Evidence of Planes Hitting Towers - Not UA/AA

This is new material for me, hopefully for most of you as well:

At 3/4 of this video you can hear a radio transmission describing a jet hitting
the South tower.

Note the voice says, "A LARGE, BOMBER STYLE, GREEN AIRCRAFT."

www.youtube.com...

Video reference: Trinity Church, Evan Fairbanks

This is more proof that planes were used, and they were NOT United, or American Airlines.

You can rest assured at these first responders are scrambling, they are not subscribing
to any sort of conspiracy. They are reporting what they see immediately as it
happens.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by turbofan]

What I don't understand is this video was posted in May 2009 and there has only been around 250 views .....

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo, I see that you're carving out a new 9/11 niche for P4T.

There is already a niche for the No-Planers, Fly-over proponents, DEW people, Video-Fakery, Nukes-in-the-basement crowd, and now we have the Wrong-Planers.

Congratulations and welcome to Club Fail!

stop being silly, its clearly United Airlines




[edit on 4-9-2009 by dino1989]

Originally posted by Boone 870

Turbo, I see that you're carving out a new 9/11 niche for P4T.

There is already a niche for the No-Planers, Fly-over proponents, DEW people, Video-Fakery, Nukes-in-the-basement crowd, and now we have the Wrong-Planers.

Congratulations and welcome to Club Fail!

LOL these claims about controlled demolitions and cruise mussiles aren't sinister enough even for the conspiracy people any more. Now they have to spice it up with mysterious green bombers. The first thought that comes to mind is, obviously, HA HA HA HA HA!!!

...and they actually wonder why they're having so much difficulty convincing the mainstream public of their claims. Incredible.

There are several witnesses claiming odd details about the planes;
there is not one shred of evidence to support either alleged airliner
hitting the tower. Not even an FDR.

Funny how you believe the OCT without bringing any proof to this
debate.

Care to support your claims?

reply to post by turbofan

There are several witnesses claiming odd details about the planes...

Oh, dear. "witnesses"??? You're resorting to that, now? People who couldn't normally tell the difference between a little red wagon and a B767?

Well hooray!! Let's blatantly ignore the video, the physical and the other 'eyewitnesses' who completely blow those few YOU'VE found out of the water...like the Air Traffic Controllers!!! You know...people who KNOW what airplanes look like, because they do it for a living!!

What is your motive here? It certianly isn't the "truth", can see that right away.....

reply to post by turbofan


would you like to tell me why UA airline is about to hit the WTC





and you wonder why 9/11 so called "truth " isn't growing fast enough


EDIT: I remember when you said AA didn't hit the pentagon , yet the eyewitness said it did , not that idiot guy i forgot his name...but other said they saw AA flying very low

[edit on 4-9-2009 by dino1989]

reply to post by turbofan

Care to support your claims?

Which claims, Turbo?

The title of your thread says "Evidence of Planes Hitting Towers-Not UA/AA." The only "evidence" in the video is some guy reporting a "large, bomber style, green aircraft."

I'm sure you're aware of the dozens of videos and photos available that clearly prove a United Airlines 767 hit the South Tower.


Yet, you use this one anomalous report as "evidence" to support your Wrong-Planer theory...? Pathetic!


Maybe the modified-to-exceed-Mmo-NWO-jet was painted with some type of supersecret-super-nano-chameleon-paint. That may explain the report of a green aircraft!

reply to post by Boone 870

That may explain the report of a green aircraft...

Or maybe the idiot "eyewitness" saw a dark blue/gray airplane for a split second and it LOOKED dark green to him?

This is like a typical witness event....where people all get the color of the perp's shirt wrong!

Wanna see a graphic demo?? Watch the video below. Do yourself a favour, and PAUSE it at 30 seconds, when the answer appears.

What you will see is two teams, one in white, one in black, each passing a basketball.

You are to focus on, and count how many times the WHITE team pass the ball. The answer will appear at about 30 seconds, PAUSE there! Then, compare your answer, then continue ---



So much for "awareness" and "eyewitnesses", eh???
_______________________________________________

[edit on 4 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


That is a really good video, WW. You know, that's going to play right into the hands of CIT and their mesmerizing Hollywood special effects explosion fly-over theory.

