TV Fakery & No Airplane Theory

[AgainHayHut]

PLANES



See all of the evidence that the airplane crashes were one giant TV hoax here:
http://www.septclues.com/SEPTEMBER%2...MPLETE%201.avi



No airplanes crashed in the United States of America on 9/11/2001. The Pentagon attack didn't resemble a jet airplane crash at all. Rather, it looked as if the walls had been blown open by bombs. The lack of an airplane at the crash site was obvious, and was observed by responders. The crash in Shanksville was nothing but an empty ditch with some light smoke/heat damage. The complete lack of an airplane was observed by responders/onlookers.



While the Pentagon/Shanksville crashes were obvious frauds, people bought the idea that the North Tower and South Tower had been hit by airplanes. Despite the forensics evidence that clearly destroyed this idea, people were convinced by fake TV broadcasts and 'amateur footage' that depicted planes going into the buildings. All of these "airplane crash" videos were incredibly fake. They contradicted one another in issues as simple as what the flight path was, they showed unrealistic background colors, and they showed tell-tale signs of fakery/layering/insertion.

COLLAPSES

So, if all of the hijackers/planes were illusion, then what wasn't? That's a good question.

It would appear that the perpetrators faked the videos of the WTC collapses in order to cover up the true nature of the deconstruction. Take a look at this side-by-side, which shows a clear contradiction between a photograph of the South Tower Collapse and a video of it:



Clearly, one or both of these images is fake.

A quick examination of the other collapse videos shows us that the WTC Collapse Videos were all fakes. Think about it -- if you were going to demolish these buildings, would you let the real demolition job be seen by countless different cameras?

The following videos demonstrate how the videos of the WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 collapses were fake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyW-0MeBOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

JUMPERS



One of the most emotional images people can remember about 9/11 is the horrifying photographs/videos of people jumping out of the World Trade Center and falling to the ground. Zoom in on any of these pictures, however, and you reach a shocking conclusion -- they are all photoshop fakes. Not one of them is real and a quick zoom-in will show that.

The most well-known one, "The Falling Man" (Middle row, far left), has the usual photoshop problems, as well as an impossibility -- the man is keeping his arms to his sides, despite the fact that he is falling at the speed of gravity (Impossible) -- this fake photograph was taken by Richard Drew, a professional AP photographer who also took photographs of Robert Kennedy's corpse after his 1968 assassination (While his wife shouted "Stop taking pictures!"). Drew just so happens to be a relative of Dylan Avery's -- Avery, for those who don't know, is the man behind "Loose Change" -- the film and it's makers have always rabidly defended the idea that airplanes hit the Towers.




-Why is the sky an "evening" color? Remember that, at the time this shot was supposedly taken, it was a clear morning in New York.
-What's with the weird green color of the buildings?
-Why is the "Jumper" a black silhouette?
-Why does the jumper seem to 'vanish' in mid-air at a certain point?

Also note that the camera movements/zoom-out are unrealistically calm and professional.

FAKERY

What are the opinions/thoughts on the idea that the TV version of 9/11 was fake?

[earthist]

Sorry. That goes too far. There were too many witnesses. There was no plane at the Pentagon, that's clear. Shanksville may or may not have been a plane, but not at the official spot; that was most likely faked. The towers were planes, though, just not the commercial planes we were told about.

Watch In Plane Sight. The tower planes were military planes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...n+plane+sight#

There are 2 points to be made that have to do with physics here:

1) Penatagon: You can't fit a 114-foot airplane into a 16-foot hole.
2) Towers: The towers fell at free-fall speed. Free fall is the speed at which an object falls to the ground in a vaccuum when there is no obstruction. For the buildings to have accomplished this, they had to be pulled down from below.

Anything, and everything else is speculation, or at least arguable, but these are not, and they are enough. Why go on about it? We need something new.

[AgainHayHut]

Sorry. That goes too far. There were too many witnesses. There was no plane at the Pentagon, that's clear. Shanksville may or may not have been a plane, but not at the official spot; that was most likely faked. The towers were planes, though, just not the commercial planes we were told about.

The main argument against the "No Airplane Theory" (Despite indisputable evidence of TV Fakery) is the idea that there were many eyewitnesses to airplanes. Take a look at these lists of witnesses who saw something quite different:

The Original No Planers:
Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes -- by Morgan Reynolds
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...nal_no_planers

What Witnesses? -- by Gerard Holmgren
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84

Going in Search of Planes In NYC -- by Andrew Johnson
http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/...=134&Itemid=60

Many of the initial witnesses (Before the media brainwashing set in) thought that the aircraft was smaller or a missile, or thought that an explosion had simply happened.

