Very few of you have seen this excellent citizen doc on the Pentagon. I promise that your 80 minutes will be well spent. I'll give you a hint...Flight 77 had to be south of the Citgo. Oh, and if the cab driver doesn't spook you, you have no pulse.:helpme

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQ...layer_embedded

And?

I don't understand what your point is here. If your standing at the foot of one of the WTC towers and looking right at it, it's completely possible that your not seeing what's happening sixty four floors above you. The plane was traveling at 500 mph; At sixty miles an hour it's traveling a entire football field in one second so at 500 it's passing entire city blocks in a second. Blink and your going to miss it. If your not looking up at the top of the tower the moment it hits, your not going to see it.

BTW, David Handschuh photographed the second plane hitting - and clearly we've all seen it was in fact a fucking airplane.

These two news anchors initially said (when it aired live) there was no plane in the area because they literally didn't see the orb. These two loonies acknowledged the orb after it was pointed out to them and called it a plane and confirmed it circled the buildings. It cast its own shadow between the towers very clearly from chopper 4. Look just below and left of the north tower hole.

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

I'm pretty sure it was a fucking plane.

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/ima...00.500px.pjpeg

Looks like smoke to me.

No man, that's clearly not a plane.

Dones do not have engines on wings. I see engines on wings in your photo:

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

The shadow happened because the drone circled in between and around the south tower. No other reason for it could ever be proved, and Manos's fake footage makes it bona fide.

The shadow is reflected on the west side of tower 2 and possibly the east side of tower 1, confirming the drone literally moved north to south along that west side before finally turning left, east, across the south side.

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

Yet we have live video footage of a large plane slamming into towers.

Roc, Listen to those guys. They did not see a plane. Two white guys totally spooked.:helpme

Clearly you don't know the difference between a drone and a large jet.

Okay, but three of them don't show a plane, but an orb. That's my point and I'm not saying I solved 911, but shined the light on one of many pink elephants in this case.

look even one of the guys who made the loose change documentary gave up on the 9/11 conspiracy narrative because during his research he came across person after person who saw planes with their own eyes. to say it is a drone, or orb or hologram is just delusional.

Watch this and you will be floored. These guys did some great work that supports a plane but that plane flew over.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQ...layer_embedded

Loose change are punks who have no interest in the truth. Calling an orb a plane is a retarded lie.:thumbsup The so called truthers apparently ignored that an orb is, was, and never could be a plane in any world but fiction.

look it is just easier for it to be planes
if you are looking for a conspiracy involved with the planes....some have suggested that they were remote controlled....as in, the pilots and even the terrorists on board were all probably wondering who was steering.

also the plane that crashed in the farmers field is kinda odd....wreckage wise.

anyway, the planes were used, it is harder to arrange for them not to be there.
who used them? who knows.
i think we can all agree, some idiots who sign up for death attacks didnt pull this off on their own.

why would they use a orb, drone or hologram anyway? makes no sense.

The fake image faces north headed straight for the southwest corner of T1, turns right/east, moving across the entire width of the tower 1, then must turn right, facing south because it didn't impact the west side of T2. It would then have to do a 180 degree u-turn facing, finally, north again, then it does its weird bee-bop across the rear of T2. The nose would have been facing north, east, south, before making an impossible u-turn, now facing north again before its final bee-bop. All that craziness with around 500 feet to create this fiction.

That's two right turns, an impossible u-turn, and the goofy movement across the rear of the south tower. Of course the film was altered, and the only question is who mimiced the drone circling the buildings with this laughable cgi. It's most logical that Manos turned his footage over to law enforcement.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...Gifs/wtc07.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...FSoupcom-1.gif

I don't know why, but simply pointed out that media lunatics called a circular object smaller than a chopper, 'the plane'.

I saw it live on TV. There's no discussion about it. Two airplanes hit the building. Nothing else.

Well then, what happened to all of the people on the planes? People and family members say them off at the airport, and people saw then physically enter the plane? Did they kill all of the passengers? If there was no one on the planes, who made the calls from the planes?

