The witnesses said they saw a plane because they thought they saw a plane. Simple.

OK. But in the absence of knowing how the image was projected, how safely can we assert your theory? Also, who coordinated the smash to be at the same time as the image?
To prove a theory, it may not be necessary to prove everything about it, but these seem like important details.
Anyone?

i am a non expert, and i welcome everyone's opinions. yes,
the Web Fairy has been bashed to kingdom come, that makes
no never mind to me. of course there will be the bashers.
not sure what you mean by "cut out",.. i think, and i believe
Rosalee thinks, that the first hit shot was real, as in not fake.
i think i understand that she thinks that small uav's were
involved, while i'm sticking with my scrammy theory.................
i don't think that the second hit shots were real, but faked..
because even a non scientific guesser like me knows that that
is not what a plane crash looks like. (see web fairy second hit)
i appreciate everyone's guess, and only the actual perps
would know for sure, i say.....
for the record, i think that the job of the scramjet(s) was
to ignite already planted explosives, thank you marvin bush,
you pathetic piece of crud. (old marv had 'security' access
to the wtc before 9/11 allowing time for the planting of such.)
and i think the explosives were planted in such a way as to
look like plane shapes, for effect. but as some no planers
have pointed out, if a plane crashed into a building at high
speed, the wings would break off, not go thru the building
leaving nice pointy wing shapes.
i don't know about projecting images, projecting them
onto what? but as a non expert i think they just added fake
plane to scene and fooled many people with that. i do believe
that all of second 'hit' shots are fake, and that first 'hit' shot is
real tho blurred, and that the object was actually real, and was
an x43A scramjet or cousin. heck, i'm willing to admit it if i come out
wrong, we all have our own theories, and that is a good thing,
i am always open to hearing what others think.
Dean, i appreciate your interest, do you have any theories
of your own on the planes/not planes that you care to share?

oh, and about the so called witnesses, i've heard a bunch
of actual truthers diss the no planers because of 'all the
witnesses',. so far i haven't heard or seen any that i would
find that credible, but i'm willing to check into that.......but
of COURSE the swine who pulled 9/11 would have made
sure that they installed 'witnesses' to back up their plane
story.... like the lamo turds on the 9/11 doc by naudet bros,..
to me that proves absolutely nothing.....bullshit is also cheap.
although, if ya consider my theory about the scramjets,
they would have been launched by actual planes, that flew
over rather than hit, and that could explain the plane sightings
AND the peculiar pod under the plane that has been hashed before.

again , talk is good, and cheap, and i don't think we should
diss each other because we have different opinions...... it is
good, in my book, to hear what everyone thinks, no matter how
many scenarios we may come up with.
only the heartless bastards know for sure, i would say, and
there is no doubt in my mind that the yoo ess of aye was involved.
i find no scenario in which they would be innocent bystanders.





but by all means, all theories should be considered and
are of value.

WebFairy says a lot of things, most of which turn out not to be true.

The explosions in the Naudet shot appear NOTHING like what would
occur in the case of a plane crash or the crash of anything else.

All of the available videos of 9:03 AM fail to depict a plane crash.
It doesn't mean all the videos were fake. It means there wasn't
a plane crash.

The nano-thermite crew want you to believe that NOT ONLY
was there plane crashes and hijackings, but that the US government
allowed them to happen and that individuals connected with the
Bush administration allowed the WTC to be filled to the brim with
welding materials (thermite). I don't think so. Thermite is the dumbest
idea. Thermite is not a timed explosive. Thermite is not an explosive.
Stupid, stupid thermite.

To Sandy and Tracy,
I do not claim expertise on this topic. In my book, I had already accumulated enough evidence of government criminal activity through other facts on 9/11 such that I stipulated to the official story on the planes hitting WTC. It was a matter of not wanting to blow the "case" when I could not advance it further.

Anyway, I do not believe the buildings fell because of any plane crashes. Some type of explosives were used - there were plenty of opportunities for conspirators to plant them and the fires would not have been sufficient to take the buildings down.

