"No Planes Hit The Twin Towers" claims ex-CIA agent

[Gemmel]

Back on-topic, just seen this on my FB feed.

 

http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/video-proof-showing-no-planes-hit-the-wtc-on-911/

 

Pertinent to OP, but I want to see how this fares for a bit before coming to a view.

 

But you have already reached your conclusion, by explaining why the planes were necessary................

[pap]

But you have already reached your conclusion, by explaining why the planes were necessary................

 

I refer sir to the below; it has been a long thread - so no snarkiness intended. Planes are necessary for the official narrative.....

 

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy.

 

So what else do planes give us that other scenarios don't? Convenient patsies and quick resolution would be one. I think we can both agree that either of the other scenarios would have mandated a lengthy investigation of some kind. Planes give us hijackers and resolution.

 

None of the explanations above mandate the physical existence of planes. Obscuring the means of destruction still works; the "one we made earlier" list of suspects still flies too.

 

This isn't the first time that the distinction has been discussed directly. KRG asked me about it.

 

Pap, I'm sorry to interject, I know you are occupied with others here.

 

But I see two separate points here.

 

1) the OP - planes never hit the WTC

 

I've not really got a position on the planes. We saw planes at WTC. We were told that there was a plane at the Pentagon, and yet despite that being inbound for quite some time, there's no footage. Five frames of fúck-knows-what, but it really doesn't look like a passenger airliner.

[John Smith]

Helpful advice. It was a 757 not a 767. You're the one who thinks it was a 767 that didn't hit the building. Is that more conspiratorial than a 757 not hitting the building?

 

The many witnesses saw a American Airlines plane hitting the Pentagon just after 9.30am on 9/11. The fact you think the crash didn't happen and everybody is a crisis actor / shill / government agent only tells us something about you, not about the facts.

 

The delicious irony thing is that one of my colleagues who witnessed the crash is an lifelong opponent of the US right wing. He spent many years working as an adviser to Ralph Nader (yep go wiki him). There is no-one on the planet less likely to go along with neo-con conspiracy than him. I'm sure many of the other witnesses have similar stories. That's why your fevered internet chat room freedom fighters are so risible. You've done nothing and contributed nothing but know everything.

 

You still seem to be struggling, and like most conspiracy theorists, cannot backup your ridiculous claims with 'evidence'. Come on, it's taken you 2 days to identify it as a 757 that never hit the pentagon. Please, with all those thousands of witnesses, multitudes of cctv and 60 tonnes of debris, please provide one shred of factual evidence that backs your outlandish theory that a boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing you won't be back soon, unless it's to through insults at people that don't believe you're ridiculous theories!

 

try again 1 out of 10 for effort so far.

 

The bit that I get stuck on is the need for a plane at all? As I said to Pap, if we assume that is was indeed the US government against their own people with the intention of scaring everybody, what do the planes achieve?

 

Blowing up the pentagon and twin towers would have had the same impact (I'm sure the conspiracy theorists suggest that the twin towers were stocked with explosives) so why the need for planes?

 

So Buctootim, I have given you ample time to collate your evidence and I am ready to receive. The length of time should hopefully produce a wealth of evidence supporting your conspiracy theory that a Boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I cannot wait.

 

Secondly, and this is why I tagged Gemmels post as well, we get to the plane theory around the WTC buildings. So, following on from your evidence around The Pentagon, please show me factual evidence which proves your conspiracy theory that a plane hit WTC Building 7. I mean, unless you have another conspiracy theory as to how a steel framed building can 'collapse' due to an office (not 1080 degree airliner fuel, as we know that this never went into the middle of WTC Building 7, which is where the fire was) and we know it was damaged by falling debris, but that would probably lead to a partial collapse... but hey, I'll leave it to the expert, over to you buctootim, evidence on your conspiracy theory please.

[Gemmel]

So Buctootim, I have given you ample time to collate your evidence and I am ready to receive. The length of time should hopefully produce a wealth of evidence supporting your conspiracy theory that a Boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I cannot wait.

 

Secondly, and this is why I tagged Gemmels post as well, we get to the plane theory around the WTC buildings. So, following on from your evidence around The Pentagon, please show me factual evidence which proves your conspiracy theory that a plane hit WTC Building 7. I mean, unless you have another conspiracy theory as to how a steel framed building can 'collapse' due to an office (not 1080 degree airliner fuel, as we know that this never went into the middle of WTC Building 7, which is where the fire was) and we know it was damaged by falling debris, but that would probably lead to a partial collapse... but hey, I'll leave it to the expert, over to you buctootim, evidence on your conspiracy theory please.

 

Can you just update us on what theory we should be working on. There have been so many;

 

1) Planes were loaded with (On the wings I seem to remember) with explosives

2) The planes detonated explosives that had been pre packed into the world trade centre

3) The planes were military planes not commercial airliners

4) The planes were in fact missiles.

