IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
No Planes Hit Towers-brasschecktv, september clues 1-5

slower
post Sep 1 2007, 08:55 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 1-August 07
Member No.: 1,570



has anyone seen "september clues" at brassckecktv.com ?
i remember seeing that clip live thinking what was that that came out the side of the building and then being a bit anoid about the banner that was there when i wanted to c that bit again and the black and white interferance at the same time.
this video has floored me and i had a lot of trouble getting 2 sleep last night, cos i couldnt get it out of my head.
but if true, it takes away a lot of problems like
it sovles the tube thing on the belly of plane, as they would have had 2 film one of their own planes to superinpose over the news clips.
all the manuvers that our pilots say they couldnt pull off in a simulater til about the 10th try at it.
how they could do it armed with only box cutters
the fake mobil calls
we know its criminals that own the main media sources
the whole plane just disapears in to the building without a single tiny bit of the plane
falling to the ground!! in both cases, watch any of all the videos of the planes hitting the towers u wont c any bits stay outside the building , well i havent anyway, have you?
thousands of people will still have the clip recorded on tapes from that day.
We do know that there wasnt a plane at the pentagon and we know that no plane crashed into that tiny hole in the ground, so why not no planes at the towers.
BUT i have enough trouble convincing people the buildings were blown up, if i start telling them that no planes hit the towers, they will probably say you are completely *ucking nuts *iss offf.
before u anwswer this post, have a look first, cos if u have a pretty open mind its very convicing
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/108.html
be lucky
slower
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Sep 1 2007, 09:10 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Moved to Alternative.
BoneZ has a thread on the September Clues vid,
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=7308
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2007, 10:59 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Slower

In answer to your question, "if there were no planes at Pentagon and PA, why not NO airplanes at WTC?"

Simple answer, IMO: the primary purpose of having the airplanes strike the towers was to scare the people. Visual and psychological trauma to the collective psyche, accomplished by means of airplanes crashing into towers.

Scare the people, scare the congress with anthrax, and people and their representatives will do anything. Such as pass illegal legislation like the USA Patriot Act. Scared people will go off to war asking no questions at all.

THAT is why they needed airplanes at the towers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrnsr
post Sep 1 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 67
Joined: 13-August 07
Member No.: 1,686



amazed
the primary purpose of having the airplanes strike the towers was to scare the people. Visual and psychological trauma to the collective psyche, accomplished by means of airplanes crashing into towers.


pictures provided same results, didn't need to gamble on real aircraft- explosives far more reliable than trying to plow large jetliners through heavy air and hit the towers.

How many trained kamikaze pilots couldn't hit the broad side of an aircraft carrier in smaller maneuverable planes?

Just show the images of planes on TV and everyone believed it, at least for a while.

...you saw them walk on the moon, didn't you? TV proved it!

This post has been edited by jrnsr: Sep 1 2007, 12:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slower
post Sep 1 2007, 04:03 PM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 1-August 07
Member No.: 1,570



QUOTE (jrnsr @ Sep 1 2007, 10:56 AM)
amazed
the primary purpose of having the airplanes strike the towers was to scare the people. Visual and psychological trauma to the collective psyche, accomplished by means of airplanes crashing into towers.


pictures provided same results, didn't need to gamble on real aircraft- explosives far more reliable than trying to plow large jetliners through heavy air and hit the towers.

How many trained kamikaze pilots couldn't hit the broad side of an aircraft carrier in smaller maneuverable planes?

Just show the images of planes on TV and everyone believed it, at least for a while.

...you saw them walk on the moon, didn't you? TV proved it!

well i live in the uk and im active, ive done a banner march though our county town and one of our guys got interveiwed on vid and it was posted on their web site vid and stuff veiwable on our web page http://www.myspace.com/EastAngliaTruth im the ugly one holding our big banner left side so dont think im a debunker, not saying u did i just want 2 make that clear.
what was the thing that poked through the side on that one video?
why didnt even a small piece of the plane fall to ground.?
2 stations blacking out at the same time, that is some coincident
theres a lot more that puzzles me about those news clips but if any of u guys know someone who actually saw the planes other than the crooks, then i will drop this subject like a hot brick.
be lucky
slower
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 1 2007, 07:42 PM
Post #6





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (slower @ Sep 1 2007, 04:03 PM)
if any of u guys know someone who actually saw the planes other than the crooks, then i will drop this subject like a hot brick.
be lucky
slower

There are actually 2 pilots who may be members of this organization that watched FL.175 hit the south tower. If Rob can chime in with more info, or until i can find that post.

