Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with

    Tim what makes you superior to the "average" person, that makes it possible for you to see the fakes?

    It was some type of drone.

    The Naudet bros footage.

    That a terribly compressed low res gif, and even still you can see the size of the plane is significantly larger than a small drone, and is a twin engined jet plane.


  • #203
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    HOW TO MOCK A MINORITY OF COWARDLY FOOLS

    A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses, which has been proven true by jfk and 911 polls throughout the last four decades.

    When the government and media are responsible for these and other outrageous acts of corruption, there is nothing they can do but perpetuate the official lies in hopes of convincing anyone of said propaganda. It soothes them of their darkest fears that humanity may wake up and realize how completely ignorant they are.

    Another theory, is the government crapologist gets a certain ego-boost from supporting big government conclusions on such things as 911, and that makes them feel superior over those who actually operate in a real maverick fashion. It gives them a sense of self-importance that they may not have developed through normal processes like the rest of us. Either way, it's pathetic to see how this irrational minority of silly humans attach themselves to goverment theories which cannot, nor will ever be proven.


  • #204
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    CNN.com - Transcripts
    This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west.

    OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

    Dr. J., what can you tell us?

    DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

    I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

    fast-wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • #205
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    Tim,

    First of all let me ask about what you have posted, can you clarify your position on something,

    First you say
    tim allen wrote: »
    Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery

    Then you state
    tim allen wrote: »

    A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses,

    So the average person (i.e. most people) does not understand that the footage was faked but then it changed to a small percentage who dont understand its fake?

    Also may I ask that you answer some of the questions you were asked if possible, such as;
    SdoowSirhc wrote: »
    Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but if there was no plane what happened to the two planes with all the people who were said to have died?
    clever_name wrote: »
    What about all the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit?



    If people planned far enough ahead to have bombs in the buildings and managed to alter every image taken of the event why could they not do a better job than make "very obvious fake imagery"?
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Tim what makes you superior to the "average" person, that makes it possible for you to see the fakes?




    The Naudet bros footage.

    That a terribly compressed low res gif, and even still you can see the size of the plane is significantly larger than a small drone, and is a twin engined jet plane.

    Direct answers to these questions would be very much appreciated.


  • #206
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    I have no obligation to prove or disprove anything in regards to the south tower, in order to prove beyond refute the existence of a drone which came from west of the towers before circling around. That said, I showed fake imagery of one plane, which all by itself raises reasonable doubt about the official flight path.

    All folks did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the facts of the drone seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.


  • #207
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg

    "I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

    David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one because there was no plane.

    "...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
    seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
    TOWER JUST EXPLODED    . It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
    we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
    hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
    THE TIME    . I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
    making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
    picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower    ..."

    wtcnoplanepic.jpg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25


  • #208
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what really would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.

    two-flight-paths_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtctwopaths.jpg
    wtcbbcdivebomb.jpg
    fake-bird-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • #209
    WhatNowForUs?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭WhatNowForUs?


    Son look. Near, Far - Big, Small.


  • #210
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    I have no obligation to prove or disprove anything in regards to the south tower, in order to prove beyond refute the existence of a drone which came from west of the towers before circling around. That said, I showed fake imagery of one plane, which all by itself raises reasonable doubt about the official flight path.

    All folks did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the facts of the drone seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    And we can only point out that you are using highly compressed gifs of the footage.


    You're cherry picking your eyewitnesses now.
    t approximately 0845, I, Officers Patrick McNerney and Jose Sanchez, were on routine patrol at the corner of 42nd street and 8th Avenue. As I was looking east on 42nd street, I observed a commercial passenger jet flying over at an extremely low altitude, and heading south. ...I thought that the pilot was attempting to make an emergency landing in the harbor off lower Manhattan. ...It was just east of the Empire State Building, and, to my best estimation, no higher than 500' above it.

