September Clues - There Were No Planes

[Tea]

On 9/11, the US TV networks used computer generated sceneries of Manhattan. Multiple techniques of image manipulation were employed to simulate "airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center". We now have conclusive evidence that the TV networks were proactively complicit in staging this false-flag operation needed to gather public consensus to wage immensely profitable, illegal wars.

The forensic analysis of the LIVE TV images leaves no room for doubt : they do not depict authentic imagery nor real airplane crashes but turn out to be entirely doctored video sequences which effectively fooled the worldwide TV audience. Thus, the live broadcasts now stored in the major TV networks' archives, constitute the most solid, verifiable and repeatable proof to expose the falseness of the official version of the 9/11 tragedy.

September Clues A

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM

Playlist (Starting From Part B)

https://youtube.com/user/simonsha.../1/R4Hw8sJE3R0

--------------

The following is an analysis of the "ball object" seen hitting one of the World Trade Centers. It complements Steptember Clues nicely. It is recommended to watch September Clues first.

Analysis provide by Richard D. Hall

Mysterious Ball Object Seen Flying Over WTC on 9/11 Part 1 - New Uncovered Footage

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ShbY0Oa-6v8

Mysterious Ball Object Seen Flying Over WTC on 9/11 Part 2 - New Uncovered Footage

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PiwBo7gz2C0

Richard D. Hall's Website (Thanks to str8thinker):
http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

[AlkaMyst]

Great post......I have seen this a while back, thanks you for refreshing my memory

[Tea]

Posted by AlkaMyst (here)
Great post......I have seen this a while back, thanks you for refreshing my memory

No problem! I saw it awhile back as well, and it blew me away. I thought it was worth posting here, since it didn't seem to get enough of an audience.

[str8thinker]

Thanks for bringing this topic up again. I also firmly believe no real aircraft were involved, particularly after watching Richard Hall's 3D analysis. Anyone interested in this topic should watch his video. This has been posted previously on Project Avalon, by Snowbird and by myself.

[AlkaMyst]

I welcome anything on 911, I am a New Yorker and I take deeply personal what happened on that horrific day....I knew people in those buildings!!! I fully understand what happened that day which most people don't and to get into a debate is just something that I refuse to do with uneducated people (not directed at anyone in this forum).....it took a sequence of 3 synchronized events to bring those massive 110 Floor Towers down (Trust me planes don't do that, not to mention that it wasn't even planes that hit the towers), but I'll give you all a clue (SND-Small Nuclear Detonation, Termite, PCD-Precise Control Demolition).....put the pieces together and you have the whole puzzle.

PS
Take a look at this videoes.....very interesting stuff!!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Sr41WXMACDI

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zm7PTPcKrtQ

[str8thinker]

(AlkaMyst) I'll give you all a clue (SND-Small Nuclear Detonation, Termite, PCD-Precise Control Demolition)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0jyBiECoS3Q

Makes sense when you think about it (chomp, chomp)...

(Thanks for posting these videos, which are horrific. The truck with "Manhattan Demolitions" on its side appears at 2:50 in the second one. However, the truck appears to be a distance away from Ground Zero and is not linked in any way I can tell to 9/11. It might just have been passing by on its way to another job.)

[HURRITT ENYETO]

I feel sick every time i see that footage.
Unbelievable what some people will do to their fellow man.

[vericocha]

Interesting observation and I am open minded to your conclusion. As a researcher who considers all aspects to a situation I have a couple of questions. How do you respond to David ickes opinion that the plane's were remote controlled so therefore he believes physical aircraft did exist and also the independent French NY Fire department documentary which spontaneously records PLANES hitting the Towers. I do believe the Pentagon was a missile and there is strong evidence to support that.

[Swami]

Posted by vericocha (here)
Interesting observation and I am open minded to your conclusion. As a researcher who considers all aspects to a situation I have a couple of questions. How do you respond to David ickes opinion that the plane's were remote controlled so therefore he believes physical aircraft did exist and also the independent French NY Fire department documentary which spontaneously records PLANES hitting the Towers. I do believe the Pentagon was a missile and there is strong evidence to support that.

Got a link on that one...?

