May 31, 2007

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

(Updated: 09/23/08)

For those who ask:

"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"


(Video: Hezarkhani)



Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC and used TV fakery instead:



GUARANTEED PENETRATION



Why do most of Americans still think planes brought down the Twin Towers? Because to them, the official story of why the Towers collapsed was believable. Large aircraft loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the Towers at high speeds and penetrated inside before exploding thereby causing extensive internal damage. Then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby pulverizing the rest of the buildings. Then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and eventually collapse.


A Boeing 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.

North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.


Most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job probably believe that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were pulled (i.e. brought down by some kind of controlled demolition method) and therefore should also agree that the collapse of all three of these buildings was arguably the most important goal of the perps that day.

All seven buildings of the WTC lie in ruins.


For 9/11 conspiracists who believe planes hit the towers, I would say that almost all of them believe these planes were flown by some kind of remote control or on-board computer guidance system and they either believe it was Flight 175 with all the passengers that was electronically hijacked similar to the Lone Gunmen 'Pilot' episode, or it was some kind of empty Boeing 767 drone painted in United Airlines colors.


So if crashing large aircraft loaded with fuel into the WTC was enough to make most people believe that planes crashing and fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse, what logic is there to argue no planes crashed there? It's quite simple actually.


'Penetration' is the Key

Look at some of the WTC crash videos. Observe not just that we see a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, but how these planes crashed into the towers:


Flight 11 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower before exploding.

Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell. See all WTC crash videos here.)


The videos show that these planes that hit the towers supposedly at 470mph (Flight 11/North Tower) and 590mph (Flight 175/South Tower) penetrated all the way into the buildings which gave the perception that these planes were able to cause enough internal damage to cause both towers to collapse because the videos showed the world that these planes had penetrated all the way into the buildings before their fuel tanks exploded.


With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps could not have used real planes to make the official collapse theory believable:


  • What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers? Do you think the perps would have pulled both towers? What if the plane aiming for the North Tower missed, you think the perps would still have pulled the WTC 7?


  • What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside? Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on and the perps had to use a method that would guarantee penetration into the towers.

  • What if the perps used two drone 767's and any of them missed their targets or didn't completely penetrate all the way through the towers and pieces of it landed outside on the ground thereby exposing it as a drone? Game over for the perps.

  • How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and that their relatively delicate fuel tanks in the wings would be able to fully penetrate the steel facades and concrete encased floor slabs before exploding? Do you think the perps would trust that 767's would be able to penetrate through two buildings without doing a real world test run to see if they would be able to penetrate? Or do you think the perps actually built replicas of portions of the Twin Towers' facade and crashed 767's into them to see if they would actual penetrate inside before blowing up?

Only using computer generated imagery (CGI) of planes instead of real planes would guarantee penetration into the Twin Towers and since this operation would be done on a computer, the perps could rehearse their plan over and over and over again and the CGI plane would always penetrate through the WTC because you can make pixels do anything.


CGI planes "melting" into the WTC.


However, imagine the cost, time, complexity, and secrecy the perps would had to undertake from simulating real planes flown via remote control crashing into some kind of "WTC replica" over and over again until they could guarantee the planes would penetrate (if they ever could).





Media Warned About TV Fakery


Airing fake scenarios on TV is known as "TV fakery" (a term that has been used back since at least 1998). The concept of simulating a fake attack on computer and broadcasting it to the world is nothing new. The military had talked about using TV fakery well before 9/11:

INFORMATION WARFARE
Prof George J. Stein, AWC
Airpower Journal - Spring 1995

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks.


Digitally altering live TV events
has been possible since at least 1998.



A winner of multiple Emmy Awards for technical achievement, the Virtual Yellow 1st and Ten Line makes use of Sportvision’s patented video overlay technology to create the illusion that a yellow first-down line is painted on the field, allowing players to cross over and stand on it. Invented by Sportvision and first introduced in 1998, 1st and Ten allows viewers to see the necessary distance for a first down as plays progress... - sportvision.com



The media has been informing us that the technical capabilities of using TV fakery in live broadcasts exist and have been warning the public about its use before 9/11:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

A Box of Chocolates is Like War

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump [1994], when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.
When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000
independent.co.uk

Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.
Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000 (Updated)

Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

By Ivan Amato
technologyreview.com

In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.
~
Compared to PVI’s job, the military’s technical task was more difficult—and the stakes were much higher... the TIGER team manipulated a live video feed from a Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance craft flying some 450 meters above Kosovo battlefields... the task was to overlay, in real time, “georegistered” images of Kosovo onto the corresponding scenes streaming in live from the Predator’s video camera. The terrain images had been previously captured with aerial photography and digitally stored.
~
It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes, or burial sites, or lines of refugees, or dead cows that activists claim are victims of a biotech accident.
~
There’s a big difference now, says Haseltine: “What used to take an hour [per video frame], now can be done in a sixtieth of a second.” This dramatic speed-up means that manipulation can be done in real time, on the fly, as a camera records or broadcasts.
~
The combination of real-time virtual insertion, cyber-puppeteering, video rewriting and other video manipulation technologies with a mass-media infrastructure that instantly delivers news video worldwide has some analysts worried.

“I’m amazed that we have not seen phony video,” he says, before backpedaling a bit: “Maybe we have. Who would know?”

It’s just the sort of scenario played out in the 1998 movie Wag the Dog, in which top presidential aides conspire with a Hollywood producer to televise a virtually crafted war between the United States and Albania to deflect attention from a budding Presidential scandal. Haseltine and others wonder when reality will imitate art imitating reality.
~
Combine the potential erosion of faith in video authenticity with the so-called "CNN effect" and the stage is set for deception to move the world in new ways. Livingston describes the CNN effect as the ability of mass media to go beyond merely reporting what is happening to actually influencing decision-makers as they consider military, international assistance and other national and international issues. "The CNN effect is real," says James Currie, professor of political science at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. "Every office you go into at the Pentagon has CNN on." And that means, he says, that a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours' worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.