I like what you guys are saying. What I am trying to do is ask the right questions. Here is one we need to address before we go much further:

How do we know what videos of the WTC crashes are authentic?

I've looked at the evidence that claims that the 9:03 AM videos are fake, and I'm not convinced by them. On the contrary, the videos appear to be perfectly genuine to me.

ONLY they depict a fake plane with real explosions.

One other point, explosions can happen without explosives.
Two different things.

thanks, Dean, these are good conversations to have.
if a person has already determined or been convinced
that 9/11 was an inside job, i don't get why they would still
believe the fairy tale about the hijackers with the boxcutters
and the supposed plane crashes, except that they saw it on
the tube. if 9/11 was an inside job, which most of us know it
surely was, then the fairy tale can't be true about hijacked planes.
it can't be both. i rule out any truth to the hijacker story because
of what the yoo ess has done after 9/11... wars, reducing civil
liberties, covering up evidence, etc etc etc. if the planes were
real, why not release all footage from the wtc surveillance? if the
hijackers were real, then it wasn't an inside job. to me those two
things cannot possibly go together.

how we know which videos were authentic is a dang good
question, and still being hashed today. and even our video
experts don't agree on which things were real or faked. what
we have to go by is what we were shown on tee vee. we saw
many times the second supposed plane hit, from various angles,
and tho a couple of them look realish in regular motion, when
slowed down they don't look like what a real plane crashing
into a building would look like. the videos that have been
slowed down frame by frame and studied by many are the
same videos the nooze showed us many, many times.
as far as i know the first hit shot has only been shown
twice on tee vee, correct me if i'm wrong, people, on the
naudet doc 9/11 which i believe was shown 6 months after
9/11 and again 5 years later. that to me is another reason
to think that shot was real, and they didn't show that over
and over because even those morons know it doesn't look at
all like an airliner hitting the tower, so the less we see of that
one the better. that's where Rosalee and her work come into
the picture, and the shots she worked with, and then others
after her, were the naudet doc shots, as aired on tee vee, twice.
that can be verified just by watching the naudet snuff film. same
same.
that first hit shot, i say, if they were going to fake that shot
also, why not make it at least look like a freakin airliner? to
the average joe or josephine, the second hit shots at least look
like regular planes flying into the tower. our video experts have
done great work on proving that they were not real. but the first
hit naudet video, that doesn't even look like an airliner, which
to me is a good indication that the object was real.
What Happened, i don't get yet what you actually think
about the planes/no planes. you say you're not convinced
that the videos are fake, but that they depict a fake plane?
how can they be genuine and fake at the same time?
and do you think that the second hit shots depict a real
plane? i appreciate your comments, i'm just confused as to
what you really think.
again, i believe the first hit video was real but not an
airliner but that all of second hit shots were fake.
and Dean, one more thing, i've heard a bunch of other
truthers say that yeah, 'we' have enough proof on other
aspects of 9/11 and that the plane thing isn't necessary
for the 'case', i disagree with that and think that the fakery
(of second hit shots) is absolutely the key to the whole
damn thing. i think it has already been proven, the info on
fakery is out there, and that proving video fakery also proves
inside job and media involvement.
i would like to see Mr. Fetzer get in on this conversation,
and others also.

Sandy,

We both agree that the 9:03 AM videos do not show a plane crash.
We attribute this to different reasons. You say the videos were altered.
I say the videos were genuine, but that they depict an image of a plane
instead of a real plane.

Your theory would require the alteration of a lot of camera people and editors.
My theory only needs one operator (the person who operated the projected
image machine) and a supervisor (because that's how things get done).

Do you see? Your story about a bunch of edited/altered video is a huge,
unwieldy conspiracy. My story involves only a few people, but requires advanced technology.

I don't have a problem imagining that advanced technology exists. I do have
a problem imagining all this video editing that your theory suggests.
The explosions look real to me. The plane looks plausible to me until it glides
into the WTC. No large object traveling a couple hundred miles per hour can hit
a steel building without bouncing back, which rules out any plane or any large flying object at 9:03 AM.