    During this time, I looked for signs of distress. I was trying to observe the plane, as closely as I could for smoke, fire, or any type of vapor trail. There was none. The landing gear was up and the doors that house the gear closed. The plane was, as I stated, traveling south and was moving at a high rate of speed. It was flying level and straight. The pilot did not appear to be fighting to maintain control of the aircraft. PAPD Sgt William Ross Source (p. 43)

    Patrick McNerney concurs:
    While there we observed a large plane flying south over Manhattan. We were surprised at how low and the direction of the plane. We discussed the plane and then moments later all police officers were ordered to the police desk and advised us of the situation. Source (p. 32)


    Mohawk ironworkers were working 50 floors up at a Lower Manhattan job when an airliner passed within what seemed like 50 feet of their crane on the way to its collision with the World Trade Center about 10 blocks away.

    Richard Otto immediately got on his cell phone with Michael Swamp, business manager of Ironworkers Local 440 at the St. Regis (Akwesasne) Mohawk Reservation.

    "He called in, all shook up, after the first plane passed," Swamp told Indian Country Today. "He was telling me the wing of a plane had just missed their crane."

    As they were talking, the second plane came by, headed for the other World Trade Center Tower.

    "He got excited and said another plane was coming," Swamp said. "'Listen, this is going to hit,' Otto said. He started telling people to get out." Source


    On the morning of September 11th about 8:45, I was relieved, and a few of us were standing in front of quarters when we noticed a plane came directly over the firehouse maybe around 8:45, somewhere around that time. One of the guys mentioned that the plane looked like it was really low. Before we could really think of what he said, the next thing we heard an explosion. We saw the smoke.
    FDNY firefighter Kenneth Escofferey, Ladder 20

    We just got relieved after 0900, Fireman Escofrery and myself. We saw the plane coming over, sort of over quarters and then the initial crash. We heard the initial crash. FDNY firefighter George Kozlowski (Note that his time is wrong. He is describing the first plane. Ladder 20 is located at 251 Lafayette Street, north of the WTC.)


    Rob Marchesano, a construction foreman, was working at a site at La Guardia Street and West Third. He heard a roar overhead, and saw a plane flying by, low and fast and at an angle that at first made him fear that it would hit his crane. He and his co-workers watched in astonishment and then horror as the plane approached the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He noticed that the plane seemed to tilt at the last second, as though someone wanted the wings to take out as many floors as possible. Source


    Now we all heard a plane that sounded like it was in trouble. So everyone stopped what they were doing. It was obvious there was something wrong with the motors. They were like straining, and they were louder than normal. Normally over Manhattan a plane flies very high. We all looked in the sky and didn't see anything, but then for six or seven seconds flying out of the northeast, headed southwest, was this jetliner, like the kind of thing you would go on to go to Miami Beach or Vegas or something like that.

    It was flying very low, probably about 350 feet. As it passed over us, it wobbled, just a little bit. Then after six or seven seconds of seeing it -- we lost sight of it, because there were six-story tenements around us so that patch of sky that we saw it for just lasted that small amount of time.

    ...and then I heard a dull thud; not an explosion but an actual dull thud with a little bit of metal to it. I kind of stopped in my tracks and I thought for a second. I said nah. FDNY lieutenant Robert Larocco, at 10th St. & 2nd Avenue


    Oh god. I'm shaking. A plane just went by my window, it was flying WAY too low, and I was thinking, "How ironic," I wrote about this in my book, and it crashed. ...Oh God, people are dead now. Oh god. –Stacy Horn, founder of ECHO, posting at 8:49 on 11 September, 2001 Source

    A witness who works in the strategic planning department at The New York Times, Alan Flippen, said that as he came to work on 46th Street just before 9 he saw an American Airlines Boeing 767 flying ``very low in the direction of the World Trade Center towers.'' Source


    "It was a large plane flying low," said Robert Pachino, another witness. "There was no engine trouble. He didn't try to maneuver. This plane was on a mission." Source

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    All folks did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the facts of the drone seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    Allow me to retort,

    All folks you did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the facts of the drone planes seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    I am sure that you will not be able to answer any direct questions as all you are doing is copy & pasting your posts from other forums.