~
With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

Coincidentally, a mainstream network president had even warned in 2000 about fake plane crashes using CGI:

CBS Is Divided Over the Use Of False Images In Broadcasts

Published: January 13, 2000
New York Times

[Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News,] said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology -- which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows -- on news programs. The danger is "that it looks too real and therefore it's wrong or potentially wrong," he said. "I certainly agree it's potentially subject to abuse."

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing lo
ok so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.


Now we know that the military has talked about using TV fakery for psyop operations and that the technology to insert digital images into "live" TV broadcasts existed before 9/11. All the military had to do on 9/11 was control the TV airwaves and air a couple of videos showing an image of a plane looking like it crashed into the South Tower and if you need to control the media, what better way to do that than have your own people on the inside before 9/11:

Army 'psyops' at CNN
News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel

Posted: March 03, 2000

By Geoff Metcalf
worldnetdaily.com

CNN employed active duty U.S. Army psychological operations personnel last year, WorldNetDaily has confirmed through several sources at Fort Bragg and elsewhere.

Maj. Thomas Collins, U.S. Information Service has confirmed that "psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta. The lend/lease exercise was part of an Army program called "Training With Industry." According to Collins, the soldiers and officers, "... worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."
~
The CNN military personnel were members of the Airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information.' Critics say that means dissemination of propaganda.



TV Takeover

On 9/11, the military took control of what would be shown on the major TV stations (ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and MSNBC) and blacked out all the local NYC TV stations. Even though at least five national TV stations would be airing "live" footage, the military only aired footage showing a plane flying into the South Tower on three stations (ABC, CBS, and MSNBC) and only showed a total of four different clips showing a plane (the CBS footage showed two different clips of a plane).






CNN just used part of the ABC feed.


The BBC used all of the ABC feed.


For FOX, the military didn't air any "live" footage showing a plane.


This might have been because they were going to air this footage showing a plane crashing into the South Tower from the side, but they screwed up and the CGI plane went to far which showed the its "nose" exiting the other side of the building and the perps couldn't flip the switch fast enough to cut off the feed.



An analysis by Simon Shack shows that the object seen exiting the South Tower is the same shape as the nose of the "plane" about to hit the building:




If you notice on all of the four "live" clips (and even the fifth screw-up clip), none of these shots show the plane crashing into the side of the South Tower where the "crash" actually happened. They military simply aired views of the WTC which would show the plane disappearing behind the towers. The first videos showing a plane crashing into the "crash" side of the South Tower didn't air until much later.


If the idea that the footage on 9/11 that you saw live on TV was faked still sounds absurd to you, such as the live shots taken from network helicopters, just look what happened recently at the past Olympics:

Beijing Olympic 2008 opening ceremony giant firework footprints 'faked'

10 Aug 2008
telegraph.co.uk

What they did not realise was that what they were watching was in fact computer graphics, meticulously created over a period of months and inserted into the coverage electronically at exactly the right moment.
~
Meticulous efforts were made to ensure the sequence was as unnoticeable as possible: they sought advice from the Beijing meteorological office as to how to recreate the hazy effects of Beijing's smog at night, and inserted a slight camera shake effect to simulate the idea that it was filmed from a helicopter.

"Seeing how it worked out, it was still a bit too bright compared to the actual fireworks," he said. "But most of the audience thought it was filmed live - so that was mission accomplished."

Notice the "shake" in this live 9/11 MSNBC alleged helicopter shot.



Bewilderment from the Planers

For the conspiracists who believe 767's hit the WTC, some even seem to agree that 767's could not have penetrated the Twin Towers and were baffled from what they saw on the videos (emphasis mine):


Then last on the list for the odyssey of Flight 175 is its peculiar entrance, and exit out of the world trade center. How does a plane which is 16 feet, 9 inches in diameter, made out of thin aluminum, tear through not just one set of tubular steel spandrel beams, spaced 39 inches apart, but two of them? Yet there is more. The floors of the WTC, are less than 12.5 feet between floor and ceiling. Which means this plane ripped through a minimum of TWO FLOORS of 209 feet of concrete, 4 inches thick, (with a 22 guage steel pan) and the planes cockpit and fuselage remained intact all the way back to the wing root, and made it clear through the building? Remarkable to say the least. Physically impossible to say the most.

To resolve their bewilderment, they had to created some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as suggesting that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate, saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades, and some even suggest that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials, such as being lined with Depleted Uranium, or even, get this, fitted with explosive charges to help open the walls of the Towers.


Anthony Lawson, the 10% truther, thinks that the planes that allegedly penetrated through the Twin Towers could have been specially lined with Depleted Uranium and fitted with explosive charges.


Also, if the perps chose to use real planes, then only using the real Flight's 11 and 175 with all the alleged passengers on board would prevent the perps from being caught if one or both of the planes missed their targets, or didn't fully penetrate all the way into the building. However, they would still run the risk of not being able to pull the Twin Towers and WTC 7 if any of the two planes didn't crash the exact way they needed them to crash (i.e. penetrate all the way through so they blow up in the insides of both buildings) and that is something the perps could not afford to chance since collapsing the WTC 1, 2, and 7 was arguably the cornerstones of their diabolical plan.


Lastly, for conspiracists who believe the WTC was brought down with traditional explosives (i.e. bombs/thermite), do you really think crashing large planes loaded with fuel into two of some of the tallest buildings in the world you've just rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition would be a good idea? How would you know that crashing large planes into them wouldn't prematurely explode any of the critically placed bombs that might jeopardize the way you wanted the towers to fall or worse, might even prevent the towers from collapsing at all? Do you really think the perps wanted the towers to fall over like trees into the neighboring non-WTC skyscrapers? What if crashing a real plane into the North Tower caused it to collapse away from the WTC 7? Still think the perps would have pulled the 7?


