ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"

These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...tctwopaths.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...bcdivebomb.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

You actually believe that humans are evolved from alien DNA brought to Earth by an intergalactic species. That's enough to completely dismiss your ability to reason.

There's no discussion about this at all. We have thousand of photos of the planes hitting them.

http://www.ideofact.com/archives/911plane2.jpg

Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses. Lunatics pick out one or two that saw things happen differently and then completely dismiss the overwhelming majority. It's plain lunacy and there's no sense wasting your time trying to debate with these idiots.

Seems to me he keeps saying that a plane hit the WTC.

He said an identical plane hit the second tower? Well, yes. Because from a mile away a passenger yet looks like a passenger jet.

9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage. This floundering, fake image flop has the flap open on the front of the left wing, not rear where it must be. Yet, another devastating blow to the real planes myth.

This simple fake image raises reasonable doubt about the official south to north flight path of flight 175. New York police officer, L. Perez, took a picture of the towers and this laughable fake was added to it by person or persons unknown. The government could never prove their case to a jury because this fake image was published in magazines and assumed real, but a real defense would destroy their 911 fiction by highlighting this fraudulent image.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...enginefake.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...cboeingcgi.jpg

This is true, but they were wrong:

(source)

Even the hardcore 9/11 nuts don't believe this one....

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the drone move directly east and cgi more left/north.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wtcwb11926.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/wtcwb927.jpg

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H...8AE&index= 30
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGE...8AE&index= 34

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS bogey did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion.

The final 14 seconds of approach by nist was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Your seriously starting to look like an idiot.

A news reporter, god only knows where, is reporting what she sees at the exact moment of the second impact:

"You can see there are choppers, I believe that could be a police helicopter that is... Oh.. Oh my goodness... We just saw another, I believe it was a plane...."

She says she sees helicopters, and then she says a plane hit the tower. We can see the video, and clearly it's a plane. You've posted half a dozen pictures of what is obviously a plane.

Not to mention a thousand other witnesses that saw a plane.

[thread] truthers are crazy [/thread]

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane."

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...noplanepic.jpg
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ...8AE&index= 25

Uhm ok, now reread the question. I'm asking for evidence. Are you bit a slow or what?

even i cant believe you guys are still posting about this
everyone in here calling each other crazy are really just reaching out to comfort themselves regarding their own personal beliefs.

its ok...im here to hold your hand....there is no boogeyman...everyone is friendly, and no one is playing tricks to enforce their will on the populace...relax.

enjoy the sunshine.

:helpme:helpme:helpme

and that the planet is controlled by aliens that live in the hollow earth.

So where did the real plane and its passengers and the pilots go exactly?

Ah nevermind, it will be yet another crackpot answer.

God, you might be just as insane as johnnydipshit. I didn't think that was possible to have 2 of such idiots on 1 board. But i guess it is.

You can't even grasp the very basics of what we're saying.

Not a single person has said we believe the official story 100%. There could well be details we don't know or have been lied to about. Who knows how much the goverment knew beforehand or even may have been involved with directly. We can't dispute these types of arguments because we can't possibly know.

That's not what you're arguing though. You're saying ridiculous things like "it wasn't a plane". That we can dispute and is not knowledge we have simply because the goverment has given it to us.

I don't expect you to understand the difference evern after clearly spelling it out for you. That's what makes you a lunatic.

They don't care. They simply don't care. They ignore it and call use brainwashed sheep. They just don't care.

Insane...totally insane.

How can a ball be a plane? It can't, but three news stations were forced to call it that because a ball showed up, not a plane. The 911 myth is destroyed by simply acknowledging that fact. They either missed it initially, or mistook it for a chopper. No plane showed up in three live broadcasts...that's a fact.

if i had PHILOSOPHY maybe i could understand the plans of the evil AUTHORITIES.

there are dozens of photos and videos, hundreds of eyewitnesses of the planes you fucking moron.

I don't know and that has nothing to do with raising reasonable doubt. If you think you can prove planes, then you are burdened with proving the impossible. A ball is not a plane, and media lunatics were forced to call it that.

use google you fucking moron. there are THOUSANDS and MILLIONS of examples.

you just admitted to all of us that you have no evidence.. which means everything you have said is based on speculation.

Do you understand where this puts you in regards to the argument at hand?

you are seeing things that aren't there. you are hallucinating and suffering from delusions. i hope you never operate heavy machinery or take care of children. :2 cents:

I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when the bogey caught his eye.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...geyeditpic.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVi...ure=plpp_video

this is just sad. i'm outta here.

My aunt's best friend was on one of those planes. Would you say her death, funeral, and devastation of her family was all a hoax?

What's also a fact is that I watched it happen live.... and it was a large commercial jet.

