Why planes were not used.

Just to add something on this.

Take a look at this picture. The colored picture is a picture of a plane with a 'bulge'-------This is where the landing gear is.

The black and white photo is actually from one of the planes that went into the towers on 9/11.

Did the people who made the hologram also feel it necessary to make sure the 'bulge' was there?






[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

Talisman, no offense, but one piece of debry that LOOKS like it came from a plane does not conclusively prove a plane hit the tower. Same goes for the Pentagon attack, and the select pieces on the lawn..

Ive spent a good 4-5 hours searching for everything on the no-planes theory (not hologram, but no planes hitting towers), and i believe it is a convincing case, but i still have a few more questions;

-If no planes hit the towers, then how was the damage to the tower faked, specifically the wing edge damage

-What about witnesses who saw a plane in the area. If it was a flyby, how did no one see the plane flying away? Is this something to do with smokecover/the direction of the flyby?

-If something did hit the tower (and not a 767), was it a missile/s, or something else?

I had another question or so, but these will do for now Im well aware that there WERE planted agents giving out false testimony to the cameras, so im not discounting anything. Again, i think its convincing, but the finer details need to be demonstrated for it to totally convince me. I hope someone can prove it to me

In advance, I apologize if this has already been posted and discussed here.

www.geocities.com...

Home run looks like a very viable way of controling the planes, but of course, it only works if actual planes were used.

I am of the opinion that the no-plane theory has a long way to go before the anomalies can be fully explained away.

1. How do you account for the witnesses who seem to be uniform in their conclusion that a plane went into the towers?

2. Where is the proof that a system existed in 2001 which could accomplish such an effect?

Again, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and resolved.

Originally posted by talisman
Just to add something on this.

Take a look at this picture. The colored picture is a picture of a plane with a 'bulge'-------This is where the landing gear is.

The black and white photo is actually from one of the planes that went into the towers on 9/11.

Did the people who made the hologram also feel it necessary to make sure the 'bulge' was there?

I am sorry Talisma but it looks kind of obvious that the POD and the bulge are not exactly the same thing.
For the plane debris I hardly beleive they were not planted, they look almost new no burn sign barely scatched.







[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

shrunkensimon

Talisman, no offense, but one piece of debry that LOOKS like it came from a plane does not conclusively prove a plane hit the tower. Same goes for the Pentagon attack, and the select pieces on the lawn..

The burden of proof is actually on the people who are claiming that *NO PLANE HIT*. Finding additional debris just supports what is clearly demonstrated by countless eyewitness testimony.

Ive spent a good 4-5 hours searching for everything on the no-planes theory (not hologram, but no planes hitting towers), and i believe it is a convincing case, but i still have a few more questions;

It is a very unconvincing case, many feel it was actually started by 'de-bunkers'. I think this to be the case.

The film I showed clearly shows in one motion the South Tower penetrated and the fuselage coming through on the other side, NO HOLOGRAM is going to do that. Watch the video.

VID EO

Here is a still from the video above





Certain things to note. The explosions on the side follows along the expected planes path inside, then for a very brief instant the plane is seen coming out the other side, then the explosion.


Rather then holograms, one could argue that the plane used on that day wasn't your ordinary plane, but obviously with the video above, the wing marks and the path of the explosions in the last video, it is obvious these were real planes.




[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman


The film I showed clearly shows in one motion the South Tower penetrated and the fuselage coming through on the other side, NO HOLOGRAM is going to do that. Watch the video.

more importantly, no plane is going to do that.
excellent footage.
i think a cruise missile was used, now, and perhaps it was cloaked in a hologram.
why?
because the nose of a that plane is not strong(it's carbon composite, IIRC). in plane crashes, you will see the rest of the plane intact, but the nose gets crushed. there is simply NO WAY IN HELL the nose could retain it's shape while punching through BOTH perimeter walls, and THEN simply DISAPPEAR in a fireball. the first part of the plane to strike the building will be the first thing mutilated. that 'nose cone' coming out looks perfect, and then gets swallowed by a fireball and disappears.

or, perhaps, they made a special missile plane, with custom features, like a hardened nose cone.

anyway, the disappearing wing(s) is something that happens in MANY of the videos and photos taken. as i said in another thread, i watched TONS of other footage of planes, and the wings simply do not disappear(unless they are at a great distance, and the background is neary the same colour as the wing. in this case, the plane looks black, and the sky is blue, so that excuse doesn't work)

whatever the explanation for all this is, the official story is by far the most unlikely. those were not ordinary planes, if they existed at all.

i am not married to ANY theory. i do not know what DID happen, but i can tell what DIDN'T.