Conclusion

Using real planes to crash into the towers and make it look believable that the planes crashed in such a way to cause enough internal damage to collapse the mighty Twin Towers and then shower debris onto the WTC 7 to give them an excuse as to why that huge skyscraper collapsed would be way too risky (if not impossible) and that's why they didn't use real planes to hit the WTC. On the other hand, if the perps simply made people on the ground and who were watching TV think that planes hit and penetrated into the Twin Towers, then they eliminated the risk of having to crash real planes into them.


Pulling off 9/11 has given the NeoCons/PNAC (or who ever you want to call the "powers that be") their ticket to continue the build-up of the military and create their never ending war on terrorism so they could invade the Middle-East (Afghanistan and Iraq) to further their quest for global domination by controlling the population and earth's vast resources. Using real planes left too much to chance. A missed target, or failed penetration would ruin all that 9/11 has given the perps. They had to use the least-risky viable option that would not only guarantee hitting their targets, but would also guarantee penetration into the buildings and that was TV fakery.


(Discuss this article at 911movement.org forum.)

See also:


(Special thanks to
The Quest for insights for this article.)

55 comments:

War On Suckers said...

It is quite amazing after all this time, so many 911 investigators can't get their heads around the fact that they've been duped into believing planes hit buildings and that 90% of their investigative efforts have been on red herrings. Rather they say things like "explain how private home video was altered to show planes". What private home video? There is an amazing lack of private video other than what was claimed to be private and trickled out through the corporate media. Also the FBI did have a much publicised appeal at the time to collect any real private videos.

It is also quite amazing that most of those who realize no planes hit buildings, don't seem to in turn realize that means no big conspiracy. In fact terms like "MIHOP" and "inside job" are not only obsolete they are misleading. It is also not correct to use false questions like "Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC". There is no evidence that the bloated bureaucratic machine know as "the government" was involved at all. No planes equals LIHOP at best.

Evan Farebanks looks like he is standing in front of a video projection screen. He also appears to genuinely believe he was there and really witnessed a plane even though he acknowledges it looked like "a bad special effect". Mind control perhaps? Isn't that the forte of the CIA.

When is anyone going to confront low level perps like the Naudet brothers regarding the blatant video fakery throughout their 911 mockyoumentary. Who the hell are they really and who hired them for 911?

Luke said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BG said...

Luke,

Hang in there. You are misunderstanding.

For example, it's not whether the structure was lightweight steel. It's the was wah the crashes were shown. It the nose out fakery. It's many aspects of the whole day that all point to "jetliners didn't hit the towers".

Killtown said...

Why can't skeptics leave comments without immature childish insults?

omar said...

Very good article. "What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside?"

What if the planes would add up to the physical reality ?

No. That would be impossible. One of the key effect of 9/11 is that the "planes" simply vanished into the buildings, completly... like knives through hot butter.

Ningen said...

Hello, Killtown. I read what "Power to the People" said to you at 911 Blogger and came to check this out. I can't comment there now as I am temporarily banned for getting into it with John Albanese (which is fine and I'm not mad at the moderators and don't think I'm being censored, except I wish they had not taken down the thread).

Anyway, since I can't support you there, I just want to say that this is a really fine article.

I always understood the problem with a plane to be that it would not penetrate the building and would leave incriminating debris showing it was not the plane it was supposed to be. That's true to an extent, and is also the reason they would not use a remote control plane, but maybe they could have controlled the debris and lied about it, so that doesn't explain everything. Your explanation does -- a real plane on real video would not have made a plausible cover for the destruction of the buildings.

I told a fellow no-planer the other day I was 95% convinced that no planes hit. Even though I am totally convinced the videos depict an unphysical event, I still had a doubt whether the risk of detection was too high to make it plausible. You've shown me that the other risks were much higher.

I don't know how they would control all the witnesses and all contradictory videos, but I have ideas how that could be done. Plus, there are many contradictory witnesses). I even think one of the "private" videos is contradictory because it shows people in the foreground not reacting to the plane but only to the explosion. and even a contradictory video that may be real. Regardless, they did it.

Thank you, Killtown.

Ningen said...

My third paragraph is muddled. Inconsistent debris is really just the reason why I don't buy remote control planes. But your explanation is much better - neither a remote control plane nor a real Flight 11 or 175 with the passengers they said were on it would penetrate and give a cover for the "collapse," and both might cause other problems as you describe.

JPass said...

Couldn't you just do a 'where are they now' of all the passenger's families and see who is who?

If planes did not hit the towers then you probably have a large pile of discrepancies waiting to be pointed out.

Ningen said...

At the risk of sounding callous, the fate of the passengers is not an issue here. If they existed, they were murdered. What difference does it make how exactly they were murdered, if we already agree that the official story of their murder is a lie?

Proof that they got on planes at Logan and Newark is not proof they were on a plane that hit the towers. And proof that they did not get on planes, or did not exist at all, might still be construed as evidence that remote controlled planes hit. But we know that the remote controlled plane theory is not true, based on the crash physics and reasoning of Killtown above. So asking about the passengers is a red herring, no offense intended. It does not address the issue in dispute.

Sure, it would be good to know the answer, if possible, but it is not incumbent on us to answer.

JPass said...

I disagree. If you are indeed correct about 'no planes', then looking at the passengers on the plane, their hisotry/background/family you will find massive discrepancies that will provide you with valuable information pointing to a fake passenger list.

I do not believe the theory of no planes and if it's true, I do not believe all the passengers would be killed.

No offense taken.

Swing Dangler said...

First question, if there were no planes used, how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?

Second, in terms of penetration, a plastic straw can penetrate a wooden telephone pole during a tornado. Plastic versus wood and in this case, the weaker material wins.

Third, how can Stanley Praneth (sp?) be accounted for as he watched the plane travel towards him and penetrate the building underneath him?