Most of the eyewitnesses who report a large airplane were employed by the media, such as Sean Murtagh (CNN Vice President of Finance) and Mark Obenhaus (Senior ABC producer). Others in the "We-Saw-Big-Airplanes" club had military/intelligence backgrounds or strange connections. Many of the on-the-street witnesses to airplanes seemed like actors, and their interviews with reporters seemed staged/set-up.

Consider the possibility that the military faked these crashes and had a team of PSYOPS witnesses ready to work in conjunction with the mainstream media teams on the ground in staging 'on-site' interviews and phone calls.

One newsmedia witness was on the phone, allegedly in New York, and sounds of talking in the background could be heard on his end. However, no impact sound was heard on his end when the South Tower explosion occurred. This indicates that he was in some kind of studio and not really in New York, as he claimed.

Watch this movie. It is a mind-blower:
http://www.septclues.com/SEPTEMBER%2...MPLETE%201.avi

Watch In Plane Sight. The tower planes were military planes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...n+plane+sight#

The primary evidence that the plane that hit the Tower was fitted with some kind of extra piece of equipment is the video shot by Michael Hezarkhani (Who has ties to Rudy Giuliani and refuses to disclose where he took his shot):



Read this blog-post by 9/11 researcher Killtown:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/03...henomenon.html

The pod seems to 'grow' on the airplane image as it glides into the South Tower. It is an error in the TV/Video Fakery.

[earthist]

I am downloading your .5 gig AVI file. We'll see if it runs on my computer.

I also tried to check your "blog" site:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/03...henomenon.html

and the flash scripting tried to "eat" my CPU. Exaggeration, of course, but it's inaccessible for any practical purpose. If the guy is so great at videos, it seems to me he ought to be able to put one up that works.

But what if you're right? What if everything you say is true? What's the point of all the clamor on this topic? Do you have something new and provable in court? Something that we might find more valuable than what we already have? You are preaching to the choir here. Why?

There are lots of interesting topics here. Join in the discussions. It's a pretty interesting group.


Oh, by the way, the AVI download just died while in progress. Why do you suppose that would be? I have no problems normally. Hmmmm.......

[AgainHayHut]

I am downloading your .5 gig AVI file. We'll see if it runs on my computer.

I also tried to check your "blog" site:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/03...henomenon.html

and the flash scripting tried to "eat" my CPU. Exaggeration, of course, but it's inaccessible for any practical purpose. If the guy is so great at videos, it seems to me he ought to be able to put one up that works.

It's probably just technical problems with his blog -- he's been getting mass bursts of traffic. And he has put out an endless parade of smoking guns. In fact, he is the researcher behind the "250+ Smoking Guns" list. He is a credible researcher with countless smoking gun finds to his online name. I trust him.

Oh, by the way, the AVI download just died while in progress. Why do you suppose that would be? I have no problems normally. Hmmmm.......

Hehe, maybe the perps are trying to mess with the download links to this smoking gun video. Don't worry. The video is also here:
http://septemberclues.info/

But what if you're right? What if everything you say is true? What's the point of all the clamor on this topic? Do you have something new and provable in court? Something that we might find more valuable than what we already have?

Yes, the TV Fakery evidence is some of the most important evidence there is for the following reasons:

1. It is not debatable. It can be observed by one's own eyes. It can also be observed by an honest judge and jury.
2. It destroys any notion of "LIHOP"/"Negligence"/"Partial-MIHOP" and establishes once and for all that the attacks were a 100% false-flag fraud.
3. It shows us that the TV footage/Videos from New York that day are not evidence of anything but a massive media hoax.
4. It exposes the mainstream media's DIRECT ROLE in the attacks.

TV Fakery is crucial to understanding what happened on September 11, 2001.

The "New Investigation" is a False Hopes dream. Like the Bush/Clinton governments, the Obama government is dominated by members of the same cozy elite circles that ruled the previous government. I'd say that every US administration in modern times has been a Vatican puppet government. If there is a new investigation, it will be just as controlled as the last one. We have to do our own investigation if we want to reach the truth.

Where to start, one might ask. Here's a start. The 9/11 TV Archive. Watch all of the original TV broadcasts that day:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Watch them for yourself and experience the great TV hoax again.

You are preaching to the choir here. Why?

Other theories/ideas about 9/11 are discussed here. This one can be discussed/researched like any other. In fact, I think this one is crucial and, perhaps, one of the core issues of 9/11.

My research shows that the attacks were a massive TV hoax -- yes, they happened. The WTC was gone after the attacks and the Pentagon did have a giant smoking hole in it.

I'm saying that all of the videos broadcast showing the airplanes/collapses/jumpers were fake, just about all of the on-the-phone witness interviews/on-site witness interviews that day were staged, and most of the victims did not exist, but are simulated personalities -- what are called 'mock victims' (See Operation NorthWoods). The Pentagon/Shanksville TV footage showed signs of fakery too, along with the photos of those events.