One of the reasons I formed this group was to explore what really happened. In my book I only state what I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. On issues in which I could not form a more likely theory than the official theory, I accepted the official theory for the sake of argument.

In the book, I said remote control was likely used to guide planes into the towers. Here I am keeping an open mind.

We have a good discussion going on WTC here. I welcome input from anyone interested.

Tracy, do you believe in Occam's Razor? This is the idea that the theory which raises the fewest assumptions is the right theory. Your comments seem to reflect this idea.

Dean,

About Occam's Razor, yes. But most people use a simplified version of Occam's Razor, and I'm not. The simplified version goes something like, "The simplest theory is probably true."

The sophisticated version of Occam's Razor is one that I adhere to. It goes something like, "The simplest theory that accounts for the observable data is probably true."

The theory that any object impacted WTC 2 fails to account for the lack of plane debris bouncing off the south face of the building. You might be able to generate a simple theory if you ignore this, but then you are outside of Occam's Razor.

The simplest theory might be that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System, but that doesn't take the retrograde motion of Mars into account, for instance.

Corrected sentence: The theory that any object impacted WTC 2 fails to account for the lack of debris bouncing off the south face of the building.

OK, Tracy. Let's assume for the sake of argument nothing hit WTC2. How do you account for the whereabouts of Flight 175 and its passengers?

I do not account for the whereabouts of any airplane or its passengers because my research question is "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"

No plane of any sort could have destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing into it. That much is known.

I worked for a medical teaching University and if you haven't been in a drill/exercise then you wouldn't know that there is always a few to act as the wounded. The military was having drills/exercises along with fema and the pentagon. Has there ever been any proof that the four planes ever took off from the airports that day? Not that I have seen. The phone calls from the flight were probably done on the ground as part of the exercise. could some of the people go into witness protection because they were unhappy with their lives? People from the airport have never come forward saying they saw these people or planes take off. some say they weren't even scheduled to fly that day.

I found the steel seemed to be cut to straight across in the cookie cut out of the plane. when two cars collide, there is nothing straight. that may not be the best example, but I couldn't think of anything else at this time.

I just watch a show about nukes the size of a golf ball that could do more damage then one of the suitcase nukes that are missing. I am not saying this is how they brought the buildings down, cause I am still trying to find that answer also.

Hope I didn't ramble to ,much

Nice, Sharon! The hole in the WTC looked weird to me, too. Nothing like other plane crashes into buildings.

Also, the Shanksville thing is weird. When does a plane crash into the ground and disappear as a result? Never. But we are expected to believe this happened on 9/11? Not me. But not seeing a plane where there should be a plane doesn't tell me what actually happened, unfortunately.

The hole in the Pentagon doesn't match a plane impact. The holes in the WTC (and the videos) do not depict a plane impact.

At one point, this realization creeps in that maybe I should pay attention to the elephant in the room. There were no hijacked planes on 9/11. The sheer awfulness and hugeness of this is mind boggling and hard to grasp.

Once you throw away the planes, you are still left with a question.
What really happened to the WTC?

The following are a set of illustrations I made describing how I believe 9/11 went down. In a secret room, technicians worked their computers. These computers controlled the machines that destroyed the World Trade Center as well as the machines that creating the impression that it was a plane that did it. Their supervisor probably killed them when it was all done. Poof. Conspiracy gone.

I am going to form a hypothesis based on what has been said so far. I have the idea that planes were not used but instead computers caused the WTC 1 and to come down while images were put on TV screens by those with the authority to put them there.

OK. At some point, the hypothesis will have to address the issue of the planes. Were there any planes? If not, how do we account for the people who were said to go on them? We have hundreds of people said to be passengers on Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 who have never been heard from.

Hi Dean,

I must say that you have not been unkind for me during your questioning, and I appreciate that. The thing about "authority" to put images on TV screens, you got my idea a little wrong. The machines that I'm talking about are two machines: one that destroyed the World Trade Center and one that projected an image of a plane flying through the daytime sky. Nobody had authority to project this image. The cameras nearby captured images of what looked like a plane but was really an image of a plane.