As far as "September Clues" goes, check out my debunk posted in the second post below your first post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2007, 10:08 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



jrnsr

What's to gamble about the airplanes?

Drone technology is about 5 decades old. For the government, airplanes are a dime-a-dozen.

Bring one in low level and people will duck when it flys by low and fast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Sep 1 2007, 10:36 PM
Post #8


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 1 2007, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE (slower @ Sep 1 2007, 04:03 PM)
if any of u guys know someone who actually saw the planes other than the crooks, then i will drop this subject like a hot brick.
be lucky
slower

There are actually 2 pilots who may be members of this organization that watched FL.175 hit the south tower. If Rob can chime in with more info, or until i can find that post.

I believe that Rob personally knows a flight crew that observed the event from their cockpit on the taxiway at La Guardia. That single fact is probably one of the main reasons that the NPTheorists are not getting many converts here. It certainly figures into my personal evaluation.

pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
garylc1
post Sep 2 2007, 04:46 AM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 40
Joined: 5-April 07
Member No.: 895



jrnsr Posted on Sep 1 2007, 10:56 AM
QUOTE
pictures provided same results, didn't need to gamble on real aircraft- explosives far more reliable than trying to plow large jetliners through heavy air and hit the towers.


The problem with explosives alone is the untrained populace eye would be more inclined to believe these awful explosions of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (kerosene);as if jet fuel is as volatile as methane; would create the intense heat scenerio that melts steel and combined with the collision aspect would help deliver the conspiracy for the buildings collapsing. The drama of it would supercede explosives by the very nature of jet airliners hitting buildings. People see explosives everyday in the movies but airplanes hitting skyscrapers, wow a film producers dream or an idea from a Stephen King novel. Think about it.

Yea Amazed!
QUOTE
Scare the people, scare the congress with anthrax, and people and their representatives will do anything. Such as pass illegal legislation like the USA Patriot Act. Scared people will go off to war asking no questions at all.


And keep 'em scared. The shock of it. The control of the ages. Pray to the GODS with fear or be burned at the stake...

This post has been edited by garylc1: Sep 2 2007, 04:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Sep 2 2007, 05:45 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



QUOTE
why didnt even a small piece of the plane fall to ground.?


...i know the NPT mob will say these prove nothing but just for reference!



windows in fuselage ...and



...i guess they just parked that truck there for added effect!?!... and



maybe the wheel is not really there,photo shopped in afterwards and they are just looking at a lamp post!?! ...and



...why go to the trouble of wedging that wheel in the debris... easier to just to have laid it on the ground!... would`nt have made any difference!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 2 2007, 06:02 AM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Sep 2 2007, 04:45 AM)
QUOTE
why didnt even a small piece of the plane fall to ground.?


...i know the NPT mob will say these prove nothing but just for reference!

The falsification of crimes has always been supported by skifully planted evidence. No identification of any plane parts by serial number was attempted by the NTSB who, as I understand, are normally obliged to do so under the federal rules of investigation.

The fuselage piece was alleged to have travelled through a steel wall, and or steel and concrete floors, a steel core, another steel wall and then sailed a great distance towards its landing place: the roof of WTC5. In a word this is "incredible".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Sep 2 2007, 09:51 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



QUOTE
The falsification of crimes has always been supported by skilfully planted evidence


... so lets take a look at this skilfully planted piece of evidence here again!



...you really want us to believe that someone who would have to be wearing breathing apparatus walked back into a pyroclastic surge carrying a wheel to plant as evidence... but not happy to just leave it lying somewhere appropriate he decides for some reason only known to himself... that he wants really to wedge it into something... so wandering in this pyroclastic surge when he cant see his hand in front of his face... he searches for something suitable to stick it in....thats too big...ermmmm!...thats to small... ermmmm !.... that will do nicely!!.... but its a bit too tight... so!... just so happens... he brought his 15lb hammer he used earlier to knock out the hole on the 82nd floor.... then preceded to thump away at this RUBBER tyre and bury it in this piece of debris!?!?!?!?!??!?!!??

...i need a valium!



thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 2 2007, 09:59 AM
Post #13





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 2 2007, 06:02 AM)
The fuselage piece was alleged to have travelled through a steel wall, and or steel and concrete floors, a steel core, another steel wall and then sailed a great distance towards its landing place: the roof of WTC5. In a word this is "incredible".

