Planes hit WTC for sure - but some videos still staged

[metal mickey]

Hello everyone,

I've been coming to this site for the past few weeks and have decided
to finally post after reading some of the recent threads.

I'm particularly frustrated by the 'no plane' theories being put forward
by many people. I can't help but feel that this is in part delibrate disinfo
to divide 9/11 investigators, and also discredit the truth movement to
anyone new to the subject.

One obvious reason why they were actual planes that hit the buildings,
is that the perps of the attack would not be able to control one outside
influence - anyone body else filming the planes not hitting the building. This occurence would have been most likely for the hit on
the second tower, where many people would have had cameras aimed
at the WTC after the first hit.

However, in my opinion it is highly likely there were people placed
in manhattan for the purpose of filming the attack, to make 100%
certain that there it was caught on camera in order to be broadcast to
the world. While it was likely that someone would film the second hit,
I don't believe the perps would take this risk, however small.

The first hit is the most suspicious, to me this video seems staged to
look like it was spontaneous. The camera man pans up and to the left
to focus on the WTC just because he hears a plane flying overhead -
if he didn't know it was going to hit the WTC, or come anywhere near
any building, why did he suddenly randomly interrupt the shooting of
the documentary sequence he was shooting, and pan rapidly up to the WTC? He doesn't pan up after the plane has hit, reacting to the crash, he pans up before the hit. I believe the film makers were there to film the attacks. I know this footage was shot by the Naudet
brothers, however I still have serious doubts as to the story behind
this footage.

I was wondering what anybody else thought about this?

Personally I beleive the evidence for CD, WTC7, NORAD inaction,
put options, flight 93 shot down, no Boeing hit the Pentagon, PNAC,
Northwoods, Bush/Bin Laden connection, are all more than enough
to prove an inside job, but this staged(my opinion) film is a small
detail that I've been thinking about for a while. The pan up and to
the left to me, is made by someone who knew what was about to
happen, hence more evidence of prior knowledge.

[Woodee]

the camera pan seems spot on to how I would have done it. Camera man hears the plane, fireman looks up and right... camera follows the sound. Why anyone would want to put themselves in such danger of following those firecrews that day, confirms to me that they were there to document because no one else would be.

[metal mickey]

the 'firefighter' James Hanlon is certainly an actor as well -

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0360137/

Not that this in itself neccessarily proves anything, however, it's still odd to say the least. Why make a documentary about firefighters if you're gong to get an actor to 'play' the role? I notice it was his day off on 9/11 as well. I've got a hunch that this film is a piece of carefully constructed propaganda.

[Ally]

[metal mickey]

It's probable that the Naudet's had handlers that could have taken the tapeor the camera of the first hit after it happened, before Jules Naudet went in the firetruck to the WTC, or even that the Naudet's didn't film the first hit at all, it was someone else. Either way, the footage would have been safe. Also, the attack would have been pulled off by using cells, people would have only known so much. If the Naudet's were involved, they may have only known that something was going to hit such and such at such and such a time, and they had orders to be at a certain location to film it, and then one of them had orders to go to the towers and film from the ground floor, with strict orders not to move from there. Remember, they spent the attack apart from each other, which could have been there orders. One films inside the towers, one from outside. They didn't need to know the towers were going to be blown up. Regarding the safety of Jules from the perps perspective, giving him orders to be in that position would have been worth the risk from their point of view, in order to get that footage.

[metal mickey]

[quote="Ally So if the towers were rigged to explode on demand, don't you think it risky they fly planes into them? They could have hit anywhere which may have caused the South tower to fall second, in that case we would never have got the Naudet's footage who were luckily filming in the North. .[/quote]

Only Jules was in the North Tower. Gideon was filming the attack from the outside. If the towers had collapsed on impact due to being rigged with explosives/thermite, they would still have got the first crash on camera, which they would use to help push the official story from the off.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Is there any evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon? - NO

Is there any evidence of a plane crashing at Shanksville? NO

Is there any evidence of planes hitting WTC 1 or 2 other than FUZZY WUZZY PICTURES? NO

Conclusion - There were no planes - they just pretended

[metal mickey]

[reductionist]

prof stephen e jones has demonstrated that you can put a blowtorch to thermate without exploding it - many explosives used in CDs are inert until detonated.

the perps could have been pretty confident that the buildings would withstand the initial impact for the same reason we are having this discussion: because they knew - better than most - that the wtc was designed to withstand such an event.

most of the explosives would necessarily have been placed at a much lower level, where it was needed.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[metal mickey]

There is footage that shows no plane at all[/quote]


Really? Where is this footage? I'd like to see it. It would probably only be more of a smoking gun than the collapse of WTC7. Can you post a link? What I would like to know regarding the 'no plane' theories, is why the perps never bothered to produce a 'hologram' of a plane hitting the pentagon, if it were as easy as is being made out. And I don't go with the idea that the lack of evidence of no plane at the pentagon was delibrately manufactured as a strawman argument to later discredit anyone trying to expose the official line.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This was apparently filmed from somebodies apartment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53707623874155529

[Bicnarok]

There are loads of footage not all fuzzy, loads of pictures and loads of people who saw the planes or whatever they were. You can fake some things but no that many unless there´s mass brainwashing going on.

If they wanted to fake planes with todays technology it could easily be done, with better quality and no one would notice the difference. Hell even I could probably do it.

When talking about no planes, the WTC is in question. The Pentagon and that field is another question.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 "Video no longer exists" by the way.