MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Does anybody have a clear picture of the alleged plane that hit WTC2?

After all it was a beautiful day with clear blue skies - and lots of professional photographers and cameramen on the scene - surely all of these cannot have zoomed out at the critical moment - now that would be too much of a coincidence

Has anybody got a shot where actual plane wreckage can be seen falling down the side of the building?

Does anybody have any photographic proof or otherwise of these planes actually taking off from the airports?

[James C]

[Garrett Cooke]

James C,

You made seven points above which I will attempt to answer.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

"Plane huggers"? shouldn't this thread be in 'critics corner'?

[scar]

@Garrett: How do you explain the problems outlined earlier in the thread?
Debunk Salter if you can, till then you certainly wont 'put this argument to bed'.
No-planers have completely avoided facing it so far. A variety of excuses have been made but no rational explanation has arisen.

If no planers make so much more sense than plane-huggers then how do you explain the fact that the no plane argument hasnt advanced the truth movement one iota? Why dont most adher to it? Could it be the obvious problem as shown by Salter? Or is it that a majority have no sense at all and/or are agents?

All gains toward critical mass have been made by 'plane huggers' otherwise known as 'those who want a critical mass'.

Do you use no planes on the street Garrett with newbies?

edit: no planes and no 7x7's are not the same thing and i notice them being tied together by many. This thread is about no planes at all.

[optimus79]

In my opinion the "No Planes" theory is nothing but damaging for the 9/11 truth movement and the sooner that this is dropped and forgotten the better chance there is of the real theories being accepted just as they should be.

[Mark Gobell]

My thoughts so far.

I have spent some time looking at what may be a possible exit wound on the NE corner of WTC2 and I am not convinced. I have doubts about the trajectory of what we see is ejected from the north face of WTC2 in relation to the hole in the NE corner.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect that even a single wing, full of fuel can straddle 2 or 3 steel floors each weighing about 10 times the weight of the entire plane and each floor topped with 5 inches of concrete would not cause the wing to severely deform at least or break up totally.

I have a major problem that we do not see any fuel burn until the entire plane has been swallowed. I have some knowledge of the safety requirements required when refuelling jets, right down to anti-static precautions, let alone sparks and high speed impacts with steel.

I find it incredible that the entire plane is swallowed completely inside the building with no visible signs of crumpling or indeed change in attitude.

I find the delay between initial impact and fireball difficult to understand.

I also fail to see any problem that discussing this issue politely with each other can cause. We are vilified and treated with contempt for talking about facts like the Laws of Physics, in any case.

I would not discuss these ideas with anyone new. Or missiles.

[graphicequaliser]

Rather than no planes, how about smaller, much easier to navigate drones equipped with holographic projectors. Arguments for this are :-

1) There is no doubt that they had to be bang on target, and 767s are difficult to get slap bang where you want them to be. Sure, a few metres either side isn't too bad on a wide runway, but WTC towers are a different matter. They had to be spot on. So they deployed a smaller plane and "stealthed" it up to look like a 767.

2) The rate of technological change over the past decade has seen amazing devices spring onto the consumer electronics market. I love them (my latest purchase is a portable 100GB MP3 player!). What stage of technological advancement has the military reached which we don't know about? If http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm is anything to go by in terms of what they're aiming for, then they may already be there, ahead of 2025. Way ahead! Check out http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm for an example of how little we may know as the consumer public.

3) Truthwill touched on this earlier. After the first tower had been hit, it is not surprising there were no clear videos of what had happened. But, why didn't someone with media connections immediately get a proper camera crew down there to really zoom in on the tower and the damage that had been caused. All we got were blurry nonsense. If they had acted normally, we would have got superb unequivocal footage of the second strike. But that didn't happen. Why? Where were the frantic reporters? Where were their high-tech cameras? Why isn't there any footage of that second plane clearly going into WTC2? If I went to the cinema to see an action film, the picture quality we have been forced to accept for WTC2 coverage would have been a real disappointment.

4) Even if they were real passenger aircraft, why has there been no record of anyone losing relatives on these flights. Where are the passenger manifests? Why were no obvious bodies or even skeletons found amongst the wreckages?

5) Why would a 737 engine be found in Murray Street when they claim they were 767s which could not possibly use the size of engine block found there?

6) If they were real passenger planes, there would have been colossal amounts of plane debris in the streets below, and scattered all about. Where is it? A few items on a roof somewhere is not enough. If the debris had been contained inside the towers, how convenient for the perps in terms of clean-up operations. The whole disaster is just too "clean" for realism, IMO.

7) Very feeble, I know, but..., haven't you ever had a gut feeling that what you were perceiving didn't quite seem right? I got that when I viewed the TV footage on the afternoon of the attack. I was in an open-plan office, so loads of other workers were watching it too. Quite a few agreed that something on that footage wasn't quite right, but they could specify what it was. I told you it was feeble!

Of these, I feel most frustrated by point 3) and nobody seems to care that such an historic event didn't elicit better and sharper video footage of the second strike. After all, these reporters are right pains in the butt when it comes to other disasters - you can see every drop of blood as you eat your tea in front of the telly! Not so with WTC2 - just zoomed out, blurry, amateurish films. Has anyone got a link to a undisputable, undoctored video of the plane crashing into WTC2?