You are the only one alleging this. When the planes impacted the towers, the cores of the towers are what stopped the planes. We would've seen in videos if that fuselage piece with windows had travelled through the tower to fall on a building below. This is not what happend.

What happend is plane hits building, core of building stops plane. Building collapses onto surrounding buildings bringing building and plane debris down onto surrounding buildings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 2 2007, 11:50 AM
Post #14





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 2 2007, 08:59 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 2 2007, 06:02 AM)
The fuselage piece was alleged to have travelled through a steel wall, and or steel and concrete floors, a steel core, another steel wall and then sailed a great distance towards its landing place: the roof of WTC5.  In a word this is "incredible".

You are the only one alleging this. When the planes impacted the towers, the cores of the towers are what stopped the planes. We would've seen in videos if that fuselage piece with windows had travelled through the tower to fall on a building below. This is not what happend.

What happend is plane hits building, core of building stops plane. Building collapses onto surrounding buildings bringing building and plane debris down onto surrounding buildings.

BoneZ, you appear to be so hostile towards me and my views. I don't really understand why.

However, in stark contrast to your contention about me, I am not the only one alleging this. As ridiculous as the alleged facts of this matter may sound, and your post makes it clear that you too find these alleged facts incredible, it is pretty well accepted as part of the official story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 2 2007, 12:32 PM
Post #15





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 2 2007, 11:50 AM)
BoneZ, you appear to be so hostile towards me and my views. I don't really understand why.

Not towards you, just towards the unsubstantiated claims of no-planes and tv fakery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 2 2007, 01:20 PM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 2 2007, 11:32 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 2 2007, 11:50 AM)
BoneZ, you appear to be so hostile towards me and my views.  I don't really understand why.

Not towards you, just towards the unsubstantiated claims of no-planes and tv fakery.

OK, and I understand you on that point. There are many aspects of the NPT "movement" that frustrate me as well. Thank you for the clarification, most honorable BoneZ. cheers.gif

Speaking of my frustration: you might be interested to read a post I just put up over at PI regarding a most curious business indeed. Maybe you will be able to shed some light on it for me?

Curiouser and Curiouser

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 2 2007, 01:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 2 2007, 04:12 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



FFG

Thank you so much for providing that excellent pictures of the debris fields from the Boeings. I have wanted to see something like that for a long time. thumbsup.gif

Judging by those debris fields, there were Boeings there.

I understand the thing about planting evidence, but parts that go on a Boeing can get pretty big, and they take special equipment to "plant" them. The govt is capable of pretty shady stuff, but I think this is the real macoy as far as evidence goes.

You'll notice they were caught on camera removing aircraft pieces at the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 2 2007, 06:19 PM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 2 2007, 03:12 PM)
Judging by those debris fields, there were Boeings there.

I understand the thing about planting evidence, but parts that go on a Boeing can get pretty big, and they take special equipment to "plant" them. The govt is capable of pretty shady stuff, but I think this is the real macoy as far as evidence goes.

And a thorough 'contextual' and objective anaysis of the evidence will bring a concusive finding on this matter one way or the other, hopefully. thumbsup.gif

I much appreciate the open minded debate that you engage in, amazed! It will bear fruit, I am certain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slower
post Sep 2 2007, 06:29 PM
Post #19





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 1-August 07
Member No.: 1,570



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 2 2007, 11:32 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 2 2007, 11:50 AM)
BoneZ, you appear to be so hostile towards me and my views.  I don't really understand why.

Not towards you, just towards the unsubstantiated claims of no-planes and tv fakery.

boys boys i didnt post this to get people at one another
if someone can find the thread i would like 2 read it
and i would like 2 hear it from someone who is trust worthy
im afraid that picture of the wheel on the path reminds me of the passport
in mint condition, that wheel smashed through one lot of steel then explosion and fire
and another lot of steel then flies 100s of feet crashes on the pavement, and not a scratch on the soft tarmac and its ribboned by the cia in minutes of the plane hitting tower.
or is kicked out of the back of a van. its condition looks to clean for me and the lamp post looks like a prop. and there was nothing but props at the pentagon, lamp posts,a small part of an engins and a bit of the body with windows in it.
the wheel in the steel looks a little more real
is there a priest here that saw it ha ha only joking a pilot will do
slower
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 2 2007, 08:44 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I admit that the lamp post DOES look like a prop.

OTOH, if a Boeing hit a tower like that, one would expect to find the heavier pieces with their extra mass to be thrown forward as these were.

This is part of the cumulative evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th May 2020 - 10:46 PM