Do I think that planes were hijacked on 9/11? No. Do I know what happened to the people who are said to have been passengers on these flights? No.

Tracy, you mean you think that this image was projected outside
onto the sky and that people photographed an image thinking it
was a real plane? how on earth could that have been possible?
wouldn't an image be a 2 dimensional picture? and what would
it have been projected onto? and how would different people
from different positions all see a 2 dimensional plane that looked
like a real one? and the second hit fake plane was shown
from several different angles, how do you account for that?
doesn't a projected image have to be projected onto an actual
surface, like a screen or a wall? i don't think that ya can project
anything onto the sky.
and by the way, i think that Ozzy is a most valuable asset
indeed in all of this, and just because a person has different
opinions does not make them a liar. geeze.

one thing i do believe is that 'they' carried out the operation
largely from building 7 and that was why they had to 'pull' that one
also.
i'm trying to remember also who it was years ago who dug
into info on some of the so called passengers and found no death
certificates on some of them or something. i'll check with a couple of
people i think might know about that, it was quite interesting.
possibly Thomas Potter, i'll have to ask him.
also, Dean, i think truthers have found that the supposed
planes weren't even scheduled to fly that day, or are still flying
now, etc. i believe Jim Fetzer knows a bunch about this. any
number of things could have happened to any of those flights
if in fact they actually existed and it's likely that if any of them
did, and if any of the passengers were real people, that only
the perps would know for sure what became of them.

I don't know exactly how the (3D, not 2D) image was projected into the daytime sky, but I feel pretty confident the technology has to do with subtracting light, not adding more light into the sky.

How could a device subtract light? Heating the air in a very precise way? I don't know.

I read somewhere that a family living in Hawaii saw their names on one of the plane lists and were not dead. If there is no investigation, who would bother to check each name from the list of plane passengers. If your name was one of them, would you think it was you? probably not. many people may have the same name. Would you come forward? probably not if you didn't know it was you. There wasn't hundreds of names on the plane lists that the media came up with, that I remember.

I am still looking for the article I read about years ago that spoke of projecting pictures in the sky. I remember it because Ronald McDonald wanted to be the first to use it for advertising.

thanks, Sharon, good point. yeh, there have been good studies
of some of the passenger names and they came up with some
good questions. i hope to relay more on that when time allows me!
i think the more people learn the less real those supposed
passengers will seem, and the flights they were supposedly on.
the phone calls have already been deemed impossible.
go ronald mcdonald! just what we want to see in the sky! ;)

You all are probably aware that at least seven of the 19 "hijackers" are still alive. The names of the 19 were checked against people with the same names, birthdays, home cities, etc.! So the idea of fake passenger names/lists is plausible.
Has anyone heard of anyone saying they drove one of the passengers to the airport and saw them off the morning of 9/11? I have not heard anyone say that. In those days, of course, people accompanying passengers could go right to the gate.
Sharon, do you have a link on the Hawaii family?

Sorry, I don't have a link. I can't remember which site I read it on. So, no proof. I wish I could remember the last name. A man, wife and daughter. It was so long ago that I am not sure whether they lived in or were on vacation in Hawaii. If I run across it in my records, I will put more importance on it.

We may have stalled here about the passengers. So far we have no solid evidence that alleged passengers are still alive. Do we have any solid evidence that alleged passengers actually died in a plane crash that day?
I remember reading Sander Hicks' book "The Big Wedding" and he says a friend of his identified a wedding ring that belonged to a passenger on Flight 77.

Does anyone know of this or anything similar?

Also, there are those who believe Flight 77 went off the radars near the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. And there are those that say Flight 93 really landed in Cleveland.

i hope to have some more info about passengers not being
listed as dead, etc., Thomas Potter replied when i asked him
about way earlier research on this, when he's able i hope he
can send me some more stuff. he did send a thing about
the Beamer wife, i'll send that a bit later.
so yeah, there's good info on this stuff, some of it is probably
searchable, i'll try that too when i get the chance.
i didn't always think this, but at this point i pretty much think
that the entire offishal story about 9/11 was a big pack of lies and
unless otherwise convinced i don't believe any of what they said.
yeah, that raises a lot of questions, but for me it's safe to say
everything that happened was not what they said at all.