I think the whole no planes theory has too many problems.

The whole planting evidence is a whole lot of legwork, and faking that many witnessnesses

Isn't remote control planes the simplest solution?

Originally posted by talisman
The burden of proof is actually on the people who are claiming that *NO PLANE HIT*. Finding additional debris just supports what is clearly demonstrated by countless eyewitness testimony.

Unless you were there on the day, you can not claim it either way. It comes down too trust. Who do you trust more, yourself, or the "eye witnesses"? Eye witness testimony is always unreliable, especially on a day like 9/11 with all the confusion and chaos..

Originally posted by talisman
The film I showed clearly shows in one motion the South Tower penetrated and the fuselage coming through on the other side, NO HOLOGRAM is going to do that. Watch the video.

First thing, can a plane really penetrate through some of the toughest steel? Even the wings? If a bird hits a plane wing, it makes a massive dent in the wing.

Also, should the nosecone really be intact after passing through something which is akin to a giant cheese shredder?..Also, physical evidence contradicts the images!!



If the nosecone can be seen coming out in the videos... yet there is no physical exit hole on the face of the tower, then that seriously contradicts the whole idea of planes actually being used!

That one photo is what seriously made me rethink the no planes theory, and personally im ashamed that i overlooked such a obvious piece of evidence!

shrunkensimon

Unless you were there on the day, you can not claim it either way. It comes down too trust. Who do you trust more, yourself, or the "eye witnesses"? Eye witness testimony is always unreliable, especially on a day like 9/11 with all the confusion and chaos..

That is a logical fallacy. Using that logic no criminal can ever be tried in a court of law for murder based on eyewitness testimony! Since we weren't there we can't decide as a jury? That makes no sense. The evidence is overwhelming that day as to what people saw, and not only SAW but heard.


Confusion and chaos happens I agree, but in court -corroborative testimony- is valuable, while people may disagree on the secondary details, the primary details are what people try and connect.

First thing, can a plane really penetrate through some of the toughest steel? Even the wings? If a bird hits a plane wing, it makes a massive dent in the wing.

Show me other then conjecture or pure speculation why a plane that is travelling at over 600 mph, can't go through steel? We are talking about a plane that is fairly large and has been travelling at distance while travelling at full speed.

Show me empircal proof. Not a video of a small jet going into a concrete wall but show me a JET like the one we saw hitting STEEL at FULL SPEED.

Now, notice there isn't any footage anywhere. So all we have is pure speculation and a bunch of people who use big sounding words to confuse people such as yourself.

I mentioned previous, I saw more then 10 years ago the aftermath of a suicide as a man jumped more then 40 story's into the Toronto Eaton Center.

You would be amazed at the surfaces his body went through. I was amazed at the time and couldn't believe it.

So I don't doubt for one moment that a plane could do this.

Also, should the nosecone really be intact after passing through something which is akin to a giant cheese shredder?..Also, physical evidence contradicts the images!!

It could also be the engine, or the fuesalge. At best as I mentioned YOU COULD argue for a different sort of MILTITARY plane disguised, but a hologram is ridiculous.

So let me ask you, they decided to keep the hologram active for a very brief split second after it exited when hardly anyone would see it??

That makes no sense. What was the point of their HOLOGRAM doing that?

Also look back over this picture. Explain to me how a hologram is reflecting sunlight like that while it is travelling at 600 mph. Also who was *TIMING* the explosion you see there upon impact of the nose of the plane to the very millisecond i Please explain that one.














[edit on 18-5-2007 by talisman]

No no no, you misunderstood me. My fault for not making it clear.

Im saying that there were no planes hitting the towers. The planes hitting the towers were added in, in realtime, and provided to the media, who spread the idea that planes had hit the towers..

There were no holograms. No planes hitting in the towers either. The power of suggestion is a fantastic manipulation technique. If the TV says its true, then most people will believe it, even if it contradicts what they saw.

