hi Dean, glad to see you start this group. since you asked
about peoples' thoughts about what hit the wtc towers, for years
i have thought that x43A scramjets were involved, or maybe one
(or two) of their larger cousins. see my picture over at photos.
see how similar it looks to object in Web Fairy flash frame shot.
also in my photos.
i look forward to hearing more!

Thank you, Sandy! The WTC Towers are a good place to start. The best evidence will be both true and relevant to the issue of whether government agents acted.

The truth may never be completely known, but the proof of truth can be achieved with authenticity, reliability and accuracy.

We need to ascertain the authenticity of the photograph. Who took it?
We need reliability (ex: the phototaker or publisher had no bias in making the picture public)
We need accuracy - is the object in the picture something other than what our government said it was?
We need relevancy - if the object is not one of the flights 11 or 175, the relevancy becomes high. Who else but someone in the govt could conceal a plane like the one you mentioned?

This is a picture that contains evidence. If we can answer the questions, we can determine whether it is proof of wrongdoing by government agents. What answers do you have?

Thanks!

um, let us see..... the picture of the first hit on wtc
if i be not mistaken comes from the (VERY SUSPICIOUS)
naudet documentary film 9/11, which in my opinion is a
must see for all truthers, tho i realize not all truthers have
bothered to must see it.
i believe the naudet doc was shown maybe half a year(?)
after the actual 9/11 and five years later? but don't quote me
on that! i understand that the always 'helpful' FIB took the
footage from the very guilty naudet bros before airing it on
teeeee veeeeee. which in my head proves that they wanted
us to see what we saw...... then, the person in my opinion
who has done the utmost greatest most priceless work on
this 9/11 stuff, Rosalee Grable, (standing ovation appropriate),
did great work on breaking down this video and posting it on
her fabulous web site the Web Fairy, 9/11 part in particular.
Webby, if you're listening, please feel free to add your input...

Dean, if you haven't yet seen the naudet doc, please do!
i am not an expert on video or science, etc., i sew for a
'living', but i am 100+% convinced that the noday doc was made
on purpose as a keepsake for the horrid swine that pulled 9/11,
and that it also holds great value for the 9/11 truth enthusiast.
(please also search for a fascinating report by i believe it
was Leslie Raphael, or close to that, who did a great study
on how/why the naudet shot didn't just happen by accident)
so who took it i think would be none other than jules (or
i prefer to call him jewels) naudet, on 9/11 morn, when the whole
street just HAPPENED to be nice and clear for the event......
or so the story went, i think. doesn't mean it was actually
jewels, since we don't know that for sure.....
and yowwww, absotutely, the object was something
other than what our perps said it was, i have no doubt.
and yeah, the x43A scramjet that i mentioned, and
have over at photo gallery is not something that most
merrikkkins would know of, since 'they' don't exactly
broadcast that sort of thing. why so secret, you might ask?
years back it occurred to me to go look for pics of
the first hit on wtc, since we saw the supposed 2nd hit
over and over and over and over....... when i went looking
for that first hit i found Ms. Web Fairy herself, and her
AWESOME work, and i said to myself, "WHOA".
then after checking out her site, especially the part
where she shows the old drone that looked like a pointy
nosed bumble bee or something, i went looking for
'drones', wondering if i would see one that looked like the
one on noday doc first wtc hit pictures. lo and behold i
came across naasuh's photo gallery and for the first time
in my life, saw a pic of an x43A scramjet....scrammy, i like
to call him, for short. my jaw fell rapidly to the floor, and
i know others have other opinions about what did or did not
hit wtcs, but since then i am stuck on scrammy. nobody
that i know of shares my conviction about scrammy but
that does not shake my opinion. not one bit.
so, thank you for your interest in this, this is a great
place to have that interest, we are not mocked for our
thoughts here, and that does not come around often.

thanks for what you do and i will shut up for the now!

Hi Dean and Sandy,

In my opinion, nothing at all hit WTC 2. A projected image glided
into the building, but that isn't an impact.

Any and every impact would show pieces bouncing off the building at the impact site.

Kind regards,
Tracy

Have you ever considered the possibility that the US government was NOT behind the plot?

My theory says it was a small group of people who operated the machines by computer.

A small group of people did this. Maybe some of them were from the US government, but maybe not.

Kind regards,
Tracy

Thanks, Sandy and Tracy!

Questions:
Sandy - the Web Fairy appears to be one of the leading sources of what I would call "TV Fakery" ideas. But the WF has encountered criticism for using original footage and simultaneously explaining where a missile or "whatzit" was cut out. http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/webfairy.html
How do you respond?

Tracy - fascinating idea. How does your theory work? If the conspirators were not government, how did they get access to the film footage to doctor it? Why didn't the government do a real investigation and find who took part in this event?

I'm not working with a TV Video Fakery angle at all.

I presume that all the videos and images are real
and go from there.

I actually think that the videos (all of them) taken
at 9:03 AM on September 11, 2001, are genuine.
Not a frame of video fakery.

And I was stuck on TV Video Fakery for at least
two years, mind you. I listened and watched Simon
Shack etc. and everyone else talking about TV Video
Fakery.

I really don't think any of that happened. Yeah, the videos
do not depict a plane crash, but I don't think it's because
all those videos were doctored. What I think is that they
are (largely) genuine images of a fabricated event, that
of a plane "crash".

There was no video editing involved. It was a projected image
of a plane, and the people who did this forgot to slow this
image at impact and add debris to their simulations, so they
got caught. As long as you think the culprits were the individual
editors and videographers around the place, you're stuck in an
untenable theory and going for the wrong culprits.

Plus TV Video Fakery is a widespread conspiracy theory.
A couple of people operating computers that do the job is
less conspiracy-y and makes much more sense to me,
given that it would be hard to get all these different editors
to change their videos in precisely the same way.

Thanks, Tracy. If there were only images of a crash and no fakery, do you believe then that explosives of some sort were used to bring the buildings down?

Also, how was an image of a plane projected?

I'm not sure if explosives were used. I know that no explosive that I'm aware of can create the sort of damage seen to the WTC site. I don't know how the image of the plane was projected. Take a look at my photos on this site. Sandy and I had a discussion about one of them.

P.S. I'm already aware of thermite. And "nano" thermite.

Tracy,
Let me see if I have your theory straight - the TV cameras accurately recorded what happened at WTC while an image of a plane was shown. Something caused a smash and hours later the buildings fell.
There were spectators who said they saw a plane hit (especially the WTC2). Why do you think they said that?