5) There were no planes - what was seen were holograms

6) There were no planes - the buildings were destroyed in whatever way and the filmed footage edited to include the planes that didn't exist.

[John Smith]

Can you just update us on what theory we should be working on. There have been so many;

 

1) Planes were loaded with (On the wings I seem to remember) with explosives

2) The planes detonated explosives that had been pre packed into the world trade centre

3) The planes were military planes not commercial airliners

4) The planes were in fact missiles.

5) There were no planes - what was seen were holograms

6) There were no planes - the buildings were destroyed in whatever way and the filmed footage edited to include the planes that didn't exist.

 

Hey Gemmel, no problem, if you want to run with this with buctootim, no worries. So, for me, I can't understand how WTC Building 7 collapsed? Personally, I work in a very similar building to that which collapsed and I would be worried if a fire on one of the floors was enough to bring down the entire building, so please, use evidence and facts to show how this is possible and I'll check with the fire officers/wardens and ensure my building is safe.

 

Secondly, with regard to WTC Building 7, why did it collapse, when it did, in the way that it did? Very strange? And, the main reason I would find this strange, is because of all the conspiracy theories put forward, they would have to match the method of collapse, you know, in that flat pack kind of way it did? Very curious?

 

So, from your options of 1 - 6, I'm not sure you're off to a good start, as first, you'd need to prove a plane hit WTC Building 7? But, I wait for your response with eagerness.

[Gemmel]

So, from your options of 1 - 6, I'm not sure you're off to a good start, as first, you'd need to prove a plane hit WTC Building 7? But, I wait for your response with eagerness.

 

John my inability to prove what was shown live on TV and has thousands of witnesses is my bad and I concede defeat,

 

However - That brings options 4 through 6 into play (Possibly not your finest post given they support your theory).

 

So now we have narrowed it down - Which one is it to be and can you talk us through why this is the correct conspiracy theory as opposed to all the others? I will wait for your response with eagerness.

[buctootim]

John my inability to prove what was shown live on TV and has thousands of witnesses is my bad and I concede defeat,

 

Thats the nub of it. Particularly for the second tower to be hit there was intense scrutiny, live footage broadcast to millions of homes in addition to thousands of witnesses.

 

There is an interesting research piece on the personality of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs published in 2009. Essentially the findings show that belief in conspiracies is a psychological trait - truthers tend not to be selective or apply objective criteria to each one, believe one believe them all. You need to subscribe to Applied Cognitive Psychology to see the full research but a summary is here. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201009/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there

Edited 30 May, 2014 by buctootim

[John Smith]

Thats the nub of it. Particularly for the second tower to be hit there was intense scrutiny, live footage broadcast to millions of homes in addition to thousands of witnesses.

 

There is an interesting research piece on the personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs published in 2009. Essentially the findings show that belief in conspiracies is a psychological trait - truthers tend not to be selective or apply objective criteria to each one, believe one believe them all. You need to subscribe to Applied Cognitive Psychology to see the full research but a summary is here. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201009/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there

 

I mean, this is quite droll that it takes this many posts and that many ridiculous comments for you guys to actually pull the wool from your eyes and read the question. So, without you guys trying to say this or say that, let me help you:

 

WTC Building 7 was NEVER hit by a plane, FACT. WTC Building 7 was next to the twin towers and I would love to see the footage or hear from the 'thousands' of witnesses that eye witnessed this event. You have nothing, nudda, zero proof that a plane hit WTC Building 7. The fact that you two keep trying to make me out to be the one with a crazy theory, please explain or show this third plane hitting building 7 or whatever it is your claiming from 4 to 6?

 

So, plain and simple thus far, your conspiracy theory that a plane hit WTC Building 7 and was witnessed by thousands of people has been backed up by NO evidence whatsoever. Personally, I would've thought that you would've taken a different line rather than a mysterious third plane, but hey ho, again I wait for your response with eager anticipation. One photo or image of any plane hitting WTC Building 7 will do, you know, the one next to the twin towers?

 

Please, google maps will just prove you have nothing and the only ones needing phsychological help would be you two and your nut job conspiracies that not even the US Government a backing, please, WTC Building 7 hit by 3rd plane, what drugs you guys on!

[Verbal]

John Smith is funny.

[Spudders]

WTC Building 7 was NEVER hit by a plane, FACT. WTC Building 7 was next to the twin towers and I would love to see the footage or hear from the 'thousands' of witnesses that eye witnessed this event. You have nothing, nudda, zero proof that a plane hit WTC Building 7. The fact that you two keep trying to make me out to be the one with a crazy theory, please explain or show this third plane hitting building 7 or whatever it is your claiming from 4 to 6?

Was this the building that the BBC reported as having collapsed, whilst you could clearly see it still intact in the background at that point, behind their news reporter?