Fake victims, fake photos, fake videos, fake witnesses -- I think that we're dealing with a massive TV/Video media hoax. I think that the destruction of the Towers and fake plane crashes can be traced back to the US Military and Defense Contractors. They used a deadly combination of explosives and hi-tech, advanced weaponry to destroy all seven buildings of the World Trade Center that fateful day. They did it under the cover of the mainstream media's fake videos.

[AgainHayHut]

The "Hard Hat" Eyewitness
http://webfairy.org/video/canale/07_...in-hardhat.mpg

This is an example of a fake, on-street interview that was staged by the newsmedia on the day of 9/11 in order to support the airplane myth. We see a fat, mustached suburban man with a hard hat (just to reinforce that he is a construction worker) with a fakish New Yorker accent. He supposedly just happened to have the perfect vantage point and saw both airplanes hit. What a coincidence, then, that this "Star Witness" just happens to drive by Rick Leventhal and his FOX Camera Team.

Please note:

1. There isn't a speck of dust on him and his vehicle looks completely clean.

2. He is still wearing a hardhat, even though he is not doing construction work at the moment. He is inside a vehicle, and anyone who has worn a hardhat will tell you that you take it off as soon as possible, and you never wear it while driving.

3. His accent is incredibly Hollywood/fake-ish.

4. The shadows conceal three men inside the van with him. Their faces are in the dark and cannot be seen, but they don't volunteer anything during the entire interview.

5. He not only sees BOTH JETS, but even identifies them as a "727 or 737.. or about a 757" -- Isn't it just too much of a coincidence that the perfect witness for the Airplane Theory who had a vantage point that not many others could have had happens to run into Leventhal's FOX camera team?

6. His crazy, wild hand movements are a clear sign of poor acting.

7. He claims that he has friends on the 104th floor of the building, yet he inserts sound effects like "BANG!" into his account. Would someone who quite probably lost friends be making sound effects as they describe what happened? This is not something someone who had friends in the building would do. It is, however, what an actor would do for dramatic effect.

8. He takes off his hard hat (A disguise he only needed during the interview) immediately after the interview is over and engages in some 'off-air' talk with Leventhal. This is caught on camera before the scene is quickly switched to the Towers smoking. Looks like the guys in the 'control room' left that scene on a few seconds too long.

[earthist]

OK. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll consider it.

[Alpha]

There were too many witnesses.

Perhaps so, however let me throw this out for consideration.....

Hologram or Airplane? - Just What Did Hit the WTC?

[AgainHayHut]

Perhaps so, however let me throw this out for consideration.....

Hologram or Airplane? - Just What Did Hit the WTC?

Interesting, Alpha. We know that the US Military has the technology to project images into the air.

Though, at this point in my research, I think that the perpetrators simply detonated bombs and perhaps fired missiles and/or flew a small drone into the building.

I base this on the fact that many of the witnesses report a smaller aircraft. Some say that there was only an explosion, but that they didn't see/hear any kind of airplane.

Every witness to an airplane that I see is either an obvious fake (Military/Media connections, Bad acting skills) or someone who reported an airplane only well after the fact. The latter is not credible because they've been bombarded with the fake videos for years. If you saw a small object zip by you and hit a building, but couldn't tell what it was, and then news videos showed a large jet hitting the building, you'd assume that's what you saw. And if the newsmedia has on-site/on-phone actors claiming that they saw airplanes, you would be 100% assured that the small aircraft you saw was really a big boeing.

More to come, guys. I will post articles/pictures/videos and this post will become a wealth of information about TV Fakery on 9/11. Stay tuned.

[MuseNoir]

This is something I have looked into - and I am familar with KillTown's work as well. I don't buy the official story, not in the least, but I am not convinced about the TV fakery, although it is intriguing. It is hard to see ANY photos or video and trust that there has been no tampering or manipulation no matter what side is being presented. However, where are the passengers that were supposed to have been on those flights? That is the haunting question.... any ideas on that?

[maryals]

How do I know the videos YOU are using haven't been tampered with to prove your point?
So let's just look at some basic science.
There is a math formula: mass X acceleration = force. You have the mass of that huge airplane, fully loaded with fuel, accelerating into a solid object, and the plane is gonna disintegrate. Especially since we don't know what kind of high tech super solid stuff the walls of the Pentagon are made of, it makes sense to me that the post crash site would look like a bomb hit ... a bomb comprised of an airplane loaded with jet fuel, and it (the plane) disintegrated on impact.
Ditto that smoking hole in PA, especially if the plane was flown nose first, full force, into the ground.
As for the Towers in NY ... do you know how much explosive force is in all that jet fuel? I don't, but I can imagine it is, well, a whole lot. And the fires of the burning jet fuel were very very hot.
Basic architecture: once the weight bearing walls finally gave way, each floor would pancake on the one below it. Each lower floor was now being forced to hold many times the weight it was designed to hold, so that floor would pancake, and so on.
Now, what about that Thermite stuff that LMH reported as being found in the rubble? I don't know.
There are some very scary things happening now within the U.S. Government that I want to spend my energy on. How do we know that this whole 9/11 Conspiracy stuff isn't a distraction, to keep us focused away from what is happening today ?
Please don't take offense, but how do we know you aren't some disinformation/distraction operative, whose mission is to keep us so focused on the past that we are blind to what is happening now? History will eventually tell the truth about 9/11. I want to keep my eyes on what is happening now, today, to protect us from tomorrow.

