9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

No Plane
No Plane noise
Eye witnesses say they saw no plane just an explosion


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULr0Gl0tj70

Witchfinder General wrote:No Plane
No Plane noise
Eye witnesses say they saw no plane just an explosion


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULr0Gl0tj70

Naturally there would be countless people who saw no plane/s. You would have to be looking up at the very couple of seconds that the second plane swept in and be in a location where your view was not obstructed.

The woman's statement 'I saw the first one go in', tends to prove that what one doesn't see for whatever reason, someone else does.

I have yet to hear a clear admission from someone that says they were in a position to see an aircraft but didn't as they should have done.

Every 'witness' without exception thus far who says 'I didn't see a plane just an explosion', is always taken out of context, for unless they were actually looking AND in the right location - they would seen nothing other than the fireball. The statement on its own is highly misleading as every instance needs elaboration and detail which of course is never provided.

Witchfinder General wrote:No Plane
No Plane noise
Eye witnesses say they saw no plane just an explosion

Forgive me, but this is absolute nonsense, WG.

Fast forward the film to 2mins 37secs and then press play.

You can clearly hear a roaring noise for about one second before the plane hits (at 2:39). Given the speed of the plane, the built-up nature of the setting, the substantial background noise and the fact that the plane was travelling toward the camera that short length of noise is to be expected.

As for your second unfounded claim, you can briefly but clearly see the plane as it passes between the skyscrapers. If you didn't see it then I can only assume that you weren't watching.

Even the guy who posted the film and apparently made it refers to the plane in the short description:

This is the footage I took during 9/11. I was working from home when my building shook. At 2:39 you can see the nose of the 2nd plane before it hits the South Tower.

Finally regarding witnesses, one specifically states it was an aeroplane and that it looked liked a United Airlines. Did you not hear that????

I can only conclude that you are being deliberately mischievous and are wasting our time.

I heard a plane?? How would you expect them to see a plane from the angle they were at? Do you think this is fakery too?

As Craig points out you can clearly see the fricking plane at 2:39, as well as hear the roar of its engines for several seconds prior to that, and then to top it all you have an eyewitness correctly identifying the plane as a United Airlines jet.

So that's 0 for 3 there. Nice research!

I'm left increasingly to wonder how the gang at
"researchers" appear to be so willing to uncritically
swallow and regurgitate such easily disproved tripe.

Can there be an 'innocent' explanation that I haven't thought of?

Chek, the same question has crossed my mind more than once and I have considered these explanations:

- they are just very, very paranoid and have lost the ability to use reasoning and logic to assess evidence and probabilities

- it is a poorly funded intel disinfo op designed to waste everyone's time and make the site look like a bunch of flakey cranks

- they are computer-generated forum trolls with only basic logic programming (that would explain the robotic repetition and almost complete inability to debate)

- they are a bunch of primary school children on a project

- there really were no planes and these laughable posts are designed to make us see it as completely bonkers

chek wrote: Can there be an 'innocent' explanation that I haven't thought of?

“The most common of all foibles is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief preoccupation of mankind." H.L. Mencken

NPT has become a cult. There may be one or two prominent disinformers leading the charge but I think most of the adherents are sincere true believers.

there is something at 2.39, however if you move the footage on to where the fireball is exiting (by the banding banding on the building) which must be at least 20 to 30 storeys higher.

So explain that then?

Here we have a guy on the spot saying, shortly after the fireball erupts in the South Tower, that he saw what looked like a United Airline plane crashing into the second tower. Then a girl says "I saw the first one go in." How can the no-planers dismiss these two witnesses to planes in any sensible way? They can't. Therefore, they should admit defeat. Game, set and match.

Is anybody going to explain how the fireball came out 30 storey's above where the alleged plane entered?

No you won't cos you can't.

Witchfinder General wrote:Is anybody going to explain how the fireball came out 30 storey's above where the alleged plane entered?

No you won't cos you can't.

The entrance fireball clearly doesn't reach the same height as the exit fireball. Case closed.

Witchfinder General wrote:Is anybody going to explain how the fireball came out 30 storey's above where the alleged plane entered?

No you won't cos you can't.

This is childish nonsense. You have avoided answering questions that rebut your initial post and are now trying to shift the goalposts in an attempt to save face.

I will answer your new question if you answer my comprehensive rebuttal of your claims in my first post.

If you do not answer my points I will be forced to conclude that you have no interest in rational debate and are purely interested in pushing your pet theories and wasting my and everyone else's time.

Heat rises. A lot of heat rises a lot. Ergo Giant fireballs tend to rise above the combustion source.


I;d like to thank WG for posting a clip that conclusively prooves that at least one plane hit the first tower.

Cheers WG, you really showed the NPT crowd with that evidence! Now, find one backing up the second tower hit and we can all get on with it.

kc wrote:Heat rises. A lot of heat rises a lot. Ergo Giant fireballs tend to rise above the combustion source.


I;d like to thank WG for posting a clip that conclusively prooves that at least one plane hit the first tower.

Cheers WG, you really showed the NPT crowd with that evidence! Now, find one backing up the second tower hit and we can all get on with it.

That film was of the second tower hit, filmed from some way to the North of the complex looking South. It does however contain audio of an eyewitness to the first plane strike as well as the second.

Sigh... the usual MO for these guys...

Post a film claiming to prove TV Fakery, then refuse flat-out to answer any of the valid questions pointing towards the fact that it does no such thing.