Why? Most plane crashes we see are when a plane slowly descends to the ground and crashes, usually on take off or landing. When a plane dives straight into the ground it's totally different.

OMG Not again :1orglaugh

They were all part of the conspiracy, don't you understand??

I'm not sure if it get's more crazy than people posting videos and pictures of planes and then saying they are not planes. The same fucking people.
That's insane!

I saw Michael J. Fox turn into a basketball playing werewolf but knew he was, only on TV. All reality shows are scripted nonsense and Bon Jovi has not, not lip synced for at least ten years.:2 cents:

In a big city like that, you would have to considermost airplanes will not come down that low, unless the intensions are of an ill nature. I say, the plane was guided remotely.

And.... ?

Should they fall at faster than free fall speed, or slower? Why? And how?

Does it look like a controlled demolition? Maybe. But when a tall building falls down because the floors below it can no longer support the weight about above it, that's exactly what happens.

This is my problem with the 9/11 Truth crap. Anything they come up with can be quickly explained away by a fifteen year old.

Squibs? The buildings were pressurized. Anyone who has ever been to the WTC knows this. That was air or liquid escaping.

The fire wasn't hot enough? Didn't need to be. The impact, the prolonged fire, combined with the stress from the weight above caused them to fall. Take out fifty percent of the support on one side of the building and any first year engineering student will tell you it's only a matter of time before it falls.

Why did WTC 7 fall? Millions of tons of concrete fell from the two main towers. It was like an earthquake when the towers fell. Then factor in all of the debris that hit the building when the towers fell. By this point the building was completely on fire on all floors.

What were the explosions in the basements at the moment of impact? We know for a fact that at the moment of impact fireballs rushed down the elevator shafts, exploding in the main lobby at ground level and other floors. With fireballs rushing down to all levels shit exploded. Duh.

All of this crap is quickly explained away.

please read what i wrote and then tell me how what you are asking me makes any sense?
i did not imply the people weren't on the plane...where in what i wrote do you see that?
Are you just having a conversation with yourself?
i said, the planes MIGHT have been remote controlled. I said nothing about them being empty.


regarding the farmers crash, alot of reports say it was blown up in the sky...thus no wreckage....i dont really care.

however, pelase read what i write and digest it before construing what i say to mean what you wanted it to say.

I'm not sure if it get's more crazy than a real human posting videos and pictures of an orb and crazies saying they are planes, even though the media didn't see it or mistook for a chopper. That's insane!:thumbsup

Blame it on yt and the www in general. The truth will come out on many things because of the info age.:winkwink:

This was pretty lucky, huh?...

WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...lverstein.html

and this wasn't too weird, right?...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=GMXY2we_8Oc

I don't believe any specific 9/11 conspiracy theory, but there are enough oddities and coincidences to question a good amount of the "facts" in this matter.

In 20 or 30 years we may be better informed....

https://youtube.com/watch?v=jRAyGO2oDac
Jennifer Spell, in her own words: "Just about five minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane circle around and it flew out over New Jersey and then it came in, it just."

She, very clearly did not see what her video shows, a supposed black plane coming from directly south of T2, vanishing into the southeast corner. Her description is also shared by her male companion, (who said at least twice, it circled around) other witnesses and three live broadcasts showing a slow moving drone coming from exactly where Spell said it came from, 'the Jersey side.'

There's not a better witness than those who described what they saw as they filmed it live and those on the ground without cameras or access to television. And how ironic and fitting it is that some poor guy named Manos actually filmed and got back altered footage showing a fake plane image literally circle the towers before impacting tower 2.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...ewestdrone.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wtcnynjmap.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight
93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List
Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?

"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.

"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."

So what you lost 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS - shit happens...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=u_ZOGzs9xSs

When did this come up on the news again, 9/10, the day before 9/11? What ever happened to that investigation for 2.3 TRILLION DOLLAR$ - Who knows?

Just another strange coincidence. Nothing to see here, carry on...

