Why planes were not used.

Yes it is possible on stage in a controlled environment.

It is not possible in the sky over manhattan.

Real planes hit the buildings, and real people died when they hit.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Yes it is possible on stage in a controlled environment.

It is not possible in the sky over manhattan.

Real planes hit the buildings, and real people died when they hit.

holograms are "ludicrous conspiracy theory", don't you know. i never denied anyone died. the deaths were very real. and, i actually think a plane was used(although, it was a custom job, switched in the air, ala, "flight of the bumbleplanes"). however, the point might be that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
NYC was a controlled stage on 911.

notice people using flash photography to capture the hologram. i wonder how they turned out.

THIS IS NOT A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also I am more convinced, more than ever after this ages old video, probably the most visually accurate of any, show clearly if you are able to slice the frames and then playback quickly about 3 seconds before the second tower explosion, look first at the cloud were a puff of cloud are thrown back about a inch to the left area, but you actually see a bright white light, almost as if from antiaircraft fire emit from the cloud and possibly 2 more from the rooftop area, you must loop the frames over and over quickly to observe this, if someone is able to do it you will see what I am talking about, something was fired from within the smoke clouds into the building...there is no plane actually from the angle and the distance you should still have been able to see a plane in this video...there is none....proof is this video is the smoking gun to me that there was no plane at least in the instance of the 2nd tower..
Dummy zooms but still it is possible to see the flashes and the missile

I wanted to piggy back off of the previous post to include some frames, the original video and some descriptions of where to look to see what I have described, I am sure someone can extract the video and analyze much better, I did not have a lot of time and means to do it, but what I observed I did so directly through the stream.

SMOKING GUN VIDEO ?? or smoking cloud???

Just want to put an idea out there, all comments most appreciated!;

Is it possible that there was only 1 plane used on 9/11? The mysterious white jet that was seen above Washington, captured on some Spanish news crews camera..

Ive been thinking about the Pentacon alot lately, and the one thing that struck me was the momument erected, with the three fins, which resembles 3 seperate flight paths.. which just happens to be on the supposed flight path of the "fly over" at the Pentagon.

"Smoke and Mirrors"

Its evident that no plane crashed in Shanksville, no plane hit the Pentagon, and depending on what you believe, even no planes hitting the WTC.

My idea i put to you is that only 1 plane was used, and it was used in someway for all 4 seperate events (shanks, penta, wtc 1,2).

The idea that 4 planes could penetrate American airspace..they should have been shot out the air. That fact is always preached by Alex Jones, but i think there may be more to it than he implies..

The TV Fakery idea has been around in military circles for a long time and it has been used effectively before.

People believe what the see on CNN is real. It doesn't occur to them that they might be looking at something totally fake.

Everything happened very fast for the people who were there live. They didn't need to go "high tech" on distractions for the live eyewitnesses. Instead the millions of people who saw planes crash saw them on TV.

It's was just an excuse to make Bush's foreign policy of invading Afghanistan and Iraq popular. Regardless of what you believe made the towers blow up, we can prove (and you can verify) that the 9/11 plane crash videos are totally fake. They cut-and-pasted stock footage together and looped it. The technology to do that was originally developed to help invade other countries. You don't want local TV showing the US Helicopter gunships arriving 100 miles away from the Capital City and giving the leadership a chance to get ready. If you jam all the TV stations that tips people off too. So they replace the real TV news footage with fake footage that looks innocuous. In a standard military setting that deception only has to work for an hour or two to give you the benefit of surprise. The technology was never supposed to create a "matrix alternate reality" that lasts for years like the one we have now.

Check out the videos for yourself. They really are fake. It's the easiest way to pull off a deception operation: convince millions of people that they were eyewitnesses to history when all they saw were pixels on their screens.

The live footage is all choppy and sliced and diced and the camera angles aren't even possible. I'm 100% sure that the videos are fake, and I've gone down to the locations and checked them out for myself. If you're in NYC go to Battery Park or the Ferries and try to recreate the CNN Ghostplane shots. it's an impossible mission. The whole skyline is out of position. They cut and pasted it together for the videos.

