No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

Look at that ... I killed a hot and heavy 9-11 thread...

hmmm ... so I guess the battle over planes/no planes .... rrrrreeallly might just be a red herring distraction?

thought so.

Originally posted by thedman
Akluminium aircraft will easily penetrate a building - even ones made of stone

Thats funny, in this photo an aluminum aircraft is torn apart by hitting small trees, no where near the strength of the reinforced wall and collumns of the Pentagon.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Thats funny, in this photo an aluminum aircraft is torn apart by hitting small trees, no where near the strength of the reinforced wall and collumns of the Pentagon.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

However, if you notice, the plane fully entered the forest

Originally posted by gavron
However, if you notice, the plane fully entered the forest

IT DID ?????????????????

If you actually look at the photo you will see it only hit a few small trees.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Ok first of all, did you read the first line of my post? I made absolutely no mention of the 'nose in nose out' theory, I said watch from 5:39 onwards. The clip I posted shows another video after the 'nose in nose out' one.

Actually there are several different subsonic cruise missiles that have a cruising speed of around 500mph and you do know that missile payloads can be changed right? Just search google and you will find several different models of subsonic cruise missiles that do in fact look like small planes.

With regards to my comment "for every witness that said they saw a plane" I apologise, that was bad wording on my part. I originally had "It seems to me that for every witness" but when proofreading my post I took it out because I used "It seems" again 2 paragraphs down and it bugged me having it twice. Given that it was 4am and I wanted to get some sleep, rather than reword it I took the lazy option and just deleted one of them. In saying that, asking me to producing a list of witnesses that didn't see a plane goes both ways, do you have a list of witnesses that did see one? And if you do, how many of them say they saw a large commercial airliner compared to ones that saw a small plane? It just reinforces the point of what I said, which wasn't 'there was no plane because a lot of people didn't see one' but that you can't take either side as concrete evidence because there are problems to both sides of the argument.

Please reread my original post, nowhere have I claimed that no planes hit the towers, I merely presented another video that I haven't seen debunked yet and put forward a couple of theories. I assure you I have done (and am still doing) my research, hence why I posted my questions here.

This also reinforces what I said at the end of my original post, when you already have your mind made up it's hard to look at something from a non-biased perspective. I don't personally believe that there were no planes hitting the WTC (Pentagon and Pennsylvania are a different story) but I am still open to the possibility that I could be wrong which is why I'm doing my own research.

...every 911 conspiracy disproven...so they got pissed....so they say "well there are no planes...they where fake"....come one....are people really this moronic?

reply to post by sv_gravity 800


what is unbelievable is people like you believe everything they hear.

reply to post by ThePatientMental


a cruise missile.....so a missile as big as a plane...made an explosion about the same size as the plane? LOL..a cruise missile...you 9/11 truthers are nothing but a joke, there is a new "theory" to your "theories" every 5 min. Pick one.....or better yet....prove one.

Originally posted by sayiamu

Ok... I'm no disinfo guy ... FAR from "Tampa Bay"....

I'll say ... I could actually buy the "no plane" thing ... there is definitely something going on with what was broadcast that day ...

let's face it .. TPTB have tight control over what comes on our TVs.... advanced technology that we have superficial knowledge of and an agenda....

Thanks for the comment sayiamu, Glad to see there are some other people using their noodle. By saying that there were, "hijacked planes flown into the towers", IS buying into the OS. Let's look beyond the TV fakery on 9/11 and use our brains.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
Actually there are several different subsonic cruise missiles that have a cruising speed of around 500mph. Just search google and you will find several different models of subsonic cruise missiles that do in fact look like small planes.

Find a missile that comes anywhere near the size of a jetliner. None of the pictures and videos show small planes hitting the towers. So that point is automatically moot.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
In saying that, asking me to producing a list of witnesses that didn't see a plane goes both ways, do you have a list of witnesses that did see one?