There is video evidence of no plane hitting the second tower, and the reporter saying he saw no plane..but then being corrected by his chums in the newsroom, who SAW the plane

Im not saying that a plane wouldn't puncture the first wall of the tower, but to think that the nosecone came out the otherside still intact. How is that possible? If it did make it through the first wall, then it would have been severely wrecked and crushed, not still in a perfect nosecone shape by the time it makes it through the second!.


Forgive me, i don't know enough about this theory. I only began to look at it yesterday, but it fits like a glove. I don't know what possessed me to consider this theory after so long.. something told me i was overlooking something, and i just ended up here Thats intuition for you.

PS: Please address the nosecone coming out the 2nd wall/the image of no exit hole. That physical evidence is pretty hard to dismiss! I know i couldnt dismiss it when i saw it!

shrunkensimon

Okay, the nosecone out to the other side of the tower. The first thing you have to remember is that we are assuming it is the nosecone. It could be one of the engines which is very strong actually. Or it could be the fuselage.

Let us say for example that it can't be that. That doesn't mean the next step is that it was a CGI effect or Hologram.

IT could be a military jet designed as an american airline jet. It could be a number of things.

The most likely thing in my view is that the speed of the JET caused everything we are seeing.

Have you ever seen a Karate expert put his hand through piles of wood? Normally a hand can't physically do that, but with the speed and force they can achieve this. Now imagine a plane travelling at 600 mph into a building.

Even *IF* you don't believe what I am saying then ask yourself.

Who made the plane appear at the other side of the TOWER for a split second? What purpose? That wasn't even noticed till a lot later.

That rules out hologram or 'CGI'.

Originally posted by talisman
Okay, the nosecone out to the other side of the tower. The first thing you have to remember is that we are assuming it is the nosecone. It could be one of the engines which is very strong actually. Or it could be the fuselage.

That looks like a nosecone to me. Its the same proportions as the plane that hit the tower, supposedly, complete with the shadow on the tower surface. It then magically disappears inside the fireball, instead of continuing its current trajectory, onto the streets some blocks away..

It has been brought to my attention that this video (www.youtube.com...) is a obvious sign of digital forgery. The nosecone is non existent here, and instead has been replaced by a little puff of smoke, much like a squib in completely the wrong location.

Pause on a frame just after 6 seconds, where the corner fireball is just starting.. notice the shadow across the tower. It is completely fake, given the shadow produce by the nosecone in other footage. Has the Suns angle changed in two different pieces of footage? Yes it has..

Is that a coincidence, or is that signs of blatent media manipulation? You decide.

Originally posted by talisman
Who made the plane appear at the other side of the TOWER for a split second? What purpose? That wasn't even noticed till a lot later.

That rules out hologram or 'CGI'.

It does? I think that the nosecone error is evidence of deliberate digital manipulation, done in real time, meaning they could not correct their mistakes with the live footage on 9/11.

There are alot of graphical errors too, with wings disappearing, the plane just passing straight into the building without crumpling etc. Using CGI in realtime means they can not correct their errors once its been done, because it would have to be done LIVE, in order to pass the corrected footage to the media, in order for them to comment immediatly and push the "planes crashed" motif.

This clip. Listen to the guy at ground zero. He says he saw no plane, but gets corrected by the guys in the newsroom;

www.youtube.com... at 5:20.

Of course the plane isn't going to crumple. You would have to have a super high speed camera to see it. It's puncturing into the building too fast to see any sign of crumpling. As for the reporter not seeing a plane, it's entirely possible he DIDN'T see it. There were quite a few people that didn't see it, but just saw the explosion. They were looking in wrong place, or wrong direction. The control tower in Newark witnessed the plane, and within a second or two it had impacted the towers. As fast as it was moving it didn't take long for it to impact after it came into view.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Of course the plane isn't going to crumple. You would have to have a super high speed camera to see it. It's puncturing into the building too fast to see any sign of crumpling. As for the reporter not seeing a plane, it's entirely possible he DIDN'T see it. There were quite a few people that didn't see it, but just saw the explosion. They were looking in wrong place, or wrong direction. The control tower in Newark witnessed the plane, and within a second or two it had impacted the towers. As fast as it was moving it didn't take long for it to impact after it came into view.