Awesome post Bs!

Shame no one else commented on my theory of only one real plane being used on 9/11

There's plenty of video of the "White Elephant" plane making its escape. It's entirely possible that the eyewitnesses saw that plane and that they didn't do anything fancier for the "live" people who were standing around (there were not all that many of them.)

There's even video and eyewitness testimony of the plane circling around.

It's not a bad theory at all. I have a girlfriend who saw the "2nd plane" herself, but the angle she saw it from doesn't match the videos at all, and she didn't see it crash. She saw it go behind the towers.

I don't know exactly WHAT she saw, but I do know she assumed it was what she saw on TV until we went back to the locations and she realized that what the TV showed was completely different from what she saw.

Go back to where you were standing on 9/11, and take some print outs from the various videos. They won't match up. You don't even need to worry about the plane. The skyline is totally cut-and-pasted together. Just try to recreate the camera angles from the fake videos. It's an impossible mission.



[edit on 2-6-2007 by bsregistration]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by bsregistration]

Originally posted by phinubian
THIS IS NOT A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's what us photographers call a slow exposure. I can see the engines. I can also see the smoke is heavily blurred.

I've taken enough images to recognize one, and they surely are not all alike nor fit a definable pattern.

[edit on 2/6/07 by SteveR]

He's right. It's just a fake video image. They're not even internally consistent. You don't even need to get into whether or not planes crashed to prove that the videos are fake. You can prove that just by looking at where the buildings are. They cut and pasted a lot of the skyline together.

Speaking of staged environment, this video looks awfully staged to me. I think these sorts of videos were the "core" of the 9/11 operation, and the plane crashes were meant to provide a plausible explanation for how Al Qaida could have gotten away with such a massive attack.




This "rescue" doesn't even look like it was shot on 9/11. Check out the undamaged building when they pan back up. Look at the empty streets and lack of debris. Why is the old guy in shorts and a T-shirt? Why is an old car just driving by in the background? This was probably shot during some terror drill on a weekend a long time before 9/11, and CNN is passing it off as exciting footage from that terrible day. TV Fakery by itself doesn't prove that they didn't use planes, but it discredits most of the evidence for planes.

The fact of the matter is, you can't be 100% sure of anything anymore and although it seems very unlikely that holograms were used, there still exists the possibility, and that should be investigated instead of ridiculed by others. Just because the notion seems unlikely does NOT make it automatically wrong. Thinking outside the box can be a wonderful thing. As for eyewitnesses, most people that day saw an explosion after the objects hit, not the impact of whatever it was that hit the two towers, but a few saw a "plane" or at least something with wings hit. Personally I think missiles/CD are more likely than holograms, but you never know and should always leave room for possibilities even after the issue appears to be resolved.

Yes. But why bother? Much simpler just to use a few planes flown with remote-control technology. Saves having to plant all those engine components in full view of everyone on street corners (!). Saves having to broadcast fake airplane sounds over a few blocks (!!). Saves having to synchronise explosions in towers with holograms (!!!). Saves a lot of things in fact.

Gee! Why do we even have to consider holograms? Oh yes, that's right. I remember now. Some people don't understand how details are lost and distorted when you compress files from one format into another suitable for internet download. So they saw what they thought was impossible: a plane melting into the South Tower in the CNN footage without immediate explosion - one that is CLEARLY visible in other footage. All that fuss and distraction just because some people's eyes were duped by their ignorance of compression algorithms.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by micpsi]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by micpsi]

Could someone please link to a site that shows a real, working 3-D Hologram that is viewable from all angles and doesn't suffer from atmospheric projection distortion please?

Thanks in advance

Originally posted by bsregistration
Speaking of staged environment, this video looks awfully staged to me. I think these sorts of videos were the "core" of the 9/11 operation, and the plane crashes were meant to provide a plausible explanation for how Al Qaida could have gotten away with such a massive attack.

