9/11: No Evidence of Planes

[kbo234]

Calm down chaps. This debate would be fine on this site if the abuse was taken out of the exchanges.

I see planes going into buildings and will continue to take this line, but one must admit that there is something odd or 'not quite right' about the way the second aircraft melted into the South Tower. Also, it does look like some part of this projectile went staight through the building and out the other side (This can be clearly seen on Loose Change, etc). Anything is possible here.

Maybe these kind of tricks with high tech are possible. Maybe the PTB took this option in case much of the aluminium of the aircraft should bounce off the sides of the Tower. Who knows.

However, as James C says, we will make ourselves look silly if we take this line with the public to make our case.

Remember, it's a numbers game! Our prime purpose is to get the SIMPLE facts out there. Once people have raised their fallen jaws they will probably speculate over this kind of thing along with us.

[James C]

[Banish]

James C.

Please describe to me the airplane in this segment!

What colour is it? What carrier is it? Whats it's inclination?

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

BTW. I'd rather be a 3 digit IQ "conspiracy theorist" than a MORON.

You asked for it. See my next post.

[orestes]

You have just given a nonsense quality video. There are versions of this video that show the plane, in fact the no-plane websites include them. Why do you think that markings or other details should be visible from this footage (the other, not reduced in quality footage). And why are you producing this nonsense as 'evidence'?

[Banish]

James C says that this is an airplane.

[Banish]

Testes, or whatever your shill name is.

That is the same piece of film that half the worlds morons lapped up as evidence of a plane hitting the North Tower. That, moron, is the Naudet "film" and it's being hosted on a BBC server.

Here is the same clip from CNN, same quality but you can nearly see the fake airplane.

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

[Banish]

http://f3.putfile.com/videos/b5-12712572390.mpg

Watch the next at 200%, step through the frames, frame 66 is the giveaway. You can see the "plane" disappear behind a structure on top of a distant building.

http://f3.putfile.com/videos/d1-12916064894.mpg

Watch this next one frame by frame also. It's bollox.

http://f3.putfile.com/videos/c1-12916022989.mpg

[orestes]

The second plane looks real to me. I don't know what you think about it going behind the spire, I didn't see anything that stood out but I'll look again later when I have more time. I still stand by my statement that I've seen the Naudet footage with a pane in it. Again, I'll have to look later. The second tower 'looks weird' to me. But so what? I can't see any reason to believe anything other than it went into the tower smoothly because the steel on the outside was no match for a pane at that speed. But I'll look up the first plane.

[Eckyboy]

I agree totally with kbo234. We need to keep it simple. I do not know what happened on that day but regardless of whether people believe there were dummy planes or the real planes used the evidence still points to both towers being demolished followed by the lesser well known WTC7. This is just my opinion however. We should stick to the basic facts and then when people understand this they can put forward their own thoughts as opposed to being overloaded with theories. None of which I would state were blatantly false apart from the US governments official version of course!

[James C]

[Banish]

How many times have you seen this photo?



A simple enlargement and crop shows that it is fake.



This "airplane" has no colour, no reflectivity, no windows, it's wings are at 90 degrees almost.

Its incline shows it flying in a 4 o clock direction, some-one has twisted the rear and tail section to make it fit the attack pattern. You can actually see the crude join on the body just behind the near wing.

Here is the Karl Schwartz footage. Muahahahah.

|

Semi Invisible airplanes which do not make a mess on contact with one of the biggest buildings in the world. It just melts into it.

Keep it simple. You know that mantra?

Why crash planes into buildings when it can be faked? What would have happened if the planes had missed their intended targets?

You see, this does away with the need for hijackers, impossible stunts, impossible phone calls, impossible military stand down orders, impossible attacks on the Pentagon etc etc.

And, until all 9/11 truth seekers forget the purlely racist invention of 19 muslim hijackers with box cutters, we will never get anywhere.

This is a 'Blue Studio image.



A closer look at the "airplane".



I can't understand peoples reluctance to accept that they saw FAKE footage of 9/11.

