MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[Ally]

[James C]

[Ally]

[Ally]

LOOK CLOSELY, the plane inside the building and wing left no scar.

[Ally]

WHY DID THEY FAKE THE FOOTAGE?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ally you are spot on there mate.

The left wing has already gone into the building and left no mark.

Probably because they had not set off the bombs for another split second

How do you explain that James?

I challenge James to go the the site below and listen to the on the spot reporter - he hears no plane "we hear no plane" and he sees no plane, he said there was no plane only an explosion

http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

[Ally]

this is a better analysis of 175, witnesses and footage.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

[wepmob2000]

[Ally]

real good analysis of the facts there webmop, I can't believe I've been so stoopid.

[andyb]

Ally,

I'm afraid I'm with wepmob on this one. It is hard enough dealing with peoples cognitive dissonance that it may have been LIHOP. Christ, this is what turns people away from addressing the countless other areas that people should be focusing their time on. Not sitting on forums sprouting c.rap about holograms and CGI. there may well be something in it but it is ahrd enough convincing people who are already won over on 9/11, how do you then think this is going to attract new truthers.

It seems to me that some people want to be the guarders of the truth and if you don't agree with them, you're a shill, this in turn puts other people off from looking at the real issues as they think that we're all loonies. Now who looks like a shill? We shouldn't even be worrying about this, there is enough other evidence to be convincing people with, without scaring them off. IMO time would be better spent campaigning than researching hologram, CGI theories.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

EXTRACTS FROM EARLIER LINK

Element 2 - The Media Hoax

There is sufficient evidence contained in this article to identify the second element of the WTC2 operation which is the media hoax. One of the purposes of this media hoax was to provide specific images of a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with and vanish inside the WTC2 tower and perhaps conceal any visual weaknesses of the existing optical illusion. The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission / reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200. The UA175 aircraft may have been added any given photograph to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200.

The reason for this "two pronged" modus operandi would have been because while planning the 911 atrocities the Perpetrators realised that flying a real jet into the WTC2 tower was not going cause enough damage to publicly justify the collapse of the structure using the 'burning jet fuel' theory. As the Perpetrators needed 911 and the eyes of the world were going to be focused on the Trade Towers something that looked believably like a Boeing 767-200 had to be deployed and seen to be flying into the tower. The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display.

The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn't get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to 'plug the gap' and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event. The media hoax also concealed the type of aircraft, its livery and its trajectory.

This media hoax element however, was not 100% successful for 3 reasons. Firstly, the witness reports didn't add up. Some did see something that resembled a passenger jet flying into WTC2 but couldn't positively identify it as a Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. Secondly, someone or some group inside the media fabrication operation blew the whistle by producing defective fakes that could easily be discerned from the legitimate fakes and then mixed them in with the remaining media. Under close scrutiny these deliberate fakes can be exposed, but to the layman they remain invisible. Thirdly, some of the fake film and photographs were not of a sufficient quality and could be detected by a discerning eye or the process of photographic analysis.






Afterward



Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this. Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing, lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting, descent path angle and airframe attitude.

Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.

It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.

So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows". The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

There was only the illusion of an aeroplane plane colliding with, and subsequently vanishing inside of, the tower. It is this illusion that is the foundation for the Hologram Theory along with the physics of aircraft impacts which tells us that a Boeing 767-200 could not have penetrated the tower so completely and vanished inside. It should have crumpled up on the towers facade and exploded.

[Ally]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I'm with Ally here

Andy is contradicting himself - first he says we are spounting c rap and in he next sentence he says "there may be something in it" Make your mind up Andy

Why don't you have a look at the evidence, or at least answer some of the points we raise

[Bufordt06]

This is ludicrious, this nonsense serves no purpose but to take away focus from real evidence. Either you are an offical story beleiver and trying to make us look stupid or you are an idiot trying to be "elite" by being into some far-out theory. If you saying no plane hit then you are an idiot, if you are saying it did and the footage is faked then thats equally stupid, why bother.

