DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[xTruthSeekerx]

no plane theory in esscence thought up by co intel...

[dissident99]

Ouch .. I guess I will rethink my theory then if it will make it seem that I am on the bad side.

The reason why I said so is because the second Plane could not possible get in, traverse the building and come out the other side.

But that is my view, I don't want to impose that on anybody.
 

[kushfiend]

Ouch .. I guess I will rethink my theory then if it will make it seem that I am on the bad side.

The reason why I said so is because the second Plane could not possible get in, traverse the building and come out the other side.

But that is my view, I don't want to impose that on anybody.
 

Same here, I'm not trying to impose my beliefs, but that doesn't change them.  How do you feel about the video of the plan "melting" into the 2nd WTC building?  Here is a link to the video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8heUJdnVbEo

Anyone that knows anything about physics will tell you this is physically impossible.

[dissident99]

Again. IMHO It does not matter, False Flag. Period. Tell everybody it was Fake not It was made with video tricks. You will already be pushing your credibility, perhaps 60% of the country believe it was all real and the government had no clue.

[blackturtle.us]

People who followed the Georgian aggression in South Ossetia last summer closely are well aware that the major news outlets engaged in an active cover up to attempt to obscure the fact that Georgia instigated the whole thing. Eventually they fessed up in the face of over-whelming evidence, but they did so in a low key manner when compared to the way they provided misinformation early on. Russia was put in a situation where it had no choice but to use military means of solving a problem. Western news sources, however, went out of the way to insinuate and to suggest that Russia instigated the attack when it was Georgia that killed hundreds including Russian peace keepers stationed in South Ossetia in accordance with a treaty agreed to in the 1990s by Georgia. It's important not to trust western news sources as 100% credible!

[kushfiend]

People who followed the Georgian aggression in South Ossetia last summer closely are well aware that the major news outlets engaged in an active cover up to attempt to obscure the fact that Georgia instigated the whole thing. Eventually they fessed up in the face of over-whelming evidence, but they did so in a low key manner when compared to the way they provided misinformation early on. Russia was put in a situation where it had no choice but to use military means of solving a problem. Western news sources, however, went out of the way to insinuate and to suggest that Russia instigated the attack when it was Georgia that killed hundreds including Russian peace keepers stationed in South Ossetia in accordance with a treaty agreed to in the 1990s by Georgia. It's important not to trust western news sources as 100% credible!

Yes, I remember when this was going down, I was really concerned WW3 was comming.  I mean anytime you hear the words "Russia" and "attack" it's never good.  But ya, you're absolutely correct turtle, the "news" (if you can even call it that) was so biased that they were actually reporting false information! 

That's the main reason for this post.  It is my belief that 9/11 set the precedent for completely fake news reporting.  If you watch news clips from the early 90's and watch news clips today, they are so different its not even funny!  Who, what, when, where, why, and how and the news clip is over in the 90's.  Today's news is filled with so much fluff that doesn't even matter, and any time an important issue does somehow arise, the talking heads simply argue with eachother rather than the actual issue.

[kushfiend]

shameless bump

[co-intel]

no plane theory in esscence thought up by co intel...

hmmm, how do you know?
where's your evidence?

[kushfiend]

hmmm, how do you know?
where's your evidence?

exactly.  All I know is, the news clips of planes melting into the twin towers, along with planes dive bombing over 500 ft in 2 seconds prove the fakeness of tv on 9/11.

Now, it begs the question, if the news stations did show fake news clips, what exactly were they trying to hide?

[iks83]

damn i hate those no plae trolls... you can push them into their BS like some dog a 100 times they wont learn. they have no clue about basic physics. they cant see the difference between camera angles and even a moving antenna on a car is a omfg wtf is that anomaly. they dont prove anything. dont even try to verify their theories or try to debunk them... because thats what real scientists do. they dont just invent some theory and put it in as absolute truth (like many so called scientists are catually doing) they are trying to basicly debunk their theory to see if it can hold up. the no planers cant hold up anything except stupid signs to discredit the whole movement.

[kushfiend]

First, I want to preface this by saying that I am a firm believer in NPT [No Plane Theory].

It is my belief that military aircraft and/or missiles hit the twin towers on 9/11 and the MSM [Main Stream Media] covered it up by splicing in footage of planes.


*AIRPLANE PARTS*


Claim: Airplane wreckage proves planes hit the towers.

