MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html

Take at look at CNN covering the second crash (on above link)

Just before impact the camera zooms into the second towerand the film is clear and detail can be seen.

The camera then zooms out, picks up the alleged plane "no clarity" - why does it not zoom in for a close up?

The alleged plane then "melts into the building". I have replayed the action many times and I cannot see a single piece of wreckage falling down the side of the building - no fuselage, no wings, no tail section, just dust and smoke - so what happened to the plane?

[James C]

I don't understand how you can watch that clip and then say that no debris falls down the side of the tower - it literally rains down and one piece is thrown out of the other side following the same flight path at almost the same speed immediately after impact.

The twin towers were massive buildings with lots of structure to make them work. The outer skin was relatively weak compared with the interior which was made of massive box columns which would have stopped the plane dead. The outside walls were only just over a foot thick made of hollow columns of steel a few millimetres thick.

Have a look at this document. Ignore the conclusions because they are bs coming from the official story but the photos say it all. How could the breaks in the outer structure have been made to look exactly like the shape of an aircraft? The wingtip entry points are clearly visible. There are even pictures of some parts of the wreckage.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The debris is dust not aircraft wreckage - the thing you refer to on the opposite side of the building is probably the missile

Look specifically below the dust half way down the tower - you will see no plane parts falling down

[program58]

planes or no planes, this discussion is unneccesary.

the buildings fell due to controlled demolition.

work from the facts, not from theory.

no planes is a theory nothing more.

controlled demolition is a fact. re: building 7 and larry silverstein's admission.

facts are strong and theories just weaken our cause to inspire people to question the official conspiracy...theory.

please concentrate on facts that hit their target rather than theories which cannot leave the ground or always fall short of their intention.

at this stage we need to agree on information which inspires people to join with us and commit to contribute to change what 9/11 intended to usher in.

for those who believe the no plane theories ask yourself; is your focus really on exposing the 9/11 lie to all or are you creating more of the official confusion?

please discard theories which divide rather than unite. do it now, for time is running out.

[Ally]

[James C]

[Ally]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The shape of the hole in WTC could also have been made by the placing of explosives "in the right places"

You accept that explosives brought the building down - so why not explosives to get the shape?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

For those of you who still think real planes were used please click on this link

http://reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

go to the eye witness reporter ink who is observing the twin towers.

No engine noise is heard on his microphone

The reporter states that it was just an explosion and he did not see a plane

The guy in the studio however says he saw a plane - obviously the one added by special effects

For me this is conclusive proof that there were no planes - end of story
I hope some of you will look at this evidence and back me up

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

James

You state that the outer skin of the building was relatively weak.

Ok lets assume you are correct.

The alleged plane however was banked at an angle and damage was spread over 4 floors

Each floor was made of solid concrete and the plane would have met massive resistance against the concrete floors and therefore it would be impossible to penetrate the building in the way it is shown

Please answer this one James

[James C]

[scubadiver]

I agree James.

I have said before this "no planes" theory is, quite frankly, stupid. As I have asked before: what is a 140 ton plane going to do when it goes into a building weighing 500,000 tons at, as you say, 400mph?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

As you state James, the floors were made of concrete - you talk as though this is some kind of easy to penetrate substance like "a cloud"

The plane would have met massive resistance.

If you bother to look at the site below - you will find overwhelming evidence of no planes

http://reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

[TimmyG]

jeezzuz...

one person saying he saw an explosion and didn't mention a plane, isn't conclusive proof that the planes were faked.

many eye witnesses reported seeing planes.

this no planes stuff isn't even funny any more

you are wasting your time and energy

[James C]

[numeral]

[quote="James C"]

[Snowygrouch]

I`ve been through this before, many times.

There is absolutely NO WAY that the holes in the WTC towers could have been "created" by subterfuge.

POSSIBLY there may have been some trickery to cover up possible use of cargo planes etc.

The footage of the plane "melting" into the building is very poor quality and is ONLY observed when cycling between frames. The camera is only recording so many frames per second. The odd appearance is entirely due to the frame junction. If you have a special high speed camera i guarantee it would have looked nothing like this at all.

On the loose change forum an emergency worker has posted loads of his personal digital photos of the roof below WTC. The whole roof is covered with plane parts. COVERED.

There were ENGINES in the street for goodness sake, do you think a couple of blokes in a van came up and shoved a jet turbine out the back and nobody noticed! The whole place was crammed with people.

This is dangerous rubbish. I`ve been through a long debate with a guy stating that it does not surprise me at all that the plane went INTO the building. As a previous poster said there are numerous large plane bits on the street, on roofs etc.

As for the no-noise on recordings, you havnt spent enough time using camcorers. The sound is nonsense on most of them.
There are hundreds of people who heard those jets.

