No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I knew that some people spoke back then about the presence of another plane in the vicinity of those towers during the moments of that disaster.

There was a jetliner probably at least 2 miles to the west of the towers as the second plane hit the south tower. Watching it on video, it doesn't seem that it was doing anything nefarious. Just coming in for a landing.

Oh, you're talking about the towers, but you posted a video of an E-4B that was seen at the Pentagon. Two different places.





[edit on 5-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by spacevisitor


Uhhh....guys. The E4-B that "_BoneZ_" originally mentioned, and that was in the video that "spacevisitor" posted, is all about the PENTAGON, not NYC and the WTC!!

I see this as (yet again) another example of 'cross-talk' which adds to the confusions, and misunderstandings, of the actual events of 9/11. These sorts of mistakes keep the "conspiracy" going!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Perhaps you will find this interesting.

It was yours truly that identified that E-4B. CNN ended up using some of my research for their segment.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Thanks for mentioning that.

I knew that some people spoke back then about the presence of another plane in the vicinity of those towers during the moments of that disaster.

See what I'm referring to??

Now, to _BoneZ_, nice job spotting that, but really when you wrote this:

It is very interesting that that plane was flying so low around the Pentagon and that it was even airborne in the first place.

...it seems you didn't research hard enough to learn that the E-4B had just departed Andrews...based on what I have heared/read of ATC tapes/transcripts (link below). From the ATC tapes, it is identified as "WORD 31 Heavy". ("Heavy" is the ATC term used whenever an airplane is capable of over 250,000 pounds take-off weight, regardless of its actual weight). (There is also another B747-type military jet, its callsign is "VENUS 77 Heavy")

...But according to journalist and author Dan Verton, the E-4B located outside Washington has “only just taken off” at the time the Pentagon is hit (at 9:37 a.m.). Verton says the aircraft is then “immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center.”

www.historycommons.org...

So, it is coincidence only.

While this may seem off-topic, I believe it isn't. What I see here is, as mentioned already, a potential misunderstanding (and a contributing possible 'urban legend') regarding this airplane, and the mis-communication/impression it may leave in some people's minds that it was somehow involved at the WTC site. It was not. And, in addition, it had nothing to do with the Pentagon attack. Just right place, coincidentally.

Relevant Andrews ATC transcripts.

(These are from scribd, and only cover Andrews Tower. Will try to find the Washington TRACON info...)

In any event, the full data show without a doubt the presence of the three hijacked airplanes, two in NYC, one in Washington (Pentagon). AND, other tapes confirm UAL 93, well West of its intended target in DC, when it went down.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...it seems you didn't research hard enough to learn that the E-4B had just departed Andrews

Actually, I do know that. Three of our four E-4B's were in operation on 9/11 participating in military exercises. We have no transcripts in the hours leading up to the take-off from Andrews to know what any of the E-4B's were doing before-hand.

But my point was, an aircraft of that stature should not have exposed itself flying that low over DC while the country was under attack.

And, since 9/11 was an inside job and those are command and communications planes and there were 3 of them in operation on 9/11, it makes you go "hmmmm".

Oh, and the planes don't actually have to be airborne to command and communicate.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


No, not making anyone go "hmmmmm"...

It has already been acknowledged, and mentioned, that an exercise was planned.

Again, a coincidence. Exercises of that nature are planned often (more so, nowadays one would think...)

WORD 31 and VENUS 77 both departed Andrews. They were prepping for the exercises, possibly were launched slightly ahead of schedule because of the events occuring first in NYC. Other E-4Bs came from other bases...forget which, closed down the window I had open a few hours ago...but anyone can look it up, and find out.

AND, just because they can communicate from the ground??

So can I. I can use an airplane's radio and transmit, but on VHF will be limited by line-of-sight.

Of course, military can use SAT Comm too....(and so can we, if equipped) but, so what?

Communications were the PROBLEM, initially!

Confusion reigned. Reports, coming in, sometimes conflicted. It was difficult (still is today) to co-ordinate and assimilate all the info, happening as quickly as it did.

Things in real life just do not work like they do in movies, and popular fiction novels. The E-4Bs are not magical...they have some great capabilities, but all within the realm of normal (and some advanced, but conventional) technolgies.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I knew that some people spoke back then about the presence of another plane in the vicinity of those towers during the moments of that disaster.

There was a jetliner probably at least 2 miles to the west of the towers as the second plane hit the south tower. Watching it on video, it doesn't seem that it was doing anything nefarious. Just coming in for a landing.

Oh, you're talking about the towers, but you posted a video of an E-4B that was seen at the Pentagon. Two different places.

Then that’s possible not the plane that I meant here, because the plane of where I speak looked in my opinion exactly the same as I saw in the vid I posted .





[edit on 5/4/10 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then that’s possible not the plane that I meant here, because the plane of where I speak looked in my opinion exactly the same as I saw in the vid I posted.