FACT: The available evidence does not add up.



As you can clearly see, these engine parts did NOT come from a Boeing 767 aircraft.  To me, it looks like the engine for a cruise missile, seen here:




*TV NETWORKS & MILITARY PSYOPS CONNECTION*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks and military would work together to deceive the public is wacky cookoo!

FACT: The TV Networks/Military/PSYOPS connection was reported by the media before 9/11.

*TV-FAKERY*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks would broadcast fake footage is nutcase kooky!

FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 as being available by TV Networks and the military for the purpose of altering world politics.

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane.  Now check out these images, and ask yourself, do they match up with Newton's third law of motion?




Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays this amateur clip back in slow motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._planer_resigns

Probably the most damning evidence can be seen with Fox 5's infamous "Nose out" video


This is my personal favorite.  Check out CNN's cartoon plane 


A real plane would crash against the building.  The tail should of ripped off, not melted into the building

*DEBUNKED?*


Claim: TV-Fakery has been debunked time and time again.

FACT:The violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion has never been explained.

Several “papers” claiming to debunk TV-Fakery have surfaced. However, not one of them approaches the obvious violation of Newton’s Laws regarding an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. Instead, these strawman papers attempt to discredit TV-Fakery by “explaining away” a few points. Neither Steven Jones nor anyone in his team has ever addressed Newton’s Laws as it applies to TV-Fakery. (I wonder why…)

[Dig]

First, I want to preface this by saying that I am a firm believer in NPT [No Plane Theory].

It is my belief that military aircraft and/or missiles hit the twin towers on 9/11 and the MSM [Main Stream Media] covered it up by splicing in footage of planes.


*AIRPLANE PARTS*


Claim: Airplane wreckage proves planes hit the towers.

FACT: The available evidence does not add up.



As you can clearly see, these engine parts did NOT come from a Boeing 767 aircraft.  To me, it looks like the engine for a cruise missile, seen here:




*TV NETWORKS & MILITARY PSYOPS CONNECTION*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks and military would work together to deceive the public is wacky cookoo!

FACT: The TV Networks/Military/PSYOPS connection was reported by the media before 9/11.

*TV-FAKERY*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks would broadcast fake footage is nutcase kooky!

FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 as being available by TV Networks and the military for the purpose of altering world politics.

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane.  Now check out these images, and ask yourself, do they match up with Newton's third law of motion?




Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays this amateur clip back in slow motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._planer_resigns

Probably the most damning evidence can be seen with Fox 5's infamous "Nose out" video


This is my personal favorite.  Check out CNN's cartoon plane 


A real plane would crash against the building.  The tail should of ripped off, not melted into the building

*DEBUNKED?*


Claim: TV-Fakery has been debunked time and time again.

FACT:The violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion has never been explained.

Several “papers” claiming to debunk TV-Fakery have surfaced. However, not one of them approaches the obvious violation of Newton’s Laws regarding an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. Instead, these strawman papers attempt to discredit TV-Fakery by “explaining away” a few points. Neither Steven Jones nor anyone in his team has ever addressed Newton’s Laws as it applies to TV-Fakery. (I wonder why…)

I love the road runner silhouette.  Amazing fact based research, wow.

[kushfiend]

I love the road runner silhouette.  Amazing fact based research, wow.

heh yah that was my personal favorite too.  It really helps put things in perspective.  Every time I look at old newscasts of 9/11 they just look faker and faker.  Now that technology and mainly, CGI is getting to the level it's at, one can really see the forgeries attempted by the MSM.

Everything is comming out now

[xfahctor]

"High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane."
 except that the building wasn't traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
Lets extrapolate, Would you apply the same laws to a bullet and a person? A bullet simply dropped on a person from a few feet would simply annoy them. That same bullet traveling at high velocity takes half their head off.

[Dig]

heh yah that was my personal favorite too.  It really helps put things in perspective.  Every time I look at old newscasts of 9/11 they just look faker and faker.  Now that technology and mainly, CGI is getting to the level it's at, one can really see the forgeries attempted by the MSM.

Everything is comming out now

yup it sure is.  like that many of the pushers of the no-plane theory are also zionisist disinfo artists (not saying that you are, you seem to have innocently fallen into this seemingly amazing epiphany that will leave you disillusioned in the end).  in any case since this has been debunked ad nauseum for over a year, unless you got some new evidence (this is all old), it kinda sounds like a broken record.

