There were no holograms, and there wasn't any TV fakery. TV fakery doesn't work for those who were watching it for real.

As for the who, that one is open to debate. The how follows the who to a point, but equally the who follows the how (they are inextricably linked IMHO).

In a nutshell, I think aircraft hit WTC1 and 2 but they were brought down later by other means that wasn't structural failure. In light of seismic recordings, I'm inclined to believe they were brought down through controlled demolition. The seismic recordings are genuine and were independently recorded at a scientific laboratory.

WTC7 is the odd-ball - collapsing for no apparent reason other than CD. If the CD was legit, why isn't tis reported by the authorities? Hell - that is more credible than evading the issue entirely, which is quite apparent.

The Pentagon - something hit it, but what, I don;t think we'll know. The few pieces of footage that were released are intentionally selected to show nothing, There were dozens of cameras with good views, yet the only two that were released are obstructed. The government hold the rest.

Flight 93 will remain the biggest mystery of all. No witnesses, questionable official photos takejn by equally questionable witnesses, reports of no aircraft followed by later reports that 80% of the aircraft was recovered and stored, yet no public reconstruction of the wreckage to determine what occurred etc..

Missing FDRs, CVRs etc.. from crash sites where the boxes should have been perfectly OK, yet the CVR from Flight 93 survives impact straight into the ground (allegedly). THe FDER is missing, yet Flight 77 has the FDR but no CVR and questionable animation and FDR data files exist with no verifiable official source.

Known terrorists get stopped at security check points, yet they still make it onto the aircraft. NORAD has only 4 aircraft they can use to cover the whole of the US airspace. Confusion over flights, and the co-incidence of FEMA training planned for the day of 9/11.

I don't think I missed anything.

It doesn't add up.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Sarah Cohen
There are only two possibilities. Either Bush and the Entire Congress and the FBI and Popular Mechanics and the 911 Commission and Television Journalists and the New York Times and the Washington Post are telling the truth, as has been proven time and again, or else people were fooled by holograms that created the explosions on 9/11 and were used to plant the evidence as is claimed by this disinfo trash:

....and what about the other contradictions of the "official story"?

According to you its either the whitehouse is telling us the whole truth, or holograms did everything???

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
There were no holograms, and there wasn't any TV fakery. TV fakery doesn't work for those who were watching it for real.

How can you be so sure that "everyone" did infact see a plane smash into the tower? You are saying something which you can not back up, given that there is evidence against planes being used. You can not state conclusively that people saw the plane when they were the ones experiencing the moment, and not you.

Im still yet to be convinved that a plane can slice through thick steel box colummns so neatly, that a paper passport can somehow survive the impact of the explosion, and also how an engine that doesn't even fit the said aircraft come flying out the other side of the tower.. along with some of the nosecone (clear sign of fakery)

the "cartoon physics" displayed on 9/11 has got everyone stuck in a rut, where one is not willing to change his preconceptions about the day because he won't do some physical analysis of his own.

Im still finding it extremely funny that people will willingly state that no planes crashed in Shanksville and the Pentagon, despite eye witnessess in the area, yet are not willing to accept the same at the towers.

The power of suggestion + Mass Media Deception = Hypnotized Humans

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
How can you be so sure that "everyone" did infact see a plane smash into the tower? You are saying something which you can not back up, given that there is evidence against planes being used. You can not state conclusively that people saw the plane when they were the ones experiencing the moment, and not you.

There are a number of things to consider here, whether you're open-minded about this issue or not. The overarching one for me is that in order for there to have been no planes, all eyewitness testimony, all photographic images, and all news and amateur footage must be wrong, faked or manipulated. So must the plane-shaped impact holes and the plane parts that found their way to the streets of Manhattan. This body of evidence is sizeable.

Are you willing to state that you believe it's possible that this could be the case? Put another way, which would you say is more likely - at least one account/image of a plane is accurate or all of them are inaccurate?

Are you willing to state that you believe it's possible that this could be the case? Put another way, which would you say is more likely - at least one account/image of a plane is accurate or all of them are inaccurate?

Yes. The majority of the population, as Southpark stated in its own 9/11 episode, are "retarded".. People trust the media, more so than there own eyes. If your willing to believe that we actually invaded Iraq without seeing it with your own eyes, then you would also be willing to take their word on many other events, even if it conflicts with your own experience and morals.