Killtown, I respect your research on all other areas of 9/11, but the no plane deal is a real stretch of the imagination and I'm a CTer and frequent debunker of debunkers.

Killtown said...

Hi Swing, I added a link to 911movement.org forum to discuss my article further. Please join!

casseia said...

Hey, Killtown -- just a "hello" from a 911bloggerite. Ningen suggested I check out this blog, and although I remain unconvinced, it's reasonable food for thought.

Ningen said...

Jpass, looking at the passenger list is fine and might strengthen the case, and is inherently valuable to know what happened.

But the no-planes theory is not dependent on showing that the passengers did not exist or showing what happened to them, and does not address the question of faked versus remote-controlled planes.

Like I said, proof the passengers got on a plane is not proof that the plane hit one of the buildings. The theory is not dependent on showing discrepancies in the passengers. So again, the fate of the passengers, if any, is a red herring. The issue of reported planes, remote-controlled other planes, or no planes is resolved by the crash physics,logistics, and achieving the goal of covering for the demolitions. These are very strong arguments, and the resistance to this theory is only the "thousands of witnesses" that "must" have seen the planes hit.
My answer is that deceiving witnesses or faking witnesses is hard, but possible. The crash physics are impossible.

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life [or an aluminum plane melt into a steel tower], I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened." David Hume, Of Miracles.

Why would people willing to fly people into buildings (whether by hijacker or remote control) be less willing to kill them another way? I don't see the logic. I think it would depend on logistics and risk of detection - which is better, faking or killing real passengers?

Morally, faking would be better, and the perps are not necessarily amoral, just cold and rational in their willingness to kill to meet their purposes. They might have been willing to risk some complication to lessen the death toll. (They might also have killed more people in the buildings than they intended.)

Ningen said...

Swing Dangler:

First question, if there were no planes used, how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?

Lying, mistaken, fly-by plane?

Second, in terms of penetration, a plastic straw can penetrate a wooden telephone pole during a tornado.

According to NOAA, the pole or tree is bent by the tornado, the straw flies in to a crack, and the crack closes around the straw when the tornado passes.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

Prainmath's story does not hold water. He claims he saw a wing penetrate and hit a door. He also claims he survived in the impact zone, where shrapnel and explosion would have killed him.

He's not necessarily consciously lying, but he could be.

JPass said...

Yea but it could possibly help your case which is already not very convincing, imo.

JPass said...

I'm sorry, I mean to say it would help the theory that we are discussing.

Ningen said...

Again, it would not help the theory, because the question of whether another plane hit would remain.

Ningen said...

Jpass - Flights 11 and 77 were not listed in the government database for transportation statistics:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

There are listed now, but with no actual departure and no "wheels-off" times.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/flight-11-and-flight-77-now-in-bts.html

Flight 175's "wheels off" time in the transportation statistics is not consistent with the time reported by the FAA and the 9/11 Commission.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-time-did-flight-175-take-off.html

It is also odd that United Airlines would not report that Flights 175 hit the South Tower until late in the day on 9/11.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/united-airlines-reports-on-flight-175.html

I think the blips on the radar scenes of FAA and NORAD were "damn inputs."

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-think-this-is-damn-input-to-be-honest.html

All this raises the question of whether these flights were real, but again, this could be used as an argument for remote controlled planes, which I do not think is correct because of the crash physics.

War On Suckers said...

"how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?"

What witnesses saw these shadows? You mean the ones watching Oliver Stone's World Trade Center.

A plane is allegedly flying over 1000 feet at 500mph at 9am above a city of sky scrappers and now we have claims of witnesses seeing shadows.

Are these the same witnesses that saw "a blue logo"?

keaton said...

ningen and killtown. you amaze me. and war on suckers too. i started out as the ignorant 9/11 conpiracy guy. Telling people about loose change, but now i've come to read posts like this and you guys have evidence and can back up everything and then there are the people like swing dangler who post stuff and ccuse you of things you didn't say or mean (killtown on 9/11 truth movement). hang in there!! Hopefully the truth will come around.

Just curious what do you guys think of the '08 candidates. sorry if that's too off topic. I like what Ron Paul has to say.

Antti said...

Just wanted so say, that I knew this theory existed, but I didn't pay any attention to it. Cause I saw planes on TV ;)

Few days ago I found this 4-part "September clues". It was clearly presented and it rocked big time. Last weekend I examined Killtown's and other people's material about no-plane-theory and saw also even weirder stuff, like a moving bridge! I'm convinced.

Thanks to all guys, who has worked exposing this.

Just a quick note for people, who say "but the plane flew very fast and because of that it penetrated the WTC-wall."


I'll give you 3 (weird) scenarios.

1. Boeing 767 hits the (stationary) WTC at 500mph.

2. Boeing 767 and WTC hits each other with "head-to-head" crash, both travelling 250mph.

3. WTC hits stationary Boeing 767 at 500mph.

What would be the damages for both parties (Boeing & WTC) in each case?

1=2=3

Matt said...

I suppose the simplest answer to all of your points is that, well, it was actual terrorists flying the planes, and there were no explosives. Thus the reason they didn't need to worry about potential "problems" if they missed.

Maybe some of you slept through high school physics, but E=1/2*m*v^2 is a lot here. A block of foam traveling at a lower speed punched a hole in a wing of the space shuttle. What, do you think that the airplane would have hit the steel curtain and stopped dead?

Finally, even accepting your hypothesis that there was some kind of CGI feed to TV cameras, how would people on the ground have been fooled? Holograms and somehow extremely directional shaped charges?

kiko said...

After originally seeing the "GhostPlane" website, followed by "September Clues" on livevideo I am now 100% convinced there were no planes used at all on that fateful day...

Too much evidence......

1. The video showing NO PLANE hitting tower 2! I mean AMAZING. All that be seen in the shot is a fast-moving jet TRAIL from a small projectile!

