Why they didn't use planes

[Maat]

Diagonal2,

Firstly, we don't 'do' or use perp-coined terms like "no-plane theory" here, it's media fakery.

Then please read my comment re "missiles" (drones, RC, whatever) on 9/11 here: viewtopic.php?p=2370971#p2370971

...I not only thought [that] was a long abandoned "truther" hangout (e.g. Brianv's & Simon's post here) but frankly never made any logical sense to me for a media hoaxed, CGI movie event to disguise the demolition of buildings in what was obviously a totally contained & controlled physical area in Manhattan.

I've suspected for some time that that red herring was deliberate bait for 'conspiracists' to promote so that the entire 'false flag' theory would be more easily dismissed as nonsense by real military people with direct knowledge of military protocols & ordnance. Remembering it was an essentially civilian (NYPA, FBI, NSA etc.) op, so I could see no way that any literal 'military' input would have been considered a viable option, regardless.

... And yes, Maat - I would now definitely avoid any mention of my speculative AGM missile theory, as put forth in September Clues back in 2008. Whether right or (most likely) wrong, it is quite simply an unnecessary topic to mention/address in any presentation of our myriad of solid, collective findings. "KISS" is the way to go. I've always strived to simplify every aspect of this research - so I highly appreciate every advice and effort from everyone to "keep it simple". As Hoi rightly says, we are no media experts - but that doesn't mean we don't understand that communicating our findings has to be kept as sharp and simple as possible.

I fully concur with the substance of the last paragraph of your above post, Maat. I'm impressed by how much (perfect) sense it makes. ...

See also: viewtopic.php?p=2355579#p2355579 [1st page on this topic to which I've moved these posts].

[Flabbergasted]

*

If you ask me, I have never seen (in my entire lifetime - for what that's worth...) bright yellow/orange shadows in any other (alleged) photographs but [those] connected to 9/11.

I just stumbled on another photograph with yellow shadows. Actually, it has shadows of no less than four colors:

URL: http://www.big10.com.br/wp-content/uplo ... /04/p7.jpg

But then I found this picture with apparently just one type of shadow. In it, the Pope shows how large a man he really is:

URL: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-D3IF ... 0/Papa.jpg

According to the Wackopedia, the other man is Turkish assassin Mehmet Ali Ağca:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Ali_A%C4%9Fca

[I_am_onlive]

Simon, I found another video by Tinacart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA. Roughly at around 0:15 pay attention towards the top right edge of the 3rd building located on the left side of the 2nd tower, something emerges from the top, travels like a missile and hits the tower. I assume this is the missile that you were talking about. Let me know what you think of it.

Ok - let me state this once again:

1: There is NO real video from the 9/11. ALL of the available videos/photos of the morning of 9/11 are digital concoctions.

2: In reality, a smokescreen was raised around the WTC COMPLEX very early on (perhaps already before 8:46AM - the reported time of the "FLIGHT 11 STRIKE"). No one could, from the ground (or even from distant Hoboken or Jerseyside) make out what was going on.

3: To believe that "hundreds of videocameras must have been pointing at the towers after the first strike - and that 45 of them clearly captured FLIGHT 175" is simply stupid. On an average September morning, you just won't have hundreds of videographers strolling around in Lower Manhattan with a video camera. Even if that were the case, the odds of having an unobstructed view of the Twin Towers AND a wide piece of skyline (in order to film its approach) are ridiculously remote.

4: The very silly assumption that "since the 1st tower was hit at 8:46, EVERYONE would have by then been armed with cameras aiming at the WTC" - simply defies common sense: as only 17 minutes separated the first alleged airplane from the second alleged airplane, the odds of someone running back home to grab his camera - and return to any sort of useful filming location - are ridiculously low.

5: It makes perfect sense that if a given technology exists to jam video cameras - IT WOULD OVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED ON 9/11. The undeniable fact is that such technology exists - even at a consumer level - and anyone can buy such devices for $790 on the internet. Now, these devices have a range of only 70 metres: but what sort of video jamming technology do you honestly think the Pentagon might have?

viewtopic.php?p=2363976#p2363976

This is a professional high powered video camera jammer. It produces a powerful 4 watts of jamming power to disable just about all video cameras up to a distance of 70 metres and covers all frequencies between 900Mhz - 2.5Ghz. This device will jam the signal for any wireless video camera, wireless lans and bluetooth. http://www.spymodex.com/video.htm

ps: I am more and more skeptical of my own speculation that a missile hit the WTC2. Today, I don't think ANYTHING hit either WTC1 or WTC2. I am now more prone to believe that ALL the 'eyewitness testimonies' (of LARGE or small planes, Cessnas, missiles, etc,etc) were nothng but a a confusing set of phony reports offered to us 'conspiracy theorists' to make us argue with each other 'ad infinitum'(forever).

Hi Simon,

Sorry it's been more than a year since I last posted, I had to actually get a lot off my mind during that time. My folks were thinking I was getting paranoid, I was busy finishing my last semester of my BA program and more. Somehow I just couldn't overlook this that's why I'm back. I've also been thinking long and hard about my last post stating that a missile hit the towers and after careful processing I am convinced that there was in fact no such thing but another concocted composite.

I would be humble if you could provide more incriminating evidence and content to expose the 9/11 lies including the one about the death of Osama Bin Ladin.

[mayor]

Hi Simon,

Sorry it's been more than a year since I last posted, I had to actually get a lot off my mind during that time. My folks were thinking I was getting paranoid, I was busy finishing my last semester of my BA program and more. Somehow I just couldn't overlook this that's why I'm back. I've also been thinking long and hard about my last post stating that a missile hit the towers and after careful processing I am convinced that there was in fact no such thing but another concocted composite.

I would be humble if you could provide more incriminating evidence and content to expose the 9/11 lies including the one about the death of Osama Bin Ladin.

as intrepid researchers, no one here should expect one to force fed information as evidence. you have a forum of the stuff. peruse it's wealth.

[fbenario]

I would be humble if you could provide more incriminating evidence and content to expose the 9/11 lies including the one about the death of Osama Bin Ladin.

Hilarious. This sentence is written so poorly, it's both funny and painful to read. It actually seems to be the product of bad translation software. What's the original language?

Come to think of it, the username "I am onlive" also makes no sense, and appears to be a bad translation of something.

[Farcevalue]

vile naomi
evil I moan
main olive
I live on ma

Friday is anagram day...

[I@N]

Take a look at this gallery.
http://www.repubblica.it/persone/2013/03/20/foto/dal_jet_al_boeing_747_il_fotografo_degli_aerei_visti_da_sotto-54970010/1/?ref=HRESS-9#15

Which plane looks from below like the ones that "hit" the towers?

[hoi.polloi]

Why do you assume there was an airplane to see I@N?

I'm failing to grasp the "irony" of your post.

[I_am_onlive]

Simon Shack, hey it's me Ali Asif. I am doing a thesis about how professional news in media is unreliable and the substantial content that I wish to place in that project of mine is the research that you have presented in your September Clues videos and other related videos. My supervisor wants me to be sure that you are a reliable person to talk to. So if you could share some some of your educational background and expertise with me I can then convince him that you are someone I can trust with authenticity, honesty and integrity.

[simonshack]

My supervisor wants me to be sure that you are a reliable person to talk to. So if you could share some some of your educational background and expertise with me I can then convince him that you are someone I can trust with authenticity, honesty and integrity.

You registered here back in November 2011 - under a proxy server (something which we do not allow).
You have never introduced yourself in our dedicated welcome thread, as required.
You have posted a total of 5 times on this forum.

And you wish me to provide proof of my authenticity, honesty and integrity?

[brianv]

My supervisor wants me to be sure that you are a reliable person to talk to. So if you could share some some of your educational background and expertise with me I can then convince him that you are someone I can trust with authenticity, honesty and integrity.

You registered here back in November 2011 - under a proxy server (something which we do not allow).
You have never introduced yourself in our dedicated welcome thread, as required.
You have posted a total of 5 times on this forum.

And you wish me to provide proof of my authenticity, honesty and integrity?

Ali As If, indeed. Delete the account let him register again properly, although I fear you' re talking to a robot again.

[mlebek]

Do you know Barbara Honeggers presentation about the Pentagon attack?
Very informative!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

[brianv]

Do you know Barbara Honeggers presentation about the Pentagon attack?
Very informative!

Pentagon Attack? You're having a laugh aren't you?

How can one be informed about something that didn't happen?

[mlebek]

Ehm, when it was a simulation then maybe i can have a first-row or window-seat in this drone but these windows somehow look painted?!

[brianv]

Ehm, when it was a simulation then maybe i can have a first-row or window-seat in this drone but these windows somehow look painted?!

Who cares about "drones" painted or otherwise? What has it got to do with anything?