Good point, Sandy. If one part of the official story isn't true, why not go back to the beginning and think about what the 9/11 storyline is.

"An airplane crashed 4 different times, but we didn't end up with even one reconstructed plane out of the deal." Yeah, right. If they can scoop the bottom of the ocean to find the pieces of PanAm flight 800 and put it back together during the investigation, why can't we see the reconstructed planes from 9/11?

You don't see a plane in the hole at Shanksville, PA. You don't see a plane in the Pentagon videos or still shots. You start thinking that maybe there were no planes. Then you look closely at the "second hit" videos of 9:03AM on September 11, and notice....HEY! That thing didn't act like a plane! It didn't crash into the south face of WTC 2! It just glided in, without friction!!!!

In summary, the plane story isn't believable, but then what really did happen? One thing I'm still worried about is why the airlines seemed to go along with this story. Were the individuals who shorted the airlines the individuals who made the decision to go ahead with the 9/11 conspiracy story about hijackings?

It's time to re-phrase the question here:

What part of the 9/11 official story can we verify to be true?

Once we identify anything verifiable, we can then fill in the truth to the rest of the story.

All 7 buildings in the WTC complex were almost completely destroyed.

here's an interesting thing, and good points being mdae about the
'fllights' etc, back on that in a bit...

The Not-So-Poor Widow Beamer
Todd Beamer's memorial service was held on 09/16/01 at the Princeton Alliance Church in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Todd Beamer's wife, Lisa Beamer, a grieving mother of two and four months pregnant with her third child, registers TODDBEAMER.ORG four days later on 09/20/01, incorporates The Todd M. Beamer Memorial Foundation eight days later on 9/24/01 and then applies for the trademark "Let's Roll" ten days later on 9/26/01. Instead of acting like a wife and mother who should be experiencing untold grief, shock, and loss, her behavior turns a catastrophic personal tragedy into a cold and calculating cheap publicity stunt. But then, the propaganda machine of the Fascist States of America needed heroes as well as villains paraded through the media for their 9/11 conspiracy theory to be convincing.

Considering that Todd and Lisa Beamer purchased their home in Cranbury, NJ, for $699,900 on 07/20/2000, it was interesting to note that they paid off their mortgage two weeks before 9/11 on 8/27/2001.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98198

Dean, i like the way you think things thru, and try other methods
to figure stuff out. it's good to bounce stuff off each other, too,
cause ya never know what tidbits various truthers have picked up
along the way.
when you ask, what parts of the offishal story of 9/11 were
true i have to say i draw a blank. and then when i think about it
some more i draw a nuther blank.
yes, Tracy, good point about how much the airlines were
involved or not. and nasa! in my book some of their aircraft were
used and i wonder are they all corrupt there or just the big boys?
i imagine the criminals spent a bunch of time before 9/11 figuring
out creative ways to keep their big secret(s) about 9/11. from the
nooze media to the airlines to the very gummint itself. i believe that
everyone in our so called government knows. that to me is appalling
and slightly terrifying, but i still think it is so. there's enough info
out there that a couple of clicks of the mouse will learn them about
9/11 and how the offishal story couldn't have been true. they're
thick headed and sluggish, but they're not alll stupid. and some great
and courageous people (hi Matt!) have sent them info and they've
been told by us enough times. they have no excuse to not know.
(oh geeze i hope i don't have that trouble sending this, i do tend
to ramble. i hope that was just a fluke when i had to break up my
comment. weird stuff happens. with me on a regular basis.)
Tracy, also very good point about the planes, the disappearing
ones. since we don't have any proof that there were planes, by way
of actual plane parts, except the planted engine, etc. i don't think we
have enough reason to think there were any planes. tho yeah, that
does raise questions about any actual real passengers.
and again,if the planes were real like the offishal story said, then
why oh why will they not release all footage from wtc and pentagone?
i say everything about planes and hijackers is totally bogus.
being a no (or other) planer, i still hit a dead end when i try to
get the stand down thing by norad. if there weren't really planes,
what would there be to stand down for? that part puzzles me.
yeah, i bet if we had a short summary of the offishal story
about 9/11 we could pick apart every bit of it as being a flat out
lie. that does leave a big, wide hole open then as to what really
did happen, and of course our good folks have been hashing
that over ever since. i wonder if we'll ever know the whole truth.
hey, ya know what would be really great right now would be
a really brave leaker, someone who knows the whole story or
at least most of it, has proof, and decides to leak.
i do think that a lot of people in a lot of places do know, and
were either part of it or bribed into keeping their pie holes shut,
and that is worrisome also.
and i imagine the 9/11 criminals have a really horrid destructive
plan for what to do if they are busted, and that's why the shut mouths.