But who says its capable of punturing the building anyway? Can you show mathematically that this is the case? I admit i can not, but my only understanding is that aluminium is not superior to steel in terms of strength, and that the only real parts of a plane which would damage heavily would be landing gear, engines etc.

I am reluctant to believe people with any connection to the government who said they saw the plane, simply because ive become aware of that fact that there WERE planted agents posing for the cameras.. You can understand that right? (why i wouldnt trust them, or police for example)

You're talking about a plane that at the time, with JUST aircraft and fuel weights, weighed roughly 266,500 pounds. And that's not even taking into account the momentum factor of it. Show me a steel building that it WON'T penetrate. Yes, steel is stronger than aluminum, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stop 133+ tons that's moving at 500mph.

Maybe the explanation it is really the easiest of all no hologram and no plane simple CGI. That would explain quite a bit of things around. I am also amazed so many ppl from this board saw the actual plane while I have not seen one interview mentioning the plane itself but always explosion or missle or military plane or whatever else.
The nosecone can´t be the plane since there is no exit hole and I remember one footage when it disappears instantly I will try to find it.
So I guess its down to hologram or CGI but I think we can safely exclude real planes.

Originally posted by piacenza

So I guess its down to hologram or CGI but I think we can safely exclude real planes.

piacenza,

I used to do a lot of business with a firm a few blocks from WTCs. My accountants were about 2 blocks away from WTCs (Grant Thornton... look them up). One of my co-workers lived less than 1 mile from WTCs.

The receptionist at my accountant's office told me she saw the 2nd plane approaching from the south. My co-worker was sitting on his balcony watching the whole scene and saw the 2nd plane hit.

So I think this means we can safely exclude CGI, which leaves real planes or holograms, complete with synchronized sound.

nick7261.. why should we take your words to be truth when you provide no evidence for it? Extraorindary claims need extraordinary evidence

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're talking about a plane that at the time, with JUST aircraft and fuel weights, weighed roughly 266,500 pounds. And that's not even taking into account the momentum factor of it. Show me a steel building that it WON'T penetrate. Yes, steel is stronger than aluminum, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stop 133+ tons that's moving at 500mph.

the missile(even if it's a plane, it's still a missile, literally) which appears to have passed through the building exhibits very strange behaviour.
although it's true that a 767 weighs over a 100tons, it is also true that punching through one steel wall will turn the nose of the plane into confetti.we've seen what happens to planes when they crash into things. they break apart. this 'plane' did not.
at least, not until it poke a hole through both sides of the building. after poking it's nose out the second hole, it disappears in a fraction of a second.
so, you're saying that it was mighty enough to poke those two holes, but then not strong to keep going forward against THIN AIR. typical.

try this. the head exploded and disappeared, because it was a warhead. same as at the pentagon. once it creates the 'punch out', then it explodes. that is why on the wall facing the 'punch out', there is nothing but a stain of smoke.

when we see other plane crash tests and plane crashes, we see that planes are quite flimsy. a wooden telephone pole can rip a wing off.
what happens an a head on collision? a 2500 lb. car going 70 miles an hits a post. does the front of the car pass through the post, undamaged, and then in the next instant disappear?
or, let's do it on the racetrack, with a formula one car hitting the wall at 200 miles an hour. does the car pass through the wall?
let's realise that a plane has to be lightweight in order to fly(that's why they use composites and aluminum, and that's why planes break into confetti on impact). and a tower has to be dense to stand.

sorry, but that nose poking out one instant, and then vanishing the next, means it's not a (normal) commercial plane.

THE PLANES WERE REAL!!
THERMITE WAS USED TO LOOSEN UP THE ENTRY SPOT ON IMPACT BY TIMED EXPLOSION, EASILY MASKED BY THE PLANES FUEL BURNING OFF.
THEN AS THE HOUR WAINED, THE SEQUENCE WAS CONTINUED. REMEMBER THE HELOCOPTERS NOT HELPING ANYONE? REMEBER THE BLASTS BELOW THE FALLING FLOORS, LIKE DEMOLISHIONS LOOK.

9-11 WAS BLACK MAGIC. BLOOD sACRIFICE FOR THE ILLUMINATI TO OPEN SATANS CAGE. ITS TRUE..