[AlkaMyst]

Interesting observation and I am open minded to your conclusion. As a researcher who considers all aspects to a situation I have a couple of questions. How do you respond to David ickes opinion that the plane's were remote controlled so therefore he believes physical aircraft did exist and also the independent French NY Fire department documentary which spontaneously records PLANES hitting the Towers. I do believe the Pentagon was a missile and there is strong evidence to support that.

Well let's see.....First of all, commercial airliners did not fly into the towers but "Drones"? Well, that is a whole different ball game (I do believe that unman drones where user for this purpose and the media did manipulate the video and images of what really happened that day to make it look like commercial airliners)....I know people who actually made it out of the first WTC and they made it down from the 63rd floor and from what I've been told, that person or any of the people who made it out never reported seen a plane but they did mention a huge explosion that happened at the bottom of the trade center right before whatever hit on top happened not to mention that bombs where also reported going off inside the buildings (I'll get to that in a minute) which will explain all the glass windows in the lobby being blown out (see "9/11" - By The Naudet Brothers). Further more, if you listen to the interview of William Rodriguez (WTC Janitor) where he says that there was an explosion on the north tower basement you would understand where the (SND-Small Nuclear Detonation) comes from which had to be use to take out the foundation of the buildings and to validate it all go here. (Also see this post here by bashi)

Then you also made mention to this "independent French NY Fire department documentary which spontaneously records PLANES hitting the Towers". Well let me correct you there if I may......The Film you're talking about is called ("9/11" - By The Naudet Brothers) which was a documentary being shot about the NYC Fire Department and the two "French" brothers, this film was never meant to be about 911 let along be shown here in the US. The problem here is again that no planes where actually caught on film (look at the whole documentary so you can see what I'm saying, but you can clearly see all the windows in the lobby of the north tower where blown out and they make reference to this). Now to further substantiate, one must first understand that they turned this film to CBS before it was released.....put 2 & 2 together!!!

Now let's move over to the Thermite.....Any questions? (If so, see here) Ohh!....and in case anyone want to believe the jet fuel non-sense, please educate yourselves first here.

And the controlled Demolition?......Well, look above at the second of the 2 videos I posted above where you can clearly see the demolition truck going away from the towers!

Now let me try and summarize it all here......

You have 2 buildings that are 110 Floors each and you need to bring those down to create a distraction (like an illusionist does) in order to be able to bring down a series of smaller buildings (Building-7 & Building -4 in particular) later on in the day because everything relating to the "Missing Trillions from the Pentagon" was housed there, not to mention the "Missing Gold" that was also removed from Building-4. So, here's my idea of how it happened:

A small nuclear detonation had to be created in order to take out the foundations of both the North and South Towers, following that was a small series of low-level noise detonations that happened when the Thermite Chargers were set-off (this is why you have people running out of both towers saying that bombs were going off inside the buildings, meanwhile this could not be heard outside the buildings) and finally a very controlled and precise....Now witness it for yourselves!!!

I REST MY CASE!!!

Swami

Got a link on that one...?

Here's the whole documentary and here's the Update to the documentary.....they are both on my FTP if you're interested in downloading them....All Avalon Members got access to it, see here!!!

[Ty]

I"m still researching 911 to reach my own conclusions and will watch these vids. Have been reading some other threads recommended by Snowbird.

One major problem I have so far is the assumption/presumption/conclusion that the media was either complicit or a willing accomplice. THEY HATED BUSH. There is no way they would have done anything to help in this hoax if it is one. And in the 7 years of his administration that followed 911 they would have jumped at any chance they had to tie his admin to this act. As would most in the democratic party.

"HE PLAYED TO OUR FEARS" Remember that? I have a REALLY HARD TIME believing there is a reasonable case to be made for an inside job if no one in the press nor any of Bush's many adversaries bothered to exploit it. For me that's as hard a hurdle to get over at this point as any. But I'll keep an open mind as I continue reading and watching.

[AlkaMyst]

The problem is that you are still looking at this from the point of view of Bush and his little clan......and one must understand that this goes beyond the powers of the Bush family, to pull an operation like this it involves very high influences not to mention the aide of other countries......just my thoughts, hope they help!