Look I`m NOT saying those planes were even 767s ok! But two large jets similar to commercial airliners DID hit those buildings!

I`ve looked at the web link provided and the videos.

They only look odd when cycled from one frame to another, this is IMHO an effect created by:

1: nonsense footage (nobodies fault but it is)
2: Problem of slowing down low frame rate camera footage, you get gaps. Its going to look odd in places.

Going after this stuff when we have PNAC, WTC7, Able Danger etc etc is crazy.

I notice the site compares it to a truck crash. Sorry but that is a VERY poor comparison.

Kinetic energy = 0.5 x Mass x Velocity Squared.

Since a plane is travelling at approx 10 times the speed of the truck its damage potential is VASTLY more as its SPEED is squared.

The stuff by reynolds about having to smash 3600 tons of concrete to enter the building is VERY misleading IMO.

This is really bad disinfo people.

[wepmob2000]

To paraphrase a well known medical maxim - if it looks like a plane, it most probably is a plane (although technically a plane is a woodworking tool).

To suggest there were no aircraft is drivel of the highest order.

If the 'truth' movement wants to gain any of the credibility it so desperately craves it would be best served by pursuing the one real plausible hypothesis....

Namely that there was a plot by Bin Laden to commit mass murder on 9/11, and that the U.S. Government was aware of this and either allowed it to go ahead unhindered or even assisted it in various ways, to assist the conduct of its longer term foreign policy objectives.

[James C]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

All i can say in reply is that you are a complete *!!!!!!!

[Andrew Johnson]

It's nice when 1 person calls another "a complete STAR!!" I like it. We can all do with some mutual encouragement.

The "no 7x7's" issue is quite complicated.

One of the bits of evidence that was pointed out to me today or yesterday is Edna Cintron. She was the lady holding on to one of the beams, in the gash. She is the person oft mentioned when people say "there wasn't a fire hot enough to melt the steel - because she is there holding on!". Quite true.

Also, if we consider a plane did smash into the building, as the videos supposedly show, and the utter destruction which pulverised the plane and that section of the building, how can she have been there? Did she "duck" when the plane hit, then come out from under the desk when it was all clear?

Maybe she climbed up from a couple of floors underneath (where there was no fire and probably less destruction). Maybe she miraculously dropped down from a floor above, uninjured, as the plane crashed through the building, destroying the ceiling/floor she was standing on -she then survived the plane fireball without noticeable burns?

It is sure an interesting one, that.... and contentious, for sure....

[Ally]

A Plane Huggers Worst Nightmare

7 Irrefutable Proofs of the WTC2 Media Hoax

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/7proofs/

people calling this stuff disinfo clearly have their heads in their as*s, snowgrouch is a 100 percent assumption and 0% fact, a great example of people only believing what they want to believe. Typical sixth former.

[James C]

[Ally]

[James C]

[Snowygrouch]

Hi there Ram Time,
I just posted your original post everyone thought was brillant back to the top of the board with a message for you about how a lot of people responded to it at Let's Roll forum.

Sure I broke a few laws with my camera at Ground Zero. So did everyone else! The only shooting, was me of the truth! But seriously there times when you knew not to take your camera out, I just wasn't at the right places for the them to get crazy over a camera.But if I was, like at the top roof of the Federal Building where I did take pictures of all the airplane parts, nothing would have stopped me. One way or the other I would have got a picture even at the risk of being shot. Sometimes the truth must be filmed at all cost! If I saw one of the black boxes, you know I would have gotten a photo!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=498 &st=0

Above is a quote from one guy on ground zero who is posting some of the hundreds of photos he took on the day. 95% is just guys with their search dogs and people crying etc but there are pics of plane parts is you look through all six pages of the post above.

The guy is on the forum, why dont you PM him and ask him to email you some of his plane bits pictures. He`s got loads.

[Ally]

so what are those parts from, F11 or F175?

I have trouble believing no planes were used but I have no trouble believing all the footage we've seen is entirely fake, something you refuse to address.

[Ally]

[Snowygrouch]

Err. I have been to every link you have provided me with Ally and provided reasons above why I give them fairly minimal credance (IMO).

I have also addressed your points by providing quotes and photos of plane parts.

There is on the thread a large turbofan section, no I have no idea WHICH plane they are from or even if its from a 767.

I do not deny it is likely that they were NOT the exact flights we were told and that is something I have already stated.

The big problem is that if we decide we have been subject to 100% fake data we might as well pack up and leave this site NOW and forget EVER getting anywhere.

We`re then virtually going all philosophical with what is and isnt reality. There is a limit to planted evidence and I`ve reached it with the WTC no planes.

Like I said with the caliber of other topics for illustrating 9/11 why are we even here posting about this?

(Think I`ll take my own advice and do something useful like go and eat a bowl of cereal)

[James C]