From this day forward I will no longer refer to it as the flyover theory. It will now be known as the moon walking bear theory.

Originally posted by turbofan
This is new material for me, hopefully for most of you as well:

At 3/4 of this video you can hear a radio transmission describing a jet hitting
the South tower.

Note the voice says, "A LARGE, BOMBER STYLE, GREEN AIRCRAFT."

P4T just gets better and better!

Tino, what do you think happens when an event such as this occurs and a hundred thousand people see either a fraction, a part or a large part of it?

What do you think those partial or initial responses are going to be like? All exactly the same? Ya think there just might be some discrepancies in the accounts?

What do you think happens over time as the pieces to the puzzle are put together and the actual story comes out?

You guys are a laugh a minute. Did Capt Bob put you up to this? You going to file an affidavit on this? Might as well - its down the same path as the other ones you have signed on to.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What you will see is two teams, one in white, one in black, each passing a basketball.

Here's a better video with the same concept. This video is called "Misdirection":














[edit on 4-9-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That was the video I was originally looking for, because it was used one year in our Airline's recurrent Ground School.

BUT, you are (and the person who posted on YouTube) making a leap of illogic there, trying to equate that to the WTC Towers.

The airline ground instructors chose it to demonstrate the concept of something known as "tunnel vision", as a warning to pilots to be wary of excessive focusing, to the exclusion of all else. Good pilots already embrace that idea, I guess I could call it a 'holistic' view of your surroundings.


To allege some sort of connection, though, to "repeated showings of the airplanes hitting the buiodings" is a bit ridiculous.

I remember watching on the TV that day. MOST of the time they were discussing, showing the burning buildings live...everyone missed the first collapse, they were talking so much! (At least, Matt Lauer did, on the Today Show.)

Sorry you haven't yet convinced me of the pre-planted explosives. I'd still like to see how the central core columns withstood the initial airplane impacts unscathed, and IF they did suffer damage, how that may have contributed to the collapse.

It seems particularly telling, to me, which building was hit and when, and where (what floors), and then WHICH building collapsed first.

ALSO, the obvious tilting of the (I forget which one, the first to collapse) upper portion, seems to show a serious compromise in the central core.

Once all that mass began downward, I think it's safe to say, in retrospect, that NOTHING could have withstood the onslaught, given the design concept of the buildings.

So much of what we witnessed, on camera, or live on site, was obscurred by the resulting dust cloud. Trying to determine the exact timing of the INTERIOR components, each and every one, is likely not possible.

BUT, I still see it as plausible for a cascade failure to continue, once it commenced. Based on the unique (well...unconventional is a better word??) design, compared to traditional column/girder designs.

The ones always pointed to, that have survived big fires. Fires, BTW, without any initial 250,000+ pound airplanes hitting them at over 450 MPH. Buildings that were constructed very differently.

Photos of the Towers under construction, to me, show the Achilles Heels, especially the way the floor trusses were connected to the exterior facades.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

There are several witnesses claiming odd details about the planes...

Oh, dear. "witnesses"??? You're resorting to that, now? People who couldn't normally tell the difference between a little red wagon and a B767?

Well hooray!! Let's blatantly ignore the video, the physical and the other 'eyewitnesses' who completely blow those few YOU'VE found out of the water...like the Air Traffic Controllers!!! You know...people who KNOW what airplanes look like, because they do it for a living!!

What is your motive here? It certianly isn't the "truth", can see that right away.....

I love how you Official story guys say witness testimony is no good (which it isn't, especially in traumatic circumstances)robberies,shootings,rapes,acts of terrorism.

But you always go back on this and cite the supposed, 104 witnesses at the pentagon, or 250 (the numbers get larger depending how hard the pressure is on the Official story camp), who say they saw what you wan't to believe.

So eye witness testimony is good, only when it supports your theories?

But VERY unreliable when it doesn't..?