    It really would be quicker for you to just post a link, like this.

    http://scam.com/showthread.php?p=1140825

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/184374-a-fake-plane-was-added-for-south-tower-explosion-41.html

    http://letsrollforums.com/remote-controlled-drone-orb-t26953p16.html?amp;

    Final question, the username that pops up for a lot of these posts is 7forever - is that a reference to you mental age? ;)


  • #212
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    clever_name wrote: »
    Allow me to retort,

    All folks you did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the facts of the drone planes seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    I am sure that you will not be able to answer any direct questions as all you are doing is copy & pasting your posts from other forums.

    It really would be quicker for you to just post a link, like this.

    http://scam.com/showthread.php?p=1140825

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/184374-a-fake-plane-was-added-for-south-tower-explosion-41.html

    http://letsrollforums.com/remote-controlled-drone-orb-t26953p16.html?amp;

    Final question, the username that pops up for a lot of these posts is 7forever - is that a reference to you mental age? ;)

    Allow me to retort,

    All folks did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the drone seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    I am sure that you won't answer the evidence of the drone or try and prove a plane because there's no evidence of planes for either tower.


  • #213
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    Allow me to retort,

    All folks did in this thread was change the subject without addressing the drone seen in four broadcasts. Anyone can change the subject on the internet, and ignore evidence they can't explain away or challenge directly.

    I am sure that you won't answer the evidence of the drone or try and prove a plane because there's no evidence of planes for either tower.

    Firstly thats not a retort - its a repeat.

    Secondly I'm disappointed that you have not copy & pasted anything "new" to prove "your" point.

    Also IMO not acknowledging any of the questions or the fact that your entire opinion is lifted from other sites kind of stalls your progress towards you bigger goals on this forum, so for your work on this forum the most I can give give you is a a D- (being very generous).


  • #214
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack
    The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

    This simple fake image raises reasonable doubt about the official south to north flight path of flight 175. New York police officer, L. Perez, took a picture of the towers and this laughable fake was added to it by persons unknown.

    wtcrightenginefake.jpg
    wtcboeingcgi.jpg


  • #215
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack
    The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

    This simple fake image raises reasonable doubt about the official south to north flight path of flight 175. New York police officer, L. Perez, took a picture of the towers and this laughable fake was added to it by persons unknown.

    wtcrightenginefake.jpg
    wtcboeingcgi.jpg

    Again its much easier to post the link,

    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=142353&page=25

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/219616-ua-175-who-created-fake-

    http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11810822footage-rare-south-view-17.html

    Spaming CT sites is one thing but boxing sites?


  • #216
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,212 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    clever_name wrote: »
    Again its much easier to post the link,

    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=142353&page=25

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/219616-ua-175-who-created-fake-

    http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11810822footage-rare-south-view-17.html

    Spaming CT sites is one thing but boxing sites?

    The fact the user has posted this stuff on other non-boards forums is irrelevant. This forum is for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and tim allen is posting about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Discuss the actual topic at hand, please.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    Penn wrote: »
    The fact the user has posted this stuff on other non-boards forums is irrelevant. This forum is for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and tim allen is posting about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Discuss the actual topic at hand, please.

    The point I was trying to make is that tim is not interested in discussing the topic, so far all tim has done is copy & paste entire posts from other sites, no questions have even been acknowledged let alone answered on any of these sites. I think it would be better if tim went back to his blog.


  • #218
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Penn wrote: »
    The fact the user has posted this stuff on other non-boards forums is irrelevant. This forum is for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and tim allen is posting about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Discuss the actual topic at hand, please.

    Very few moderators have defended me because the positions I've taken are unacceptable to most researchers. I'm willing to discuss anything in regards to my work, which includes showing real-time fakery in video footage and the above faked photograph.


  • #219
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,212 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    tim allen wrote: »
    Very few moderators have defended me because the positions I've taken are unacceptable to most researchers. I'm willing to discuss anything in regards to my work, which includes showing real-time fakery in video footage and the above faked photograph.