Is it that they can't admit to being fooled. I spotted the FAKE airplane on day one. And I can prove it.

[prole art threat]

It's hard enough trying to convince people that it was remote controlled planes that hit the towers, let alone no planes. Holgraphic planes are just nowhere near the radar of most people's conditioned reality. And it just complicates things. I have a suspicion that you may be right and Im completely open to the idea but maybe the truth should be delivered in stages. The main point is to educate and convince people that it was an inside job and going into all this hologram business just further complicates this intention.

And now Im starting to sound like Andrew!

[Banish]

Who the * mentioned holograms? Not me.

I distinctly said BLUE STUDIO fx.

And that's your problem if you choose to believe that a semi-invisible black blob is an airplane.

Some idiots want me to believe that 19 muslim hijackers flew planes into buildings.

So, any evidence that contradicts the official theory has to be disregarged if it doesn't fit in with your perception of what happened.

When did you discover the 9/11 "conspiracy"? Last week?

It was faked. Simple.

[prole art threat]

[prole art threat]

I just think that we should all be reading from the same hymn book when we are delivering the message or it just turns into a big sloppy, contradictory mess and we all end up with egg all over our faces.

[James C]

Blue screen fx is * IMO and we should forget it.

Flight 175 didn't just melt into the tower it punched its way through, spilling out much debris and seriously damaging the other side of the South Tower. How do you account for that? Please look again at the photos on this report.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm

How can you argue for this nonsense when there are witness statements from the day. You still haven't accounted for the fact that thousands of people on the ground saw those planes hit. The impact sound is even heard on a tape recording which is played on Loose Change. How can you explain that?

Magnifying these images so that they resemble pieces of charcoal does not mean that they are special fx only that these planes do not have the markings we would associate with real Boeings. I do not accept that these planes were proper commercial airliners prefering to accept the remote controlled flights theory and this probably accounts for the strange markings and lack of detail. However, the overall colour matches on each photo does match that of the 767 bodywork for flight 175, being silver grey (the lack of blue to the underside and tail is however apparent).

I find it amazing that even though others on this site are calling for less confusion surrounding the alternative conspiracy theory, most of you agree that this type of fx is still a possibilty. The secret services must be loving this concept as it represents proof that most conspiracy theorists are just suckers, easily accepting the next most weird and implausable account of any story that suits a bored conspiracists mind. For all I know, Banish could be working for MI5, helping to distort and confuse the alternative theory about 9/11, hoping to hook some of us with even wackier theories such that at some point in the future MI5 can turn around and say to the general public, look how stupid these allegations and stories about 9/11 are and look at what the authors of these will believe - can you trust these idiots when they say 9/11 is a lie; here see for yourself......!

So Banish, how were these fx integrated into what happened on 9/11? What was really happening to the WTC and on the streets of New York at that time? If no planes hit then are the eyewitnesses wrong? Did we all just witness a collective trip enhanced by a fake video of something that never happened? Who could have created such brilliant and life like looking scenes from so many angles - should we subpoena Steven Speilberg or George Lucas. Were the burning holes in the towers and the subsequent collapses also blue screen fx? If not then how did the holes in each tower correspond so well with the artificial impacts and wouldn't someone somewhere have footage of these fires just happening out of thin air?

I'll ask again. Please don't focus on these pictures anymore since they look real to me, although obviously not to you. Please answer the others questions instead.

[TimmyG]

i've really tried to consider this bluescreen stuff.. honestly i have. because i regard myself as an open minded person.

but I still think it is nonsense. some of the video clips do look slightly unusual as if the plane is sinking into the building... but that doesn't mean it was faked. How often do you see massive jets flying into skyscapers? its an usual event

Banish:
how do you account for the eyewitnesses and all the amateur vids on sites like bluetube etc? were they all faked?!
Faking an event like this would really be impossible. and unneccessary. much easier to fly drones or actual planes into the buildings.

