NY1 local cable news caught no plane hitting South Tower

[Killtown]

No plane visible coming it and notice the newscaster never makes comment of a plane:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/09/ny1-live-broadcast-showed-no-plan e-on.html

[chek]

Killtown, for me it's far too late and the damage was done long ago.

But, for the benefit of any of the boys and girls out there who still consider you a credible "researcher" - and even here there may yet be one or two - please demonstrate a shred of objectivity by showing you have at the very least considered some possible answers to your own question.

Just in case you've lost the habit in the fawning, speculative cesspits of disinfo you currently like to frequent, I'll give you a couple of clues to get you started. 'Direction' and 'distance'.

In your own time....

[Easy Rider]

Seems to me that Chek's main purpose on this site is to slag off no planers.

I wonder why that is, anybody care to comment?

[Dogsmilk]

Given the standard of 'evidence' Killtown just presented, I think he's been remarkably generous and measured in his response.
Are you saying you find this 'evidence' compelling ER?

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

The newscaster clearly stated at least twice that the buildings were some considerable distance away. I can't see the plane, you can't see the plane, HE can't see the plane - why would he comment on something he can't see? It's too far away.

Why start such a ridiculous blog?

[Killtown]

[Killtown]

[chek]

[John White]

[Killtown]

[chek]

[zimboy69]

the problem's with no planes theory


why even put your whole plan at risk
it only takes some really clear evidence to show that no planes hit and ur caught

why even use planes to begin with
why not plant bombs in wtc and claim the floor they blew up on was rented to some arab nation gets rid of the whole problem
and if u want fear and terror
why not blow up lots of buildings only takes u to rent a few more buildings in basements or ground floors
imagin the terror then when 10 buildings all colapse in a matter of mins
first thing most people will know is some buildings just all fell over
kinda scary if u work in a skyscraper

you have little chance to get caught u could set a timer and be in iraq, iran or mexico before they explode
and no suicide
dosent make any sence to risk all by not using a plane

[mason-free party]

if they had used just the idea of terrorist bombs then it would have been ludicrous for the towers to have fallen into their own footprint ...they had to create an image of planes and their jet fuel being the reason for the collapse of the twin towers... terrorist bombs wouldn't have created the myth of molten metal or the cover for testing their exotic weaponry that was used to turn the buildings into dust...its all very simple if you think like a zionist,masonic lowlife pyschopath

[telecasterisation]

How exactly would terrorists get in and covertly plant enough explosives to bring down both towers, not to mention WTC7 and wherever that fitted in? This would be more difficult to explain away than Boeings et al.

I believe the sense of violation was the key to the success of 911, planting a few bombs and blowing something up as opposed to flying packed airliners into skyscrapers is Bambi compared to Die Hard 4. Using planes was bend over and take this on a grand scale.

The terrorists/explosives only angle is just plain silly.

[Easy Rider]

There are only three genuine truthers on this thread

Killtown
Mason Free Party
Myself

The rest are either shills or useful idiots

Why Ian Neal allows White and Gosling to moderate beggars belief, they are clearly working for the opposition.

Ian Neal is a lily livered coward for allowing them to continue.............................................................. .........................................do you hear me Mr Neal?

I urge all users of this site to dump it in the garbage where it belongs

[chek]

[chek]

[mason-free party]

why would they risk real planes?...parts of the planes would have broken off and not melt into the twin towers like butter...body parts discovered etc..thats why they had to do a thorough job in turning the building into dust to cover up any evidence...if the twin towers had remained standing like it should have their disgusting scam would have been revealed..they must have been very certain that what weapon they used to turn the towers into dust would work...

[chek]

[Rowan Berkeley]

Here is an uncomfortable consideration for you to mull, ladies and gents : since I follow the Gordon Ross style of close mechanical analysis of the tower collapses, I have begin to feel that any real damage caused by impacting objects, such as planes, before the collapses, would rather tend to endanger the precision of the demolition processes. I do not think that even the most marvellous remote-controlled autopilots could be expected to tailor the impacts as precisely as would be necessary to factor them into the overall design of the demolitions.

[chek]

[Rowan Berkeley]

[ogrady]

Killtown

I fail to understand why people are so tied to their pet theories that they can't open their minds. We are entitled to have our own ideas and it's time to step outside the informational matrix and think for ourselves.

The situation is this: there are multiple 'eyewitnesses' to the Pentagon incident on 911. Thousands of people were available to see what hit. A low-flying plane (or a low-flying anything) would have been obvious. Yet, we are treated to scant eyewitness testimony (considering that it was rush hour in DC, amid a tangle of expressways). Some people saw a helicopter, some saw a small corporate jet, and some (notably Don Dahler (sp?), a USA Today employee (oh, bastion or journalistic integrity!) saw a giant 757 crash into the Pentagon and disappear into a 16 foot hole! However, taking all the 'eyewitnesses' who were offered to us into account, we all still know that no plane hit the Pentagon. We're able to discount the testimony of the deluded and just plain liars on a scientific basis with the aid of common sense. (Oddly, I may point out, no one told us what may have actually 'hit')

Whatever hit the north tower was obviously not an airplane. (volumes have been written about the remarkable Naudet Bros. 'coincidence' and the frames of the video are available on the web for all to see) so I won't go into that here. Shanksville reveals only a smoking hole into which debris has been dumped - no 'plane crash' there.

So all we're really discussing is one plane. Long have I stared at the computer screen, watching a plane melt effortlessly into a building with no change in speed, nothing breaking off, fire coming from other than the impact point, and wondered what I was looking at. Thanks to your efforts and September Clues, I wonder no longer. When people talk about the 'thousands of eyewitnesses' who saw UA 175 hit the towers, they are really talking about themselves. This video was blasted into the public mind so often that we all thought we saw the crash! But what testimony is actually offered to us. Media plants and contradictory statements, just like at the Pentagon. Everyone should let common sense and a rudimentary understanding of science take hold over media brainwashing.

But, I have an idea. In the Rick Siegel video 911 Eyewitness we see multiple choppers buzzing the WTC for many minutes (in addition to other aircraft and what appear to be some sort of cloaked military planes). Yet on the 'live' coverage we see a chopper or two. I don't have complete videos of the 'live' coverage offered, but I was thinking that if all the choppers and aircraft shown on 911 Eyewitness do not appear on the MSM coverage, that this would be additional evidence for blue screen.

Hope you get this message. Hope my idea has some merit.

[marky 54]

ogrady wrote:

"I fail to understand why people are so tied to their pet theories that they can't open their minds."



their is a huge differance between having an open mind or believing anything you are told with no evidence or very flimsy evidence.

what is an open mind in your eyes? someone who just agrees without thinking about it for themselves and checking out the claims?

[Killtown]

Some still don't think some videos caught no plane.

[PepeLapiu]

[PepeLapiu]

NO-PLANERS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

[ogrady]

Pepe

I guess you didn't watch September Clues and the other original videos that show different planes arriving with different trajectories. All the videos can't be real. Planes don't just melt into buildings and disappear. Watch 911 Octopus. Watch The 911 Solution Everyone Missed. There is plenty of video to analyze. It's insufficient to just say it's nonsense. We are tricked by the MSM on a daily basis. If you don't want to believe it, that's OK. But just saying it isn't so without looking isn't much of an argument. If you had been studying the topic you would see how it was possible because information is available.

[chek]