It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


VIDEO: Large Airliners Did NOT Hit the Twin Towers on 9/11!

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+35 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:48 AM
I cannot believe people still even debate this issue... It literally blows my mind that some people still have not yet realized the obvious media fakery involved in the 9/11 deception. Most likely because there is an enormous amount of disinformation in this forum, especially from those who claim 'explosives' can explain all the evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered. Thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents, all must which be explained, and all which have been explained by Dr. Wood. Explosives do not explain all the evidence, but if you disagree, please feel free to explain to me why you think they do. A brief summary of the evidence which must be explained can be found here: Wake up folks, large airliners did not hit the buildings. Please consider the following information before you disagree:

You can review the 'live' 9/11 footage here, which clearly shows the faked impact footage of the second plane. One 'live' shot shows the plane rapidly descending from well above the impact zone, where as another 'live' shot from a side angle shows the 2nd plane flying perfectly horizontal before it strikes the second tower:

Also, if you wish to review a statistical analysis of the 'eye-witnesses', which shows that 80% of eye-witnesses admit to not seeing and/or hearing an airliner, you can check out the analysis here in this free e-book by Andrew Johnson:


Make up your own mind, but I think it is obvious that large airliners did not hit the buildings.

In Peace,



P.S. - An avid AE911Truth-supporting ATS member claims that 'no planers' are part of a 'disinformation' campaign. Since I feel that it is important for you to view ALL the evidence you can from ALL sides of the story, I will now share a link to his article with you all. Please view ALL the evidence you can, and make up your own mind. We are all intelligent human beings who are capable of deciding what is true and what is false for our own selves, so do not let ANYONE tell you what to think or believe. Look at ALL the evidence, and make up your OWN mind. You can view his "no planers are disinfo" article here:

and you can view a 'cliff notes' style page which briefly summarizes the thousands of photos, graphs, videos, and documents which Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, here:


edit on 18-9-2010 by PookztA because: Long Live TRUTH, JUSTICE, PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, & RESPECT

edit on 19/9/2010 by Mirthful Me because: Removed personal information, spammed YouTube videos.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:53 AM
People are too scared of the truth.
People wake up in the morning
Make Breakfest
Make Lunch
Go to work
Eath Lunch
Come home
Make dinner
Go to sleep

they dont want to be thinking that their own country bombed the twin towers while they're working in a office building

What ever the truth is, alot of people dont want to hear it, they want to continue on with their life.

and 'they' know this

+35 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:36 AM
Contary to what you think you are presenting, it cleary shows that a plane did in fact enter and explode

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:50 AM


posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM
I always believed it was quite absurd to think airliners didn't hit those buildings, however I am thinking twice about it now. It actually does seem as though those planes were edited into the footage now that I look closely. I hadn't seen that footage where the nose of the plane comes out the other side of the building either, that is real suss IMO. It acts more like one of those bunker buster warheads, except it seems they timed the explosion slightly too late because it explodes just after exiting the building. The other thing I found really suss, is in that first video, when the second plane hits, only the people watching the "live" footage seem sure a plane has hit the building.

EDIT: That 3rd video is really interesting as well, a girl who was at the scene and had witnessed the first explosion, reports that she didn't hear or see a plane, and there wasn't even any talk of a plane at the time, as if the only ones actually aware of the planes by that stage were people watching it through a box (a TV dummy).

EDIT: In that 4th video, does anyone know what that graph at the end is supposed to be? The video interference is a key piece of evidence IMO.

edit on 18/9/10 by CHA0S because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by PookztA

Star and flag.
There's other videos including how building 7 was reported to have collapsed before it actually did. Also one of the videos you have regarding the pentagon? How's the streetlights still standing infront of the hole? Surely they would have been flattened too.
I've always said cgi.
This link you gave goes without saying.
Wonder if the same bloke made another video on a different building and it went viral what would happen?

Few other things I would like to mention if I may? Turner construction was apparently working on the floors on both towers prior to this. They also have connections to the towers in Dubai?

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by PookztA

I gotta agree that explosives could not have caused all the damage in the vicinity of the WTC, especially to those bizarrely melted and half-melted cars and trucks. That almost seems like some kind of advanced energy weapon, which was briefly used in Iraq.

As for the no-planes theory, well, hologram technology is extremely sophisticated. I still think the planes were remote controlled, mainly due to Dov Zakheim's company and the remote control plane mural on the dancing Israeli's van.

Anyway, I think everyone should keep an open mind (including the trusters) and not rule anything out. Go where the evidence leads.