You didn't see a white jet at the WTC like the one you posted in the video. As I stated, there was a jet about 2-3 miles west of the WTC on it's way in for a landing. It was white, but it most definitely was not an E-4B like the one you posted at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Uhhh....guys. The E4-B that "_BoneZ_" originally mentioned, and that was in the video that "spacevisitor" posted, is all about the PENTAGON, not NYC and the WTC!!

I see this as (yet again) another example of 'cross-talk' which adds to the confusions, and misunderstandings, of the actual events of 9/11. These sorts of mistakes keep the "conspiracy" going!

You are not correct here, but I try to find that vid again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WORD 31 and VENUS 77 both departed Andrews. They were prepping for the exercises, possibly were launched slightly ahead of schedule because of the events occuring first in NYC.

Problem is a E-4B is a very expensive and vital aircraft just to send up for a local exercise.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
disinfo (made up word)

disinformation -

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.

Wiki


disinformation -

misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse

Princeton


disinformation -

The dissemination of intentionally false information to deliberately confuse or mislead

Wiktionary

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
disinformation -

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.

Wiki


disinformation -

misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse

Princeton


disinformation -

The dissemination of intentionally false information to deliberately confuse or mislead

Wiktionary

In other words the "Official Story"

reply to post by warisover


I just checked back in to see if you replied to my post, which you did.

now, i will say again, and again; what i saw were planes. I see them over my house a LOT. i live about 10 miles from Newark airport. I know a plane when i see one.

I saw planes, i gave descriptions in that thread. Hell if that's not good enough for you i suggest you talk to the other witnesses who saw the planes hit the WTC.

I know i saw both planes hit the WTC 1 & 2. I am also still in contact with a few classmates who saw the second plane hit from the second floor in my high school. That's 50+ people were crammed in that room (5 who i still talk to) who all saw the same thing, not to mention the thousands of witnesses who were in NYC.

no wait, ill be accused of being in on it too and accused of spreading disinfo...

BTW September clues is a real work of fiction!

Originally posted by ugie1028
I saw planes, i gave descriptions in that thread. Hell if that's not good enough for you i suggest you talk to the other witnesses who saw the planes hit the WTC.

Its just to bad there is no real evidnece of what planes they were.

Here is more overwhelming evidence that there were no planes that hit the trade towers.





And this last one I didn't embed because the guy drops the f-bomb many times.

www.youtube.com...

Note these two eyewitnesses watched and videotaped the 2nd "hit" and said it was not a plane.

reply to post by warisover


Dude. Please. Stop. Stop with the nonsense....you are wrong, just accept it.



What does that look like, to you?

Oh, I watched the "f-bomb" video.

Some layperson, looking through the viewfinder if his video camera, sees a blur, on the itty-bitty screen, and initially can't recognize it as an airplane?

Big deal. So, he makes those comments...but WATCH his video!

Do you not think later, when he played it back, he TOO saw the airplane?


SOMETIMES I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHY SOME OF US BOTHER RESPONDING TO THIS NONSENSE....


[edit on 6 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

I can't even believe that I'm wasting the time to register just to post on this nonsense, I didn't waste time reading any other responses to this nonsense tho. If your going to try and spread disinfo atleast put in a little effort. Don't worry, there weren't hundreds of thousands of people on the ground in NY who saw the planes hit the buildings. Trust me I'm from NY and there were planes. The only thing you need to know is that the explosions started before the planes hit. End of story. Good day.

reply to post by abovetopromen


Welcome, NEW MEMBER!

The only thing you need to know is that the explosions started before the planes hit.

Rather startling claim, there.

Perhaps after you amass your 20 posts, then you may author a thread about it, and provide supporting evidence to bolster that assertion.

Have fun.

Originally posted by warisover
Note these two eyewitnesses watched and videotaped the 2nd "hit" and said it was not a plane.

Can you even comprehend that this is purposeful, blatant disinformation?

Nowhere did any of these witnesses say that it was not a plane.

The woman was clearly looking through her viewfinder, focusing on the towers. Therefore, there was no possible way she could have seen the second plane coming.

The "f-bomb" video, do you realize how many miles away from the WTC this person was? Again, very difficult to see the plane coming, especially when it's not expected and you're not looking for it.

Stop posting videos made by disinfo artists. This is purposeful disinformation and people still aren't falling for it.

Why would I waste my time with something thats already been dealt w, this is no new claim. What cave have you been hiding in? This has already been atested to by William Rodriguez and many others. Why would I waste my time. I am not new, I've been reading ats for years for a good laugh once in a while, only haven't felt the need to interact.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by abovetopromen

 

Welcome, NEW MEMBER!

The only thing you need to know is that the explosions started before the planes hit.

Rather startling claim, there.

Perhaps after you amass your 20 posts, then you may author a thread about it, and provide supporting evidence to bolster that assertion.

Have fun.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps after you amass your 20 posts, then you may author a thread about it, and provide supporting evidence to bolster that assertion.

He won't need to. The thread already exists here. And just a fraction of the supporting evidence: