IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
No Planes Theory, The search for incontrovertible evidence of planes.

Obwon
post Jun 24 2010, 12:11 PM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



The hard evidence is gone, all that remains are the videos, the statements, the anecdotes and claims, assertions, suppositions etc., the more closely each element is examined, the less credible it becomes.

Taking it from the top:

If there were planes, then we'd know what gates they loaded passengers from, who those passengers were and we'd have video of them moving through the airports, loaded with cameras as they are.

We might have some questions about the planes, if they existed, but not of the quality and quantiy that we see. Were "pilots" necessary or not? If not, why are they "supplied"? Were "piloting skills" necessary or not? If not, then why the need for the "magical luck" we see?

If there were planes, then why does the flight deck come under assault, long after the flight has diverted towards it's new target? Either the skyjackers took the planes to New York or they didn't! Why are we asked to believe that the pilots may have taken the planes towards the Twin Towers before the skyjackers overcame them?

The planes either could or could not go supersonic, could not perform the maneuvers they did, yet the radar evidence shows that they did, in spite of the fact that the skyjacker pilots could not fly aircraft like these, and therefore probably couldn't handle heavy aircraft through critical high stress maneuvers. Yet we are to suppose that skyjackers, who couldn't fly small craft, were able to easily accomplish maneuvers, evidenced by the video/radar residue, without the high levels of skill accomplished pilots claim are necessary.

The only reasonable way to view all these almost inexplicable pieces of evidence, is to theorize that there were no planes used to strike the buildings at all. But that these pieces of evidence are made to make it appear that they did. So that coupled with the explosions that are later claimed to be the aircraft strikes, completely overwhelm alternative explanation by
sheer quantity of repitition. Where "what else could it be" becomes the order of the day.
Even thought there is no incontrovertible evidence of plane strikes as there should be.

Why does the Naudet brothers camera, pan away from people on the street, to frame, what appears to be two workers, looking up at what presumably will be the noise of the approaching aircraft? Why not keep the people on the street in focus? Or, better yet, if the camera man isn't deaf himself, why not pan up to catch the about-to-crash-aircraft? Any of which alternative frames would have been considerably more valuable than what was actually recorded. Instead the cameraman focuses on the least valuable information available! Why?
Well... Consider, if a man succeeds in breaking into a bank vault, and makes his escape, if he doesn't have any loot, doesn't that mean there was no loot to be had?

So then, applying that to the cameraman, his taking, what appears to be the least valuable pictures there, means that there was nothing of any greater value to be had! He could not keep the camera on the people on the street, because they would not be hearing any approaching plane! They would, of course, hear the explosion, that was to later be called a plane crash. But that was not his job to capture that. His job was to create an impression of an approaching plane and to do that he needed actors, prompted to look a certain way at a specific time. A shot that would hardly be very valuable at all, if what we are told transpired, actually did. But, if what we are told wasn't true, then this shot is crucial to making the case.

So it is that from between the two more valuable shots, those of the people on the street reacting (which we don't see), and the shot of the plane crashing into the building (which the camerman doesn't capture, even though that's what the sounds supposedly suggest might be about to happen), the truth emerges, the only thing available for the cameraman to shoot, is these two people prompted to look up, before the plane supposedly hits (which is before the explosion goes off).

Where is the aircraft debris? Why do the black boxes not match the aircraft that crashed? Or why could they not be recovered? Why so much time between strikes? Flying hijacked aircraft over "enemy territory" where they could be intercepted and their missions terminated in failure, why so much time between strikes? Why doesn't Norad and military command know and track these wayward aircraft on their own? Why no certitude? Why doesn't the interval between hits give rise to proper activity instead of merely confusion? The only answer I can see is; there were no actual planes for anyone to track or intercept, thus what is being cited as confusion, is merely a reaction to, there being nothing out of the ordinary to be seen.

Thus "No Planes" persists as an alternative theory, as it should until it fails.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jun 24 2010, 12:44 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Post deleted by myself
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 29 2010, 08:46 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712




mod edit: split from latest news


What do I think those excessive speeds show?

Well, I think that while the boys were brainstorming, they came across the idea that there would be no debris, because they'd decided that using any planes at all was too risky. I mean, they'd have to rely on them all the way from take off to target, and target was just too difficult to achieve with the needed degrees of surety. Remember, these guys weren't planning a Sunday picnic. They had to know that they could conceal serial numbers etc., because they were in charge of the investigation, meaning that anything that was found, would have to be turned over to them first, so they could render their opinion, and/or dispose of the evidence and give excuses. They even get to hand pick the scapegoats as needed, if they need cover for missing evidence.