Time for stage three: Where everyone questioning the original assertation gets accused of being agents, being the same person, and "muddying the waters of truth"...

Here's your cue WFG...

Craig W wrote:

Witchfinder General wrote:No Plane
No Plane noise
Eye witnesses say they saw no plane just an explosion

Forgive me, but this is absolute nonsense, WG.

Fast forward the film to 2mins 37secs and then press play.

You can clearly hear a roaring noise for about one second before the plane hits (at 2:39). Given the speed of the plane, the built-up nature of the setting, the substantial background noise and the fact that the plane was travelling toward the camera that short length of noise is to be expected.

As for your second unfounded claim, you can briefly but clearly see the plane as it passes between the skyscrapers. If you didn't see it then I can only assume that you weren't watching.

Even the guy who posted the film and apparently made it refers to the plane in the short description:

This is the footage I took during 9/11. I was working from home when my building shook. At 2:39 you can see the nose of the 2nd plane before it hits the South Tower.

Finally regarding witnesses, one specifically states it was an aeroplane and that it looked liked a United Airlines. Did you not hear that????

I can only conclude that you are being deliberately mischievous and are wasting our time.

Ok Craig

I do hear a noise that could be a plane but would expect it to be much louder

The comments on the film about the plane are referring to the first hit before the second hit on this footage.


I have seen the blur that goes between the skyscapers at 2:39, however
it hits the building about half way between the 2 bands of the building but the exit explosion is virtually on the upper banding.

So my question is this: How many storeys above the impact zone was the exit fireball, I reckon it must be 30 storeys and this just does not add up.

I would be interested to know if any of the technically minded people on this forum can actually calculate how many storeys higher the exit fireball was. I will probable post this as a seperate question.

Now Craig can you please explain this discrepancy please.

I do hear a noise that could be a plane but would expect it to be much louder

Turn your speakers up. End off.

Witchfinder General wrote: The comments on the film about the plane are referring to the first hit before the second hit on this footage..

There is clearly a witness to the second plane who is questioned at 3:40, one minute after United Airlines Flight 175's impact.


Guy With Camera: What just hit it?

Eye Witness: An airplane.

GWC: Another one?!

[incoherent cross talk]

GWC:The first one?! What was that...just now?

Eye Witness: As far as I could tell it was a United...it looked like -I swear- it looked like a United plane that crashed into the side of it.

GWC: The one that just came in now?

Eye Witness: Yes!


So I'm guessing this eyewitness was a Sekrit Agent right?

Thankyou, WG.

I don't know why you think the witness was referring to the first plane. The reference to United Airline and the timing of the comment (immediately after the second strike) strongly suggest that he was referring to the second plane.

No problem in explaining the fireball. There is no discrepancy or anomaly. Its location can be easily explained by a couple of points.

The main reason is the fact that the direction of flight of the plane is upward and to the left relative to the frame of the film. This is because of the position of the filmmaker relative to the buildings and the plane.

If you freeze the film when the plane appears and draw a line along the same heading to the other side of the tower it takes you just below where the fireball appears.

The second reason is, as has been stated, that fireballs flare upwards because heat rises. This is the same whatever you are burning: the flames appear above the burnt thing.

No mystery. No anomalies. No strange oddities. Just a noise, a plane, a crash and a fireball. Exactly as one should expect them.

On the CNN footage, the trajectory of the plane is not upwards and the exit fireball is at approximately the same level as where the plane entered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtoiLN7FYAs

Is this a different film?

WG, can you explain why any of us should waste one more minute of our time debating your 'anomalies'?

As soon as one delusion is refuted you just shift the goal-posts and come up with yet another 'anomaly' for us to debate in an infinitely recursive circle, until you disappear up your own a**ehole...which is somewhere I'm not inclined to follow.

WG, while I appreciate you'll probably regard them as The Books of Evil, the NIST reports are actually a good source of information regarding basic data such as mapping the damage caused by the strikes.

Their conclusions of course are a different kettle of damned souls.

Check: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

Normally I'd be super kind and extract and post the pics for you, but as I'm at work I can't.

Oh, I think you have misunderstood me. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You seem to have thought I was claiming that the plane was travelling upward at the point of impact. That is not what I said. I said upward relative to the frame of the film. But that may also be misleading.

I think the problem is one of perspective.

You can see the effect of the perspective by freezing the footage and tracing one of the two darker grey bands visible on the closer tower from the right hand side of the right hand face to the left hand side of that face (mimicking the impact of the second plane). By doing this you can see that were a plane to hit horizontally on the right hand side the exit explosion on the left would appear markedly "higher" up relative to an imaginary horizontal. Of course, it's not higher because we know that those bands are really horizontal. It's just an optical illusion.

Notice also how the higher of these two bands (which appear as chevrons or arrows pointing upwards) seems to deviate from the horizontal even more than the lower, exaggerating the illusion further.

Does that explain it?

Brilliant. That's it, tele.

What's that saying: "A picture can paint a thousand words."

Well done Telly

This however backs up my argument that the exit fireball is too high
The footage I showed earlier is CNNs film of the same impact

Maybe Telly can do the same job on that to further emphasise my point.

Thanks again Telly

WFG,
It appears I misjudged you in predicting you were about to attack; my appologies.

However, I would say this subject is now closed.

Compare Tele's image with a high res photo showing how far the fireball rose:





For me, that's about as consistant as you can get.

Im not talking about high the fireball rose, I talking about where it first appeared. This was too high in relation to the entry point of the alleged plane.