2. The "nose out" clip.

3. The EXTREMELY suspicious way the anchors all speak before during and after the "attacks".
Some comentators actually say the EXACT same phrases and continue to say more or less the EXACT same thing for 10 minutes. This is no coincidence...

4. Why use real planes when you can just use graphics ?? CG is much more reliable..

5. The ENTIRELY different angles in which the 2nd "plane" flies on video. Impossible.

Kol Nidre said...

I'm not convinced by the no plane concept and fear that no matter how well researched this angle is or how genuine the intentions of its progenitors, it is largely used by the complicit Zionist media to paint anyone questioning the official fable as a bunch of wackos.

As for passengers existing or not, a sibling's neighbor disappeared for real that day. Whether she was on a plane or not she was taken care of in one way or another.

Anonymous said...

its not about 9/11 its about why they did it , it doesnt even matter that much if its planes or rockets its more important who did that, expose them and protect the future.

izzysykopth said...

since its of more widespread acceptance that no plane hit the Pentagon the obvious conclusion is no planes hit the WTC simply because it does not adhere to the M.O. thus the planes were not nessassary only the image of the planes

Professor Taylor said...

Dude!! Did you get my mail? Hit me!! I forwarded you Jim's response.

Aristobulus said...

The mayor of Cleveland said 200 people got off flight 93 and were taken to the Nasa hangar at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. According to the report, they never reboarded flight 93. But if you add up all the people from all four flights it comes to 198 people. I think Cleveland was the final destination of the passengers.

north said...

HOLD ON, HERE IS A LONG ONE, BUT PLEASE READ THE WHOLE PIECE.

I'm new here, still I hope you can here me out even if my comment comes a little late.
I've been sitting here and reading what all of you say and it makes me a little sad, I don't see a point to not believing what happen...
I don't mean to outsmart anyone just try to make you see the facts of how it looks in reality.
I believe it's hard for anyone to take in how such a tragedy may look when it happens for real, you only see these things faked in movies etc. It's so unusual to see pictures such as these but when you see them, hopefully once in a lifetime, they look surreal.
It's so hard to understand what it is you seeing.
I've worked as a fire fighter for many years and I know how an exposition of fuel looks like, also how a dynamite explosion looks like (almost no fire cloud).
How do you mean they got all that fuel up there whitout anyone knowing about it and where did the store it, why didn't they use ordinary dynamite?
Also, hadn't it been easier to claim airplanes hit the buildings if it had been darker, why did they do it in broad day light risking thousands of witnesses seeing it?(or not seeing it)
And please explain how the steel on the sides of the buildings were the airplanes hit could be bend in towards the building.
If it had been an exploration from the inside of the buildings the steel should have been bent out of the buildings on all sides.
If you claim the fire ball was a fake to, I got no more to say, cause two of my closest friend were there.
It was such a big fireball, it was impossible to not see it.
Don't you think eyewitnesses from the whole city had been furious if they looked at the news broadcast that same evening and saw they put in a big fireball were it's not suppose to have been one?
One more thing, I don't know if any of you've seen crashes between motorcycles and cars on Youtube...
A speeding motorcycle can easily split a car in half into two pieces.
Imagine what a plane going in that speed can do to these comparatively thin steel
That's why the plane didn't caught fire until after it's inside the building, it's not like hitting the ground or concrete which is the most common way to see plane crashes caught on tape.
I don't even think the fuel have chance to caught fire on the outside considering the high speed.
If you familiar with the laws of physics you can easily calculate how much a plane big plane that size must weigh going in that speed... pretty heavy, I think the steel strings will just snap of such impact.
To me, today you've been proving nothing.
I hope you'll take the time explain my many questions.

Rourke Douglas Decker said...

I'm not entirely convinced by the no-plane theory, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

All performers know the immense power of suggestion. Magicians employ distraction to take their audience's focus off the finer details of the tricks they execute.

Numerous studies have shown that during traumatic events, exact details tend not to get registered in memory. Other studies have demonstrated that when subjects are repeatedly told that (completely fictitious) events occurred in their past, the subjects will gradually begin to "remember them." Also, when there is a discrepancy between what a person remembers and what they are told actually happened, their mind tends to fill in the details to resolve the dissonance.

These planes were supposedly flying at hundreds of miles per hour. If no one was prepared to see them coming (and videos do indeed seem to indicate that), there's no reason to assume they would have seen the planes. Most people tend to be preoccupied with their own business during the day. After they were told that planes had hit the towers, however, most people would have begun to "remember" seeing the planes overhead.

Pipskateer said...

Killtown, I think your analysis is extremely thought provoking. You make some very excellent and convincing points. To me, the use of TV/video fakery to deceive us on 9/11 is without question. However, here is where I think the TV fakery fits into the overall scheme of things.

First, we KNOW this whole 9/11 False Flag operation was BLATANT murder of innocent civilians, perpetrated in order to garner public support for an otherwise illegal and immoral war that has (so far...) allowed the Neocons/NWO to move forward with their agendas. We KNOW this...

We also know that 9/11 was clouded in a massive psyops, the TV Fakery being simply one part of the psyops. But in the end, whether or not there were really planes involved or not...consider that we still have not done anything about the things for which we do NOT need all of the details.

The endless, sometimes vicious debates of planes versus no planes...thermite versus no thermite, Directed Energy Weapons versus no Directed Energy Weapons...these are all superfluous details...they are meat scraps of information thrown out there for all of us to consume, digest, debate, and fight over...endlessly. These pet theories of ours are the "divide and conquer" bait that we have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

The crucible of public opinion constantly churns all these theories and "what if" scenarios over and over and over...but to what productive outcome??? The end result is ALWAYS just in-fighting and social discord. People end up calling each other the foulest of names over minutiae CRAP that NONE of us armchair detectives can ever really hope to prove yet...and it's exactly what they want us to be doing....fighting like rabid dogs!

