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

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Talk E wrote: »
    No, the plane moves forward, creating the vortex behind it.
    This is plainly visible in the video Talk E posted. When the plane goes through the curtain of smoke, the spiral shapes stay in line with the curtain and fall.

    but this doesn't support the conspiracy theory and is thus ignored.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    seannash wrote: »
    Might aswell put your fingers in your ears and start repaeting "I'm not listening,I'm not listening"

    He never said anything really confrontational
    Absolutely Pathetic


    It's not necessarily what he said, although it did play a part. I have always had a disliking to kingmob. He has an arrogant and condescending attitude.
    This comment :
    And most sane rational people doubt that a holographic plane exists.

    I found to be very obnoxious, and I just thought, "why am I bothering with the chap"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Talk E wrote: »
    I found to be very obnoxious, and I just thought, "why am I bothering with the chap"?

    Yea, why address someone's points when you can find an excuse to ignore them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    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.

    wtcrightenginefake.jpg
    wtcboeingcgi.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

    She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

    The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the bogey move directly east and cgi more left/north.

    wb-926-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wb-927-morph_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtcwb11926.jpg
    wtcwb927.jpg
    wtctruth.jpg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=30
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=34


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


    Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS bogey did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion.

    The final 14 seconds of approach by nist was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

    kfhbvbdyhshdshsdh_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    orb-cbs_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    fake-175-flight-path_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The following three were filmed on 911; Chopper 4 orb, WB11 chopper, and a plane that evening. It is clear that camera zoom on a distant object will reveal more detail and will often provide positive identification as it does with the chopper and plane. The orb shows no identifying characteristics of any known flying object or aircraft, staying true to its drone status. Note the speed and efficiency of the chopper and plane compared to the laughable cartoon dive of the orb.

    very-close-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wb-chopper_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    plane-zoom_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=related


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    I was wrong about Anthony Lawson, he's an arrogant Aussie who got a popular yt channel to say the ball was a plane.LOL This proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths. I will dig up a post that pertains in more detail to this issue but for now take a look at this vid. The altered footage that hazed out the orb was done by the media.

    A small circular object could never be a plane, nor could any real plane have come from anywhere but south of the towers in its final seconds of approach. This excludes all overlays that rode the bogey on a more southwest path. The government provided the only possible path for flight 175, if it had really existed and that excludes any divebomber, southwest, or west bogey path from being UA175.

    fake-175-flight-path_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo&feature=related


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

    The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 broadcasts showing the bogey do just that from the north view. It's logical that with so much footage being released, something from the south would show the bogey's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

    We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.

    circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtc07.jpg
    wtc-no-plane-south_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

    41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

    The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=62&feature=plpp_video


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
    Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

    She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

    There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2. The overwhelming existence of something not a plane coming from the west/Jersey side cleanly exposes disinformationlists like Anthony Lawson who work hard to keep the obvious drone from human understanding.

    wtcwidewestdrone.jpg
    new-west-drone_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtcnynjmap.gif
    circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    Hi Tim,

    Thats a lot of stuff you have posted, it (IMO) looks like the same old low res images with the same arguments on top of them, but I wont debate them with you (looks like your mind is pretty much made up on the topic) so I dont think your in the mood for listening to a dissenting voice. One line that you posted did seem interesting to me "this proves how willingly ignorant people can be when it comes to avoiding obvious truths"


    You might want to have a look here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1489


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭AngryBollix


    There are definite anomalies in the official story. The no planes theory does appear to be rather far fetched.

    There have been reports that the planes appeared to have been perhaps a cargo or military plane


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


    There are definite anomalies in the official story. The no planes theory does appear to be rather far fetched.

    There have been reports that the planes appeared to have been perhaps a cargo or military plane

    What happened to American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175? What about the phone call from Betty Ong a Stewardess on AA11 who phoned her airline and clearly described Manhattan.

    What about the fact that this happened in broad daylight in the middle of the one of the largest cities in the world?


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭ronsgonawin


    Im not sure


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

    That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.

    wtc07.jpg
    turns-right_h_GIFSoupcom-1.gif


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


    tim allen wrote: »
    Don't waste my time with babble- I want facts or interesting questions asked. I want theories and ideas. I am fact-minded on this, but part of being open minded is listening to the other side's fantasies, so I will entertain you all.

    Keep in mind I did my own 9/11 research in the last four months, and a silly looking drone came from the west and exploded the south tower, so I am well versed on the topic. So, tell me your fake delusions of planes for either tower and I will show facts derived from video and eyewitnesses.

    Leaving aside the many many many flaws in all this. How do you explain the Naudet brother's footage released the next day?


  • 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Leaving aside the many many many flaws in all this. How do you explain the Naudet brother's footage released the next day?

    They filmed an unidentifiable blob that plopped in. It was some type of drone.

    t1-hq_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtcnorthtowerdrone.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 524 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    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.

    What about all the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit?
    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 that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.


    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"?


  • Advertisement
  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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


  • 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?
    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.


  • 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.


  • 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


  • 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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭WhatNowForUs?


    Son look. Near, Far - Big, Small.


  • 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
  • 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? ;)


Advertisement