Interesting.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Nola213]

reply to post by Nola213


Nola, I think it's more like this:

A claim is made, for example, of the Pentagon "flyover theory", and in order to corroborate that they use a mere handful of "witnesses", selected only BECAUSE they agree with the "investigator's" pre-conceived notions.

Whereas, in the larger scheme of things, there are ten times as many who refute that minority view. Any investigation that wishes to include eyewitness accounts should weigh ALL of them, and accept or reject accordingly.

In the case of THIS thread, again we have ONE (so far) claimant, against not only a large number of people who disagree, but VIDEO of the airplanes, especially the United 175...clearly showing that it was, as advertised.

SO, it wold seem that your comparison is invalid.

reply to post by dino1989


I'm not sure I understand your position? Do you support that AA77 hit
the Pentagon as per official story? There is no such evidence.

There are several witnesses that prove NoC. Have you watched/heard
of these testimonies?

Back on topic:

Have you heard the radio transmissions and witness testimony of aircraft
over NYC that day stating things like:

- No windows on plane
- Did not look like a comercial airliner
- That plane does not look like something that belonged in this area

There is more evidence to support UA did not hit the south tower as
nothing has been presented to positively ID the official aircraft to this date.

Anyway, this thread is more to prove aircraft were used as opposed to NPT.

I do not believe UA hit the building. With cameras confiscated by
FBI that day , and other evidence of photo/video edits I would much
rather believe the original corroborated testiomony of bystanders and
first responders.



Quick photo edit, no light perspective on overlay



[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Have you heard the radio transmissions and witness testimony of aircraft
over NYC that day stating things like:

- No windows on plane
- Did not look like a comercial airliner
- That plane does not look like something that belonged in this area

WHY do you persist with these nonsense claims?? LOOK at the paint scheme of the United B767. People with NO aviation expertise had a tiny fraction of a second to see, assess and then later make this outrageous claim. BECAUSE the windows are small, and dark, agains the exterior paint scheme!!! This has been pointed out numerous times...

Second point, same answer. Unqualified observers. Third point, even worse. And stupid.

Because, there are plenty of OTHER witnesses who are quite certain they saw a large commercial jet airplane!

There is more evidence to support UA did not hit the south tower as
nothing has been presented to positively ID the official aircraft to this date.

NO, there isn't. Not sure where you are getting that notion, but I'd suggest you change sources. You're supposed to be smarter than that.

I do not believe UA hit the building. With cameras confiscated by
FBI that day...

WHAT!?! Down below you posted a PHOTO of the UA 175!! There are hundreds and hundreds of other examples, still photos, videos, professional and amateurs alike.

AND, to assert that the FBI 'confiscated' all of the cameras is just plain ridiculous.

... and other evidence of photo/video edits...

NO! There is NO EVIDENCE of any such thing. That baloney exists only in the imaginations of a few misguided individuals, but unfortunately it has worked on quite a number of weaks minds, and has spread.

I would much
rather believe the original corroborated testiomony of bystanders and
first responders.

BUT, you aren't including ALL of the testimony!!! You have clearly made up your mind, in a certain direction, and toss out all logic and reason that conflicts with your pre-conceived ideas.

As to this image, I fail to see your point:

Quick photo edit, no light perspective on overlay

I can guess, however. For some reason you think that a quick super-imposed image of another airplane, that is only similar to UA 175 in that the nose is pointing to the right side of the frame, somehow proves something???

IF you cannot understand the concept of light, shadow and variatons i those as it relates to how colors are perceived in videos and still images, then there really is no point in trying to expalin it to you.

EVERY day I see examples, everywhere I look, of how shading affects colors that are perceived by the eye, whether seen live, or on film or TV or in a newspaper photo...it's all around you!!

Only in the subject of 9/11 does all of that common sense and real-world experience and knowledge get thrown out. Tragic.

Originally posted by weedwhackerNO, there isn't. Not sure where you are getting that notion, but I'd suggest you change sources. You're supposed to be smarter than that.

And you're supposed to be less gullible.

There is not one shred of evidence linking any alleged airliner to the towers,
the Pentagon, or Shanksville.