Meanwhile...all the major public 9/11 Truth Movement "leaders" are all disputing what little "evidence" remains...the entire movement is disjointed, there are factions, there is no cohesion, there is no visible concerted effort to actually DO ANYTHING PRODUCTIVE...no common focus.

Case in point...can someone...ANYONE...please tell me...why in GOD's NAME is Rudy Guiliani still walking around a FREE MAN????

This man was solely responsible for destroying all the evidence of the world's BIGGEST CRIME SCENE E-V-E-R...he's so cocky he even had the GALL to try and run for the PRESIDENCY of our nation!!! This man should be ROTTING IN JAIL FOREVER...

Here's something I want everyone to consider....please pay attention....get this....

EVEN if....EVEN IF...the government's official 9/11 Outrageous Conspiracy Theory Cover Story was RIGHT...EVEN IF their ridiculous boxcutter-Arab-hijacker mishmash crap WAS 100% PROVEN TRUE and WE 9/11 TRUTHERS WERE 100% DEAD WRONG.....GUILIANI should have STILL already been prosecuted!!

Do you hear what I'm saying?? I'll say it again...

EVEN if the Government's bogus cover story was somehow magically RIGHT and real planes brought those towers down...Rudy Guiliani would STILL be guilty of a MAJOR CRIME against this nation because he destroyed the evidence...and we've done absolutely NOTHING about it.

No wonder DUBYA BUSH and all his minions are so cocky!! They have absolutely NOTHING to be afraid of from us. Guiliani should be charged at a MINIMUM of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and DESTRUCTION OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE plus anything else we can tack onto it and he should be hung from the highest tree we can find...and perhaps THEN we might see who else is willing to play ball and come forward to spill the beans on the REST of these pathetic, dirty, cowardly cockroaches!!

Ya see...we don't really need to know about TV fakery, CGI, planes, thermite, DEWS, Arabs, boxcutters, the melting point of steel, the price of hockey pucks in Amsterdam, or where Cheney was having breakfast in order to convict GUILIANI THE CRIMINAL of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE for the 9/11 VICTIMS!

The big problem I see with this whole thing is...by focusing on the details and wasting too much precious time...we have failed to make it unpopular to be a member of "THE BIG CLUB". This should have been JOB ONE from the start! We need to make it very uncomfortable and very unprofitable for these bastards to withhold information about these HEINOUS CRIMES...we've done nothing sufficiently tangible to demand justice or even a RESPONSE from our elected representatives for the crimes we KNOW have been committed...by people we ALREADY KNOW COMMITTED THEM. We don't NEED the missing video from the Pentagon, we don't NEED flight data recorders, and we don't NEED anything else but to DEMAND GUILIANI's PROSECUTION without CEASING until it becomes a REALITY!

We've been far too busy trying to "figure it all out"...and more interested in trying proving our pet theories...instead of taking the appropriate steps that we KNOW should have already been taken. Get the obviously guilty people behind bars instead of rewarding them and get them to TALK...THEN more of the details of HOW, WHEN, WHERE, WHAT, and WHO will come forth.

Until we get this ONE THING RIGHT....until we get organized...until we NAIL GUILIANI and those who knowingly worked with him to hide the evidence...and quit fighting amongst ourselves, acting like spoiled little junior-high schoolyard bullies, fighting with our own fellow American brothers and sisters...we are doomed to fail.

Come on folks!!! Let's Git R Done!! It's TIME!!

cody said...

Hey KillTown,

You should check out the 9/11 Resolution Trilogy Volumes 1 through 3, each volume containing about 3 sections I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEn0i9VxwaA&feature=related

Although this theory does believe that drones were used, you should still watch these because it laid out many facts exposing the only motive for this attack, Money.
please take a look as I believe the "NO PLANE" theory, but I believe all everything else from these vids except the use of drones.

wwolfe33 said...

well, for the passengers, if they say that ther were passengers then evryone will think that ther were, most evryone just believes that somwere in the world are som families with missing familiy members. its kinda like in walmart if somone screams u dont do anything because u expect someone else to go see wats goin on, catch my drift

izzysykopth said...

killtown,
keep up the excellent effort here-my full length docu should be on google and yt by new years

izzysykopth

izzysykopth said...

Killtown,
Three Seconds to Impact is almost complete and about 75% is uploaded to my YT page. I think you will enjoy. Part 19 is good for a 'w' laugh!Send me a YT invite and the rest will come auto. Regards izzy

Thomas said...

you know i used to think this government cover up claim was bullshit but u guys opened my eyes to how there are so many flaws and cover ups on what actually happened. keep it up. aha i wonder what will happen if any kinda government agency sees this :P

Anonymous said...

Fuck - I wish you folks would put as much effort into doing something useful instead of fantasy conspiracy theories - you're not sceptics, you're deniers. The difference being you change the evidence to support your pre-existing ideology or belief and edit out or just plain ignore the parts that blow your fantasy out of the water.

Imagine if you used that creativity to go do something useful for humanity.....................

shey_dances said...

wow this has been good debating from both sides..after viewing this page and countless others..I am 98% convinced that there were no planes..I was SHOCKED at all the videos that supposedly capture tha planes hit on "live" tv. Well I have to agree with JPass..I would really like to kno what happened to the supposed passengers!! they have to be somewhere..I mean the calls from the plane to their families..did they crash in the ocean some where..I mean..if the planes didn't hit the wtc's..where did they go???

izzysykopth said...

Here is a couple of questions and a couple of facts that should clear up any confusion re: aircraft at the WTC . Have you ever seen a news camera crew w/o a reporter? Neither have I. Of the five 'live' shots of the alleged impacts there is not one reporter with any of those camera crews. It's like the anchors were the reporters. Did the networks just decide to share cameras? Why is there NOT ONE local newscast with a video of their own? And why do we know the identities of ALL of the people not associated with the networks that submitted videos of the alleged impacts and NOT know the identities of ANY of the news crews that captured the most spectacular shots in the history of live news? Answer:The videos were produced in the studios.Each tower weighed as much as 3000 fully loaded/fueled 767s. Each floor of the WTC weighed as much as 25 fully loaded/fueled 767s. Its like a fly running into a brick.