I don't give a crap what some brainless TV news reader with a pretty on-camera face, said or didn't say. I saw it....That's a fact.


.:2 cents:

All folks who filmed the bogey felt obligated and/or afraid for their lives before turning over their footage to law enforcement. If it was a bird or something else, why edit at that moment and we already have 4 broadcasts with the object in it where media lunatics call it the plane once they realize it was the only thing in their respective footage.

The most important thing about this angle, is the northeast view, which would have shown the orb circle the south tower, literally. We have techmac's cgi with no right wing for proof of someone cropping out that same NE view and impossible turn.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

I would not. I am showing video proof that an orb showed up in three live broadcasts and was also aired on cbs.

Small hole, then plane shape created by secondary explosions?

http://i40.tinypic.com/ih8don.gif

Even if one accepts that a plane hit the north tower, then the small south tower hole confirms something much smaller impacted it. This proves the witnesses were right and the bogey seen in 4 broadcasts were accurately depicted.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...erzoomhole.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...htowerhole.jpg

No, this was clear evidence. Documented evidence. Accepted evidence. You are challenging that, which you have the right to do, but by doing so the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You haven't done that. Nobody has done this.

So with zero evidence or documentation how would you expect anyone to think what you are saying isn't gibberish?

Would you accept nutrition or weight loss advice from me if I didn't back it up without some proof? Some links from studies or some current research from reputable and respected sources?

RRACY, really, ... omg... just .. stop. wow.

Don't get sucked in to trying to argue using reason and logic with people that clearly lack these qualities. :2 cents:

That said, explain to us how you'd convince a jury that a real plane with dots for engines, and no wings could cast its own shadow in between the rear of tower 1 and west side of tower 2? How could any plane traveling 500 mph circle the towers before crashing into the rear of the building southeast of Tower 1?

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VlD1j...eature=related

A small percentage of the population feels the need to defend idiotic government coverups that are laughed at by the masses, which has been proven true by jfk and 911 polls throughout the last four decades.

When the government and media are responsible for these and other outrageous acts of corruption, there is nothing they can do but perpetuate the official lies in hopes of convincing anyone of said propaganda. It soothes them of their darkest fears that humanity may wake up and realize how completely ignorant they are.

Another theory, is the government kook gets a certain ego-boost from supporting big government conclusions on such things as 911, and that makes them feel superior over those who actually operate in a real maverick fashion. It gives them a sense of self-importance that they may not have developed through normal processes like the rest of us. Either way, it's pathetic to see how this irrational minority of silly humans attach themselves to goverment theories which cannot, nor will ever be proven.

WB11 chopper and wnbc drone. Zoom on a distant object leaves no doubt about what that object is, if the cam can get close enough. The orb is smaller than the chopper and notice how very close to the north tower it gets. That debunks the disinfo about it being southwest. It was directly right of the towers and had to circle T2. That is bat shit crazy.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wtcwb11926.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wtcliveabc.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...edleftwing.jpg

Dude. we used tin foil to wrap the rockets in. we totally got though.

I think there's a lot of psychology that goes into understanding what people said they saw after either seeing it on tv or hearing that large planes hit. Many on the ground described something circling, which could not have been 175 because nist themselves provided its final seconds coming south to north, behind the towers entirely. The west approach is either the bogey or an overlay making its path appear more southwest.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

i don't believe the official story, i don't trust the government and not a fan of authoritarianism yet think that 9/11 conspiracy theories are easily debunked intellectual garbage. where does that leave me?

THE RIGHT ENGINE IS NOT DISCERNABLE and not aligned with the sagging left engine. It's an obvious and easily proven fake. Notice the white area anterior to the right engine. The fake engine is behind that and far too rear of the left sagging engine. It is simply a fake image with numerous impossibilities.

The shark fin does not have that fancy angle backward of the boeing. The horizontal stabilizer should be more centered (forward of) with the fin. The right boeing wing is anterior to the fin, while the fake wing is oddly pointing up and far too rear at this angle. The fake image is missing that distinct point at the nose and clearly smaller than it has to appear, if it was real.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...perfect767.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...cblackzoom.jpg

Please guys, arguing with these idiots is what they want. It lends them a sort of a credibility they don't otherwise have. It'd be like arguing with a flat earther. There's no sense in doing it.

911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 broadcasts showing the bogey do just that from the north view. It's logical that with so much footage being released, something from the south would show the bogey's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...Gifs/wtc07.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25M...ure=plpp_video

I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their plane morph. The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing. The live orb and fake plane image cast their own shadows behind the towers, dismissing any nonsense that the drone was added or faked. Since the orb did circle the buildings before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2, the fake plane image at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGE...ure=plpp_video