What they needed to explain is why the planes didn't break apart on impact, as aircraft very probably would do. So someone decided they'd up the impact speeds, to make "vaporization" a more credible story. There's now no question in my mind that the evidence we're looking at was all carefully crafted. You can almost feel the lines of reason shaping the creation of the evidence needed to support it. Only that which could not possibly have been anticipated, was left hanging out of the evidence creation processes. The fact that skyjackers were alive and living in other parts of the world, tells a story of this being a rather low budget affair. You'd certainly expect that they would have been hunted down and disposed of prior. That they weren't, means only that it wasn't necessary. Therefore, the time it takes to discover them, is well beyond what's needed to accomplish the missions ultimate objective(s).

But, not using any planes, means you've got to create lots and lots of artifacts for theorists to pore over and discuss, while the main show goes on in another tent. As such, this speed thing is just another one. In the course of mfg these data, they could have kept the planes slow enough to avoid exactly this challenge. They correctly reasoned that this type of challenge, would occur so late in the game, that it need not be considered a "game stopper", but it would be immediately much more useful, to have an explanation at hand as to why no plane debris fluttered to the ground. Remember, the show they created was not for experts, experts would be slow to come into the fray, by which time they would have achieved their objectives, and they'd also have sown so much mis/dis-information, it would hardly be clear to enough people, what the evidence could mean.

But, as Rob points out, no matter who or what was in control of the planes depicted, those planes had flown "thru the wall". Somewhere in that minute of time, when they flew into the caution zone, then tried to maneuver, they were doomed. When they hit their design specifications limits, they ceased to exist as aircraft. So, what Rob has proven is, that no planes ever struck the WTC's because their debris should have been located along the route to their targets. The only way they could escape leaving a trail of debris behind, is by not existing in reality at all.

The only thing that really needed to happen that day, from the planners outlook, was for America to believe that terrorist had actually "created a new Pearl Harbor". That created all the cover they needed to clean up the loose ends as best they could and cover their trails. In the ensuing years, far too many people have reacted to the official story and did things that tend to make them complicit, they'll never willingly "surrender" their beliefs, since to do so might incriminate themselves. So, if the "wheels of justice" ever do get forced to start turning, I'm sure they'll turn far to slowly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 29 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 29 2010, 08:46 AM) *
So, what Rob has proven is, that no planes ever struck the WTC's because their debris should have been located along the route to their targets.



Wrong.

Please watch the presentation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Aug 5 2010, 05:27 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (elreb @ Aug 5 2010, 01:06 AM) *
Thanks, Rob and Dwain,

These were platform planes designed to perform …under stressful circumstances.

I’ve never seen so much “Real World” during a drill.



mod edit: split from latest news


So many complex possibilities is what makes the NPT so much more likely.
Were the planes prepped? Why? Didn' t Bin Laden have skyjackers on board?
Oh, his men couldn't fly the planes the way they were flown. Wait a minute... With flight control surfaces fluttering around like a strip of thin vinyl in a fan breeze, what could control a plane that's already experiencing forces it was not designed to withstand?

But wait, it gets better: If you're going to fly planes to target, then why not simply film them? If they've been prepped with special equipment, it certainly has to be easier to simply edit that out, than to try to construct the thing from whole cloth.

But wait... It gets better still: If you're going to fly planes to target AND you have to get film out simultaenously, then you've got fore knowledge right? If so, then who exactly are you working for? But think about it, it's the same puzzle, why can't you simply film the planes that you're using? Or better yet, simply let the media film them!

So, if all the video evidence is questionable, that means there were no planes! Because if there were planes, then there would be genuine footage! "Eyewitnesses" can have seen anything or not, there's only a couple of seconds, then the endless recounting of that. The video faithfully recordes what it "sees", so if it doesn't exist, then it "saw" nothing. Which explains why there's no plane debris, and a still smoking engine on Murry Street that didn't come from either plane. Or landing gear that didn't come from either plane, or a passport that could not have come from on board. Nor Bin Laden naming and praising one of his very own Islamic fanatics for the attacks, when he wasn't even on the plane and never attended OBL's camps or had anything else to do with him.