Following is the definition of "burden of proof" that you should read and understand regarding your above question:

burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.

The proper presumption is that jetliners hit the towers on 9/11. All videos and images show jetliners hitting the towers. Most all witnesses that had a view of the towers also concur that planes hit the towers.

Since you and the rest of the no-planers are seeking to prove the opposite, then you bear the burden of proof to provide witnesses that saw no planes or that saw missiles, etc. I hope that's clear enough.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
how many of them say they saw a large commercial airliner compared to ones that saw a small plane?

That is irrelevant. We know from videos and images that the planes that hit the towers were jetliners. People who claimed the planes were "small planes" were either too far away or didn't have a good look/view of the planes.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
but that you can't take either side as concrete evidence because there are problems to both sides of the argument.

That's a false statement due to your lack of research. There were plane parts all over Manhattan as well as in the debris. All videos and images show large jetliners hitting the towers and all witnesses that had a view of the towers and the plane trajectories saw the planes. That gives you witnesses, video and physical evidence all proving planes hit the towers. That means there is 100% absolute concrete evidence that planes hit the towers, period. And that's not even mentioning the physical damage to the towers which further proves jetliners hit both towers.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
This also reinforces what I said at the end of my original post, when you already have your mind made up it's hard to look at something from a non-biased perspective.

I do have my mind made up. The "no planes at the WTC" theories were well-researched years ago, debunked, and deemed disinformation. Nowhere in the entire 9/11 truth movement are such theories supported and most places have even banned the discussion/debate of the topic.

Witnesses, images, videos, physical plane parts, physical damage to the towers all prove jetliners struck both towers. The no-planers get around this by saying the witnesses are all liars, the images and videos are fake, the plane parts were planted, and the damage to the towers was done by explosives. All without a single piece of evidence to prove their deliberately false claims.

Any sane, intelligent, researched person can see that. There's nothing else to debate on this topic.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
Have a look from 5:39 onward in this video, where is the plane?

Sorry if this has been debunked already but I haven't seen it posted in this thread yet. By the way, saying "well it could just be this" to someone's theory isn't debunking, I've just noticed a few people here seem to think that.

Most witnesses who say they saw a plane (not counting the highly controlled media) say they saw a SMALL plane, which a cruise missile could easily be mistaken for to the general public. Couldn't it be possible that cruise missiles were used and then the 767's were digitally added in? That could cover both sides of the argument. Also for every witness that said they saw a plane, there is one that said they didn't so that argument is invalid for both sides.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that when people already have their minds made up, they tend to quickly accept any evidence to support their own theory and instantly reject anything opposing it no matter how good or bad said evidence is.

It seems to me that most people here already have their minds made up and short of going back in time to NY on 9/11 and personally watching the attacks unfold, they aren't going to change them.

Keep an open mind, just because you don't believe it is possible, doesn't mean it isn't, I thought that would be a given on a site like this

I am in complete agreement with your entire post It seems a lot of eyewitnesses say they saw a SMALL plane on 9/11, it was everyone in the media that was saying a large plane.

This is a very telling video, first notice that the quality is very good (unlike the networks during the attack) but what is weird is the second "hit" seems to have been edited out? Anyway listen to the fireman say, "it was a large bomber style green aircraft" hmmm

www.history.co.uk...
click launch, then click on trinity church.

First, you have clearly not spoken to many people who were in NYC at the time of the event, because this was seen by millions of people. There were people in NJ who witnessed a "commercial" airliner fly into the WTC towers. From NJ, they would definitely differentiate between a small plane and a much larger airliner.

Second. If you had ever personally witnessed a cruise missile flight up close, you would not confuse it with an airliner - period. Also, consider the setting. If there was any location that would likely differentiate between an ALCM and an airliner, it would be the personnel at the PENTAGON!!!! ALCMs are designed to penetrate its target, THEN explode. The blast pattern at the Pentagon would have been remarkably different than what was seen. And since the Pentagon is the home of Bomb Damage Assessment, that type of blast pattern would have been immediately recognized.