Mary and Bessie

[AgainHayHut]

How do I know the videos YOU are using haven't been tampered with to prove your point?

Because you can find the original videos in the 9/11 TV Archives. Here:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

So let's just look at some basic science.
There is a math formula: mass X acceleration = force. You have the mass of that huge airplane, fully loaded with fuel, accelerating into a solid object, and the plane is gonna disintegrate. Especially since we don't know what kind of high tech super solid stuff the walls of the Pentagon are made of, it makes sense to me that the post crash site would look like a bomb hit ... a bomb comprised of an airplane loaded with jet fuel, and it (the plane) disintegrated on impact.

This is misleading. While parts of it will 'disintegrate', it will not vanish. There will be large sections everywhere. And the Pentagon is a Masonry building.

And, on the topic of a 'bomb hit', I think that one person to ask about what kind of 'bomb' was employed is Don Perkal. He was on the scene immediately after the explosion and smelled Cordite in the area, and knew that a bomb had gone off.

Ditto that smoking hole in PA, especially if the plane was flown nose first, full force, into the ground.

Find one other plane crash where an aircraft flies into a field and simply vanishes -- you won't find one. Airplanes don't disappear on impact and that has been historically proven.

As for PA, look at that hole and you'll notice that something important is missing -- fire damage. Flight 93 had approx. 5,500 gallons of jet fuel at the time of it's destruction. We can see only minor smoke/heat damage in the hole and none in the surrounding grass. A photographer reported that he didn't smell any jet fuel on the scene, just burnt earth. There are blades of grass around the hole that are completely unburnt. The groundwater was tested and no contamination was found, so it didn't go into the ground either.

Basic architecture: once the weight bearing walls finally gave way, each floor would pancake on the one below it. Each lower floor was now being forced to hold many times the weight it was designed to hold, so that floor would pancake, and so on.

This theory has been heavily debunked. Not even NIST (Which is heavily connected to the US Military/Defense Industry) is behind it anymore.

This is what a Pancake collapse looks like:



The floors piled on top of one another is the signature. Did we see that at the WTC? No we did not:



Also, the Pancake Theory fails to account for the steel that was turned to dust and for, most importantly, the core being gone.

Also, a pancake collapse would have happened very gradually, since each floor had many supports holding it up. Even if it took one second for every floor to fail and collapse onto the other, the collapse would take a vast amount of time. But we know that the collapse occurred very rapidly.

A full analysis of the Pancake Collapse is in this thread:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=10188

There are some very scary things happening now within the U.S. Government that I want to spend my energy on. How do we know that this whole 9/11 Conspiracy stuff isn't a distraction, to keep us focused away from what is happening today ?

If it was a distraction, we would see:

-Promotion of it by the US Media.
-9/11 Truth Films in Hollywood.
-"9/11" considered a safe subject in the big anti-war groups.

But the US Media hates 9/11 truth, Hollywood ignores it, and the big anti-war groups shun it.

Plus, when we combine that with all of the evidence behind 9/11 truth, it is quite clear that it is not a distraction, but rather, a core issue.

Please don't take offense, but how do we know you aren't some disinformation/distraction operative, whose mission is to keep us so focused on the past that we are blind to what is happening now?

Well, just look at the particular sub-forum that my post is under. This is Imaginative World's "9/11 section", no?

History will eventually tell the truth about 9/11. I want to keep my eyes on what is happening now, today, to protect us from tomorrow.

We can't move forward if we're going to simply allow their crimes to pass like this. 9/11, Columbine, 7/7, 3/11, OKC, and other false-flags have to be exposed.

[AgainHayHut]

This is something I have looked into - and I am familar with KillTown's work as well. I don't buy the official story, not in the least, but I am not convinced about the TV fakery, although it is intriguing. It is hard to see ANY photos or video and trust that there has been no tampering or manipulation no matter what side is being presented. However, where are the passengers that were supposed to have been on those flights? That is the haunting question.... any ideas on that?

I think that you'll find that the videos found in the TV News Archives and the photographs of the planes from official sources are crude fakes. All of them.

As for the passengers, I think there are two possibilities:

-They were disposed of somewhere else.
-They are sims.