[Ty]

I have no idea what the possible scope of this "hoax" is. But the broader it needs to go to be explained the weaker it becomes as an explanation. And in any case, whether it was within the Bush admin or spiraled out to wherever, it would be the biggest story of a reporter's life to break.

Dan Rather ended his career over fraudulent documents of something so insignificant compared to this it's unfathomable to me that no one in the commercial media has done anything with the story, if there is a story. In 10 years it seems like if there was a real case to be made, at least one "Bob Woodward" type would have latched onto it, torn into it and brought it to light in a big way. Especially with a House and Senate that since 2006 would love to add this to the "HE LIED TO US ABOUT WMDs" mantra and an administration that for the last two years misses no opportunity to blame Bush, right or wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems only to have legs in the alternative medias.

[AlkaMyst]

I agree with you 100% Ty......this goes deeper than anyone may think!!!

[noprophet]

@ 33 minutes in DB talks about 9/11 and the use of certain technologies around it.

Whatever they saw they decided 9/11 was the better of two probabilities. Assuming they had that much faith in the fact that it was a choice between 9/11 and whatever they considered worse - it fully makes sense that they would take measures to ensure that that would be the probability to happen. Such as using high-level, advanced anti-gravitational equipment.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g-h4XjGQFKE

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by AlkaMyst (here)
Termite Chargers

I don't know if your misspelling is deliberate or not, but in any case:

• Termite - small bug that eats wood slowly
• Thermite - hot pyrotechnic that melts metal quickly.

[AlkaMyst]

My Apologies.....typed too fast and misspelled it, never even checked

All Fixed!

[3optic]

Bush had only held office for a year so the likelihood that this plan was hatched and executed in this time frame is remote. Ty, it may be helpful if you look into how power truly breaks down in this world. There is a parallel government in place. It's been there for some time and it's not entirely invisible. Lettered agencies and NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) are the dorsal fin.

Posted by Ty (here)
I have no idea what the possible scope of this "hoax" is. But the broader it needs to go to be explained the weaker it becomes as an explanation.

This may be true in a rhetorical way but all stories have a broad view and something as massive as 9-11 can't be easily reduced. At a certain point reductive becomes simplistic. Hmmm.. sounds as if we're describing the official story!

Once the official story is questioned, and one looks at the evidence, some of which is quite obvious, it opens up a massive rabbit hole. It seemingly never ends.

And in any case, whether it was within the Bush admin or spiraled out to wherever, it would be the biggest story of a reporter's life to break.

Dan Rather ended his career over fraudulent documents of something so insignificant compared to this it's unfathomable to me that no one in the commercial media has done anything with the story, if there is a story. In 10 years it seems like if there was a real case to be made, at least one "Bob Woodward" type would have latched onto it, torn into it and brought it to light in a big way.

Great question. A number of mainstream journalists have remarked on possible reasons for this story not breaking. You have to realize we are talking about 6 major conglomerates who seem to have more similarities than differences.

Your question is answered quite eloquently by Gore Vidal.

We are actually seeing a very sophisticated propaganda machine at work. It has ways of checking and marginalizing cogs that don't get with the program. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are long gone and some may even argue the reason that scandal broke was because it was sanctioned from the top.

Especially with a House and Senate that since 2006 would love to add this to the "HE LIED TO US ABOUT WMDs" mantra and an administration that for the last two years misses no opportunity to blame Bush, right or wrong.

Much of this perceived partisanship in Washington is just show business. Left is pitted against right in a show for the public like a WWF match. This is not to say there isn't real bad blood from time to time or that some politicians and public servants (depending on security clearance) don't take their roles seriously.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems only to have legs in the alternative medias

You are absolutely right. 9-11's official story will not get honest treatment by mainstream media until it is irrelevant (eg. Air America, MK Ultra and other conspiracies we've learned about late in the game) We have to go elsewhere for our information. This is not to say the mainstream is useless. Much useful material is collected from mainstream sources.

[Ty]

Posted by Ty (here)
I have no idea what the possible scope of this "hoax" is. But the broader it needs to go to be explained the weaker it becomes as an explanation.