hope to send more later, and ps HAPPY EARTH DAY!
may she not be blown to kingdom come.

Military offishals do tend to keep their pie-holes shut, and if something didn't happen, who exactly is there to witness it and keep their pie-hole shut? NOBODY.
No planes means no military stand down, which is actually a good thing for our country. Our military did NOT fail to intercept planes. Whew! Good news, in my book.

ok, yeah, i hadn't thought about it quite like that before.
quite a failure that would have been. the stand down makes
them look guilty, in spite of their cool war games ala 9/11,
but what exactly was the purpose? i still think there were
certain sorts of aircraft in and around nyc on 9/11 the, like
the nooze hellacopters that just happened to catch that fake
plane coming in................
if my theory of scramjet or other similar aircraft was right,
there woulda been other carrier planes involved, and maybe they
were sposeda stand down for the carrier aircraft.......................
but 9/11 being that inside job, what reason would they even have
to alert the stand down no rad people? 'hey, people! we're
about to pretend to fly planes into the trade center towers, so don't
bother fueling up the fighters just yet!" i mean, it's mind boggling
to think how the perps handled alll the necessary details to pull
\off 9/11. from the simplest thing to the most complicated.
what they didn't know was that no planers would come out of
the woodwork and call their bluff. we just hafta call it much louder...


or maybe it was to throw off the no planers! i can't help but
wonder what conversations ensued among the 9/11 criminals about
no planers.....
"uhhhh, what do we do if some of those a holes figger out
what we done?".....................................

.........................................................................................
...............eh, throw in a couple of plane related things for effect...."

seriously, folks, i sometimes, meaning often, think that no planers
don't take themselves serious enough! no planers hold the key
to busting it wide and very open. crap, people, what else can we
do to circulate what we have seen?
(not to insinuate no planerness on the whole group, (some of
which i find a bit odd since they never say anything))....... but this
is one of very few that i know of, sites that tolerates no planer heads.
we are not many. yet let us note that the most prominent and best
known no planers have not flinched since their comings out, at least
we have a great little circle of courageous non flinching among us.

About the stand down....instead of thinking of it as "Why did the military fail to intercept the planes?" it should be "Why would I expect any military person to describe a non-event?" Nobody went up in response to a hijacking call. That could mean a complete breakdown of our system, but it could also mean there was no hijacking call.

In other ways, Sandy, I like your creativity, and even if we disagree, I hope you keep it up. You too, Dean. You both seem to be thinking about the real events of 9/11 (as opposed to the coverup conspiracy stories that include thermite and hijackers).

Excellent out of the box thinking, everyone! One more thing to consider: the media stories that came first. Some sources reported the WTC buildings falling from what appeared to be controlled demolition. Others said there were no signs of a Boeing at the Pentagon. Are the original reports more reliable than the later ones (which contained what we now call the official story)?

The original reports are somehow more valid than the 9/11 Commission Report?

No, not one bit, except for what we can glean about the historical record of what they were thinking.

Why not? Because it was advanced technology, the witnesses and newsbroadcasters did not have the words to describe the phenomena.

Except: unbelievable, incredible, impossible, unheard of

Nobody could believe their own eyes and ears because what they were witnessing was magic to them (i.e. sufficiently advanced technology).