[Dok]

This one always gets me, as right before this shot the camera pans wide right, and would have caught the plane coming in from a distance. Then they close up on the building and capture the impact.

[kushfiend]

"High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane."
 except that the building wasn't traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
Lets extrapolate, Would you apply the same laws to a bullet and a person? A bullet simply dropped on a person from a few feet would simply annoy them. That same bullet traveling at high velocity takes half their head off.

You obviously don't understand basic physics.  The buildilng doesn't have to be traveling at several hundred miles an hour.  When two objects collide, both objects impact eachother with equal force.  That's Newton's law.  

For example, if I drive a car into a brick wall at 90mph, the wall hits the car at 90mph, just as the car hits the wall.  It's same force distributed both ways.

If a plane really hit the towers, it would of crumpled and fallen, not fused with the building.  What we have here is an obvious forgery.

[Dig]

You obviously don't understand basic physics.  The buildilng doesn't have to be traveling at several hundred miles an hour.  When two objects collide, both objects impact eachother with equal force.  That's Newton's law.  

For example, if I drive a car into a brick wall at 90mph, the wall hits the car at 90mph, just as the car hits the wall.  It's same force distributed both ways.

If a plane really hit the towers, it would of crumpled and fallen, not fused with the building.  What we have here is an obvious forgery.

By the way. Wouldn't a military plane also be a plane?  How would you tell the difference?  I mean an AWACS plane is a 747 with a big radar on top.  It is a "military" plane.

[kushfiend]

yup it sure is.  like that many of the pushers of the no-plane theory are also zionisist disinfo artists (not saying that you are, you seem to have innocently fallen into this seemingly amazing epiphany that will leave you disillusioned in the end).  in any case since this has been debunked ad nauseum for over a year, unless you got some new evidence (this is all old), it kinda sounds like a broken record.

I don't see how this has been debunked.  No one has shown me how Newton's law of motion is not violated by the news clips I posted.

A plane can't melt into a building, jsut like a building can't fall at free fall speed.

I don't know what happened on 9/11, but I don't believe 1 word of the official story.  IF they say 2 planes hit the building, I think it was 2 missiles.  If they say hijackers, I think autopilot.  If they say box cutters, I think lasers from satellites orbiting in space.

[kushfiend]

By the way. Wouldn't a military plane also be a plane?  How would you tell the difference?  I mean an AWACS plane is a 747 with a big radar on top.  It is a "military" plane.

Indeed it would.  My version of NPT is just that no huge, civilian, jumbo jet crashed into the twin towers.  I believe a rigged military type jet or cruise missile was used, and the MSM had to cover it up, because that woulda revealed an inside job.

Also prolly why many reports of white military aircraft circling the twin towers and pentagon were given.

[kushfiend]

This one always gets me, as right before this shot the camera pans wide right, and would have caught the plane coming in from a distance. Then they close up on the building and capture the impact.

What are your feelings on npt dok? 

[xfahctor]

You obviously don't understand basic physics.  The buildilng doesn't have to be traveling at several hundred miles an hour.  When two objects collide, both objects impact eachother with equal force.  That's Newton's law.  

For example, if I drive a car into a brick wall at 90mph, the wall hits the car at 90mph, just as the car hits the wall.  It's same force distributed both ways.

If a plane really hit the towers, it would of crumpled and fallen, not fused with the building.  What we have here is an obvious forgery.

First, it is newton's laws of motion not physics
The three laws read as follows
1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
2. The relationship between an object's mass "m", its acceleration "a", and the applied force "F" is "F = ma". (Acceleration and force are vectors. In this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.)
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 Again, the bullet example, throw a bullet at the building, it will simply bounce off. Fire a bullet at the same building from a gun and it leaves a hole.

[kushfiend]

First, it is newton's laws of motion not physics
The three laws read as follows
1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
2. The relationship between an object's mass "m", its acceleration "a", and the applied force "F" is "F = ma". (Acceleration and force are vectors. In this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.)
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 Again, the bullet example, throw a bullet at the building, it will simply bounce off. Fire a bullet at the same building from a gun and it leaves a hole.

I see what you're getting at, but we're not talking about a bullet here.  A plane is made out of aluminum, a very soft metal.  There is no way that it could of plowed through the reinforced Steel grid that made up the outside of the twin towers. 