Posted by 3optic (here)
This may be true in a rhetorical way but all stories have a broad view and something as massive as 9-11 can't be easily reduced. At a certain point reductive becomes simplistic. Hmmm.. sounds as if we're describing the official story!

3optic, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I must say I never thought I'd find myself questioning what happened with 911 but due to the conviction in this forum I thought it worth a look. I'm still undecided about all of the many claims, but having watched these vids and reviewed some of the linked material I have reached a decision about whether or not planes were used.

Here's what's needed to support the theory that there WERE planes.

• radar tracking of flight 175 & flight 11
• personal eyewitness narratives
• photos
• plane debris
• videos

In order for the official story to hold up there should be and is evidence of all of the above. Far more of it in most cases than I am providing below.


Radar Tracking

We need look no further than wikipedia for this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mi...Radar_Tracking

Flight 11:

"At 8:14, the pilot of Flight 11 failed to respond to an instruction to ascend issued from Boston Center, the FAA's Air Traffic Control (ATC) center which controls the airspace. The pilot was, at that time, flying opposite Boston arrivals, and as Flight 11 began to pose an air hazard, air traffic controllers began to reroute arriving aircraft for adequate separation.[11] Boston Center flight controller Tom Roberts said "We had pretty much moved all the airplanes from Albany, New York to Syracuse, New York out of the way because that’s the track he was going on.'"[11][12] At 8:20 EDT, Betty Ong, an American Airlines flight attendant on Flight 11, called the American Airlines reservation desk to report the Flight as hijacked.[13] After 08:21 EDT, American Airlines Flight 11 no longer transmitted transponder altitude or identification information.

After the plane collided with the World Trade Center, American Airlines officials did not confirm loss of Flight 11 for several hours.[citation needed]

At 8:21, the aircraft (now visible only on primary radar) began to veer radically off course. At 8:25, the controller heard what he believed was the voice of a hijacker in a radio transmission from Flight 11. The Boston Center called the FAA Command Center at Herndon at 8:28 to report the hijacking. At 8:32, Herndon called FAA Headquarters in Washington. At 8:34, Boston Center contacted Otis Air National Guard (ANG) base to notify them of the hijacking.[14] The controller at Otis directed Boston to contact NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), and then informed the Otis Operations Center to expect a call from NEADS ordering a scramble. At this time two pilots began to suit up and drove to their waiting F-15 fighter jets.[15][16][17] At 8:38, Boston Center contacted NEADS in Rome, New York. This was the first report of a hijacking that reached NORAD.[6]

The two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were ordered to battle stations (seated in their aircraft, engines not yet started). At 8:46, just at the time the first tower was hit, Nash and Duffy were ordered to scramble (an order that begins with engine start-up, a process that takes about five minutes), and radar confirmed they were airborne by 8:53.[17] By that time, however, the World Trade Center's North Tower had already been hit.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]"

Flight 175:

"At 8:41 at the New York en route center in Islip, Long Island, United Flight 175 entered controllers Dave Bottiglia and Curt Applegate's airspace. The aircraft's transponder was at that time transmitting the assigned code. Its last radio transmission was at 8:42.[34] As Bottiglia and other controllers searched the radar, looking for American 11, he suddenly noticed that United Flight 175, which moments before helped him locate American 11, had changed its transponder code twice at 8:47.[11][34] He asked another controller to take over all of his other planes.[11]

Bottiglia tried six times to contact flight 175 between 8:51 and 8:55, with no response.[34] The aircraft deviated from its assigned altitude at 8:51, and began its turn toward New York City at 8:52.[35] At 8:55 Bottiglia told a manager at FAA New York Center that he thought Flight 175 had been hijacked. According to the 9/11 Commission report, this manager then "tried to contact regional managers but was told that they were discussing hijacked aircraft (presumably American 11) and refused to be disturbed."[2] At around this time, United Flight 175 flew within about 200 feet of Delta Flight 2315, bound from Bradley to Tampa, Florida."