Can't you see all you are doing is making the truth movement look like nutters.

[Ally]

Weren't you brave enough to use your normal forum name or you just signed up to troll and muddy the waters even further?

[andyb]

I was hardly contradicting myself, I was just pointing out that debating this on forums isn't helping get the truth out. People think we are nutters without this.

Ally, just because Rick Siegel and Morgan reynolds believe something does not make it true. All the evidence I have seen has been spurious at best. I've done enough research in other areas to be convinced that what we've been told is a lie and that's all I need to help convince others. I don't have the time or the inclantion to waste time looking at this particular area and would rather spend it trying to get the truth out by using verfiable evidence. Wake up and realise this is putting people off!!

You are doing the movement a disservice. You seem to make a habit of this Ally. Jon Ronson came here and was being civil and we could have pointed him in the right direction, you abused him and he went, never to return thinking we're all nutters. You have to lose this elitist atitude if you want to help get the truth out.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

When I first heard rumours about the no planes, i was initially very sceptical because I had seen the second crash live on tv.

However I took the time out to look at the evidence, and anybody who has bothered to look at the evidence can only conclude that the planes were faked.

So if you haven't checked out the evidence you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

I can only conclude that those who slag it off have not bothered to check it out.

Is there anybody out there with enough balls to check it out and say they have now changed their mind.

This subject is extremely important because future terrorist attacks may well use the same technology

[andyb]

It doesn't matter at the moment. Once we get a full inquiry all will come out. By harping on about this on public forums you are making us look like nutters to the sceptics.

I am not speaking from a position of ignorance, I just feel that there are too many people researching and not enough campaigning. THIS TURNS PEOPLE OFF, I'm not debating whether it is true or false.

[Bufordt06]

Exactly my point better put. Regardless of truth it shouldn't be harped on about so much just becuase we have discussed everything else already, get out there and convince people with the hard solid evidence.

BTW this is my only username, im a new user as of last week.

[andyb]

Don't worry Buford, Ally has a habit of calling people shills if they don't agree with him

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Andy you imply that Ally and myself are doing too much debating and not enough campaigning, What the hell do you know about what we do.

Again your just making assumptions

[andyb]

TTWSY3,

I said too many people are researching, I never said you and Ally. You are making assumptions. What I meant was you are encouraging people to spend time researching something taht will do little to turn sceptics. IMO it is a waste of time and effort. Why do you feel the need to have more evidence?

[Mark Gobell]

[James C]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Mark Gobell]

Andrew

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier.

I understand your reasoning here but I have a problem with the lady for all the same reasons that you do. Plane or no plane.

Your version requires that she survived the initial fireball eminating internally and the roadrunner cutter charges, unless of course you are prepared to accept that she moved.

Plane or no plane why would someone move to such a precarious position?

Simply because they had no alternative and/or they thought there might be a possibility of being rescued with no possible internal escape route.

But if she didn't move, fall or climb, how could she have survived where she was standing, regardless of the width of any penetrating object or lack thereof because she would still have to survive the roadrunner pops.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

If there were only missiles rather than planes, this means we have to consider some significant points:

1) No real passengers
2) No real Hijackers (only patsies on the ground)
3) No NORAD stand-down - it was all done as a military exercise
4) No black boxes
5) No cell phone calls

Now, there is still much work to be done, but if you look at the 5 areas above, they are all now hotly debated as to the numbers of people involved, whether there was mixture of "fakery" and "reality". No 7x7's means that all of the above were faked. This is why this part of the research is so significant.

But I still vote for discussing the CD evidence, for sure - and for the time being certainly won't do anything else myself.

[waking life]

I have some questions for all the people that are seriosuly considering the possibly that missiles rather than planes were used.

What would be the point, when a plane would do the job just as well?

Why would they take the obvious risk of using missiles?

This no plane theory all seems to stem from the pentagon missile theory, which has actually been promoted by the US government.

[wepmob2000]