The point being that there's so much fakery surrounding events where there should only be boastful swaggering, after all they succeeded, so why is everyone trying to hide? And yet, trying to boast as well? Why is everyone swearing that the evidence that should exist, does exist, but no one can show it? Despite the fact that if the evidence really did exist, no one could possibly control it all? So we go from too few skyjackers, to skyjackers with too few skills, to flight paths where the skill of Aces would not be enough. To evidence that the skyjackers were not religious fanatics at all. All the way to the hundreds of radar stations that blanket the northeast corridor, all the main airports, JFK, Newark, and quite a few minor ones, added to weather stations and heaven knows what else, and nobody is rasing any hell about wayward planes endangering these heavily trafficed sky ways. How in the world did they keep everyone quiet? Simplest answer: No planes for anyone to get upset about! After the fact everyone things they just missed it, or if they have something to report... Guess to whom they report it?

Very informative conversations going on with people on those planes, yet no one is thinking that these wayward planes might crash into other planes, or that other planes might crash into them. You're going to fly in NY airspace without knowing if there's a small plane or helicopter in your way? How do the perps know that for certain they're not going to leave behind a mess of wreckage (specially prepared wreckage at that) that won't fall victim to prize seekers? Bodies or no, the condition of which to explain? Worse yet, you're going to actually "roll the dice" as to whether or not your jets can actually hit the towers as is necessary? Nope, you can't gamble in that position, whatever you predicate your actions upon must be reliably made to be fact.

Like the man says, without using any planes, you're going to leave behind less than a thousand "naysayer" eyewitnesses, which your media megaphone can easily shout down, by presenting its views to millions of viewers at a time. The pictures play hour after hour, day after day, while some whiny voices in the back row snivel about that's not what they saw. Ha!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 5 2010, 07:32 AM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The whole planes issue is baffling because it raises so many conflicts.

What happened to the passengers who boarded those flights if the planes they boarded were not flown into the targets?

Were these people simply disappeared? Did they board actual flights which were, for example, flown into the ocean? Were the attack planes substituted which were pilotless drones which could perform at speeds we were then told? Were all the air phone conversations faked?

Is it possible to fly commercial airliners at low altitude into NYC rush hour at low altitudes and extreme high speeds without thousands of people witnessing this? Wouldn't those who were "there" and saw nothing report this? Or would those who were there and saw planes report what they saw?

This is especially true for Flight 175 since the world was watching the WTC on TV as were hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers coming to work. How could there not be thousands of eye witnesses? The same for what happened at the pentagon. This was in the morning rush hour near a very busy highway. Admittedly a flyover accompanied by an explosion could both conceal a strike and confuse people into thinking there was one. It's a speculation which bears scrutiny.

The bizarre circumstances surrounding the planes demand a new investigation as the OCT simply is not believable. Speculations tend to get very complex and I would think that the plot was likely much simpler.

People can be confused in traumatic situations and their testimony is often suspect. But there should be so many witnesses that an more accurate and reliable "picture" should emerge... and all the outlier statements dropped.

Of all the passengers on those flights has any family member come forward who accompanied a passenger to the gate? Have other airline personal who "attended" the flight or were present in the area come forward to offer testimony... baggage handlers, mechanics, fuelers etc.?

We seem to have been provided with "planted" evidence which authorities often do when they want to frame a suspect or a case. And this includes the RADES and ATC "data". And wasn't some ATC tapes destroyed? How bizarre is that? Is that a normal or abnormal procedure? Under the circumstances of hijackings doesn't this sound bizarre?

It seems that the easiest means to deceive the public was to manipulate the digital data, exploit some confused eyewitnesses and plant evidence. This gets rid of the high speed problem. Since everything in the towers were pretty much destroyed in the collapse the only plane material to survive would be what "bounced off" or penetrated through and came out the other side. Since the plane strikes (if they occurred) did not immediately topple the towers, their "function" seemed to be to set up the hijacker did it premise. If remote control technology was available the actual commercial flights could have been used and even some of the hijackers on board though they likely weren't piloting the planes. They may have been dupes of some sort.

If flight 77 didn't strike the pentagon and flew over it, perhaps it went out to sea where it was destroyed with no witnesses.. or perhaps it did hit the pentagon. Since the planes were likely not meant to "destroy" their targets only provide the hijacker explanation the sites were prepared with explosives etc. which would provide the damage the perps intended.