Eyewitness accounts of seeing one or more of the planes:

I concede that eye-witness accounts can be unreliable. In a bank robbery scenario, for instance, it would not be unusual for witnesses to provide different descriptions of the bank robber. But it would be exceedingly unusual for any number of witnesses to claim they saw a bank being robbed in a bank where no robbery occured.

I was a bit surprised at how hard it was to dig this stuff up. I'm guessing few people ever thought they would need to provide evidence that planes, not missiles, strange spheres or bombs caused the damage on 911. There is no single repository I could find of eyewitness accounts. Which may be a good thing. If there were, it would be easier to claim the accounts were planted.

Here's a smattering of what I found from various sites and blogs around the web. Many people felt compelled to document and share their experiences that morning so almost all of these are first hand accounts, many within hours of the crash. I've only excerpted the relevant passages about seeing one or more of the planes. To get full context you can go to each link or just google 911 personal accounts or something similar. Many of the links returned are no longer valid but you can go to www.Archive.org and paste them in there. In many cases, though not all, this provides the entries.

http://web.archive.org/web/200109120...,34192,00.html

"Clyde Ebanks, vice president of an insurance company, was at a meeting on the 103rd floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center when his boss said, "Look at that!"

He turned and through a window saw a plane go by and hit the other building.

...

About 18 minutes later, Luigi Ribaudo — who works nearby, in Tribeca — heard a twin-engine plane making what he said was a strange noise. He looked up; he saw a plane that was "too low."

"It was going to hit something and it hit and exploded inside," he said. It was American Flight 77, a Boeing 757, operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles. "

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/...ccount-of-9-11

"8:43am:... Suddenly, a horrific explosion. An immediate
change in the air pressure. A ghostly column of air shoots like a canon
into the office. The front door slams shut. Papers are whipped into the
air. I?m thrown off my chair and to the ground. My boss jumps out of his
office a second prior to the explosion. He had watched, in horrific
disbelief, the entire event as the plane narrowly missed the empire state
building and set a direct course for our building. The explosion sends the
tower shaking furiously, lurching back and forth with sickening vengeance
for maybe five or ten seconds. I think we may die. The building may topple
over, or crumble. Finally it stops. The building is still standing.
Everybody stares at each other, no idea of what happened or what to say.
Speculations about an explosion, a bomb. No, it was a plane, our boss says.
A commercial jet."

http://www.wallstreetgreek.blogspot....xperience.html

The unedited email I sent to friends after 9/11:

"I'm ok. I was in a cab with 3 other people on the highway staring at the smoke coming out of the first tower, wondering if it was really happening and what had happened, when we saw the second airplane hit the South Tower. The ball of flame that came out was just unbelievable. I wandered around,watching the buildings burn...

http://rion.nu/archive2/00000014.html

"so i was staring right at towers when the second plane hit. i was on the ledge of the window taking photos with lenice's camera... it was maybe a half hour later and more scary in a way because we had already re-lulled ourselves into thinking it was over, it was safe. ...maybe it was an explosion because of the first? but no, robert had seen the plane...

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.c...amanhattan.htm

"We all looked up and behind us to see what I would find out later was the second plane to hit the towers. It came from the south at an angle, the direction of the Statue of Liberty. It was low and a little to the right of where I was standing, but almost directly over my head. I followed it until I saw it go into 2 WTC."

http://web.archive.org/web/200109170...alStories.html

John Zeiman- NYC: "living 3 blocks from the WTC, as I do, I was astonished by the loud proximity of the first crash, and went down to the street in time to see the second fireball plane exploding"

Fred Reed LIC: "Millions are now walking out of the city and over the 59 street bridge, trying to get to their homes. I just got thru to Gordon and he's fine but pretty shaken up after having witnessed the second plane crashing into the WTC from across the street.

http://web.archive.org/web/200111160...alStories.html

Daniel Silverstein: "saw the whole thing,
from jet engines booming low, too low.
then first plane passing by bedroom window with shadow cast across room
then large (not too large)
sounding like garbage truck in alley, bang...

cant believe what were seeing
myself and neighbor on roof
big hole in building
we are frantic
he with camara me with cel phone
calling calling simon on other end
simon on his balcony top floor
as mine, on the far east side on river
me on far west side on river
we BUGGING.

then whats THAT sound?
second plane coming in from south
banking turning 7 seconds...
bbbaaabbbaammmmm
into floors 60-70
windows popping
metal twisting
smoke and fire is a blazin
people are jumpin
many."

http://web.archive.org/web/200109200...7/847_wtc1.asp

David P. Draigh, New York, N.Y.: "as I walked near Stuyvesant High School I heard people say, “Oh my God, another plane just hit the second tower."