How many people do we have who actually SAW the planes impact the tower..

Take the Pentagon attack; We have alot of witnesses who KNOW they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.. yet at the same time, lots of inconsistency about the plane itself, the flightpath, and what it actually did..

Look at the pictures.. no Boeing crashed there. Fact. The photo evidence is enough to draw that conclusion, unless you are too afraid to confront the obviousness of the truth in that particular case.

So why should the Twin Towers be any different?

More over, have you actually BEEN to NY? You don't exactly have a great viewpoint if your anywhere on Manhattan island.. to claim you saw the imcoming plane.. you either have to be up really high, or in a really unique location lol!

The physical evidence is pathetic at best.. an engine part that doesn't even belong to the said plane, a piece of fuselage atop of a building, and of course, the passport of one of the hijackers.. If they planted the last bit of evidence, then why not all of it..

The power of suggestion. How good is your memory in moments of shock, and there after?

The whole premise of brainwashing relies on shock and trauma to influence and program individuals... but in this case, the population of NY who were there on the day.

TV reinforces belief. People trust the TV. Need i say anymore?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
People trust the TV. Need i say anymore?

Actually, yes. This isn't just about what people say they saw (including some here at ATS), but also about what individuals photographed and videotaped. You have to be prepared to say that every single eyewitness account was wrong or fabricated; that every single photograph is a fake; that every video is fake (the 'live' broadcasts having been faked in real time); that the impact holes were faked; and that all the debris was planted.

You're also assuming that everyone reading this and sharing their opinion agrees with you that no plane hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed at Shanksville. That isn't so. As a matter of interest, you might be surprised to learn that Killtown believes a plane crashed at Shanksville - just not Flight 93.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Actually, yes. This isn't just about what people say they saw (including some here at ATS), but also about what individuals photographed and videotaped. You have to be prepared to say that every single eyewitness account was wrong or fabricated; that every single photograph is a fake; that every video is fake (the 'live' broadcasts having been faked in real time); that the impact holes were faked; and that all the debris was planted.

They are not necessarily wrong. There may well have been a plane in the vincinity of Manhattan.. there was the whitejet flying over the Whitehouse, caught on camera by a Spanish news crew. Some may have seen a plane, but through TV had the belief reinforced that the plane they saw hit the tower etc.

Debris was most certainly planted, given the obviousness that it was done at both the Pentagon and Shanksville also.

Impact holes lol.. funny how a plane can slice neatly through steel beams..

I am prepared to believe that 9/11 was the biggest mass media deception of mankind. It fits with something in the bigger picture also, the "endgame" scenario, in a special way that i will not go into detail here, as that is a relatively new conclusion that i have established.

Originally posted by coughymachine
You're also assuming that everyone reading this and sharing their opinion agrees with you that no plane hit the Pentagon and that no plane crashed at Shanksville.

If they do think a plane crashed in that Shanksville field then they are either deluding themselves, or if they believe it wholeheartedly then they are retarded. There is simply no way that a Boeing crashed in that field, end of story. You either see it, or you don't. Look at the pictures. Enough said.

And the Pentagon.. again, look at the pictures. Examine the flightpath/s. Examine the damage supposedly caused by the Boeing. Yet again, you either recognise the fact that no Boeing crashed there, or you don't.

I will accept that some people think a missile or smaller plane crashed, but only because they are looking to fill the holes in their argument, and have yet to realise they are being misled by the very people they are trying to fight against..

The CCTV release of the Pentagon "impact".. Rumsfeld "shoot down" leak..

You think they were coincidences? They give you just enough evidence so you can jump to a conclusion, but not enough so that you can unravel the truth of the matter.

Holograms? I can see why people would think there are disinformation campaigns going on even with 9/11 conspiracy theories. This hologram theory just seems counter productive, I don't see how they could get the people who were actually there to believe that planes crashed if they did not crash. People were taping the attacks, they were there live. Some only caught the 2nd crash on tape because they weren't paying attention to the towers until the first one hit. How can you explain eyewitness testimony of the 2nd plane hitting? people were watching the towers in person for hours, They couldn't fake this attack with holograms.

