ask yourself, how many different videos of the air strike have you actually seen? I bet they have only been the so called official versions?

 

This is every known shot of the 2nd plane I think... so there's a few in there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

Plus, there's also the shot of the first plane hitting from the French documentary makers that we've all seen

I think this is the only shot of the first plane hitting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

 

Yeah mainly, I've definitely seen camcorder type ones though, there's some in that video of the 2nd plane hitting, that's a compilation of every known shot i think

There is a few weird shots and angles where it looks like no plane is hitting the building though

Another point, what about the markings on the buildings where the plane has entered?

It looks like a plane has entered the building, unlike the pentagon I hasten to add *yes*

 

and how many actually show the plane going into the building? not a side shot or with the plane going behind the building before impact?

 

I live near military airport and every monday they have fly overs, I can assure you that I seen more planes than average person in my whole life (I can't make music because they are ripping off the sky, it's like war every monday), but I'm talking about small combat ones, huge Boeings's you can't miss even when they are dot in the sky, not almost in front of you hitting something, how the hell on every other clip there is black blurry shadow, did you ever seen huge plain flying over you, I did, it's freaking scary, you can see it even before it comes near you, you can read his marks, everything, it makes noise, sound travels so fast, so think about that *yes*

 

Not sure, I've not really thought about it or looked into be honest

Any documentaries you recommend I should look at that will prove the no planes theory?

 

I saw that one yesterday for the first time, guy explained whole process and debunked most of the arguments, that was enough for me, I knew it was scam many years ago, focused mainly on other things and connected the dots , all makes sense when you grasp bigger picture (I'm not talking about 9/11 only, but about global things that are happening even today), this was nice to see because it makes perfect sense now, I knew NATO was bad news in '99, imagine my life near only military airport in country, it was bombed all the time, once in middle of the day they bombed something mille away from me, saw wing of a destroyed plane flying over me, so they made scam to attack another country 2 years later, start "war on terror" and take liberty from their own citizens, what a shocker

 

a city like NY counts something like 10 million people,it s actually weird there s so little footage apart the official one about the planes crashing against the towers,astonishingly little if u think that that day probably every camcorder of NY was aiming at WTC

now i show u another thing,and with this i m open to various theories since a video taken with a dv or mini dv camcorder can lack accuracy but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g

...pay close attention from minute 1.08 to 1.14, u can see the left wing litterally fade to nothing,u can say the speed of the plane keeps it from being captured by the device,ok,but:

why doesn t the right wing fades the same way as well as the rest of the plane since the material is supposed to be the same for the whole body?;
isn t it strange that the opening in the building where it is supposed to be hit by the left wing is at the point of the left engine and only after a while it becomes large as the size of the invisible wing?

 

Sorry dude, i'm just not getting it, to me it looks like an animation some has made

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSmFnlwrK0

 

itis an animation,as well as the rest of the footage

 

a lot of people don t rememeber that that day not one,not two,not three,but seven buildings collapsed

 

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

 

The notes to the video say that the PATENT for the procedure states "no pre-weakening necessary".

So, can be done with no weakening - just need to get a big enough section moving enough - and it does the rest itself. :D

IMO that's definitive, concrete evidence that WTC collapse was organic, normal, expected.

It happened twice - 100% of the time. (Small sample size, sure, but 100% result).

PEople have long insisted buildings "don't collapse like that"! I didn't think so, either - but clearly they can, and do. The problem was peoples' wrong assumptions about the Towers. Case closed? LOL as if, innit?

I'm still amazed how easily people swallow the "fake plane" thing. Occam's Razor would suggest inventing entirely new technologies to explain things is wholly unwarranted - and plain wrong.

Crazy.

 

Ok, so how does a plane disappear without trace crashing into a field? Fake plane? No plane

 

it didn t happen twice,it happened seven times that day,seven buildings collapses,with the slight difference that apart the twin towers ,the other buildings weren t supposed to break down since nothing hit them ,according to your opinion that the planes were real and they caused the brreakdown of the twin towers

and again, thw stell mash structure of the twin towers was projected to resist the impact with a plane,and moreover,no similar events can be taken as an example because no other buildings with a similar structure,if they exist,were used to demonstrate what happened to the twin towers

and since u mention occam s razor,what is easier,to put explosive in a building and make people believe it was hit by a plane with a holographic play,or to elude the whole security system of the USA,highjack four planes and allow 19 people who never saw the commands of a boeing take control so they can crash against the WTC?

 

It did not "disappear without trace." The crash site was very obvious.


From contemprorary news reports:

More:

It's simply LIES when people claim "nothing was found".

Flight 93 - Shanksville Field:

No - it happened twice. Two planes hit two towers - two towers suffered explosions, fiireballs and fires - and both towers collapsed. No other buildings suffered that exact fate. Only two.

The Towers each survived the initial impact, fireballs and explosions. Most people escaped - the building did its job. The Towers did not survive the fires indefinitely though - they collapsed - causing the other buildings damage and wrecking the water supply for firefighting.

There's no need to search for wild explanations - which do nothing towards explaining events./

Occam's razor dictates you do NOT go inventing entire new technologies to explain something relatively mundane.

Have you ever seen "holographic planes" before? Do they exist? No. So don't use it as an explanation!

Else I can say "I Think an invisible Mickey Mouse did it with Stars Wars technology!" You can't prove it didn't happen! sheesh. seriously?

The pilots had training. It isn't super difficult to keep a plane flying - doing it properly and safely to regulation is, and so is landing and take off. But flying - and hitting WTC - would not be very difficult once airborne.

 

learn to read before replying:

i said 7 buildings collapsed,not only the twin towers,the twin towers were the only two buildings in WTC that according to the official version were hit by planes.
So now explain me why the other buildings collapsed the same way without any plane crashing against them;

we discussed the fires causing the collapse before,but it s useless to discuss it again since the laws of physics changed to support your convinction;

regarding holographic planes,here s the answer


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXr_sGrUFO4

i ve never seen an aeroplane wing fade to nothing as well btw

and let me remind u that the images that all the networks showed that day were not live,there was a 17 seconds delay

and yes,it s simple lies when people say nothing was found in shanksville,the question is: what was found?

http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane

they had very little trainig,and u ve just proved that u know nothing about aeroplanes,this makes u a good candidate as a scape goat for the next fake terroristic attack

 

for a large plane crashing into the ground at about 400 mph there was only a few small pieces, no seats, no luggage, no people? the impact crater is simply too small, you should have seen wreckage over a wide area, not just a few bits dug out of a hole in the ground, there should have been lots of fire and smoke, no scorched earth was seen at the crash scene apart from within the crater

 

sorry guys but i suck at quoting,can a mod be so kind to edit for me?thanks