Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, supporting that he was describing some type of drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be. There's more evidence than you can possible imagine that humanity has been duped on 911 and many other historical events.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0

This is pretty much irreverent. For every architect or engineer who claims 9/11 was an inside job - and has the proof to back it up - there is an architect or engineer who believes otherwise, and also has the proof to back up their position.

I have a degree in electrical engineering, and while last month I re-wired my truck's electrical system from the ground up without any wiring diagrams, that surely doesn't make me any more qualified to speak about 9/11.

There are people from both sides who are very well qualified who believe their point of view, and believe only their evidence.

It does seem clear that the planes which struck the towers weren't the ones we were told, most likely they were completely unmanned

Dick Oliver called it a remote controlled drone. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rw...e =plpp_video

I take your point, though I was just pointing out (to PR Glen) that some 'Conspiracy Theorists' do have half-decent jobs to counter his theory

Here is one attempt to answer that

This is a great copy of the north tower drone. You can see it has no wings before it makes impact. The clowns who shot this were less than a mile north of the towers. If flight 11 had really crashed in NY it would have looked much like this plane landing.

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

https://youtube.com/watch?v=MP5eF...ure=plpp_video

So your saying the fact that we didn't find WMDs in Iraq - which the Bush administration could have easily pulled off - is proof that Bush didn't stage a false flag attack on 9/11?

Interesting concept.

Indeed, I do expect that both Russo's and Norman Dodd's videos will eventually be banned from the net. They'll be labelled as 'Terrorist Training' material

Yes because it makes much more sense that somebody faking commercial jets crashing in to buildings would first intercept and completely do away with the actual jets, never to be found or exposed even by internet detectives like yourself, then crash some other jets in to buildings claiming they were the original commercial jets.

If it were in fact done on purpose by some nefarious secret group, it would be much simpler to just crash the actual jets in to the building and not insert additional steps not required further complicating the entire process.

The problem with you idiots is you're too stupid to use any common sense at all. Despite your alleged "reputation for being proven right". :1orglaugh

Let me see if I understand this correctly... Your saying that from a mile away we should see wings on an airplane, just like when it's fifty feet away in the third picture? That's funny.

Why is it that we can't see wings on the drone? I mean, a drone has wings too, right?

The jets wouldn't need to be intercepted, the pilots would know exactly where they were flying them. You could either sink them but more likely just rename them.

Specially equipped planes would be more suited to 9/11, rather than standard passenger jets

With the clear and overwhelming evidence of drones, it was inevitable that a few eyewitnesses would corroborate the video footage of drones for both towers. Stewart, said he saw something bump into tower 1 before it exploded. That certainly wasn't a plane, because a plane would crash into it, not bump.

He says, "I'm not sure, if it was a ????? (plane). [i]Of course it wasn't a plane, Stewy, and you gave the truth some of the best early testimony that no planes of any kind were seen for either tower. His subconscious gave every word, but 'plane', leaving no doubt that his conscious state prevented that last word. But, we already know those goofy french kids did not film a plane or really any identifiable object which corrorborates Stewart's verified account.

Bryant Gumbel: It's 8:52 here in New York, I'm Bryant Gumbel. We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan. You're looking at the WTC. We understand that a plane has crashed into the WTC. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know if it was a commercial aircraft. We don't know if it was a private aircraft. We have no idea how many were on board, or what the extent of the injuries are right now. We are, uh, we have, I understand, an eyewitness on the phone right now. Sir...

[cuts to commercial briefly]

BG: ...your name?

Stewart: Yeah, my name is Stewart.

BG: Sir, where are you right now?

S: I'm working at a restaurant in Soho. (northeast of the towers)

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

BG: Did you, could you tell us whether or not it was a prop, or a jet .

S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...towerdrone.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.01.html
Now we want to bring in Todd Harris (ph). Todd on the scene, saw what happened.

Todd, corroborates the Naudet footage, which captured a slow moving blob.

Todd are you with us?

TODD HARRIS: Yes, I had a perfect view, and the plane was coming in. I noticed it a second before it hit the building. It looked like it was moving slowly, and it lined itself up to hit the building directly.

KAGAN: Are you talking about the first plane or the second plane?

HARRIS: The first plane.

You're a lunatic plain and simple. There's no denying that. Your obvious lack of real world experience cements that fact. I'm not going to argue with a lunatic. Feel free to believe whatever you want and I'll remain comfortable knowing that people like you will never have any influence on anything anywhere. :thumbsup

Of course the wings would be visible. Watch the plane flying over the water. Its wings are discernable from a greater distance than the north tower footage.

baddog is famous in these circles....i just did a search for that fox employee..which brought me to some alien ufo conspiracy forum....the top poster in a thread was using baddog as his avatar..lol

No speculation needed. Live footage shows a lot of great stuff.:winkwink:

The BBC, a day after, reported that 6-8 accused hijackers were alive. They saw their faces on TV, and said...I'm alive.:winkwink:

Sure, there's a lot of highly trained people that believe in their version of what happened. But you can take twenty engineers or scientists, show them the evidence, and ask what happened, and your not going to get the same answers. Multiple the numbers by hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists, and you'll get lots of different people saying different things.

I look at it this way... If ten people witness a car accident from ten different angles, when police interview them all and write up their reports, they are going get ten different views on what really happened. This is because everyone saw the same thing, but saw it differently. What happened on 9/11 was filmed from hundreds of different angles that day, and yet still years later we debate what happened and who was behind it.

We can argue this until we are blue in the face, but the one thing the 9/11 Truth Movement can't tell me is why. Why would our government do this? There's no oil in Afghanistan. Some have mentioned a pipeline, but that doesn't make sense to me - more than ten years later it hasn't been built, and why would you want to build a pipeline to a land locked country? I've also read that we wanted an excuse to invade Afghanistan to set up us to attack Iran - Well, we had Iran surrounded, and ten years later we still haven't attacked Iran, and in fact we are pulling our troops out of the area, so that doesn't add up.

CNN.com - Transcripts

This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west. This is the south tower drone.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

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

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.