+61 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:37 AM
I watched the second plane hit with my own eyes from the street corner in New York City on 9/11! I can tell you for an absolute fact that an airplane did indeed hit the tower. I would now like to take this moment and agree with a statement from the post that says that the "no planers" are part of the disinformation"ers". However on the conspiracy side I am positive that explosives were used in some way or another because an airplane could not take down those towers. Even if the airplane was packed with explosives the towers would not have crumbled to dusk in mid air the way they did. Thank you for your disinfo and goodnight.


+13 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:40 AM
If you believe the government was involved with 9/11 fine, that can be debated. To deny that planes hit the towers is INSANE. Its absurd. I am not a truther but when I read this dribble the first thing I think is that these posts are being created by people for the sole purpose of discrediting that movement.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:22 AM
I have no intention of debating whether the WTC collapsed from planes or bombs or something else entirely, but I do have a question.

In all the footage that has been uploaded in the media and on the internet is there any footage of the planes flying along the NYC skyline prior to impact with the North and South Towers? Did anybody videotaping in NYC on 9/11 catch the planes minutes before they hit the WTC?

The reason why I ask is because we always seem to see the planes on impact, or a few seconds before impact, but I'd really like to actually see any footage that caught the planes flying low over the NYC skyline before they hit the Towers if such exists.

+1 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:36 AM
reply to post by PookztA

Thanks for posting...a lot of hard work has obviously gone into this post.

There's a lot to think about here.

The fact that a commercial jet, screaming along at 500-600 mph at near sea level, didn't get seen or HEARD by the public or the truly strange.

Anyone who's ever been to an airport and heard one of these jet's only starting up it's jet engines KNOWS just how deafening these things are..there's legislation in place simply because of the noise levels of commercial jets (night flight restrictions etc.).

At the very low altitude these planes had to be flying at, the sound would have been amplified by the sound waves bouncing off and reverberating around the surrounding a jet at full throttle, at near sea level, would have been the same as someone standing right next to you, shouting through a megaphone pressed right up to your ears...yet there was NO reaction from the public on the sidewalk, until the 'boom' from the explosion?

They only stop and look once the tower had the explosion, not even glancing upward before the boom and fireball?

Then of course, the reporter on the ground had NO IDEA an aircraft was involved, until she was TOLD to describe the plane that hit..not only that, but it was also reported that nobody was talking about or had a clue an aircraft was involved!!

HOW can this be consistent with an aircraft screaming in at near sea level at 500-600mph, in an area where NO commercial jet aircraft would normally be? HOW?

Where i live, there are always commercial jets flying over, and the noise from the engines drives me bonkers, even though they are 15,000 feet up! They are THAT loud...i cannot begin to imagine the extreme noise that would be generated from one flying at such a low altitude at that would probably be close to, if not actually eardrum shattering! everyone knows this about commercial jets, surely?

HOW can a twin engined, commercial passenger jet under the conditions reported in the OS as fact, go unnoticed..the answer is there is absolutely no way that could...not unless the entire population of Manhattan was stone deaf anyway.

Thanks for posting S&F.

+1 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by LifENcircleS

The reality here is mate, we only have your word for that don't we.

You joined ATS in 2009, over 8 years after the event...8 years is plenty of time for the ptb to position agent bloggers all over the web to add a tidbit here and there, a conversation steer or misdirection here and there, and a fair amount of "I was there, i saw it with my own eyes gov'nor, honest" here and there.

Unless you're prepared to step out of your anonymity bubble, and go publicly on record so you and your history, can be thoroughly checked out and researched, your statement about seeing an aircraft hit the tower, is worth less than a bag of peanuts mate.

Wanna let us all know who you are, so the 9/11 researchers can dig about for any connections you might have to tptb?

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:52 AM
Just like to add that the quick and dirty work done with the CGI plane was impressive.

I wonder what the public reaction would be, if a lot more time was spent on doing another version of a CGI plane smashing into a different building?

The White house or the Empire State building or some other high profile structure perhaps.

Post it to the breaking news or send it to a news agency and see if people are just as quick to believe it.

I'd bet they would.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:12 AM
Part of the first video shows what appears to be a missile hitting the building, any more comments on this?

What could be the reason for covering this up? A strike from another country perhaps, where retaliation could have escalated the situaltion into a war of epic proportions?