The event was very much a "controlled" shock and awe, managed in such a way that many innocents were sucked into participation and support of the event. All the hundreds of thousands of military involved in the exercises that day were also dupes, as were all the first responders many of whom did not even think that anything other than a hijacker attack had taken place.

The removal of "evidence" is a major problem and that was solved by declaring the event an act of war by AQ. No need to consider it a crime and preserve evidence. Virtually no one at the time considered it a crime scene. These were scene of "military" attacks and with the attackers identified so early on, no one saw the need to preserve evidence. Since no such collapses had occurred virtually no one at the time thought anything about the WTC was unusual. We had no precedent for what to expect?

When fire became the reason for the towers' collapses, the emphasis was to make sure our building codes were upgraded to mitigate against runaway fires which could topple a steel tower. No one at the time really looked carefully at any other possible cause. Planes strike, fires weaken steel, building collapses. Made sense so why preserve "evidence" to prove who they collapsed. We were told hijackers did it.

Add to this the psychic numbing and trauma of the day which freaked out almost all Americans. Many New Yorkers moved away, terrified. Rationality was tossed out the window and the vultures of opportunity - the disaster capitalists moved in to make their killing and of course reinforce and support the OCT which had turned out to be so good to them.

Years on we in the truth movement accept 9/11 as a "false flag" event. An event of deception of enormous proportions. We tend to not believe most of the story, everything is tossed into contention, everything in the OCT is suspect. There was a conspiracy by our government to cover up what happened. Was this because they were caught napping? Was there a coup d'etat of sorts? Did rougue intel elements working for nefarious interests pull a fast one? Had were literally created the monster within our midst which had the power and resources, technical and financial to do this to us? Were manipulated by foreign intel? or Foreign rogue intel?

Black ops have been around for decades. These are illegal operations undertaken by "legal" authorities and agencies. We granted this "power" to the CIA back in the 60s and it was believed at the time that they had to have this capability to protect us because our enemies don't play by the rules. We have flooded the world with weapons and have a military which NEEDS an enemy or else there is no need for a military or its size and capability needs to match the threat. After puffing it up in the cold war, the MIC was not about to shrink down and disappear.

The MIC was not unhappy with 9/11. It was a godsend for them. This suggests that some up at the top of the MIC pyramid may have been complicit in the planning or the execution, using black ops and turning our own technology against us for their selfish motives.

We need to peel back all the layers of the onion here and find the root cause. At the center we will find a single person with the vision, or a small group who was responsible. That's the way history changes, unless there is a rising up of the masses, or a natural catastrophe. It sure looks like this was outside of AQ's capacity to plan and carry out, though any madmen can come up with the concept. That's fairly easy to accept.

We were and are being deceived big time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 5 2010, 09:17 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE
This is especially true for Flight 175 since the world was watching the WTC on TV as were hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers coming to work.


I guess who've never been to NYC, because obviously you don't have a clue.

No 1000's of people did not see Flight 175. Even the ATC in Newark didn't see anything until the plane was over the VN Bridge.

Maybe hundreds of thousands of NYers were going to work but most of them would be at work already, ie inside a building, on the subway, or stuck in traffic. Because of all the tall buildings, even if you could hear something, you not very likely to be in a place to see it with all the buildings blocking everything. Few people in NYC even knew the WTC was attacked until after the 2nd hit.

For the people downtown, by the time you heard the 'plane' coming in, it had already hit the building. If you knew about the first hit, you were more likely evacuating downtown asap or watching the north side of the building and wouldn't have been able to see or hear the 2nd 'plane'.

A lot of people may have seen the 2nd explosion, very few saw what caused it.

But keep sprinkling your crap with heavy doses of official myth. That's your job apparently.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Aug 5 2010, 09:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 5 2010, 02:07 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I live in NYC and have for all my life. While there were many at work there were thousands driving the West Side highway looking right at the WTC. One can see planes over NYC all the time aand many witnessed the plane landing in the Hudson in the middle of the winter. There are hundreds of boats, tugs, ferries, and moored pleasure craft on the Hudson and opposite the WTC at Liberty Landing and there are 5 traffic helicopter and tourist helicopters all in the air most of the day, as well as private helicopters working Wall Street.

There is a perfect view from hundreds of apartments just across the river in Jersey City, Newport Center and I would be surprised if people were not having coffee or breakfast on their balconies facing the skyline that beautiful morning.

There were hudreds of execs sitting in their south facing offices looking out the window that AM.

And there were probably scores of people on Rock Center and the Empire State Building Observation decks.