This "rescue" doesn't even look like it was shot on 9/11. Check out the undamaged building when they pan back up. Look at the empty streets and lack of debris. Why is the old guy in shorts and a T-shirt? Why is an old car just driving by in the background? This was probably shot during some terror drill on a weekend a long time before 9/11, and CNN is passing it off as exciting footage from that terrible day. TV Fakery by itself doesn't prove that they didn't use planes, but it discredits most of the evidence for planes.

The comments in that video are totally dishonest. It pretends that the two shots - one of the rescued man and the other of panicked people - were taken at the same spot at the same time. We don't know that this is true. The scenes could be from different cameras, with live shots mixed with recorded ones. Who knows? You don't. The film has been artfully presented to create a bogus scenario and agenda, which you push without success on different 9/11 forums (at least those that have not banned you for spamming and being rude).

Why is the guy in shorts and a T-shirt? Well, it was a warm day, I guess. Why is an old car just driving by? Well, I suppose no one told the driver that a Boeing 727 had just flown a few seconds previously into the tower at 500mph! Raise silly questions like that in order to create unfounded, vacuous suspicions and you will make even more a laughing stock of yourself than you already have done on other 9/11 forums.

P.S. Yes, Fred. The top of 19 Rector Street really was visible in the CNN footage of Flight 175 going into the South Tower, despite what you claimed. But I can well understand why you refused to admit this fact, which was so obvious to everyone else at the British 9/11 Forum. It would have destroyed your absurd claim that the footage was faked, had you admitted the existence of what was staring at you.

Planes hit the towers, demolition equiptment was also used.

The pentagon is were a hologram could have been possibly used, no where else. I want to see video of a plane.

1999 Washington Post article

Well riddle me this then, what about the only video of the first tower being hit, well those french guys were filming, you actually hear the roar of a plane, then a in few seconds you see it hit and hear the explosion. That is not faked. What about the amateur footage of the second tower being hit, how did the governement fool those guys. Come on guys wake up, and focus on what the public will eventually believe, this no plane hit the tower is insane. The second tower had lots of live eye witness, everybody was watching. Impossible fantasies that are the truth's movements worst nightmare. If you try and sell this theory in NY you will be run out of town as a lunatic. Then maybe that is the goal, to tar the whole movement with this utter stupidity, and the whole CT goes down.
This is a snake oil theory, not buying it boys.



[edit on 27-6-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Well riddle me this then, what about the only video of the first tower being hit, well those french guys were filming, you actually hear the roar of a plane, then a in few seconds you see it hit and hear the explosion. That is not faked. What about the amateur footage of the second tower being hit, how did the governement fool those guys. Come on guys wake up, and focus on what the public will eventually believe, this no plane hit the tower is insane. The second tower had lots of live eye witness, everybody was watching. Impossible fantasies that are the truth's movements worst nightmare. If you try and sell this theory in NY you will be run out of town as a lunatic. Then maybe that is the goal, to tar the the whole movement with this utter stupidity, and the whole CT goes down.
This is a snake oil theory, not buying it boys.

I agree. There is no way in hell that the footage of the first plane hitting the building could be faked, let alone the 2nd plane hitting the building.

Focus on the real issues concerning 9/11, the real facts rather than these nonsense topics that really discredit the 9/11 Truth.

BeZerK

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear piacenza:

Don’t know if this helps (boost your confidence) — but I don’t believe there were any planes crashing into buildings on 9-11 either. I couldn’t review your videos, I got Cro-Magnon 28k horrible dialup. But for the record, I’m a diehard no-airplaner!

Airplanes crashing into structures on 9-11 didn’t happen because:
1. Not necessary. Film is easily faked. Hollywood does this for a living.
2. Technically impossible. WTC’s outer perimeter columns were too strong and too densely spaced (only 2ft open space between columns). The Pentagon had an impossible flight path too low to the ground.

Stick to your guns piacenza! You’re going to feel some heat here.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

And the fact that people saw the planes? What did they see if not the planes?

Originally posted by Spoodily
Planes hit the towers, demolition equiptment was also used.

The pentagon is were a hologram could have been possibly used, no where else. I want to see video of a plane.

1999 Washington Post article

I want to see evidence that a hologram of this type is even technologically possible. HINT: It isn't for several reasons.