Ozzy bin Oswald's assertion that all the video from 9/11 is fake is unsupported by any evidence. The two segments of smoke given as an example of video "cloning" on close examination actually show nothing of the kind.
An appealing hypothesis that may still not cover all of the evidence, in my view, is that something hit the North Tower, but it wasn't a 767; that video fakery was used in lieu of a plane for the South Tower; that a 757 flew toward the Pentagon but swerved and flew over it; and that a 757 did not crash in Shanksville but might have been shot down or else landed in Cleveland! Here's a summary of the evidence relevant to these questions:
CONSIDER:
We know the government has never proven that the "hijackers" were on board:
I'm still looking at this whole WTC / plane mess and continue to think there is a "high tech" explanation for how the flying objects "melted" into the WTC 1 and WTC 2.
James H. Fetzer
CONSIDER:
We know the government has never proven that the "hijackers" were on board:
Elias Davidsson, "No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11"
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&vi...
We know that all the phone calls from all the alleged "planes" were faked:
David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924
We know the government not produced any debris uniquely IDed to the "planes":
James H. Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-...
We know there are indications that the engine at Church & Murray was planted:
See the Jack White studies, including "murraypickupdelivery.jpg" attached.
We know the speed of the plane shown hitting the South Tower was impossible:
Regarding the speed of Flight 175, here's an interview with an aeronautical
engineer, which you can hear http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3
We know that no real plane could have traveled that fast at that altitude*:
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-on-the and
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-in-the
We know there are lots of exaggerated stories about the alleged witnesses:
http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-study-of-911-eyewit...
We know there are also many oddities about the alleged "passenger lists":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5Fg9Nw9YA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qbhOUcO2Q&feature=related
We know there are oddities about the deregistration of the alleged "planes":
AA#ll (serial number 22332) was deregistered on
1/14/2002. Reason for cancellation: Destroyed
AA#77 (serial number 24602) was deregistered on
1/14/2002. Reason for cancellation: Destroyed
UA#175 (serial number 21873) was deregistered on
9/28/2005. Reason for cancellation: Cancelled
UA#93 (serial number 28142) was deregistered on
9/28/2005. Reason for cancellation: Cancelled
My presumption is that mature people argue their case based on evidence.
Jim
* Where I am inferring that the same obstacles apply to any other plane.
Jun 26, 2010
Bill Giltner
Has anyone proposed the type of technology ("Laser Canon") described at this url: http://www.popsci.com/node/19965
Jul 14, 2010