MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[graphicequaliser]

John White wrote :-
"No Planes" must demonstrate that every image is a fake: either a fake in the image or an image of an illusion

If holographic projectors were used, then every picture would be a "fake" since pictures merely repsresent the light present at the time, and if that light is tampered with holographically, then all pictures and videos will be "fakes".

I do realise that's it's a big "if". But I really do not trust our governments to keep the public, who voted them in, informed of what technologies they currently employ in their military equipment. They just go on and on about "national security" and "need to know" nonsense all the time.

Since I do not believe anything other humans tell me (unless I personally know and trust them), I do not believe my governors or educators, and I'll believe what suits me. Most sheeple do not think like this, and are always looking for absolutes which do not exist in the quantum universe. Most people (like you John) have to have something that "makes sense", whatever that means. I am saying a new age is here and it's time to understand fully how free-minded human consciousness can be.

[John White]

We have a great deal in common graphicequaliser: certainly more than this discussion might appear to show on the surface: check out Illusions mate

meanwhile:

With regards to the issue of 911 truth:

I'm looking for the five sense truth, not the metaphysical one: theres a horrendous crime to expose

[graphicequaliser]

John,
Five sense reality to expose the crime - Fair enough. But, if govts. hide technology that may have been deployed, we may never achieve a definitive proof. Mind you, did you see those links posted by Prole in another thread? It seems we are not the only ones sticking our necks out to get to the truth :-

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3734

Nice site by the way. Let me explore more ...

[John White]

Nice 1 graphic

I've followed those stories with great interest, and also this one;

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

[Mark Gobell]

I am not going to spend anytime arguing against the idea that professional broadcast standard TV cameras cannot record professional broadcast standard pictures.

[scubadiver]

People in Manhattan said they saw both planes. Are they going to be ignored?

This kind of divide on what I consider to be such a trivial issue is about as bad as it gets on critics corner and I stopped posting messages on that board.

[Mark Gobell]

It would be helpful to both sides of the discussion if a point could be followed through then finished with.

[Mark Gobell]

I am pretty sure now having seen this third and fourth picture of what may have arguably been considered to be an exit wound in the WTC2 NE corner that it is not.

I cannot imagine an engine from a Boeing 767 or 737 being ejected through this aperture.

Picture is a little way down the page under point 2.

http://dailywerd.blogspot.com/

[andrewwatson]

I agree with you Mark - the trajectory of the plane is clearly towards the north face not the north-east corner. Unless it glanced off the central core. Impossible to say, but I think we should all give these researches a rest over this anniversary weekend. There is so much hard evidence that looking into these issues, interesting and important though they are, could be viewed as a distraction.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Please click on below and watch the NIST simulations of the crashes


http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm


Both planes cut throught the exterior of the building and the entire plane goes into the building - then disintigrates in millions of tiny pieces

This would appear to tie in the the visual evidence on film where the planes go straight into the building with no wreckage falling down the side of the building

The problem with this is we are also shown visual evidence of large chunks of wreckage see link below

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

[Tumbongo]

hello all,
being new to this site, and relatively new to the truth movement i was intruiged by this topic, i manged to read through most of what was said and look at the evidence and i have to say that those planes were real,


http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/summaryimages/nistwtc1hole2.jpg[ img][img]
i think these pictures show the markings of a 7x7 or similar.
look at the thin slits where the wings sliced through.

Really for me the bottom line is KISS and occams razor,

There is much more solid evidence of what we all agree on and we are better united on that than divided on this.

[marky 54]

the only thing that draws my attention from that photo isnt where the plane impacted but the hole ferther to the left of it and a lot higher up from the hole below it, what caused that?

[marky 54]

theres also alot of black soot around it, suggesting an seperate event. please comment if im wrong.

[Tumbongo]

[Bicnarok]

Planes hit the towers, the question is what kind of planes, where they came from and who planned it all.

[marky 54]

[JimB]

[marky 54]

because there is a clear brakage in the lines in the building and some smoke coing out and soot around the hole on the outside just like their is around where the plane hit

[marky 54]

although to be honest it might just look like that , after closly inspecting and tilting my head numerous times i can see your point it does look like smoke coming out the windows, although it did look like a hole at first as the black smoke is very thick and gave the illusion of a hole a bit like if you coloured your tooth black it would give the same illusion. but its cleared up now for me thanks for debating it.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

To date nobody has offered a satisfactory explanation why the planes (faked or otherwise) were travelling at twice the normal operating speed.

Well I reckon it was to ensure that all the images were blurred which would explain why their is no clear film footage or photographic evidence which shows the planes in the carriers livery.

The argument that they needed to travel at that speed in order to penetrate the building is negated if you can take Snowy's calculation at face value where he states

"Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used"

One can deduce from this that the planes if real would have penetrated at much slower speeds.

And why indeed would they travel so fast when by doing so they would increase the chances of an error in flying the planes by remote control

Well the answer is obvious because they didn't need to worry about these things because it was "make believe"

[flamesong]

[Patrick Brown]

Shouldn't this thread really be called “More evidence for no brains”?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[flamesong]

[Patrick Brown]

[wepmob2000]

[wepmob2000]

[flamesong]

[flamesong]

Can I apologise in case my use of the word 'Duh!' caused any offence.