    We pretty much allow anything with regards to Conspiracy Theories to be discussed. But please remember that this is a discussion forum. If someone engages you in discussion or queries a point you raise, it's generally good form to reply and discuss the topic with them in a civil manner, whether they agree with you or not.

    It's also a good idea to have a quick read of the forum charter (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842) to familiarise yourself with the rules of the forum. Thanks.


  • #220
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    Very few moderators have defended me because the positions I've taken are unacceptable to most researchers. I'm willing to discuss anything in regards to my work, which includes showing real-time fakery in video footage and the above faked photograph.

    thats great Tim, perhaps you could start by discussing these points;


    First of all let me ask about what you have posted, can you clarify your position on something,

    First you say

    Quote: Originally Posted by tim allen
    Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery

    Then you state

    Quote: Originally Posted by tim allen

    A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses,

    So the average person (i.e. most people) does not understand that the footage was faked but then it changed to a small percentage who dont understand its fake?

    Also may I ask that you answer some of the questions you were asked if possible, such as;

    Quote: Originally Posted by SdoowSirhc
    Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but if there was no plane what happened to the two planes with all the people who were said to have died?

    Quote: Originally Posted by clever_name
    What about all the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit?



    If people planned far enough ahead to have bombs in the buildings and managed to alter every image taken of the event why could they not do a better job than make "very obvious fake imagery"?

    Quote: Originally Posted by Di0genes
    Tim what makes you superior to the "average" person, that makes it possible for you to see the fakes?




    Direct answers to these questions would be very much appreciated.


  • #221
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    clever_name wrote: »
    thats great Tim, perhaps you could start by discussing these points;


    First of all let me ask about what you have posted, can you clarify your position on something,

    First you say

    Quote: Originally Posted by tim allen
    Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery

    Then you state

    Quote: Originally Posted by tim allen

    A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses,

    So the average person (i.e. most people) does not understand that the footage was faked but then it changed to a small percentage who dont understand its fake?

    Also may I ask that you answer some of the questions you were asked if possible, such as;

    Quote: Originally Posted by SdoowSirhc
    Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but if there was no plane what happened to the two planes with all the people who were said to have died?

    Quote: Originally Posted by clever_name
    What about all the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit?



    If people planned far enough ahead to have bombs in the buildings and managed to alter every image taken of the event why could they not do a better job than make "very obvious fake imagery"?

    Quote: Originally Posted by Di0genes
    Tim what makes you superior to the "average" person, that makes it possible for you to see the fakes?




    Direct answers to these questions would be very much appreciated.

    I posted visual proof of a drone coming from the west. That is factual and can only be ignored. I posted real-time fakery, particularly in the WB11 footage. I also posted the aboved faked image. Those are the issues you can only dodge. You wasted time writing your post. The official 911 myth has been debunked over and over, but my work goes directly to the most crucial point in understanding how clearly they ****ed all americans with the myth of planes and hijackers.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Penn wrote: »
    We pretty much allow anything with regards to Conspiracy Theories to be discussed. But please remember that this is a discussion forum. If someone engages you in discussion or queries a point you raise, it's generally good form to reply and discuss the topic with them in a civil manner, whether they agree with you or not.

    It's also a good idea to have a quick read of the forum charter (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842) to familiarise yourself with the rules of the forum. Thanks.

    If a person engages me in disussion, they must attempt to explain why a drone is coming from the west and complete lunatics in the media (who either didn't see it at first or mistook it for a chopper) called it the plane. That is how stupid this coverup is. I have no obligation to address anyone who dodges these simple facts. I proved the case for no planes, easily and simply didn't ignore the drone from the west, or pretend it could be a plane.


  • #223
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    tim allen wrote: »
    If a person engages me in disussion, they must attempt to explain why a drone is coming from the west and complete lunatics in the media (who either didn't see it at first or mistook it for a chopper) called it the plane. That is how stupid this coverup is. I have no obligation to address anyone who dodges these simple facts. I proved the case for no planes, easily and simply didn't ignore the drone from the west, or pretend it could be a plane.

    why shouldn't we?

