Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

[scienceplease 2]

See attachment

[outsider]

Thanks, scienceplease2.
Could you possibly make a screen shot of the picture at 03.49 (just before the words 'Even the impossible' come up on the screen?
It is a better picture, and as I want to put it on a t-shirt, it is important to get the best pic available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmD5BDyMRkg&list=PLgKYsEYF9_QCSn8zSRU3e h45m38O5cSS6&shuffle=2240

[scienceplease 2]

Another screenshot - very pixelated...

[Andrew.]

[outsider]

@ Andrew: 'The vortex idea, I've seen aircraft crash on video and leave no vortex.

The "Magically Healing Columns" seems like the video of another video played backwards momentarily...'

You haven't seen a large passenger jet crash into a building at about 590 MPH and leave no wake vortex.

If you think the 'magically healing columns' are shown by running another video backwards, all you need to do is pause the video as the 'plane' is entering the building, part in, part out, and you will be able to see that there is no hole where part of the wing has supposedly entered. You will know that the video has not been reversed, because you will be doing the pausing yourself (there are two stills above which show no hole where the wing has supposedly entered; and I wonder what happened to two of the three parts of the tail? You can see the building wall where the two missing tail structures should be).

It has been obvious to many since Loose Change, Barrie Zwicker and others showed the 'slowed down' 'plane' entering the building, that it magically 'melted' into the building, plastic nosecone, weak wing ends and all cutting through strong steel columns about a meter apart (over 40 'cut' by the 'plane').
The columns where strong enough, indeed well over-strong enough (common building practice to have spare strength capacity), to hold up all the floors above entry point (and that was a heck of a lot of weight!), yet could be cut like butter by aluminium wings?

[fish5133]

[outsider]

[outsider]

@ fish: 'The previous "form" as suggested in the Northwoods document of flying drone planes and carrying out mock funerals for the purposes of false flag shows the mindset back in the 50's/60's ...'

Just had a new 'video' brought to my attention, very much to do with Northwoods & it's author Lyman Lemnitzer, and 'Gladio', which claims the 'Northwoods' & 'Gladio' mindset is very much at work today:
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/04/bilderberg-behind-terro rist-attacks-italian-supreme-court-president-drops-bombshell-2455434.h tml

[Skunkfan]

What really gets me about the Naudet film is how when the plane hits, he suddenly starts zooming in and out and waving the camera about making the film harder to view. I would expects that from a novice but this guy was making a film so he should have known waving the camera around whilst doing this would be bad for the footage. It reminds me of those fake UFO videos hoaxers make. Ya know where they film a frizby on a string and then shake a camera at it...

[Andrew.]

[outsider]

[Andrew.]

[outsider]

[Andrew.]

[outsider]

'Ye, but how do you set an explosive to implode?


Or if explosives were used as suggested, without some floors not falling to pull the sides in and at the same time set them to not bend any outwards (that can't be seen.)?'

As you can see from the very clear photo of the hole, the steel columns have a weak exterior 'facing' to cover them. The explosives would probably be set between the facing and the actual columns.

Again, there is NO SIGN OF DEBRIS ON IMPACT; point me to one video that shows debree or dust ON IMPACT.
Sure there was debris and probably dust along with the fireball a fraction of a second after the 'plane' had entered; the explosion is very well coordinated to video timing, but not perfect.
Again, if you try stopping video of 'plane' going in, THERE IS NO HOLE; NO HOLE = NO DEBRIS (and 'Ghost PLanes' don't leave holes, any more than 'ghosts' have shadows).

[Andrew.]

[Andrew.]

Link

[scienceplease 2]

[outsider]

That was my point; the 'Ghost' plane was video fakery.

It's a very close thing, but at the very beginning of 02.26, when the nose and left wing are in, there is still no dust, but there is a slightly dark area where left wing would be, and there are the light 'puffballs' (seen in some videos above, and in other videos below, the wings, and the light flash which seems to occur immediately before the 'plane' makes contact.
In the video where the guy is looking up as the 'plane' goes in, there is not one piece of debris seen falling.