There had to thousands of witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Aug 5 2010, 03:04 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 139
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



I firmly believe there were no 'planes' involved in the attacks, but I've spent some time wondering about the involvement of the airline industry. Was the secondary objective to wreck the airline industry? Don't think so.

Naturally they needed an explanation that would suit shocked masses that weren't thinking straight - the 'planes' caused the towers to fall. But nothing is ever done for only one reason.

I think I've hit on it. Restriction of travel. Look what you have to go through to get on a plane now. Restricting travel tightens the control grid. It's gets people to accept unwarranted personal searches and accustoms them to losing their personal rights. Genius.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 5 2010, 03:42 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 5 2010, 02:07 PM) *
I live in NYC and have for all my life. While there were many at work there were thousands driving the West Side highway looking right at the WTC. One can see planes over NYC all the time aand many witnessed the plane landing in the Hudson in the middle of the winter. There are hundreds of boats, tugs, ferries, and moored pleasure craft on the Hudson and opposite the WTC at Liberty Landing and there are 5 traffic helicopter and tourist helicopters all in the air most of the day, as well as private helicopters working Wall Street.

There is a perfect view from hundreds of apartments just across the river in Jersey City, Newport Center and I would be surprised if people were not having coffee or breakfast on their balconies facing the skyline that beautiful morning.

There were hudreds of execs sitting in their south facing offices looking out the window that AM.

And there were probably scores of people on Rock Center and the Empire State Building Observation decks.

There had to thousands of witnesses.

Then you would know that at 9:00 AM in the morning the streets south of the WTC are surprisingly empty. Most of the tour boats don;t

Evacuation routes sent most people north or to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Granted there were probably people in Brooklyn and Northern NJ who would have had a ringside seat. Yet after 9 years, I have never been able to track down a story about someone who claims to have seen Flight 175 and either they didn't see anything and/or just saw the explosion or they were either a member of the M$M, Gov, or Defense.


If so many people saw the 2nd plane, then please show me a good picture.

If so many 1000's of people saw Flight 175, how come there weren't more pictures broadcast that day? (Anything after the fact doesn't count)

How come almost all of the early shots from the M$M cameras, only show a fuzzy blob?

We had a number of news helicopters in the air flying around the WTC . Yet, none of them saw the plane coming or got a good shot of Flight 175.

The only good video from that morning came from two very questionable sources and both videos were handled by the FBI before being broadcast.

BTW: Most of the tour boats don't start going out until 9:00 AM. Since the first hit was at 8:45 AM, the tours were stopped immediately as part of NYC disaster response plan. Instead, they started ferrying people to NJ to evacuate Lower Manhattan. So before 9:00 AM, there weren't that many boats in the area yet. There was a report I saw a long time ago from a Coast Guard cutter, but that guy saw a green military jet hit the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 5 2010, 03:53 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi O'Grady!

QUOTE
I firmly believe there were no 'planes' involved in the attacks, but I've spent some time wondering about the involvement of the airline industry. Was the secondary objective to wreck the airline industry? Don't think so.


I don't think the airline industry was knowingly involved, at best a few necessary parts of it were used as unwitting dupes. Private business has too many weak-willed loose cannons that might break. They are not the kind of companions you want in this kind of warm work. Plus the "industry gains' you posit seem to be very speculative and specious. If anything, it could be foreseen that the result of greater control and restriction would be fewer paying passengers.

But my mind is not closed to NPT. I still have a file open, but it is pretty thin and I don't look at it much. AFAIC, the only big element of Trugth that has been established to my satisfaction is that there were three CDs at the WTCs. But that mind boggling truth alone makes anything possible, including NPT. (( EDIT TO ADD: NPT does not necessarily conflict with the fact that there were CDs.)) But I think Rob and PFT are on the far more likely and right track with respect to the WTC planes in their recent investigation and video..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 5 2010, 03:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 5 2010, 05:55 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 5 2010, 03:53 PM) *
Hi O'Grady!



I don't think the airline industry was knowingly involved, at best a few necessary parts of it were used as unwitting dupes. Private business has too many weak-willed loose cannons that might break. They are not the kind of companions you want in this kind of warm work. Plus the "industry gains' you posit seem to be very speculative and specious. If anything, it could be foreseen that the result of greater control and restriction would be fewer paying passengers.