    And why are you ignoring all these witnesses
    t approximately 0845, I, Officers Patrick McNerney and Jose Sanchez, were on routine patrol at the corner of 42nd street and 8th Avenue. As I was looking east on 42nd street, I observed a commercial passenger jet flying over at an extremely low altitude, and heading south. ...I thought that the pilot was attempting to make an emergency landing in the harbor off lower Manhattan. ...It was just east of the Empire State Building, and, to my best estimation, no higher than 500' above it.

    During this time, I looked for signs of distress. I was trying to observe the plane, as closely as I could for smoke, fire, or any type of vapor trail. There was none. The landing gear was up and the doors that house the gear closed. The plane was, as I stated, traveling south and was moving at a high rate of speed. It was flying level and straight. The pilot did not appear to be fighting to maintain control of the aircraft. PAPD Sgt William Ross Source (p. 43)

    Patrick McNerney concurs:
    While there we observed a large plane flying south over Manhattan. We were surprised at how low and the direction of the plane. We discussed the plane and then moments later all police officers were ordered to the police desk and advised us of the situation. Source (p. 32)


    Mohawk ironworkers were working 50 floors up at a Lower Manhattan job when an airliner passed within what seemed like 50 feet of their crane on the way to its collision with the World Trade Center about 10 blocks away.

    Richard Otto immediately got on his cell phone with Michael Swamp, business manager of Ironworkers Local 440 at the St. Regis (Akwesasne) Mohawk Reservation.

    "He called in, all shook up, after the first plane passed," Swamp told Indian Country Today. "He was telling me the wing of a plane had just missed their crane."

    As they were talking, the second plane came by, headed for the other World Trade Center Tower.

    "He got excited and said another plane was coming," Swamp said. "'Listen, this is going to hit,' Otto said. He started telling people to get out." Source


    On the morning of September 11th about 8:45, I was relieved, and a few of us were standing in front of quarters when we noticed a plane came directly over the firehouse maybe around 8:45, somewhere around that time. One of the guys mentioned that the plane looked like it was really low. Before we could really think of what he said, the next thing we heard an explosion. We saw the smoke.
    FDNY firefighter Kenneth Escofferey, Ladder 20

    We just got relieved after 0900, Fireman Escofrery and myself. We saw the plane coming over, sort of over quarters and then the initial crash. We heard the initial crash. FDNY firefighter George Kozlowski (Note that his time is wrong. He is describing the first plane. Ladder 20 is located at 251 Lafayette Street, north of the WTC.)


    Rob Marchesano, a construction foreman, was working at a site at La Guardia Street and West Third. He heard a roar overhead, and saw a plane flying by, low and fast and at an angle that at first made him fear that it would hit his crane. He and his co-workers watched in astonishment and then horror as the plane approached the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He noticed that the plane seemed to tilt at the last second, as though someone wanted the wings to take out as many floors as possible. Source


    Now we all heard a plane that sounded like it was in trouble. So everyone stopped what they were doing. It was obvious there was something wrong with the motors. They were like straining, and they were louder than normal. Normally over Manhattan a plane flies very high. We all looked in the sky and didn't see anything, but then for six or seven seconds flying out of the northeast, headed southwest, was this jetliner, like the kind of thing you would go on to go to Miami Beach or Vegas or something like that.

    It was flying very low, probably about 350 feet. As it passed over us, it wobbled, just a little bit. Then after six or seven seconds of seeing it -- we lost sight of it, because there were six-story tenements around us so that patch of sky that we saw it for just lasted that small amount of time.