[Andrew Johnson]

prole art threat,

[paul wright]

Discard the blue screen theory folks
It will never match in with people's experiences from the time
If you accept the technology of the hologram theory, a realtime enactment in 3D that seems to fit the images and reportage at both the Pentagon and wtc2, that fits in with all the reports
Neither promote nor discard that one which appears to fit with all the evidence

[James C]

One more question for Banish if I may.

If blue screen fx was used on 9/11, then surely the same fx could have been used to show flight 77 hitting the Pentagon or Flight 93 landing in one piece at Shanksville. I'm pretty sure the PTB would have created fake films for each scenario instead of using for the WTC attacks only.

How do you explain that?

[Banish]

Thats easy JC.

The Pentagon and Shanksville were not part of the blue screen simulation attack which was done by, or for, the military - they were just thrown in as red-herrings.

You lot can see it as you like. If you want to believe that 19 muslim hijackers flew airplanes on 9/11 so be it.

[James C]

[Banish]

Eyes wide shut.

There was no flight 93, no passengers, no hijackers.

There was no flight 77, no passengers, no hijackers.

If you hadnt just joined the 9/11 community you'd know that........

Civil Aviation records show that those flights were not scheduled.

The FAA records show that the planes were owned by a CIA /Enron shell company.

And, that the SSA and SSDI (social security death) databases show that none of the passengers ever existed.

And the "hijackers" are still alive.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Read Operation Northwoods!!

You was conned, deal with it.

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

[brian]

Banish, can you back up these two statements -

The FAA records show that the planes were owned by a CIA /Enron shell company.

And, that the SSA and SSDI (social security death) databases show that none of the passengers ever existed.

TIA

[Andrew Johnson]

Banish,

You could be right - however, I think that you have to entertain the idea that there could have been some real planes involved - just not the ones they said they were.

I believe it even says in Operation Northwoods "a drone would be subsituted", so that would allow there to be real plane crashes, but no actual physical AA/United flights to match them with (hence the discrepancies in records perhaps).

[Banish]

[insidejob]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Banish,

Have I read this straight? Have I missed something?
- 911 planes identified as owned by a CIA front company?
- Passengers on the plane identified as not dead?

Banish, how can you drop this bombshell into a debate about whether the 911 planes were holograms???

The inside job theory of 911 is based on circumstantial evidence. The official conspiracy theory that Dr-Osama-Evil-did-it is also based on circumstantial evidence. There is just more circumstantial evidence around that Bush did it and the official conspiracy theory is silly.

But, Banish, you've just casually tossed into this thread HARD EVIDENCE OF AN INSIDE JOB!!!! How come I haven't heard this before? Where have you got this from? This evidence needs to be verified and then publicised.

[James C]

Well, out of the blue, Banish throws in a trump card which if true certainly helps the cause.

I'm glad I persisted with this argument.

Banish, where does this info come from and can you verify it fully?

By the way, I'm fully aware that flight 77 didn't exist but was just describing it that way to distinguish it as the Pentagon attack plane.

I await your reply.

[brian]

Banish, thanks, is it known that this was unusual for AA planes?

I mean did AA lease planes from banks etc as normal business practice?

I am familiar with the non deregistration but believe they all have been now, belatedly indeed.

The passenger lists are also definitely highly suspect which no convincing answers to have been given that I am aware of.

[Garrett Cooke]

Banish,

Having read through this thread you have had a hard time from other posters. This seems odd because (IMO) you are making the most sense.

I don’t want to hide behind other peoples cloaks but every one should read Holmgren’s ‘Why they didn’t use planes’ http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71.

I am not sure why you say Flight 93 did not exist. I thought this flight did exist and landed in Cleveland (not crashing or being shot down) and as you point out the plane identified as Flight 93 is still ‘assigned’.

I think it is also relevant to read a dialogue with Gerard Holmgren http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/archive/dialoguewithholmgren.htm when discussing the reality or otherwise of the passengers and crew. Note the exchange at the end indicating that the pilot and copilot of Flight 93 are apparently still alive.

This section seems worth quoting regarding the passengers:

‘