But my mind is not closed to NPT. I still have a file open, but it is pretty thin and I don't look at it much. AFAIC, the only big element of Trugth that has been established to my satisfaction is that there were three CDs at the WTCs. But that mind boggling truth alone makes anything possible, including NPT. (( EDIT TO ADD: NPT does not necessarily conflict with the fact that there were CDs.)) But I think Rob and PFT are on the far more likely and right track with respect to the WTC planes in their recent investigation and video..
I don't think any official agency or airline, other then the Bush Administration and DOD insiders had a clue what was going on. But within these groups, there had to be operatives who were on the inside.

Now I know this might sound crazy but the common thread that I find between a lot of people who might have been involved in 9/11 is that a lot of them are fundies or zionists or part of Poppy Bush's rogue shadow government. Only true believers would be recruited for such an important operation, that obviously took years to put together. Most of the true believers wouldn't even know what was really going on. All they would need to know is that one day they would get a call and they would know it was time for the rapture. Maybe that's why there were so many last minute bookings on these flights. Others could have been professional operatives, who took on new id's after the attack. For example, the majority of people on Flight 93 that became the Let's Roll Team, were white, athletic, men and most of them were very religious. It also turns out that they are the ones that made most of the phone calls. I guess non-believers couldn't get their cell phones to work?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 5 2010, 06:38 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi DYEW!

No, you don't sound crazy. You are thinking like I think. Or maybe we're both crazy.

Here's an even crazier thing. I don't think then-President Bush was involved beforehand but quickly figured out which way da wind blow afterward.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Aug 6 2010, 07:49 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Aug 5 2010, 07:08 PM) *
OK. So its physically impossible for a 767 to go 500 MPH in a slightly diving banked turn at low altitude.
I'm going to look at all the various videos and see how many frames it takes for the second aircraft to go from nose to tail into the building. I've only looked at one a few times. If there is any discrepency, then some of the videos were modified, if not, then every video has been modified or the 767 is not a standard 767 and is going 500 MPH.


mod edit: split from latest news


While you're looking at those vids, pay particular attention to how the aircraft interfaces with the building wall. Over on You Tube, where I was watching the last three videos posted here, to inspect the "ball" etc., that hit the south tower, I noted that the plane seems to enter the wall, as smoothly as if it were made of jello. This is impossible, since we know that the building wall was not of even consistency. For example, you'd expect the glass windows to blow out and send highly reflective shards of glass in all directions, so they'd be very visible.
Since the uprights are spaced, you'd expect the leading edge of the plane to "ripple" to reflect this uneven impact/resistance.

Oh, and another thing I noticed... After the wings enter the building, the building seems to have closed behind them??? If that artifact appears in any other film, then you can immediately know that film was faked.

I'll be lurking for your report...
Thanks guys
(I've been warned not to discuss any lack of aircraft here).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 8 2010, 02:29 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I would rename it "No Planes, or Drones" whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 9 2010, 05:10 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 12 2010, 01:29 PM) *
I would rename it "No Planes, or Drones" whistle.gif


Yep.

To me, the remarkable speeds reported actually bolster the case that there were actually some sort of aircraft, but not stock 7x7's. If it was all a CGI-manufactured trick, then why would the "fake-planes" have been rendered going that fast? Video analysis also shows these crazy speeds. There would have been no reason to try to fake plane approaches and then insert them as flying at impossible speeds. If, on the other hand, the planes were denser drones or something (capable of penetrating the buildings without raining debris on the streets below), then you have a reason for these speeds (and even possibly for someone to doctor the video in some cases). Whichever, know one really knows - but the high speeds reported don't bolster the idea that there were no planes - they support the opposite.

IMO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 26 2011, 04:49 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 9 2010, 04:10 AM) *
Yep.

To me, the remarkable speeds reported actually bolster the case that there were actually some sort of aircraft, but not stock 7x7's. If it was all a CGI-manufactured trick, then why would the "fake-planes" have been rendered going that fast? Video analysis also shows these crazy speeds. There would have been no reason to try to fake plane approaches and then insert them as flying at impossible speeds. If, on the other hand, the planes were denser drones or something (capable of penetrating the buildings without raining debris on the streets below), then you have a reason for these speeds (and even possibly for someone to doctor the video in some cases). Whichever, know one really knows - but the high speeds reported don't bolster the idea that there were no planes - they support the opposite.

IMO


Actually they do not support the opposite, they only support the idea that, the planes we were told struck the towers, were not the ones that made this data residue.
Anything else is pure speculation, since we're not even sure that this data is from "our planes".