Regarding the fighter plane, you are right, there is no evidence of 'wake vortex'; I suspect that is due to (a) the extremely sleek design of the fighter and (b) much more importantly, due to it's ground level approach, and being bolted to the rails, it behaves like a train rather than a plane.
The ground level approach would be bound to be different to a plane flying at 1,000 feet or higher.
That was one of the reasons for no Pentagon plane; ground effect would make flying at high speed (as an aircraft, not as a ground-based 'train', impossible). I think the Jury is out on this one, but thanks for pointing it out.


There is no shame in changing one's mind; I'm absolutely convinced the vast majority of 9/11 Truthers originally believed the original story; I certainly did, till about 2004, when someone pointed out anomalies and I started to check stuff out.

The longer one has held beliefs, the harder it will be, generally, to change them. For me, that was not a problem, because for many years I had campaigned for Human Rights in Latin America, and I knew how evil the US Administrations had been, and I had no trouble whatsoever believing they would sacrifice their own countrymen to suit their ends.

[outsider]

[Andrew.]

[outsider]

I'm bowing out now, because we seem to be at an impass.
But I do recommend you watch the whole 8 parts of 'Psy Opera'; though I don't agree with everything, I do with a great deal of it.
There is an interesting part where he discusses a strange round hole in the groundrock under one of the WTC towers; I had previously taken the idea of mini-nukes being used with a pinch of salt, not totally dismissing them though.
His discussion on the strange hole, and the very high tritium level in drainage water, does make the idea more of a possibility (in addition to nano-thermite and conventional explosives).

[Andrew.]

[scienceplease 2]

[outsider]

Reposting one of my earlier posts, re lack of 'dead passengers' & lack of compensation claimantrs; it is not just a few points, there is a whole slew of evidence, all pointing to the highjacked scheduled airliners being a pack of lies:

Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes on 911-

'Exposing the Illusion'

By Ronald Bleier:

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

A lot of evidence here, the following is just some of it:

'Not many plane crash victims

A frequently asked and presently unanswerable question is: what happened to the passengers and crew of the four passenger jets that were supposed to have crashed? While very little information about their deaths has surfaced there is evidence that there were fewer victims than has been reported.

NY based researcher Vincent Sammartino claims that the government seems to have faked the number of plane victims and also faked the number who claimed victim compensation.[25] According to Sammartino, of the 266[26] official names of passengers and crew who were supposed to have died in the four passenger jets, only 52 names have appeared on the Social Security Death Index (SSDI), a privately owned website not affiliated with the Social Security Administration. According to Sammartino, of the 52 listed as dead in the SSDI, which has an accuracy rate of about 83%, only 11 of the family members have claimed victim compensation (not counting 9/11 plane crash widow, Ellen Mariani, who has pointedly refused compensation).

Sammartino writes that his research was spurred in part because of a radio interview he heard with Ms. Mariani and her lawyer in which they spoke of their inability to locate other family members of the purported plane passengers.
(Remember Northwoods???)

If Sammartino’s figures are closer to reality than official reports, the discrepancies also go some way to advancing the NPT. If no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and if Holmgren is right that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly that day (and Flights 93 and 175 did not crash that day), then it might have been easier for the terrorists to have diverted and perhaps disposed of merely 50-60 victims rather than many more bodies.

Thus the NPT helps us to advance, as Holmgren suggests, a combination missile, and preplanned explosives theory to explain the explosions and fires at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and the lack of any big passenger plane evidence at those sites. It also helps to explain why relatively few "plane crash" victims have come forward. Evidence also indicates that that no big passenger plane (or any other plane) crashed in Shanksville, PA. The episode may have been cooked up simply for purposes of distraction.

Occam’s Razor

As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange.[27]..

[Andrew.]

[Andrew.]

[scienceplease 2]

[outsider]

Yippee! We seem to have a convoy!!

[fish5133]

Fake sound footage of first plane hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHX222Hqp_s

more implicit "witnesses"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6B7g6mt4Gk



Remember watching a clip of motorcyclist courier head cam or a dash cam that caught first plane. But it was footage that only surfaced a year or two after. The driver was just about to enter a tunnel Cant find it on youtube

Not just the Naudet brothers who would be implicit but also the firefighters with them who pretend to look up at the sound of an imaginary plane. Having watched the Naudet bros documentary it would also mean they had to be scheduled to be in the right place at just the right time and that they were directing where the fireman would be but it seems to be the other way round in that the firemans day to day routine dictated where they would be at a given time.