Originally posted by Sarah Cohen
Either Bush and the Entire Congress and the FBI and Popular Mechanics and the 911 Commission and Television Journalists and the New York Times and the Washington Post are telling the truth

In other words, elements of the US government and US mainstream media.

Hate to break it but neither are known for great objectivity.


Might as well list us off all the ancient authorities telling us that the world is flat. How could so many people be so wrong, and on such an obvious falsity? For hundreds of years they believed this and persecuted those who proved otherwise. Why? Put simply, it's because most people are stupid and resist change. It scares them; it threatens their worldview.

Not that I believe holograms were used, but the whole mentality of "the government and media said it so it must be true" is a stereotypical sheep mentality. If one could pull strings from a few positions of great power, one could run a whole world of these people because of the illogical sense of authority that they're raised with, and no one would suspect a thing.

If you don't believe me then consider Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany, as one shining example of the frailty of human sociology from the 20th century. Concentration camps were a conspiracy theory too.

To this day Germans don't like talking about it, but at least they can't deny it so easily anymore.

I believe that the occams' razor theory should apply here.
There is a mountain of evidence which support the facts that two large commercial aircraft struck the twin towers.

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

This is not always the case of course, but when holographs are mentioned I cannot help but think there are people in powerful positions somewhere having a great laugh at the latest conspiracy theory, while we continue to keep barking up the wrong tree, we appear to be no closer to the truth almost six years down the line.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
They are not necessarily wrong. There may well have been a plane in the vincinity of Manhattan.. there was the whitejet flying over the Whitehouse, caught on camera by a Spanish news crew. Some may have seen a plane, but through TV had the belief reinforced that the plane they saw hit the tower etc.

Alternatively, some may actually have seen planes approach and hit the towers. Others may actually have photographed planes approach and hit the towers. Yet more may actually have videotaped planes approach and hit the towers. Finally, debris found on the street may actually have been real.

That said, none of the above means the planes in question were piloted by the alleged hijackers, but that's a different topic.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Debris was most certainly planted, given the obviousness that it was done at both the Pentagon and Shanksville also.

Or, again, it might actually have got there as the result of planes crashing.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Impact holes lol.. funny how a plane can slice neatly through steel beams..

So how are you suggesting they got there?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I am prepared to believe that 9/11 was the biggest mass media deception of mankind.

Indeed, you seem wedded to this view

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
It fits with something in the bigger picture also, the "endgame" scenario, in a special way that i will not go into detail here, as that is a relatively new conclusion that i have established.

Don't tease...

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
If they do think a plane crashed in that Shanksville field then they are either deluding themselves, or if they believe it wholeheartedly then they are retarded. There is simply no way that a Boeing crashed in that field, end of story. You either see it, or you don't. Look at the pictures. Enough said.

Well, you'll have to take that up with Killtown, who believes a plane did crash at Shanksville - he just argues that it wasn't Flight 93.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
And the Pentagon.. again, look at the pictures. Examine the flightpath/s. Examine the damage supposedly caused by the Boeing. Yet again, you either recognise the fact that no Boeing crashed there, or you don't.

Whilst I accept that both Shanksville and the Pentagon are questionable, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a plane crashed at both sites. Whether those planes were Flight 93 and Flight 77 respectively or not is another matter.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I will accept that some people think a missile or smaller plane crashed, but only because they are looking to fill the holes in their argument, and have yet to realise they are being misled by the very people they are trying to fight against..

And you don't think alleged synchrosnised TV fakery, alleged multiple eyewitness falsification and missiles cloaked in holographs amounts to filling holes in one's argument?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The CCTV release of the Pentagon "impact".. Rumsfeld "shoot down" leak..

So now you're proposing that Rumsfeld admitted shooting down a real plane. Was it Flight 93? Was it shot down over Shanksville? If not, then where? And why recreate a scene over Shanksville if there was a real crash site elsewhere?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
You think they were coincidences? They give you just enough evidence so you can jump to a conclusion, but not enough so that you can unravel the truth of the matter.

What you call 'coincidences' I call a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, inaccurate assumptions and contradictory conclusions. Having said that, I remain open and continue to look at all new material as it is presented.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by coughymachine]