[pap]

Was this the building that the BBC reported as having collapsed, whilst you could clearly see it still intact in the background at that point, behind their news reporter?

 

Yes, that's the one. WTC 7 a.k.a. Salomon Brothers Building.

 

 

 

Does make you wonder why she's reporting it.

[Gemmel]

I owe John an apology.

 

I got so wrapped up in the no planes theory and wrongly assumed we were talking about one of the twin towers.

 

One nil John - Can we go back to the no planes hitting either of the twin towers

[Gemmel]

Yes, that's the one. WTC 7 a.k.a. Salomon Brothers Building.

 

 

 

Does make you wonder why she's reporting it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

[pap]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

 

What part of that article actually addresses the specific problem of someone reporting an event before it has happened?

 

The comments section is far more illuminating.

[Gemmel]

What part of that article actually addresses the specific problem of someone reporting an event before it has happened?

 

The comments section is far more illuminating.

 

That the firebrigade had been anticipating it falling for some and advising the press agencies - Reutuers then informed everyone including the BBC that it already happened - when it hadn't ( That was my take on it)

[pap]

That the firebrigade had been anticipating it falling for some and advising the press agencies - Reutuers then informed everyone including the BBC that it already happened - when it hadn't (That was my take on it)

 

Unfortunately, it has the appearance of looking like it was "part of the script", delivered a little too early. There are other examples of the script being king, like the insistence to this day that the 19 hijackers named on the day are still the perpetrators.

 

To me, this explanation falls flat. A building collapsing is a fairly big event; until the first tower went, no-one even thought it possible that day. You'd think they'd get that right.

[Bearsy]

A building collapsing is a fairly big event; until the first tower went, no-one even thought it possible that day. You'd think they'd get that right.

 

If i was in WTC that day i would just have stayed at my desk. I'd be like where are you guise all going? Don't you know it's impossible for buildings to collapse! BWAAAAARK!

[aintforever]

Unfortunately, it has the appearance of looking like it was "part of the script", delivered a little too early. There are other examples of the script being king, like the insistence to this day that the 19 hijackers named on the day are still the perpetrators.

 

To me, this explanation falls flat. A building collapsing is a fairly big event; until the first tower went, no-one even thought it possible that day. You'd think they'd get that right.

 

When big events like this happen there is always incorrect reports, I remember the first reports on the radio it was a light aircraft hit the towers. It's a mad scramble to get the news out before anyone else so "WTC about to collapse any minute" turned into "WTC has collapsed". It's not hard to understand how it happens.

 

I remember them talking about this building looking like it was going to fall on the day. Maybe the New York fire brigade and the BBC are all in on this big plot you are on about as well?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

When big events like this happen there is always incorrect reports, I remember the first reports on the radio it was a light aircraft hit the towers. It's a mad scramble to get the news out before anyone else so "WTC about to collapse any minute" turned into "WTC has collapsed". It's not hard to understand how it happens.

 

I remember them talking about this building looking like it was going to fall on the day. Maybe the New York fire brigade and the BBC are all in on this big plot you are on about as well?

 

Nope. If there are any discrepancies in a major news event that is being reported live, on the fly when no one really knows what exactly is happening.

 

That is evidence it is a conspiracy.

[aintforever]

Secondly, with regard to WTC Building 7, why did it collapse, when it did, in the way that it did? Very strange? And, the main reason I would find this strange, is because of all the conspiracy theories put forward, they would have to match the method of collapse, you know, in that flat pack kind of way it did? Very curious?

 

I'm guessing it wasn't just the fire but had something to do with the fact that half of WTC2 was stuffed into the side of it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The question of why a building not directly hit by either of the hijacked 9-11 airliners should also collapse is a interesting one. Needless to say I'm no structural engineer, but I wonder if (in combination with the observed fire) the impact of two 500,000 ton towers violently collapsing into their foundations nearby might have mimicked the devastating effect of Barnes Wallis's so called 'Earthquake' bomb of WWII and weakened WTC7 sufficiently to cause its failure? I can't imagine that any architect would be expected to pay such a seemingly bizarre possibility much attention during the design process.

 

If conspiracy theorists are correct however and this building was demolished on purpose then you have to ask yourself why on earth would anyone want to do that? If 9-11 was a incredibly sinister attempt to manipulate the US public into supporting this 'neacon' war as claimed then the destruction of the competitively mundane little WTC7 building doesn't seem to add very much compared to the unprecedented drama of seeing the twin towers fall with such a huge loss of life. On the other hand if we are to believe that there were in fact two conspiracy's at play here and that WTC7 was destroyed in order to hide some (unspecified) secrets it may have contained, then with this building both ablaze and evacuated this situation would seem to offer all the opportunity any conspirator could possibly have asked for to remove anything they wanted without having to necessarily destroy the entire building in the process!