    ...and then I heard a dull thud; not an explosion but an actual dull thud with a little bit of metal to it. I kind of stopped in my tracks and I thought for a second. I said nah. FDNY lieutenant Robert Larocco, at 10th St. & 2nd Avenue


    Oh god. I'm shaking. A plane just went by my window, it was flying WAY too low, and I was thinking, "How ironic," I wrote about this in my book, and it crashed. ...Oh God, people are dead now. Oh god. –Stacy Horn, founder of ECHO, posting at 8:49 on 11 September, 2001 Source

    A witness who works in the strategic planning department at The New York Times, Alan Flippen, said that as he came to work on 46th Street just before 9 he saw an American Airlines Boeing 767 flying ``very low in the direction of the World Trade Center towers.'' Source


    "It was a large plane flying low," said Robert Pachino, another witness. "There was no engine trouble. He didn't try to maneuver. This plane was on a mission." Source https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...untsofthenycai


  • #224
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    I posted visual proof of a drone coming from the west. That is factual and can only be ignored. I posted real-time fakery, particularly in the WB11 footage. I also posted the aboved faked image. Those are the issues you can only dodge. You wasted time writing your post. The official 911 myth has been debunked over and over, but my work goes directly to the most crucial point in understanding how clearly they ****ed all americans with the myth of planes and hijackers.

    Now tim you did post this a little while ago,
    tim allen wrote: »
    I'm willing to discuss anything in regards to my work,

    So if you are willing to discuss things then please do, maybe for a start you could discuss why thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers?

    Also why did the people behind the cover up do such a poor job with the fake images?


  • #225
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    clever_name wrote: »
    Now tim you did post this a little while ago,



    So if you are willing to discuss things then please do, maybe for a start you could discuss why thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers?

    Also why did the people behind the cover up do such a poor job with the fake images?

    I don't know, that's your problem if you'd really want to defend the planes myth. It only matters that the masses bought the plane myth and the truthlings ignored the proof I started not ignoring about 4 months ago.


  • #226
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    I don't know, that's your problem if you'd really want to defend the planes myth.

    No please tell me your opinion of this, you have researched it so I'm sure you have one.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images?

    Also let me ask the more important question again, maybe for a start you could discuss why thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers?


  • #227
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    clever_name wrote: »
    No please tell me your opinion of this, you have researched it so I'm sure you have one.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images?

    Also let me ask the more important question again, maybe for a start you could discuss why thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers?

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up fake images?

    Also, let me ask the more important question again, maybe for a start you could discuss why some eyewitnesses saw planes hit the towers that aren't corroborated by any photograph or video?


  • #228
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images?

    Also let me ask the more important question again, maybe for a start you could discuss why some eyewitnesses saw planes hit the towers that aren't corroborated by any photograph or video?


    OK we are moving forward with the discussion, great stuff.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images? I have asked this several times, you are unwilling/unable to answer - methinks your research might need polishing.

    Why did thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers? Again asked several times and you have no idea how to answer this (or your keyboard only consists of the buttons Ctrl & V ) ;)


  • #229
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    clever_name wrote: »
    OK we are moving forward with the discussion, great stuff.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images? I have asked this several times, you are unwilling/unable to answer - methinks your research might need polishing.

    Why did thousands of eyewitnesses saw real planes hit the towers? Again asked several times and you have no idea how to answer this (or your keyboard only consists of the buttons Ctrl & V ) ;)

    OK we are moving forward with the discussion, great stuff.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images? I have asked this several times, you are unwilling/unable to answer - me thinks your research might need polishing.


  • #230
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    tim allen wrote: »
    OK we are moving forward with the discussion, great stuff.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images? I have asked this several times, you are unwilling/unable to answer - me thinks your research might need polishing.

    Fascinating, please expand upon you theories.


  • #231
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    tim allen wrote: »
    OK we are moving forward with the discussion, great stuff.

    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images? I have asked this several times, you are unwilling/unable to answer - me thinks your research might need polishing.

    It's a ridiculous statement. I reject that they are fakes poor or otherwise. You're using badly compressed gif.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

    wtcwb11926.jpg
    wtcliveabc.jpg
    wtcunitedleftwing.jpg


  • #233
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    CNN.com - Transcripts
    This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west.

    OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

    Dr. J., what can you tell us?

    DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

    I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

    fast-wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • #234
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

    He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

    Mr Arraki

    "Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

    Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

    "I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"


  • #235
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.

    wtcsouthtowerzoomhole.jpg
    wtcnorthtowerhole.jpg


  • #236
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    Well Tim I'm going to leave our discussion at this point (less for the mods to delete), thanks for sharing (over & over again) the fruits of your research.