Ejaz said...

i really sorry,when i missed this incident then my eyes r doing pain so i was depress to miss this happen.

Bodazaffa said...

In 1973 the world trade center was at the 173rd floor in construction. At that same moment Asbestos was outlawed for use in private and commercial buildings. Asbestos was everywhere in each tower as the cost to remove it would be in the millions. The towers owners decided to pay the city years of fines for not complying to remove the asbestos until someone had the bright idea how investors would benefit by banking Millions if they came down. First attempt failed, the van in the basement didn't budge the structure, so bombs were strapped and everyone had their alibi. The planes were flown in remotely while the pilots had no control. People in the basement heard explosions below them as the percussions blew them down while some were slammed against walls.
The evidence is there, anyone not believing is completely deserving of a red sticker on their mailbox.

ld said...

CBS owned a PVI LVIS computer, purchased for the EARLY SHOW in 2000. CBS was the command center for the broadcast. CBS generated the PVI animation.

Do some research before all the links to CBS are pulled down owning a PVI LVIS COMPUTER SYSTEM IN 2000.

Start here for CBS links. NY TIMES link available last week was already pulled down.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060174013&postcount=89


I can pass on more information if you post something on the noted thread.

ld said...

Everyone who has a fake person who he/she said died on 911 is part of the scam. I live in NYC and I don't know anyone who knows anyone who died on 911, because no one died on 911. The whole day was planned fraud. No one died. 3000 people did not show up on the Social Security death list. Ganci & Mychal Judge did not appear on the death list.

I belong to St. Malachy's in Manhattan and no one know Judge. They only know of him. HUH.

So many lies, John & Mike Cappelletti's demolition company gutted the towers and planted the explosives. Their home base is in Upper Darby, PA., minutes away from the Philadelphia Naval Business Center where they obtained the explosives. Not hard to do when your witch 1/2 cousin is the PRESIDENT & your cousin was on the Board of Directors for Stratesec.

Barbara Bush & Ann Cappelletti are 1/2 sisters, illegitimate witch daughters of Aleister Crowley. Ann is a sorceror. She conceived Joey to die for cash cow son, John. That's another story. She was born in Sicily conceived at Thelema in 1924, came to So. Philadelphia in 1925 after she was born. Her mother moved to live in the STREGA witch Community of South Philadelphia. Want to know more? I have the downlo.

kega said...

I hate to say it but I am a true believer of that 9/11 was an inside job I am a long time resident of NYC and I lost an uncle and I was injured as well I was there to watch a plane fly into towers 1 and 2 build 7 was explosions and also building 1 and 2 they were not just crashes they were explosions but planes did hit the towers but it was definitely planned from the inside

zonsb said...

"These are the first plane crashes in its history that have not been investigated by the NTSB. An FBI official, when asked why not, replied, “It wasn’t necessary because we saw them on television.” But we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville “on television”..."

So why did the FBI put out a call for home videos of planes crashing into the twin Towers?

Perhaps because they wanted to collect the home videos that showed what actually did happen at the twin towers. So they would never reach the public beyond the person taking the video.

ld said...

kega, you are a plant posting on this blog, are you not? What is your name so that we can look up who you are.

What was your uncle's name so that we can look up if he is on the Social Security death list.

I say you are a paid poster, posting propaganda for the 911 perps. Ann Cappelletti, Barbara Bush's 1/2 sister, witch daughters of Aleister Crowley got together in 1970s to use WITCHCRAFT to get the Bushes into the WHITE HOUSE. 911 was a MEGA RITUAL. Everything on 911 was a satanic ritual from the FAKE PLANES to burning the gold in the WTC vaults. Witches burn gold in demonic rituals, then eat it or bury it to make it grow. Serendipity (know doubt run by witches in NyC) sells a gold sundae for $25,000. This whole process is call ALCHEMY.

Ann Cappelletti's mother had sex w Crowley at Abbey of Thelema, then used the money she was paid by Crowley disciples to said & live in South Philadelphia where there was/is a huge community of STREGA WITCHES.

There were no planes. Give us your uncle's name.

ld said...

PVI Princeton Virtual Media Services started its company in 1990. Although Sportvision may have been in the industry. PVI L-VIS Computer is the computer that generated the plane graphic on 911 01. There is a PVI listing on Wikioedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PVI_Virtual_Media_Services.

CBS bought PVI LVIS computer in 1999:
i took a class at PVI (Princeton Video Image, ownd by Cablevision), Lawrenceville, NJ, in August 2007. On the 4th day we learned to animate graphics on virtual path created on a PVI 3D wireframe. It was then that I saw how PVI was used to animate the plane graphic on 911. PVI graphics are mapped to specific colors on which they appear on the TV monitor.Graphics is assigned (ie, green of football field, SKY blue of the 911 morning sky for the plane graphic to be annimated on TWIN TOWERS.camera shot). I can’t put this information in your head. You have to understand how PVI graphics animation appear only on the color chosen for the graphic to appear. (ie green on football field, sky blue on 911 am)..

CBS bought a PVI LVIS computer in 1999 for the Early Show (during which time 911 01 plane graphic was animated).Early Show is broadcast from GM building on 59 St. and 5th avenue, NYC.
All TV anchors & crew, police, firemen, city, state, fed politicians. Administrators, Bush buddies,s cousins and business associates were involved in the hoax of 911 for INSURANCE FRAUD.

CBS network usedt PVI L-VIS computer for the EARLY SHOW in 2000. The PVI virtual insertion was. used on New Year’s Eve 1999 broadcast to insert a CBS logo of NBC logo, CBS PVI made news.