Analogy: Imagine you go back to the year 1000 A.D. and shoot somebody to death in a small village in rural England. If you were to be given the task of determining the mode of death, do you care what the villagers say happened (in terms of possibly being an accurate description)? No, because they don't know what they need to know in order to describe the situation. They don't know what a gun is, or bullets, or what a bullet wound looks like. Given what they do know, they might come up with any number of ridiculous reasons how the person was killed, but every one of them would be false, except by unreasonable chance.

Conclusion: We should pay attention to the news reports, but very carefully analyze them for editorial comment. If they say the building "collapsed", for instance, you can accept their testimony and analyze it for content as long as you fully realize that the building did not collapse and that no amount of saying it did makes it so.

The buildings were fuming and smoking for a while and then turned into dust. After they turned into dust, most of the dust fell to the ground. The buildings did not collapse. Saying the buildings collapsed without mentioning that they turned into dust first isn't really a description of the events, and is very misleading.

These people didn't deliberately mislead us. They were witnessing advanced technology and did not have the words to properly describe it to us. Heck, I don't blame them. It's almost 9 years on, and I still struggle with the words to describe what happened. I just knew at the time it wasn't a plane that did it. I didn't know what did do it or even that the whole plane thing was a hoax.

thanks, more good comments.
yes, it is not just polite to continue conversations even
when we disagree on details, it's essential. and i like to think
the point is more to share viewpoints and hash them over,
even tho they've been hashed around the block ten times
already, not to make other people see it our way.
that said, i disagree about not deliberately misleading
us, i think that was the whole entire purpose of the whole
event. if you look at the tee vee videos from 9/11 morning,
while the story is still unfolding, they have already decided
that hijacked airliners have flown into the towers and that
this is a terrorist act. wow, that was fast. no need for
investigation here, the nooze media has it all bagged up.
and remember how quick those 19 hijackers were up
there on the screen? gotta have a face on the pretend enemy. course
they put all kinda faces to em, just to drum up the hate.
and try to make someone else look guiltier than they do.
in my book the top of mainstream nooze media could not
get more guilty. and they've covered it up ever since, not
to mention kept all the war talk to their liking, etc.

and the lack of surprise from the reporters amazed me.
'oh my.' oh my. OH MY????? oh my. and as the
towers were destroyed they acted like it was another house
fire or something. the sheer terror and hugeness should
have had even a trained reporter freaking a bit out.
also, i forget at the mo who did the research on this,
probly on 9/11 Octopus or September Clues series, both (all)
of which are great videos to easily search......most of the 'witness'
folks who did the reporting about planes, etc. were in one
way or another news media bigwigs or their relatives. oh my!

also, yeah, good point about the turning to dust wtc towers,
when i get back upstairs to find the link i'll send a you tube
video, i believe it's called 'north tower exploding", that shows
the tower being violently blown up with stuff shooting in all
directions. so that is a bit different than just turning to dust,
and nicely cut chunks to be easily carted off to wherever.
which by the way we also have them by the nads on,
destroying evidence in a crime. i believe that was still a no no.

ok, not sure the link will work, just search you
tube, and then North Tower Exploding.

Thanks, Sandy. I must have viewed the North Tower explosion and dustification a thousand times by now.

I have something to add, since you all seem very receptive. Watch the explosion again, and watch how slowly and even gently the building explodes. You might be shocked to hear me call it a gentle explosion, but I'm serious.

The rate of expansion of the dust cloud has everything to do with the velocity of the particles of dust. They weren't moving very fast, perhaps 30 feet per second at most. The explosion was HUUUUUGE but not that fast.

If you want to double check me, google any military explosion. It happens so fast, you have to slow down the tape to see the explosion. The gentle explosion of the North Tower was much, much slower than a military explosion.

Do you agree with me on this?

Here is a good link on the North Tower Explosion (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

As a layperson, I see what appears to be dust or non-solid particles flying from the building. I also agree that the official investigation of 9/11 focused on possible causes of the collapse but little on the observation of collapse itself.

Who agrees with me on these points?
If these points are true, what cause of "collapse" does the evidence point to, if not prove?