Artie Van Why, New York, N.Y.: "My office was right across the street from the WTC. I’m on the 23rd floor, and when the first plane struck we felt the vibration in our building and thought something had exploded in our building... I don’t know how long we all still stood watching in horror before we heard the other plane coming. As if watching a disaster movie, we saw the plane heading straight for the second tower. I remember thinking it would pull up in time. Of course, it didn’t. When the plane collided, that was probably the most life-threatening moment for us in the street. "

David Rosenauer, New York, N.Y. : "I was sitting at my desk on the south side of the 49th Floor of the Met Life building. It was a beautiful, sunny Tuesday morning. At approximately 8:40 a.m., a jet flew directly overhead, so close that the entire building shook. I looked out the window and saw the tail end of a jet flying directly over midtown, heading toward downtown. It’s too low, I thought to myself. A few minutes later I thought, It’s not turning left…it’s not turning left (the direction planes flying over midtown usually turn when heading toward LaGuardia). Instead, the plane veered to the right, heading straight for, and crashing into, the north tower."

There are endless others, I'm sure, in a city of 9 million or so. But you get the point. Many of the websites where people recorded their accounts are no longer around. As you can see from the links, I had to get some of these from the archives.

Photographic Evidence

Likewise I'm sure there are many other photos...

This one's very clear and shows no anomaly in the belly where the "sphere" was alleged to be in the sphere vid:
http://911digitalarchive.org/REPOSIT...TOS/1200.pjpeg


Numerous photos here. None quite as crisp as above, but many different angles:
http://plane2.0catch.com/


Plane Debris

I'm not a structural or aeronautical engineer but have read some of the reports on the topic. It is reasonable to expect that very little of anything of any size of either plane would be found. When a hollow aluminum exploding tube crashes into a steel building 1,000 times its mass at 500mph, most of the plane and everything in it is shredded or consumed in the blaze. The heavier components would survive the impact - landing gear, engines .etc - but may not fair so well when 90,000 tons of steel and concrete all collapse into a pile.

However, some debris did survive as evidenced in the links below.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...aftpartsnyc911
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=45

Videos

I'm not even going to bother linking to them. We've all seen them. What the clips in this thread suggest is that what we saw was doctored. That during a live feed, 6 or 7 independent networks superimposed a plane into the video when none was there. That somehow, in addition to pulling this off, amateur videos and photos were also all similarly doctored. And in a supreme twist of irony, as magnificent a feat as this would be, at the same time we are being asked to believe this, we are being told how inept CNN was because it didn't even manage to remove its banner so the plane footage was obscured.

So that wraps up the case FOR planes.

To support the case AGAINST planes, requires:

An explanation of what really happened to flights 11 and 175 if they didn't crash into the towers. Where did they go? What happened to them? Where are the witnesses to confirm whatever it is that happened?

Inclusion of all the FAA personel cited above as co-conspirators

EITHER An explanation of how the hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses (of which I cited just 12 or so above) managed to see one or more planes that didn't exist and how the non-existence of those planes were timed perfectly with the impact explosions and shock waves reported...
OR Inclusion of all these witnesses as co-conspirators

EITHER An explanation of how photographers were duped into capturing non-existent planes in their photos
OR Inclusion of all the photographers as co-conspirators

EITHER An explanation for where the plane debris came from if not from the planes
OR Inclusion as co-conspirators of 1,000 or so folks from 28 different state who sifted through the rubble looking for plane parts and other identifiable things and some other number of co-conspirators to plant the evidence


Evaluation

The bulk of the "evidence" against planes in this thread rests on two videos. One allegedly shows the nose of the plane exiting the far side of the building. The other shows an approx 50' diameter sphere instead of a plane and an interview with someone who claims that only 8 of the 105 or so people interviewed actually saw and heard the plane. I'm not sure what 105 he's referring to, but suspect he didn't look too hard.