Look at the CNN Clip again.  See how the plan effortlessly "fuses" with the WTC building.  That is simply not physically possible.  It should of bounced off the building at the very least.  NO debris falls to the ground, the entire plane is swallowed by the building.

Again, I don't know what happened on 9/11, I just know this video is fake.  And if this video is fake, it means they were trying to hide something.

What that "something" is, I have my speculations, but that's all they are.  I personally believe advanced military technology was used on 9/11, things we don't even know about.

[xfahctor]

I see what you're getting at, but we're not talking about a bullet here.  A plane is made out of aluminum, a very soft metal.  There is no way that it could of plowed through the reinforced Steel grid that made up the outside of the twin towers. 

Look at the CNN Clip again.  See how the plan effortlessly "fuses" with the WTC building.  That is simply not physically possible.  It should of bounced off the building at the very least.  NO debris falls to the ground, the entire plane is swallowed by the building.

Again, I don't know what happened on 9/11, I just know this video is fake.  And if this video is fake, it means they were trying to hide something.

What that "something" is, I have my speculations, but that's all they are.  I personally believe advanced military technology was used on 9/11, things we don't even know about.

and a bullet is made out of an even softer metal, lead is not a hard metal at all.  it's not about how hard the metal is, it is about how fast that object is traveling.

[kushfiend]

and a bullet is made out of an even softer metal, lead is not a hard metal at all.  it's not about how hard the metal is, it is about how fast that object is traveling.

Yes, but once a bullet hits bone, it becomes damaged and smashed.  Such as seen here:

The bullet on the right was fired at a rock.  It did not go through the rock, but smashed and bounced off of it.  That's my whole point.  The plane shouldn't go through the WTC building, but smash and bounce off.

[TheGoodFight1984]

This one always gets me, as right before this shot the camera pans wide right, and would have caught the plane coming in from a distance. Then they close up on the building and capture the impact.

Dude if you put as much time into researching 9/11 as you do the bible you would know Ace Baker is a f**king fraud.. his whole premise is based on a shitty video that wasn't even original resolution archive footage, it was from a VHS duplicate. And the cameras used weren't designed as hi-def capturing devices rather ones that captured and streamed the live broadcast from a helicopter. So they took an already poor-quality video, made it even poorer by running it through a VHS and then based their whole 'investigation' on evidence that was flimsier than toilet paper.. and that's all Baker's theories are.. toilet paper. Only just worthy of wiping your ass on.

This WTC no-plane stuff is utter bullshit, stop believing this crap. All it does is discredit the truth movement... nothing more nothing less.

[Dig]

I don't see how this has been debunked.  No one has shown me how Newton's law of motion is not violated by the news clips I posted.

A plane can't melt into a building, jsut like a building can't fall at free fall speed.

I don't know what happened on 9/11, but I don't believe 1 word of the official story.  IF they say 2 planes hit the building, I think it was 2 missiles.  If they say hijackers, I think autopilot.  If they say box cutters, I think lasers from satellites orbiting in space.

well since there were literally hundreds of witnesses to planes and there was really no reason not to have planes, then it probably was planes.  What type of planes? Well that is another topic.  But as far as no planes, that does not seem to serve any purpose for 9/11 truth but it definitely serves a big purpose for disinfo artists.  I do understand about not trusting the official story, but this is going by eyewitnesses not by "officials".  Hell Rumsfeld mentioned a missle twice and so have other government dickheads. There is a difference in seeing the BS in the government's story and then just saying the opposite of whatever they say.  If you do that without any rational inverstigation, then they still control your interpretation of events.  This leads to separating 2 groups which are both wrong...believers in 100% of the story and refuters of 100% of the story.  From these government created groups, there can be no common ground.  This divide and conquer tactic is exactly what the NWO wants.

[bootroll]

    1.09 - 1.28 mins. on oyashango's film their are four films on screen, top right film - surely the building is already on fire before the plane has hit it, isn't it?

[xfahctor]

Yes, but once a bullet hits bone, it becomes damaged and smashed.  Such as seen here:

The bullet on the right was fired at a rock.  It did not go through the rock, but smashed and bounced off of it.  That's my whole point.  The plane shouldn't go through the WTC building, but smash and bounce off.

but it probably took a good chip out of the rock. The rock is also solid all the way through, a building is not. the walls of the building not nearly as thick in relation to the size of the plane, as the rock is in relation to the size of the bullet.