 

This is just one of the key weaknesses of this conspiracy theory explanation for 9-11 - there is just so much overkill implicit in this 'plot' that the more you think about it the more risible the idea becomes. For example, why bother also attacking the Pentagon because that outrage too doesn't seem to increase the effect very much does it? If 'Flight 93' was indeed intended to attack the heart of American democracy at the White House (as suspected) then it seems to me the notion that is was not a group of fanatical terrorists responsible for this attack but rather a group of right wing, but fervently patriotic, Americans behind it all surely stretches this theory's credibility way beyond its breaking point.

 

Are what we might call 'dark forces' sometimes at play at the heart of American Government? Well anyone with even a passing understanding of the Iran-Contra scandal should know that this possibility cannot be entirely discounted. The 9-11 atrocity was however so grievously damaging to the US and its reputation in the world that it seems to me this outrage was surely committed by those who hate America and all that it stands for - rather than by those who love it too much.

[John Smith]

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

[Gemmel]

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

 

 

The really worrying thing about all of this, is that you are actually entitled to a vote

[badgerx16]

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

 

Doesn't explain this one though [video=youtube;4q5nE-k0tUQ]

[badgerx16]

Or this one

( from 7:40 - the plane flies in from the top right corner )

[CB Fry]

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

If nothing else provided a jolly good laugh in the morning.

 

I imagine its already on there but you need to make sure this gets properly categorised on Pap's excellent "resource" forum. It's so good I've forgotten the name of it, but the academic rigour is absolutely second to none.

 

Try and file it next to all the learned academics and structural engineers and definitely not retarded people watching video clips of 9/11 firemen and survivors and screaming about how terrible their acting is.

 

Your invaluable find would only make that truly excellent resource even more excellently resourceful.

[Micky]

So ten years down the line and now the truthers would have us all believe that there were no planes involved... The sad thing is that give it another ten years and they'll probably be trying to convince us that the towers themselves never existed.

 

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

I'm sure there is a very valid reason, but why did noneof the helicopter try and land on top of the building to try and help? I assume the fumes and heat but in Hollywood the 'we don't leave any of ours behind' always seems to win the day

[badgerx16]

I'm sure there is a very valid reason, but why did noneof the helicopter try and land on top of the building to try and help? I assume the fumes and heat but in Hollywood the 'we don't leave any of ours behind' always seems to win the day

 

The thermals and smoke from the fires would have made it suicidal to try, plus the roof access doors were locked.

 

( Not sure even Hollywood could write a script with a believable flight into this

 

)

 

 

"These doors were locked by order of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), owner of the Trade Center. They were locked in part because of concerns about suicides, daredevil stunts and possible theft or vandalism of the millions of dollars worth of broadcasting equipment on the roof. Locking the doors also effectively barred any possibility of a rooftop rescue.

 

Authorization and the means to unlock those heavy steel doors came from a security center located on the 22nd floor. But the security center wasn’t able to help. Falling debris knocked it out almost as soon as the first airliner hit the tower. . . ."

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=203297

 

 

Edited 22 June, 2014 by badgerx16

[Viking Warrior]

I get worried about all these conspiracy theories

 

so many things are covered up.

 

Did you realize there was a drone missile strike on wembley stadium football pitch recently, the american president was keilled

 

why has this not been announced to the world, maybe they are supressing this news for 24 hours or so

[pap]

Did you realize there was a drone missile strike on wembley stadium football pitch recently, the american president was keilled

 

why has this not been announced to the world, maybe they are supressing this news for 24 hours or so

 

Take it you've not seen this week's episode?

 

Actually quite interesting. The moral of the story is don't believe everything you see

 

Quite apt for the thread.

[Viking Warrior]

Pap

 

not seen this weeks effort

 

but I wonder if chloe saves the day and hellier is in fact still alive

[igsey]

 

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave on Twitter.

[Whitey Grandad]

Due to the management changes and player ins and outs, world cup etc, I've left this thread alone as my main interest here is Sains after all!! Anyway, I will come back and respond to some very good questions above, but, today I was sent this link and I thought it was worth sharing to add to the debate. I'm not saying I was a supporter of no plane hitting the twin towers (certainly back my statements on the Pentagon though), but, this analyzed 10-20secs of film is very interesting. Viewing is recommened, will only take a moment. But, I openly accept that it's as easier to fake the real one than fake the original shooting of the plane, so, my mind is open on this.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=807953379222467&set=vb.100000234385295&type=2&theater

 

People who don't understand mpeg video encoding shouldn't be allowed anywhere near video evidence. It wasn't filmed in slow-motion so where did the new video come from? It was interpolated from a succession of stills. Modern video cameras do not record fast-moving images very well.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

 

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave on Twitter.

Useless ****er **** ********!