There is no doubt, whether you are a hologram believer or a 767 plane addict, that WTC buildings came down too quickly for steel-frame constructions. Far from detracting from the message that 911 was a hoax, this argument, whichever side you're on, certainly adds spice to the discussion, and makes people realise that you can only find out for yourself and form your own ideas, not have your reality pumped into you by mass media. It makes people question things and become curious. That is a good thing. It also helps people understand that controlled demolition is completely beyond doubt, especially when you look into the scientific facts.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[quote="scar"]@Garrett: How do you explain the problems outlined earlier in the thread?
Debunk Salter if you can, till then you certainly wont 'put this argument to bed'.


Hi Scar - you seem well clued up on the subject - for the benefit of those of us who are not up to speed with Salter can you please explain what specifically needs debunking with salter

[John White]

[wepmob2000]

In the footage of the second WTC attack, the 767 very obviously banks sharply to the left before hitting the tower. It gives the appearance of a last minute correction on the part of a pilot who was otherwise going to miss the target.

Where would this tie into a missile hypothesis, I've always been under the impression that cruise missiles make a long straight final run in to target, what kind of missile could it have been? This wasn't a moving target, quite the opposite so why the last minute correction?

[scar]

[John White]

A quick personal comment;

No one should mistake my involvment in this thread as distracting me from my own efforts over this weekend

[scar]

[Ally]

i don't mind leaving the subject alone for a week but how can anyone hold salter's views with anything but contempt.


Eric Salter Bites Back - The Rise of the Disinformation Machine

by Marcus Icke

with contributions by numerous professional airline pilots

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/disinformation/

[scar]

I posted that link myself on page 10:

http://www.gallerize.com/rise_of_the_disinformation_machine_v7.htm

and asked for more debunking of Salter.

The point i was raising which has not been explained is the media overlay debunking. I wasnt satisfied with the article. Why post pictures of golem and attack his character like that? hmmmm

I will spend time reading that through in a week or 3, i havent read it in detail i admit and i gladly admit im far from an expert on npt, as is quite clear.

I suffer from a bit of double think on this issue.

Its not for me to decide whether this should be left till the week is out mate but i appreciate what you just said especially as i know how passionate you are about it. I think it would be wise.

edit: but seeing as David Shayler has been saying it to the papers i dont think it matters a jot, ignore me...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Hi Scar

I have had a look at the Salter stuff - Why anybody would want to even attempt to debunk "complete b ollocks" is beyond me

No wonder you couldn't summarise what it was all about - it seems like deliberate misinformation designed to muddy the waters

By the way scar - my vibes tell me you seem somewhat to be suffering from some mental demons - maybe you should chill out for a while

[Mark Gobell]

Scar

Could you enlighten us on Shayler and NPT in the press please ?

Any links ?

[scar]

You derive 'no wonder you couldnt summarise" from "If you cant be arsed to read it i certainly cant be arsed wasting time explaining it."
Typical.
I thought it better you read it yourself, but you dont need to as you can read the other link...the one calling him golem/disinfo...
You cant see the danger so fair enough. Killtown and Ally perhaps can (see above) but its all immaterial now...

Thanks for your 'kind' words about my mental health.

Laters.

[scar]

[andrewwatson]

What no-one seems to be able to explain are the entry scars on both towers, and particularly the North Tower, being quite simply too small to accomodate the body of a 767.

I am myself convinced that some kind of airborne objects did fly into the Twin Towers, but beyond that all is unclear and it would be far better to be honest about that. Why are people prepared to accept evidence as real when it comes from a government that is known to have lied to us? We might as well just accept the OCT.

[John White]

Oh b*

Looks like Dave Shayler is doing his spiritual transform in public. Best get our Wellingtons and heavy rain coats out for when the s**tstorm breaks, Ive seen this before and it ain't often pretty:and I know a man going with a "know" when I see one

[Ally]

[John White]

[Ally]

[John White]

No that site fails: it can only provide a scenario for how some images may have been faked: it does not show that every image of Planes on 911 is faked, nor explain how that could have been acheived; Fakes in the image will not do

I'm going to continue to be boring Ally: dont worry, its a burden I can bear

Will you continue to try and get it? And I shall endevour not to find you boring in return

Any half competant Intelligence Service Disinfo campaign is going to put out fake images to generate confusion: no smoke and mirrors without smoke: best confusion is to take something genuine and make it look fake

Chase the official confusion and loose the clarity: Planes Hit the Towers

I am impressed by the inventivness of Dave Shayler's reference to "holographic missiles"

Show us the technology Dave

Then there might be a basis for a credible theory that could at least cover the logical and essential bases

[Mark Gobell]

I think we should all have complete confidence in our agreeing one thing about this issue.

One thing only for now would be really welcome.

Does anyone disagree with this statement:

Every single image that we have been shown of the 9/11 aircraft, including all photographs and videos, whether flying into the WTC, the Pentagon or as debris in Shanksville are all of extremely poor quality.

I would contend that this statement is not contentious and is more than adequately supported by the available visual evidence. Further, to refute this statement, would require valid and reasonable explanations and arguments explaining why all of these images are of such poor quality.

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

John

A lot of what you are saying will make no sense to many on this site

I just had to look up what cognitive dissonance means

Ever tried speaking in simple terms for our simple minds?

And yes all the footage is either faked or is a visual image of something that has been faked

[John White]

You have a simpler term than "cognitive dissonance" TWSY3?

Fine, lets hear it.

Your right to identify that your own knowledge, or lack of same, is your responsibility, same as all of us

In the meanwhile, its presumptive to patronise what others do or do not understand: you clearly do understand, afterall