It has been proven already that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, therefore
there is no reason to believe any of the other airliners were 'hi-jacked'.

You as a self-proclaimed pilot should laugh at the fact that FOUR airaplanes
were handed over by experienced pilots within a few minutes.

What's the common strategy "mr. wanna be pilot"?

Give up your plane to terrorists? 4 out of 4 handed over without a fight?

YOu are hardly a pilot.

reply to post by turbofan

There is not one shred of evidence linking any alleged airliner to the towers,
the Pentagon, or Shanksville.

You have not a shred of evidence to make that sort of outlandish claim.

It has been proven already that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, therefore
there is no reason to believe any of the other airliners were 'hi-jacked'.

No. Nothing of the sort has been "proven". Not in any way, shape or form.

You as a self-proclaimed pilot should laugh at the fact that FOUR airaplanes
were handed over by experienced pilots within a few minutes.

I'm not "self-proclaimed". Your lack of knowledge, on the otherhand, is quite evident, and has been in every thread you post. When it comes to matters involving airplanes. Your bluffing has been spotted, and revealed by all you know better.

What's the common strategy "mr. wanna be pilot"?

No longer in use. The "Common Strategy", for those reading this, was a generalized set of tactics developed after the first rise of hi-jackings in the 1970s era...the infamous "Take me to Cuba" type.

Of course, while I was framing this response, I decided to check and Lo and Behold, it is now on Wiki!!! SO, mr. "turbofan", either you have already looked it up yourself, and think you can lord it over someone OR one of your friends at P4T told you. Either way, your knowledge and understanding of the "Strategy" is woefully defiecient compared to mine.

Here it is, stripped down and bare boned from Wiki:

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.

September 11 presented a unique situation because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft. The "Common Strategy" tactic was not designed to handle suicide hijackings. This resulted in the hijackers exploiting a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then the "Common Strategy" policy is no longer used.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, what you mr. "turbofan" will likely never understand, nor know, are certain details told to the pilots, and NOT the F/As. Although, at my company we had coded procedures, words and phrases. EVERY carrier had their own internal means of covert communication. Sometimes they even overlapped between companies.

Go ask some of your P4T friends if they've ever heard of "METHODIKAL". And yes, that IS how it's spelled. I'll give you a hint: It's a pnemonic memory acronym. F/As were required to memorize it...we had it in the manuals, as a fake "checklist", and just pulled it out if clued in on the interphone by an F/A that she/he was being "methodikal"...see, one of the codes, I just gave away! Doesn't matter, it's not used anymore.

Again, the old "Common Strategy" pre-supposed that the hi-jacker was unaware of how airplanes operated, and was afraid of crashing. Simulating a failure of some sort, to make it appear that the situation was dire, used to be a possible tactic. Point was to get on the ground, if in the Continental US, at SPECIFIC airports, if feasible. Won't say where. AND disable the airplane on the ground. Risky, but you're already hostage, and it's safer on the ground than in the air.

Give up your plane to terrorists? 4 out of 4 handed over without a fight?

"Without a fight"?? You base this on what, exactly? You really don't understand, and know nothing.



Not the best pic I could find, I'm in a hurry. You are sitting in the seat, lap belt attached. Control column between your knees. The door is only a few feet behind you. Imagine sitting at your computer, right now. A door a few feet behind you. You're at the desk, chair pulled up. Seat belt on!

Two guys RUSH in when the door is opened innocently by the Flight Attendant, because she's bringing food or coffee. They grab her, no compulsions...maybe kill her, and in less than a second they're attacking YOU from behind. Now, YOU'RE DEAD TOO!!!

Nobody willingly "gave up" the airplane cockpits.

More fantasies, and not enough critical thinking.

These dudes TRAINED in hand-to-hand combat techniques, there's a guy in Florida who remembers teaching at least one of them. LOOK IT UP!

YOu are hardly a pilot.

Oh, how very, very droll coming from you!!! Don't know why I wasted this much time on you. Pride. I guess.

I don't think you're ready to swim with the big boys just yet.....