When did these two videos surface? Days after 911? Weeks? Months? Years? There was ample time for someone to doctor these videos. Yet instead we're supposed to believe that these two videos are the REAL ones and all the others have been doctored.

If the non-plane explanation is that the mystery sphere is the culprit then there should be at least some eyewitness accounts of it and plenty of video. Cameras were trained on the towers once the first plane hit. Where are all the other videos of that sphere? Why did only that one (apparently) survive? How did Richard come by it?

If the non-plane theory is something else, then what?

Other "evidence" against planes I found in Morgan Reynolds' "No More Games" (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...=we_have_holes). He makes some decent points but I saw no smoking gun there. Jim Hoffman adequately refutes him in his critical review (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html).

Reynolds' main point is to question where the planes went. Why couldn't they be seen after impact? He claims there should have been larger pieces of plane debris falling upon impact. Hoffman and others argue otherwise and conclude that the evidence is consitent with the presence of planes. I provided their conclusions above so won't bother going into details as you can read the accounts and reach your own conclusions if you haven't already.

In a city of 9 million or so, if there were planes, there should be a lot of people who saw them. And if there are people who saw them, I think we can safely assume that they believe they did. I found 12 or 13 in a couple hours. There are probably 100 or 1000 times this many. I'm sure that if you go to www.Archive.org and enter any of the main news cites then pull up the archive from 9/11 or 9/12/01 that there will be dozens and dozens of first hand accounts. So, then... are all these preople willing co-conspirators in the "hoax"? ... have they all been mind-controlled to believe they saw and heard planes?... or.... did they see and hear planes?

There may be government involvement in a cover-up of something. But I sure don't see how anyone can seriously consider that planes didn't crash into the towers. If that element of the story is removed, the evidence for the alternatives presented here is:

• a mysterious sphere that came from somewhere by some unidentified source
• co-conspirators to superimpose a plane over that sphere and insert it on broadcast videos, amateur videos, and who knows how many photos
• hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators who think they saw a plane or a massive mind-control exercise
• dozens of co-conspirators in the FAA to mask what really happened to the two planes
• dozens to hundreds, up to 1000 co-conspirators involved with planting and finding plane debris

And perhaps most importantly, over 9 years later, has a credible whistleblower emerged from these many co-conspirators? Has there been a tell-all book? Has anyone stepped up to claim their 15 minutes of fame or line their pockets by exposing the biggest cover-up of our lifetimes? None that I'm aware of.

Granted, I haven't spent as much time as most of you probably have looking into this. And there may be more convincing evidence for the no-planes theory that I haven't seen. If so, let me know and I may change my mind.

For me it comes down to which theory best fits the evidence. As I quoted above, the further a theory has to stretch to do that the weaker it gets and less credible it becomes. This won't always be the case, but in this case, based on what I've seen so far, if planes didn't hit the towers, I would be just as inclined to blame it on Leprechauns or meteorites as the prevailing alternate explanation. True, there isn't any evidence to support these other possibilities, but give a half-talented video editor a few hours and he could probably produce something every bit as convincing as the video evidence presented here calling into question the theory that planes hit the towers.

I suppose this is an element of faith for many and may never be proven one way or the other. But if I had to bet my life on whether or not planes flew into the towers, I'd be betting they did, not that they didn't.

But that's probably just me...

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's what's needed to support the theory that there WERE planes.

I've spent far too much time examining 9/11 the last few years. In my view, the question of whether or not real commercial passenger jetliners hit the WTC towers provides one of the less compelling cases for the claim that 9/11 was a false flag or inside operation. The conversion of WTC 1 and 2 from steel to dust in 10 seconds flat, the absence of any significant aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon and in the field at Shanksville, the freefall collapse of WTC 7, the many reports of explosions in various WTC buildings, the withholding of all security camera video from the Pentagon, and the stand-down of our air defenses for an hour provide more compelling cases. I am sure I could list several more such items, if I looked back through my notes. More or less nothing of the official story withstands scrutiny.