Oh, but Obama lost MILLIONS on green energy investments. What a jerk!

i don't believe in common sense and never question what i'm told

Watch the northeast corner as it illuminates during ignition. [U]The bomb triggered and created explosions backward, along the east side and drone's impact area on the southeast corner. The drone was used as an ignition device and to have something in the area moving toward the buildings even though it wasn't a real plane. It was at least something people could eyewitness and call a small plane or remote controlled drone like Dick Oliver.

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

fuck off.

As reported by the female reporter in Chopper 4, they were around 5 miles north of the towers when the orb was filmed coming from over west.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html

No plane showed up in 3 live broadcasts. The chopper 4 lady and the people in the studio failed to see the orb, and when it was pointed out, they called it a plane, which of course it was not.

WB11 (WPIX-TV) Metrocam YouTube 1, 2, & 3

Shot from the Empire State Building, like NY1 above, but from a different camera. It could be guessed that WB11 (now "WPIX Home of the CW") cropped the NY1 wide shot to create a zoomed view with better aesthetic balance... but no. Recently (July 2009) YougeneDebs used trig to discover the WB11 view "seems to be on the western half of the ESB at about the 88th storey. Notice the Staten Island shore line and structures there behind One Liberty Plaza, the old U.S. Steel building, the black building just to the left of center-frame for an estimate of the height of the perspective." The NY1 camera location is described above.

GM Building

This is the 3rd angle WCBS used on 9/11 to show the plane... all in 3 minutes. Here the plane passes the distance between the Empire State Building and the WTC in two successive playbacks (9:04 and 9:05). The full approach of "Flight 175" is shown from this angle later at 9:17 (and 9:22, abbreviated). That is, the tape starts from pause? with the plane in a circle.

The camera location: General Motors Building, aka FAO Schwartz, E 58th St at Madison Ave... 215 meters tall on ground elevated at 48 feet above sea level Lat 40.763595 Lon -73.972781 (Thanks, YougeneDebs)

Every distance would have produced a ledgible image of a 767 for either tower but no image has ever surfaced. The north tower blob compared to a decent fake of UA 175 compared to a real boeing 767. Flight 11 and 175 were both supposed to be 767's.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...wernothing.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...cblackzoom.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...ifs/wtc175.jpg

A good guess is this small plane was flying 2-300mph. Compare that to the dive plop of whatever hit tower 1 and you need no more proof that it wasn't a 767 and was not flying anywhere near as fast as this low plane. A twin engine jet could never at the last second, from above the towers, dive into any building going 500mph.

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

oh man! this is great.. you sprinkle a few crumbs and the crazy pigeons fucking flock like a bread truck exploded! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You are a total fucking freak you know? It scares me that people like you and Johnny are free to walk in the street. Now that's crazy. You mentally ill idiots should be locked up.

if you can`t see a plane in all those gifs you are fucked in the head.

Why would they bother using real planes when they didn't have to? There were no plane crashes and no evidence that can hold up to even minor scrutiny. They used weird drones and told americans that Al-Queda planned and executed an impossible hijacking terrorist myth which was sold to the masses by way of five participating TV networks.

The preposterous government conspiracy theory requires a massive level of complexity that would surely sink any mythical conspiracy.

yeah it makes sense to use a drone in plain view of hundreds of eyewitnesses, photographers and live tv cameras then take the real planes and blow them up over the ocean and hope no one sees it.

if you believe that's what happened kill yourself.

you can`t see a plane in the footage I posted because there isn't one and you know that.:thumbsup you are fucked in the head.:Oh crap

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RCT1ensrfx...640/puddin.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://tomverenna.files.wordpress.co...11/9148130.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i6...09/tinhats.jpg

Let me know when you guys get it all sorted out...K-Thx! :)

ADG

yeah it didn't make sense to use drones in plain view of hundreds of eyewitnesses, photographers and live tv camera and then add fake imagery to others, but that's what happened. In your deluded mind, a crime has to make sense to be proven.:1orglaugh

That's what it was.

I am a 9/11 conspiracy theory stupid idiot...... and proud of it!

i don't even know if this shit happened, i wasn't even there.