    Be brave, fight the good fight and continue the research!


  • #237
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

    Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

    Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

    Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

    "Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

    Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0


  • #238
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    I took the work from September Clues and made it into something simple instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2. He used the word, 'vehicle', but not sure if it's in this clip. Reversed NY1 bogey.

    ny1-rewind_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=126&feature=plpp_video


  • #239
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,212 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Tim, I'm giving you one last chance to discuss things with other users in a civil manner. They are raising some valid issues and dismissing them without giving proper reasons does not make for a good discussion. I don't mind you copying posts from whatever site you posted on before, but discussion is an important part of this site regardless of whether you believe theories or not. Unless you contribute to the discussion instead of largely ignoring counter-points, we may need to issue you with an infraction or ban.


  • #240
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    tim allen wrote:
    Why did they do such a poor job of mocking up obvious fake images?
    One might say because CRIMINALS ARE STUPID and always leave things not 100% accurate.....


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Dude111 wrote: »
    One might say because CRIMINALS ARE STUPID and always leave things not 100% accurate.....

    Humans are incapable of perfection of anything of this magnitude. 911 remains covered up because normal folks won't expose the best evidence.


  • #242
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    An opposition would have to explain to a jury how a real plane with dots for engines, and no wings could cast its own shadow in between the rear of tower 1 and west side of tower 2? How could any plane traveling 500 mph circle the towers before crashing into the rear of the building southeast of Tower 1?

    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlD1j-XqxmE&feature=player_embedded


  • #243
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The shadow happened because the drone circled in between and around the south tower. No other reason for it could ever be proved, and Manos's fake footage makes it bona fide.

    The shadow is reflected on the west side of tower 2 and possibly the east side of tower 1, confirming the drone literally moved north to south along that west side before finally turning left, east, across the south side.

    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • #244
    Cork24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,663 ✭✭✭Cork24


    how do we know it was going at 500 Mph maybe they had air break on Flaps up full which would have slowed the plane down big time..

    planes did hit the building... half of new York saw 2 planes and hearing a big bang from the Towers


  • #245
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    They thought they saw planes OR THEY ARE PAID IDIOTS WHO WERE PAID ALOT OF $$$$$$ TO SAY THEY SAW ONE!!


    Here are my thoughts of this: WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE OF THE PLANES?? (At all 3 locations)

    Why was FLIGHT 175 STILL IN THE AIR after they said it HIT THE SOUTH TOWER??

    www.youtube.com/v/jdXGSefI6pM


  • #246
    Cork24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,663 ✭✭✭Cork24


    wat about the ppl who saw the planes crashing into the Towers and they were inside the Tower ??

    NO they though they saw a plane ?

    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Cork24 wrote: »
    wat about the ppl who saw the planes crashing into the Towers and they were inside the Tower ??

    NO they though they saw a plane ?

    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11

    I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.

    wtcbogeyeditpic.jpg
    bogey-edit_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVijMv5t8&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=157&feature=plpp_video


  • #248
    tim allen
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The 911 commission, properly and logically concluded that 175 had to fly over New York Bay in its final seconds, therefore, any object seen west of the towers could not be flight 175. The shadow between the towers seen in three broadcasts is that of the drone because the official flight path, logically could not have flown east of T1 in its final 3-5 seconds, which is required to create the shadow.

    Any crapologist who uses the unofficial flight path of 175 cirlcing Newark, is ignoring the official flight path, which has 175 nowhere near it, whether north or south of it in flight. Officially, fake 175 never circled Newark, but most of New Jersey, and anyone who suggests it, is a liar.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=143&feature=plpp_video
    fake-175-flight-path_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtc175path2.jpg


  • #249
    stoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    What is Tim Allen trying to show with ALL his video's?

    Look like a plane slamming into a building to me.


  • #250
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    tim allen wrote: »
    The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

    That's a full sized aircraft hitting the building.


  • #251
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,212 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Tim Allen banned for not engaging others in discussion.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement