13 Jun 2014 16:05:19
twin towers was a inside job no doubt in my mind, a controlled demolition and maybe a missile hitting the towers, it does look like the planes melts in to the building on impact and the size of new york about 10 million people that no new footage of planes approaching have not been found, I think I have only seen at the most ten different angles of the plane for a tourist city that size I thought there would be a lot more, it is mind-blowing that they could pull that off but the explanation they have given then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Yes Franky all those thousands of tourists walking around Manhattan with camcorders and not one of them picked up even a few shaky seconds of footage? The fact that the Naudet brothers footage is the only image we have is highly suspicious.
But Al Suqami's fireproof passport was found near the WTC so that's that right?
Ryan.
But Al Suqami's fireproof passport was found near the WTC so that's that right?
Ryan.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Surely then franky by that rational, in a city of 10 million netoriously easy to piss off new yoikers. there would be masses of photos/videos showing a missile/unknown object hitting the towers? it seems odd that as you say there is so little footage either way? I woulda thought in new york of all places that many people would be hard to contol? I fully believe 9/11 to be ropey at best. just seems odd that rather than disecting the plane footage, no one seems to have video evidence of anything else hitting the towers? your thoughts?
gerrymcgin1888
gerrymcgin1888
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
No one has footage of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, but we're supposed to believe that?
And no one has footage of an airliner crashing in Shanksville, or even debris on site, and we're supposed to believe that?
The only footage I have ever seen of WTC1 being hit was from the Naudet brothers, and the 'aircraft' seemed to disappear into the building like in a Disney cartoon.
Ryan.
And no one has footage of an airliner crashing in Shanksville, or even debris on site, and we're supposed to believe that?
The only footage I have ever seen of WTC1 being hit was from the Naudet brothers, and the 'aircraft' seemed to disappear into the building like in a Disney cartoon.
Ryan.
{Ed033's Note - When I see the alleged plane disappearing into WTC2 up close, it's like a cartoon as the alleged plane just melts into the steel tower and that's the reason for the theory of a military missile being fired into WTC2 that's being cloaked by a 'plane' looking hologram (this would be black technology as we know nothing of this technology)
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
I believe the idea of a missile cloaked by a 'plane' hologram is highly plausible Ed033.
The speed according to NIST is 510kts, which is consistent with a missile such as a tomahawk.
The 'aircraft' that hit WTC2 appears to have a missile or similar shaped object under it's fuselage.
The 'aircraft' is dark grey and doesn't look at all like a commercial airliner, and does not reflect the sun.
Ryan.
The speed according to NIST is 510kts, which is consistent with a missile such as a tomahawk.
The 'aircraft' that hit WTC2 appears to have a missile or similar shaped object under it's fuselage.
The 'aircraft' is dark grey and doesn't look at all like a commercial airliner, and does not reflect the sun.
Ryan.
{Ed001's Note - I can understand the theory behind it, but I don't believe a missile did hit the towers.
From my understanding of what happens when a missile (or plane or other object, such as a car or lorry) hits a building, there is left behind an entry wound.
In the case of a missile, you usually just get a small wound, in the case of something like a plane, you get debris left behind as bits of the vehicle are left behind.
You would expect parts, such as the wings or engines, to be sheared off and drop to the ground.
Even saying that a plane really could melt into the building or it was a missile, this entry wound would be the main source of oxygenation for any fire that occurred, which it was claimed there was.
Also the flames from said fire should have been licking out around the entry wound, almost certainly climbing up the side of the building, if the fire was intense and large enough to damage the building.
I have seen lots of pictures and footage of smoke, but I can not remember a single sight of flames, which seems odd to me.
Knowing what we know about the power of suggestion, there would be no actual need to have a real plane hit the building, simply suggest it to eyewitnesses immediately afterwards, for them to believe it must have been a plane.
Tests have shown that eyewitness accounts are very suggestible, as the mind just gropes around for anything to fill in gaps in its knowledge.
I am beginning to think it was just a controlled demolition, with a bit of smoke or small explosions prior to said demolition, to give the suggestion of some kind of incident.
Then the footage with the planes emerges, clearly faked, as no plane melts into a building like that, and it becomes accepted by the vast majority that planes hit them.}
From my understanding of what happens when a missile (or plane or other object, such as a car or lorry) hits a building, there is left behind an entry wound.
In the case of a missile, you usually just get a small wound, in the case of something like a plane, you get debris left behind as bits of the vehicle are left behind.
You would expect parts, such as the wings or engines, to be sheared off and drop to the ground.
Even saying that a plane really could melt into the building or it was a missile, this entry wound would be the main source of oxygenation for any fire that occurred, which it was claimed there was.
Also the flames from said fire should have been licking out around the entry wound, almost certainly climbing up the side of the building, if the fire was intense and large enough to damage the building.
I have seen lots of pictures and footage of smoke, but I can not remember a single sight of flames, which seems odd to me.
Knowing what we know about the power of suggestion, there would be no actual need to have a real plane hit the building, simply suggest it to eyewitnesses immediately afterwards, for them to believe it must have been a plane.
Tests have shown that eyewitness accounts are very suggestible, as the mind just gropes around for anything to fill in gaps in its knowledge.
I am beginning to think it was just a controlled demolition, with a bit of smoke or small explosions prior to said demolition, to give the suggestion of some kind of incident.
Then the footage with the planes emerges, clearly faked, as no plane melts into a building like that, and it becomes accepted by the vast majority that planes hit them.}
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
Gerry check this out ans see what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
{Ed033's Note - The above Richard D. Hall video presentation is not the latest conclusion that Richard D. Hall has come to. The below 2 video presentations are the latest conclusions on video that Richard D. Hall has come to, which is different from the above
http://richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=178&part=1
http://richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=178&part=2
http://richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=178&part=1
http://richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=178&part=2
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
'Even saying that a plane really could melt into the building'
Who is saying that Ed001?
Ryan.
Who is saying that Ed001?
Ryan.
{Ed001's Note - the footage does.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Just watched the updated thoughts, interesting one thing we never seem to hear about is the alleged plane victims family members, that interests me more than what actually hit the wtc.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Right that's cool franky but really not a single one of those millions of people have an original photo or video? I fully beleive in suggestion (ed) and black tech but that's surely not possible? the law of averages alone would say so.
{Ed001's Note - this is why I think nothing actually flew into them. A missile or plane flew incredibly low over NYC during the daytime, yet we have no one who saw it flying over the city. No footage as people think to themselves "what on earth was that" and get out their phones or cameras or video cameras to film something. This is a tourist destination, tourists are always wandering round with video cameras and normal cameras, you would think someone would have captured a plane flying that low.}
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
Redact my last statement, its pretty good footage but my original point stands. not one other person has this footage? i'm pretty clued up on this and agree with the structural engineers pilots etc that its boll##ks but why has there not been more footage. this should have been completely blown wide open by now?
gerrymcgin1888
gerrymcgin1888
{Ed033's Note - Yes there are only a maximum of 60 publicly known videos of the alleged plane that hit WTC2. 26 of them are within the below video in the analysis part. A must watch to show that video fakery of adding fake planes is near impossible but as the alleged plane can't melt into the Tower and the speed of the plane was impossible for this plane at this altitude, we're back to the 'hologram' theory as the only explanation at the moment.
NEW 9/11 VIDEO AND RADAR ANALYSIS Richard.D.Hall Part 2 of 3
NEW 9/11 VIDEO AND RADAR ANALYSIS Richard.D.Hall Part 2 of 3
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Have to say i'm leaning that way to. its implausable
(last no name was mine to)
gerrymcgin1888
(last no name was mine to)
gerrymcgin1888
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
That's an interesting thought Franky. I wonder if any families have sued the airline or whoever they could sue for damages?
Ryan.
Ryan.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
If we agree it was not a plane, then were are the people that were alleged to have crashed in the towers?we have seen plenty of stories of victims in the towers but its awfully quiet on 9/11 plane victims.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
15 Jun 2014 13:31:56
Ah but that is the question, what happened to 4 plane loads of people if the planes were not destroyed in the way we are lead to believe?
Kim Philby
Ah but that is the question, what happened to 4 plane loads of people if the planes were not destroyed in the way we are lead to believe?
Kim Philby
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0