Clearly the parttern of damage at the Pentagon does NOT show evidence of blast-pressure destruction consistent with the pattern of high explosives. It is much more consistent with over-pressure damage from the kinetic energy of the airframe and the detonation of the jet fuel. Just as with the Challenger disruption, there are tremendous clues present when considering blast wave damage versus over-pressure damage.

People have the right to any beliefs they want, but this is an argument that will not be supported by those with military training involving such an assessment.

Originally posted by people=oooo
...every 911 conspiracy disproven...so they got pissed....so they say "well there are no planes...they where fake"....come one....are people really this moronic?

Actually no 9/11 conspiracy has been disproven.

You do know the official story is a conspircay theory since it is based on a conspiracy?

Also the fact remains the official sotry has not been proven with actual facts and evidence since most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Also the fact remains the official sotry has not been proven with actual facts and evidence since most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

...except for all that evidence used in the Moussaoui trial.

Another interesting tidbit from the virtual map is the Spring St. & W. Broadway video, notice what the in-studio TV news reporters say after the second "hit".

Now remember that the first tower has already exploded so all cameras from the news agencies were focused on the towers, but yet listen to what the news anchors say, "we were told that a plane hit the first tower, the second we have NO IDEA!

Also note the couple that was video taping the towers said, "the second tower just exploded, how did that happen." They were only one mile northwest with a very good view.

www.history.co.uk...
click launch, then click Spring St. & W. Broadway

The guy says "What's this other jet doing? WHAT'S THIS OTHER JET DOING?":





He sees the jet and says it's a jet before it hits the tower. Stop the BS disinformation please.

I totally agree. It's plausible that the government doctored footage of the twin towers, as well as any other footage taken of the world trade center, and silenced anyone who saw it. Now you're probably asking yourself "how would they have rounded up every single piece of footage and doctor it, as well as silence everyone who say the event?". Well the answer is quite simple: Everyone in NYC is a government agent.

But sarcasm aside, why do people believe stuff like this? I can understand if you were to say the pentagon, but the WTC? Come on.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by technical difficulties]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The guy says "What's this other jet doing? WHAT'S THIS OTHER JET DOING?":

He sees the jet and says it's a jet before it hits the tower. Stop the BS disinformation please.

Bonez, please try to use some of those brain cells up there. Can't you see that was one of the "staged" videos? Can't you tell that that "jet black" plane looks outta place on a clear sunny day.
Also freeze frame it right before the "plane" hits the building and you will see one of the wings disappears.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Why are you breaking down every part of my posts except the most important part? The 2nd part of the clip I posted? The whole reason I even posted in the first place.

Apart from this clip I am only theorising but still no-one has made a single comment about it. It clearly shows the same video recording, one with a plane hitting and one without. Either someone put in a CGI plane or someone CGI'd the plane out, it can also be noted that the man responsible for this "amateur" footage, Luc Courchesne (www.courchel.net) is a 3D visual arts expert. He invented “Panoscope360” (www.panoscope360.com), a sophisticated 3-D installation which simulates “alternative life experiences”.

If the man can create something like this:

Seems like putting a CGI plane into a video clip would be a piece of cake for him.

All I'm asking is if someone can debunk the 2nd part of the first clip I posted, not the first 5min 39sec of it but the rest AFTER that.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
All I'm asking is if someone can debunk the 2nd part of the first clip I posted, not the first 5min 39sec of it but the rest AFTER that.

Fine. Look at the first part without the plane. See how choppy and unsmooth the video is? Someone took out the few frames of the plane. The video with the plane is very smooth and not choppy. Very simple to see.

Originally posted by ThePatientMental
Seems like putting a CGI plane into a video clip would be a piece of cake for him.

Until you or some other no-planer can explain how CGI planes got onto home videos like the one I posted above, then stop saying it's possible that CGI planes were used on 9/11.