Eye-Witnesses Saw No Planes
Sun 8:37 pm +00:00, 11 Sep 2011 11The mismatch between the evidence and the knowledge of people about 911 is about as wide a chasm as it is possible to imagine. This is the age of information. 911 happened at the dawn of the internet age. The perpetrators never imagined the public would get access to some much evidence as to what they had done, but since 2001 the explosion of access to information is wiping out their secrecy system.
It may be taking aeons for the public to take it all in, but people are slowly getting it.
The perpetrators were our own governments.
Comment on this video clip from Me –
Tap, there was a fly-by UA jet at the time of the second attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc0E6wTgb5Q&feature=related
From the September Clues video which is an essential watch from start to finish.
Other video images of what could pass for a ball.
How many people would need to be involved across the various govt agencies, air traffic control, military etc and the media to bring down three major buildings in a busy city, and the Pentagon by using (depending on which YouTube clip you believe) a missile or an anti gravity ball plus controlled demolition explosives and then launch a major campaign of disinformation using the various media outlets to make it appear to have been aircraft collisions.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just crash the planes into the buildings, thus negating the need for collusion of the news media and the fancy editing of video clips and general cover ups with hundreds if not thousands of people involved, and the resultant nit picking of every aspect of the various blurry images?
And what about flight 93, was that an anti gravity ball that couldn’t find it’s target, unlike the reliable precision of say a cruise missile?
You ought to challenge these theories as much as you challenge the official version of events.
If there were a false flag conspiracy, the stories, comments and clips flying around on the internet now would be a perfect way to camouflage the facts.
Twig, did you read this?
http://letsrollforums.com/happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html?s=45780d89d722ea6ccf0ab0845c16f89f&s=aa3ae7b81d773aa1e828bc650f09f7a7&
//Wouldn’t it have been easier to just crash the planes into the buildings, thus negating the need for collusion of the news media and the fancy editing of video clips and general cover ups with hundreds if not thousands of people involved, and the resultant nit picking of every aspect of the various blurry images?//
Perhaps using real planes – even ones that aren’t hijacked – would actually involve more people than not using planes. For one thing you’d need to acquire or build four passenger planes without leaving a trail.
Also, if you use a real hijacking by patsies with boxcutters the mission can fail. The hijackers could get over-powered. They could change their minds. They could fly badly and miss the towers.
If they use their remote controlled technology they can count on it happening.
The number of media directly involved with foreknowledge might not be more than 100.
@Me
I tried to read it but I found it to be rambling, disjointed and difficult to pick out fact from supposition.
In one instance it says “Why there is video and photographic evidence showing both 11 & 175 to be military drones”.
Does this mean it wasn’t anti gravity balls after all?
I’ve heard several eye witnesses who saw the planes including one who was in a skyscraper and saw an airliner flying below the height of his office floor.
Ultimately, what would be the governments motive for such an attack?
The second hit is established as a ball. The first hit could have been either a ball or a missile, but it appears unlikely to have been a plane.
The Pentagon was a missile.
WTC 7 was nothing.
There was a UA plane flying over the scene at the moment of the second Twin Towers hit. It was too high to be part of the scene, but would have been observed by eye witnesses.
1. But an eye witness saw an airliner flying below the level of his high rise office.
2. Collapse of WTC7 Explained
3. http://www.debunking911.com/
One eyewitness!!!!
I’ve seen the attempts to debunk. They don’t convince me at all.
We dealt with this before – debunking the debunking. They failed to mention that the airplane engine spilling out of the tower, was the wrong type for the plane alleged to have crashed .
They have no explanation for the ‘nose out’ TV coverage. They fail to explain why the BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did ‘collapse’.
The list goes on.
@Tap
There were lots of eyewitnesses, I was just referring to an American chap who phoned into LBC last week to recount his memories of the day.
For some reason the hyperlinks I posted in my previous comment have been corrupted. What’s going on? Can you fix them?
The spooks are back in the office. It’s Monday.
They’re so dumb they don’t even realise your post is on their side!!
Dear Spooks,
Can you please stop messing with my hyperlinks on The Tap as I am on your side (apparently).
@Tap
The WTC7/ BBC theory was due to a garbling of information, the BBC picked up from another network that the building was “about to collapse” and in the confusion and chaos wrongly reported it as “has collapsed”.
@Tap
When I type a hyperlink such as “www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feature”
it comes out as “http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feature”
In other words it prefixes “http://www.blogger.com/” to the url.
Anyway, here are the links in plain text so that you can cut and paste them into firefox.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feature
3. http://www.debunking911.com
See what you think after viewing them.
…