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:38 AM
I agree there are some very strange things about the videos shot that day - the discoloration, the lack of any footage of airplanes further away from the towers and the odd "disappearance" of the second plane into the south tower.
If you have ever been to Manhattan then you would know it;s literally like walking through a canyon. Very few people down at street level would have even seen the planes before impact nor would they have heard them coming due to the speed of the planes and sound, the amount of noise down at street level (deafening to me) and the acoustic reflections from the buildings around you.
This is not to say that there was not any video fakery going on, I believe there was but it's function was to further confuse research into the facts of what actually happened.
Anyone going to the trouble to plan all this would surely have thought to tamper with both the evidence and the public effort to find the facts. In chess, it's called the endgame. To the Pentagon it would be just another psy-op, albeit a very large and complicated one.
I am willing to discuss any and all theories though I feel some have more merit than others. Until the facts are known, I feel I have no choice but to keep an open mind and to continue searching for better clues.
Right or wrong it's still good to keep throwing ideas out there. You never know what might come back.
Star and flag for effort Abe.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:40 AM
I know something hit the towers, but as yet I have seen no evidence which proves what it was. I know that the OS is a massive cover up.

I know that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon, and that it was blown up from inside. For those who still doubt this, please see CIT's National Security Alert.

I don't know if Dr, Judy Wood's thesis provides the definitive explanation, but I find her logic compelling and can find no answers to the many vitally important questions she raises,

One of these questions, which I don't believe has been answered satisfactorily elsewhere, and as far as I am aware gets very little attention, is how in h*** did all those cars get damaged, especially those in geographic locations some way from the towers?

I know that Dr. Wood's thesis has come under a lot of vicious attacks. I can't help wondering why.

I think we all need to be aware that the perpetrators have a huge, and I mean huge, amount invested in not being exposed. I know they have huge resources at their disposal, and that they are callous and cold blooded enough to plan and execute the murder of thousands of innocent people. So, it is a given that these people will have agents infiltrated into all the 9/11 truther groups and organisations and will be using all their expertise to divert, disrail, discredit and confuse all the evidence which is emerging.

The CIT guys who did the amazing research on the Pentagon lie (see link above) have also come under attack.

So as far as I am concerned I don't necessarily consider that membership of any given individual in a recognised 9/11 group is a definitive confirmation of their legitimacy.

I have no doubt also that the perpetrators have a 'Plan B' prepared, that they intend to use if 9/11 pressure for truth becomes such that some admissions are inevitable. They will still try to direct the 'truth' in a direction which still maintains the cover of the real perpetrators.

We have to remain objective and alert and willing to explore all plausible explanations on their merit, because in there somewhere lies the full truth and by working together, piece by piece that full truth will and is emerging. That full truth is what we need to expose and bring to account the monsters who did this.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:57 AM
Beware of the OP in this thread. He/she believes in "dr." Judy Wood's work. If people actually believe the OP there is no hope for you in your critical thinking skills. I also believe the OP is a disinfo agent. I noticed also that since the movement has increased so has the disinfo.

I thought ATS was closely monitoring these threads?

edit on 18-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:58 AM
With regard to WTC7, IMO the expose provided by LaBtop, in his thread ' WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human is spot on and conclusive.

So, my current thinking is that the two pieces of evidence on WTC7 and the Pentagon are proof beyond reasonable doubt of many vital facts regarding what happened to those buildings. So, is it possible that there could be a scenario where the methods used for the respective buildings were not identical, or that together these pieces of evidence provide a whole? For example, given the enormous size of the Towers, is it possible that another method was used, such as that suggested by Dr. Woods, or that the DC and Dr. Woods aren't mutually exclusive, but complimentary?

I feel excited, because it seems clear to me that the incontrovertible and damning truth is really starting to emerge and I am so grateful to all those people who are using their expertise, their time, their energy and in many cases their own money to uncover the truth. This is indeed service to humanity.


edit on 18-9-2010 by wcitizen because: punctuation

edit on 18-9-2010 by wcitizen because: syntax

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:01 AM

Originally posted by PookztA
I cannot believe people still even debate this issue...

Neither can I.

Planes hit the World Trade Center. There were thousands of eye witness' on the ground. I spoke to an eye witness in Washington DC who saw the plane come in and hit the Pentagon.

The towers may have been brought down after the hit in order to bring them straight down instead of having them fall over and kill many many more people .... but planes definately hit them.

I, too, can't believe that people still even debate the issue of if planes hit the towers or not.


posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:11 AM
One of the pieces of evidence which for me most throws doubt on the integrity of the planes hitting the towers theory is the video where you can clearly see the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building.

Not only does this defy common sense, that the plane could slice through all those monster steel beams and come out the other side with its nose intact, but it shows some kind of tampering with the video by a manistream news channel. Therefore, I have to ask myself why they would see fit to do this, or even how the thought to do so could even come to mind in the middle of such a horrendous tragedy.

Video can be seen here:

9/11 nose comes out the far side of the tower.

edit on 18-9-2010 by wcitizen because: sp

edit on 18-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in