[Dok]

What are your feelings on npt dok? 

Im not saying plannes didnt hit the building. As speed increases mass is also increased. My whole point is that right before this shot in the video, the camera panned way out on a big shot. The incoming plane would have been seen in the camera angle.

Dude if you put as much time into researching 9/11 as you do the bible you would know Ace Baker is a f**king fraud.. his whole premise is based on a shitty video that wasn't even original resolution archive footage, it was from a VHS duplicate. And the cameras used weren't designed as hi-def capturing devices rather ones that captured and streamed the live broadcast from a helicopter. So they took an already poor-quality video, made it even poorer by running it through a VHS and then based their whole 'investigation' on evidence that was flimsier than toilet paper.. and that's all Baker's theories are.. toilet paper. Only just worthy of wiping your ass on.

This WTC no-plane stuff is utter bullshit, stop believing this crap. All it does is discredit the truth movement... nothing more nothing less.

Wow, a little animosity there.    As stated above i dont agree with the no plane theory. Regardless what kind of camera or what kind of film was used, would have shown the incoming plane in the wide angle shot leading up to the image posted. Thats my whole point in this matter.

[kushfiend]

well since there were literally hundreds of witnesses to planes and there was really no reason not to have planes, then it probably was planes.  What type of planes? Well that is another topic.  But as far as no planes, that does not seem to serve any purpose for 9/11 truth but it definitely serves a big purpose for disinfo artists.  I do understand about not trusting the official story, but this is going by eyewitnesses not by "officials".  Hell Rumsfeld mentioned a missle twice and so have other government dickheads. There is a difference in seeing the BS in the government's story and then just saying the opposite of whatever they say.  If you do that without any rational inverstigation, then they still control your interpretation of events.  This leads to separating 2 groups which are both wrong...believers in 100% of the story and refuters of 100% of the story.  From these government created groups, there can be no common ground.  This divide and conquer tactic is exactly what the NWO wants.

Very true Sane, I'll keep that in mind.

I do believe some type of aircraft/missile struck the twin towers, just not civilian jumbo jets.  I don't know what exactly hit the twin towers, I just know every news clip I see of a jumbo jet crashing, and then being absorbed by, the building, is not possible.  So this means the video is a fake, which probably means other news clips are fakes too.

What are they hiding?  That's what I'm hoping to uncover, but it's so hard with all the dis-info out there.

[TheGoodFight1984]

Wow, a little animosity there.    As stated above i dont agree with the no plane theory. Regardless what kind of camera or what kind of film was used, would have shown the incoming plane in the wide angle shot leading up to the image posted. Thats my whole point in this matter.

Aye sorry if that came across aggressively.. just can't stand this no-plane stuff, makes my blood boil.

Ok, little more civilty. What I was saying about the low quality of video relates directly back to wether or not the plane would be seen in-screen whilst panned back, because of that low quality, the limited pixels, it cannot pick out fine details in the distance like that. The cameras used aren't Hi-Def and the data rate streamed by the helicopter back to the station needs to be kept within the most practical & available technological capabilities for live video streaming.

Take a hi-res photograph of that same wide shot panned back, change the resolution & shrink it down, put it into a low data format like .gif and see if you can still see the details in the sky / background or whatever.

What would even be the point in video fakery?

And most importantly, Ace Baker bullshit aside, what about the countless eyewitnesses who watched the planes hit? They're lying, Bluebeam AND realtime live video fakery were used?

I hope some no-planers will realise that this stuff will lead them absolutely nowhere.

[kushfiend]

Aye sorry if that came across aggressively.. just can't stand this no-plane stuff, makes my blood boil.

Ok, little more civilty. What I was saying about the low quality of video relates directly back to wether or not the plane would be seen in-screen whilst panned back, because of that low quality, the limited pixels, it cannot pick out fine details in the distance like that. The cameras used aren't Hi-Def and the data rate streamed by the helicopter back to the station needs to be kept within the most practical & available technological capabilities for live video streaming.

Take a hi-res photograph of that same wide shot panned back, change the resolution & shrink it down, put it into a low data format like .gif and see if you can still see the details in the sky / background or whatever.

What would even be the point in video fakery?

And most importantly, Ace Baker bullshit aside, what about the countless eyewitnesses who watched the planes hit? They're lying, Bluebeam AND realtime live video fakery were used?

