Timeline of CNN's "reality tv" hoax on 911

Ally

Very interesting article, sure to bring a tear to some truthlings.

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

I totally agree with this scenario. I spotted the fake aircraft on Sept 11 2001 and have been most vociferous about it ever since. It has had me banned from several "truthseeker" sites.

http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/wtc2-p.mpeg

BBC - No Plane hitting Nth Tower

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/video/_1538186_wtc_firstcrash_vi .ram

CNN - No plane hitting the Nth Tower

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.ram

Ally · Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject:

No planes is kinda extreme, I definately believe some of the hit footage is fake tho.

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

Why is it "kinda extreme"?

I saw the fake airplane LIVE on the day.

Why did you post that link if you disagree with it? Just for others to troll and argue?

Can you see an airplane in either of the "rams" I just posted?

Ally · Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject:

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

lmao. Pretty please. How's that?

Ally · Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject:

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

I'll just answer quickly for now - busy day.

Most of the "photos" of 175 are stills from the fake video footage.

Invisible wings, engines in the wrong place, no specular highlights, cant read the AA carrier logo, tail fin changes shape in each photo, no windows. In some it resembles a black blob, with a wing growing out the top.

Now please lookee here.

http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/2ndPlaneCrash.mpeg

Watch this footage frame by frame. Most telling are frames 64/65/66 - the fake plane disappears behing the scaffolding on a distant building.

I take it the naysayers have nopt read the Northwoods Documents. Fake planes, fake passenger lists, fake funerals, etc etc. Sort of like the London Bombings.

Ally · Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

You have confused me Banish, do you think the airplanes were fake or the hits were fake?

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/contradictions1.html

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725422_comment.php#1725541

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

There were NO airplanes IMO.

They may have been CGI's but I personally think it was done in a cheaper cheesier way. CGI Planes would have looked more convincing.

This is a plane?

Ally · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject:

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

Ally · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Your word against his is a close choice ;->

Banish · Moderate Poster Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250

sickriver · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Fight battles we can win

Personaly i think this blue screen no plane idea is poisoning the well.
There were to many people on the streets looking at the3 towers and pointing their cameras.
Its divisive and something the main stream media i imagine are waiting to use,ha ha the conspiracy theorists even think the planes were false for example.
Theres more than enough evidence to fight on, the near freefall ,impossible without explosives, we have Newton and Gallileo on our side.The seismic recordins,the 16ft hole at the pentagon and no damage to grass.All the put options at the stock exchange etc etc
Lets fight battles we can prove and win.
Dont muddy the waters.

sonic · Moderate Poster Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 196

I agree with sickriver.

PLEASE LET'S STOP POISONING THE WELL!

LET'S STICK TO WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS CLEAR.

WTC1, WTC2 AND WTC BLDG. 7 WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEREFORE A FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY IS NEEDED.

Peace,

Sonic.

Ally · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:20 am Post subject:

Bu$hleaguer101 · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject:

I had heard that this theory was a hoax meant to discredit the truth movement?

ian neal · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:15 am Post subject:

I've heard lots of different angles of the evidence are hoaxes meant to discredit the truth movement. There have been so many claims and counter claims espacially amongst certain US campaigners and especially by the prponents of this hypothesis that this site aims to take a different tack: it seeks unity on the basis that we ALL agree that 'when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11'

Hopefully building unity regardless of whether you believe in planes or no planes. pods or no pods, hijackers or fly by wire, imminent peak oil or no peak, etc, etc.

So I would not seek to censor debate of any evidence or hypothesis. At the same time I personally find this evidence less than compelling especially when compared with other much stronger evidence. Our main challenge is to win over new supporters and this is not where I would start when introducing 9/11

Ally · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:47 am Post subject:

is · Minor Poster Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 43

Its probably unwise for me to introduce myself to a board by arguing against one of its members, but it IS too far a streatch to say that there were no planes involved at all. Even if you do have supporting evidence, its too outlandish a claim and will garner no support for this cause, just incite people against it.

"Would anybody care to point out ONE piece of aluminium airplane debris?

How could an aluminium airplane penetrate past ^4 lateral concrete floors each 6 inches thick - an acre in size encased in steel frames? It would have been sliced up into sections on impact."

But were arguying that explosives were used, both in the building and on the plane, in an extremely precise manner so as to shatter all the evidence and 'vapourise' the plane.

Certainly, when I begin my campaign of presenting evidence to people, I will not start out by saying 'there were no planes that hit the twin towers', ill be lynched immidiatley. Far better to concentrate on wtc 7, and the implosion.

Ally · Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:

that point has been repeated several times but it does seem like some of the hit footage is faked for whatever reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x79351

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/who-really-took-famous-ca rmen-taylor.html

freddie · Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject:

Sickriver,

I agree, although I would add that the Seismic readings don't appear to prove the use of explosions from the analysis I've read. Also the '16ft' hole is an old mistake and really needs to stop being said. The holes caused by the wings were much larger and destroyed many of the ground floor pillars. The 16ft claim comes from the bad photos where the fireman spraying the foam covers much of the image. Check out the other angles and you can actually see al lot more damage. I'm still undecided as to what hit it, but my point here is that the damage was a lot closer to a plane crash than it has been claimed.

My other point regards the 'no plane theories' - - I always come back to the point of, "wouldn't it just be easier and more reliable to just highjack some planes via remote control and fly them into the buildings. Why is that so hard to believe? - It's the easiest option in my books.

brian · Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:

Nico Haupt is not claiming that no plane was used. His position it seems to me after listening to the interview is that what we are seeing is not what hit the building, whatever hit it, if anything, has been digitally masked.

I do agree that when introducing the subject of the lie it would be counterproductive to include what would appear to most as outlandish.

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Stratehy Of Tension, Fake Terror, 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1