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 27 2011, 09:04 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Over here I've posted some of the assumptions that the NPT requires:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21213

Next I'm trying to find time/location data for flight 11 to assign to
the start and end points of each of the 4 sequences. Then convert that
to distance data, in an attempt to see if the 510 knot speed is really necessary,
to bring the plane to target on time. Of course it will be "ball parked" but,
I've a hunch that the differences are so large that even ball park figures will
reveal anomalies, probably over the entire course from Boston. Where, I think it was dMole
who found a 2700 mph speed that didn't quite fit in. laughing1.gif
Talk about data that gives one reason to mistrust it, eh? pilotfly.gif

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 29 2011, 07:18 AM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 561
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 5 2010, 01:07 PM) *
I live in NYC and have for all my life. While there were many at work there were thousands driving the West Side highway looking right at the WTC.


Most people driving the west side highway, would have their eyes on traffic, which can get pretty darn hairy at times. I sincerely doubt many of these people even bother to look at the WTC, unless traffic comes to a complete halt. Then, there just isn't room for thousands of cars on the west side drive when they're moving at speed. That Tuesday was also a voting day, so many people went to the polls, traffic was light at the time. You'd have expected (at least I would have) to hear on the news, that traffic had backed up because of people watching the towers, we heard no such reports that day. Add to all that, there are certain portions of the drive, from where you can't even see the towers. My guess is that as few as a couple of dozen people at most, since they're mostly driver only cars. If they saw anything at all, it was probably just glimpses. Then, from far away, like 5 miles or more.

QUOTE
One can see planes over NYC all the time and many witnessed the plane landing in the Hudson in the middle of the winter. There are hundreds of boats, tugs, ferries, and moored pleasure craft on the Hudson and opposite the WTC at Liberty Landing and there are 5 traffic helicopter and tourist helicopters all in the air most of the day, as well as private helicopters working Wall Street.


The curious thing about that Hudson landing, the people in buildings on riverside drive, facing the Hudson, heard Captain Scully coming in, even with his engines cut! Rob clocks flight 11 at 510 knots for over a minute = 9.78 miles away! So that puts flight 11 literally screaming down the Hudson at over the speed of sound, yet the nine-one-one emergency center didn't light up like a christmass tree, with calls about the window shattering sonic boom.

As for the private and traffic helicopters, well, you can see what we've gotten from them, we're forced to rely on a recently released, poor quality, police copter video.


QUOTE
There is a perfect view from hundreds of apartments just across the river in Jersey City, Newport Center and I would be surprised if people were not having coffee or breakfast on their balconies facing the skyline that beautiful morning.


My guess would be that most of these people wouldn't be staring out of their windows, but engaged in getting their kids off to school and themselves out to work or to vote. It sure was a beautiful clear September day, but it was also just another work day. I suspect that some tenants were away, some who had the luxury, were probably still in bed. While others were distracted by phone calls or t.v. or preparing breakfast. While others had rushed out to work and still more had already left to get their children to school.

Even then, the few left to linger and watch, are watching from miles away. Hardly likely they'd even notice a little dot of an airliner, from that distance, in time to focus on it before it crashed.
More likely they'd only see the fireball of the second hit.

QUOTE
There were hundreds of execs sitting in their south facing offices looking out the window that AM.


Executives don't sit staring out of their windows, but if they did, they'd have pretty much lost interest or turned on the news, since that way they'd get more information than just looking at drifting smoke. Besides, looking on from the north, the incoming craft would be hidden by the south tower and not making any noise that they could hear. They'd probably be focused on what they'd already been looking at, the gash in the north tower, when the second plane hit.

QUOTE
And there were probably scores of people on Rock Center and the Empire State Building Observation decks.

There had to thousands of witnesses.


I'd be more inclined to believe that there might have been a few thousand lookers, I doubt they had so little to do, that the sight of a smoking tower held their interests for very long. Like most New Yorkers, the days just aren't long enough for us to get everything we want to do, done.
After a minute or two of looking, they'd probably move on to the news, t.v. or radio, and probably phone calls, either to change plans for the day, or see what they could salvage of their business or social day.


Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 29 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,712
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Obwon @ Mar 29 2011, 07:18 AM) *
Rob clocks flight 11 at 510 knots for over a minute = 9.78 miles away!



wrong.

you may want to get your facts straight before attempting to analyze the work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 31st October 2014 - 06:49 PM