I hope some no-planers will realise that this stuff will lead them absolutely nowhere.

I don't know what the point of the tv fakery would be, because I wasn't in the board room planning this atrocity.  But I do know it took place, as evidenced by the video clips I posted, and a few others.  If you dissect and analyze any news clip of the planes flying into the towers, you can clearly see obvious forgeries. 

What was the point?  I don't know, other than to hide a missile or modified military aircraft that woulda blown the lid off the official story.  They had to have hijackers on board a civilian aircraft, but this would of been impossible, especially in the case of the attack at the pentagon. 

I do believe the Pentagon is the missing link here.  If we ever see the video footage of what struck the Pentagon, we will prolly understand a lot better what hit the two towers.

[xTruthSeekerx]

plane bouncing off the building is impossible IMO and no plane theory makes my blood boil as well when people seen a plane hit the damned things

[kushfiend]

plane bouncing off the building is impossible IMO and no plane theory makes my blood boil as well when people seen a plane hit the damned things

actually, a plane being "swallowed up" by a building is impossible.  Take another look at this clip and tell me if you truly believe what CNN is telling you.



Pay attention to the wings.  Notice at one point, half the wing is in the building, with the tips sticking out.  Another impossibility.

Metal and aluminum cannot "fuse" into eachother like this.  This clip is a forgery.  Now, ask yourself why?

My guess is military mod- aircraft and/or missiles.  Again, the Pentagon attack is the real answer as to what hit the WTC buildings.

[mr anderson]

I am glad this subject has come up again. I am still not at peace with the "commerical airline" plane speculation.
Here again, I captured the plane going into the second tower, and it still does not look like a commerical airline.
It looks to me like an auto-piloted figher jet. Can anyone please identify this plane?

Oh Cmon!  

This has gone far beyond a joke.

Try looking at other footage of the 2nd plane and it's a 747 mmmk?

Geezus.

[TheGoodFight1984]

I don't know what the point of the tv fakery would be, because I wasn't in the board room planning this atrocity.  But I do know it took place, as evidenced by the video clips I posted, and a few others.  If you dissect and analyze any news clip of the planes flying into the towers, you can clearly see obvious forgeries. 

What was the point?  I don't know, other than to hide a missile or modified military aircraft that woulda blown the lid off the official story.  They had to have hijackers on board a civilian aircraft, but this would of been impossible, especially in the case of the attack at the pentagon. 

I do believe the Pentagon is the missing link here.  If we ever see the video footage of what struck the Pentagon, we will prolly understand a lot better what hit the two towers.

And the hundreds of eyewitnesses? Was what they think they saw projected into their heads?

I'd prefer to call Ace Baker a liar than those hundreds of eyewitnesses, most of who probably lost friends and family.

It's just a huge insult to those people, come on.

[mr anderson]

Hey, Chris, It's sad to see people talking theories down. I've seen a clip from September Clues. The clip that shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side. It's not possible since the nose is thin metal.

Mmmmmyeah I've seen a clip where there is no nose out.

What a shocker..

[xTruthSeekerx]

actually, a plane being "swallowed up" by a building is impossible.  Take another look at this clip and tell me if you truly believe what CNN is telling you.



Pay attention to the wings.  Notice at one point, half the wing is in the building, with the tips sticking out.  Another impossibility.

Metal and aluminum cannot "fuse" into eachother like this.  This clip is a forgery.  Now, ask yourself why?

My guess is military mod- aircraft and/or missiles.  Again, the Pentagon attack is the real answer as to what hit the WTC buildings.

military plane is still a plane
double think much?

[kushfiend]

And the hundreds of eyewitnesses? Was what they think they saw projected into their heads?

I'd prefer to call Ace Baker a liar than those hundreds of eyewitnesses, most of who probably lost friends and family.

It's just a huge insult to those people, come on.

Hey, the military had aircraft flying all around New York on 9/11, and that's admitted.  White military issue aircraft was spotted circling the Pentagon before and after the attack.

I don't think jumbo jets flew into the WTC building, because the video of those attacks are forged.  Which means they had to edit something out, and splice the planes in.  What that first thing was, I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not trying to insult people or call them stupid.  But people can make mistakes in the fraction of a second it would take for a missile or military issued modified plane to crash into the WTC, that's all I'm saying.