bent to the side.

I challenge anyone to find an exit wound.

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

[John White]

What about the top right section of killtowns picture, where outer supports have clearly broken away, showing a line of support tops from the supports beneath them...isnt this the bottom of a hole?

[MiniMauve]

[Mark Gobell]

John

The "impact" was in the south face, the exit wound should be in the north face.

Killtown and NIST have plenty of pictures of the north face showing no exit wound at all.

[MiniMauve]

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

John

Your post shows two different views, one of the east face and the other from the north exit face.

You cannot compare these two.

Look at the north face pics in the NIST report linked above.

No exit wound is shown on any of them

[Mark Gobell]

Can a couple of people please go here to one of the NIST reports and post all of the pictures that NIST have of the north face WTC2 please.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5FDraft.pdf

It's a 50+Mb PDF - I only have dial up.

Thank you.

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

John - maybe I'm being a little tick here, can you please explain to me what you intend to achieve by comparing the east face pic to the north face pic when we are looking for an exit wound on the north face ?

[John White]

The East face pic allows a comparison with the area shown in Killtowns north face pic, and shows it's not inclusive enough to declare "no exit hole", and may include the bottom of a hole in the top right

Therefore, the question awaits the bringing forward of better north face pics IMO

[Mark Gobell]

John

This is the picture that you are saying doesn't show enough of the WTC2 North face and that there maybe an exit wound to the top right.




This is another picture of the WTC2 North face that includes the area you wish to look at.



Note the times on both pictures.

Do you see an exit wound here ?

[John White]

Looking at the new pic, possibly where the area of strong flame is between floors 82 and 84

Clearly there cant be a hole in the area 79 to 80, becuase the later pic shows that area, with the flames out and the sub structure intact

So yes, I have to agree that is interesting

If in understand correctly, the "nose" of the plane is commonly considered to have protuded out of the north face, although this could also have been engine?

[catfish]

Christ almighty look at that mess, bloody terrorists.


This particular one was found out to be buying up shares in the Carlisle Group for the purposes of raining fire on innocents. Nothing could be done though and little was reported in the press 'cos she's the queen.

[scar]

[Mark Gobell]

A third pic of the WTC2 North face:



Anything ?

[John White]

thats the same area covered by killtown's pic...we can be certain theres no exit hole there, is how it looks to me