CBS Is Divided Over the Use Of False Images In Broadcasts By BILL CARTER
Published: January 13, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/13/business/cbs-is-divided-over-the-use-of-false-images-in-broadcasts.html?src=pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/13/business/cbs-is-divided-over-the-use-of-false-images-in-broadcasts.html?pagewanted=2

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2000/07/01/283715/index.htm
Is It Live, Or Is It Princeton Video? PVI may have invented virtual advertising, but the company’s slow start gave competitors some real openings.
By Abby Schultz July 1, 2000

http://www.digitalbroadcasting.com/article.mvc/Cablevision-invests-in-Princeton-Video-Image-0001

A mainstream network president had even warned in 2000 about fake plane crashes using CGI:
[Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News,] said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology — which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows — on news programs. The danger is “that it looks too real and therefore it’s wrong or potentially wrong,” he said. “I certainly agree it’s potentially subject to abuse.”

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

ld said...

Again, Ann Cappelletti, GWB's sorcerer aunt was given the job to run the groups of paid posters. She paid $1000 for every fake plane video. Ann knows all the witches in the world, or knows sorcerers who know other witches. $2.3 trillion was stolen from the pentagon for the initial setup of the 911 insurance fraud and plan concocted by Strategic Communicationi Laboratories, London. Who hasn't seen 3000 are missing from Social Security Death List for 911 01.

A common trick by lying paid propaganda posters is to say he/she had someone die on 911. Don't fall for it.

Bush cousins (all grandsons of Aleister Crowley), John & Mike Cappelletti's demolition company gutted and planted the explosives obtained at Philadelphia Naval Business Center. There home base--where Ann Cappelletti lives--is Upper Darby, PA.

ld said...

Correction CBS bought the PVI L-VIS computer for the EARLY SHOW in 1999. The Early Show was moved from 524 W. 57th St. Broadcast Center to GM Building (also where Apple is) on 59th and 5th Ave. from which control room, the PVI plane graphic was generated. i took a class at PVI, Lawrenceville, NJ to learn to operate the PVI LVIS computer in 2007. On the 4th day, we learned to animate a graphic on a virtual path. That is when I learned that a PVI L-VIS computer generated the plane graphic. Another poster sent me the links to CBS logo story on the millenium broadcast and Andrew Heyward warned of corruption that might follow this technology being aired on TV.

Josh said...

I think it's actually still insane people believe things like this.

Do you have any idea how big of a cover up and how many people would have to be in on this to actually believe there were no planes, have faked interviews, callers, eye-witnesses, news anchors, cameramen in on this deal?

Not only was it a gorgeous day it is also one of the most populated areas in the world. There is PLENTY of amateur video catching the planes at all different angles, hitting the same spot, creating the same fireball and most were released or uploaded to the internet that day or days following the attacks.

It might be real easy for you to use modern technology to just CGI the planes in today, but doing it on live TV in 2001 is out of a fairy tail.

How about we watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Not only does it show the attack from almost 30 different vantage points, many with sound, but they all show the same thing. You really think every different civilian who took most of the video just sent it to the FBI where they added the planes and told the public to "keep quiet?"

If the only footage of the plan was captured was on one camera, I might believe it. But when you have hundreds of eye witnesses and so much footage from so many different people, your far fetched idea goes right out the window.

I think the "no deaths" and blatantly calling other people who witnessed it first hand as liars, what a rebuttle huh?, should dis-credit you right off the bat.

I don't even know if this is active anymore, but I would love to see a response.

Even Steven said...

I was living in NYC on 09/11/2001 (now I live in the suburbs of NYC) and I watched the second plane hit the tower with my own eyes. I didn't watch it on TV until later that day, but I can tell you that it looked the same in real life as it did on TV, except for the different angle, obviously.

Even Steven said...

I watched the second plane hit the tower with my own eyes. Lots of people who were in Manhattan that morning watched it happen just as I did. I can't believe there are people who deny the fact that both towers were hit by commercial airliners.

ld said...

Even Steven, you are full of S***. You never saw a plane. You are a paid shill posting for the government CABAL. Thousands of liars, punks & witches post for the govt/corporate CABAL. There were no planes on 911.

911 was an ODE TO ALEISTER CROWLEY. Ann Cappelletti & Barbara Bush are illegitimate witch daughters of Crowley who got together in 1970s to set the masonic/demonic plan of blowing up the WTC twin towers into action. Ann conceived in 1923 at Abbey of Thelema w sex magick w her 20 yr old Sicilian mother used the money from Crowley's followers to sail to South Philadelphia to live in a Strega witch community there. Barbara Bush was conceived in Paris where Pauline Pierce was Crowley sex assistant in his sex stage act of eroto comatose lucidity. Pregnant 10/1924, Pauline returned to the U.S., gave birth to Barb 6/1925.

911 was a HUGE MEGA RITUAL, an illusion, perpetrated for massive insurance fraud & blowing up the WTC towers was to expose Isis to usher in the Antichrist.

The graphic plane animation you pretend to have seen was a PVI L-VIS computer generated animation inserted into the video closeup of burning towers. IT WAS A computer generated graphic.

Stop lying.

ld said...

Josh,

Hundreds of thousands of people are involved in the 911 mega ritual. They are occultists, masons, kabbalist-zionists and witches. George Bush gave the job of running the paid posters to his witch aunt, Ann Cappelletti. Witch Ann knows all the major witches throughout the world. Those witches know all the little witches in his/her area. Are you aware that it is estimated that 26% of the population practice witchcraft?

John/Mike (Bush cousins) Cappelletti got the lucrative demolition job of gutting, prepping & planting the explosives in the WTC towers. Cappelletti home base is in Upper Darby, PA, 90 miles from NYC.

btw, Josh, one of the standard paid perp comments is "Do you know how many people would have to be involved in setting up 911?" People lie for a few bucks. You lie for a few bucks. People made million$ on 911 in insurance fraud.