NeoCons could plan & accomplish all of 9/11, but they didn't have any drones to hit the WTC, so they generated cartoons instead.

No one believes the above bullshit and for good reason: it's absurd! Move on.

Rodriguez new it was the plane because of the time of the crash & the noise he heard at that time.

No. Afterwards, Mr. Rodriguez deduced from the timing that he had heard the plane crash.

The funny pages contain the cartoon planes that you are so fond of.

Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, the General of the International Military Order of the Society of Jesus, commonly known as “the Black Pope”, ordered the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Tuesday, September 11.
.
Free movie "Vatican Assassins".

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

Im sorry, but William Rodriguez is an idiot. He was 5 storeys underground when he say's his friend came running in screaming of an explosion and fire in the lift shaft - moments later the plane hit 100 storeys above him. How does he know it was a plane?

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't WR also say that he saw Mohammad Atta lurking on the stairwell in one of the towers in the weeks before 9/11?

There are 3 basic theories.

(a)Muslim Hijackers.

(b)Remote Control.

(c)Bluescreen/CGI.

The BTS database says us that the airplanes were not scheduled to fly that day.

The FAA database tells us that both alleged American Airlines planes were not owned by AA but Wilmingtion Trust - an Enron subsidiary - I do believe. The UA planes are still registered.

Public Records databases tell us that few, if any of the so called dead passengers are in fact dead.

*****Muslim Hijackers*****

We all know the "passenger lists" compiled by the Boston Globe on hearsay are rubbish. There are no Arabic names on any of the passenger lists. It has been revealed that several of the alleged hijackers are alive and well.

******Remote Control Theory*****

The possiblility of the planes missing their intended targets is my prime argument against Remote Control. This scenario is not foolproof. The perps wouldnt have allowed it. What if the "plane" had hit Woolworth building or landed on a school full of kids? The WTC was obviously the intended target.

Keep it simple stupid!!

********CGI/Bluescreen***********
This undoubtably would be the simplest method. Remember the KISS philosophy. Keep it simple. Plant some bombs in buildings and use fake TV planes, a little bit of creative live editing and bingo!

http://media.putfile.com/wtc2ndeast

William Rodriguez can believe what he likes- he is only a fucking toilet cleaner after all.

Thank god lol!

I think one way to conceal the credible idea that disguised drones were likely swapped to hit the WTC is to spread nonstop disinfo that the 2nd plane was a cgi.

Nico will still believe what he wants to believe.
At the very least, we can now rest assured that in light of this recent comment by Rodriguez, Nico will find it nearly impossible to pawn the idea off on anyone else.

Cloak & Swagger, just checking your blog site there dude, you've got some stunning Photoshop skills, the site looks fantastic, really impressed. well done!!

LET'S NOT FORGET THE RECENT VANITY FAIR + THE NORWEGIAN ARTICLES. THEY WERE EXCELLENT! WE WANT MORE-MORE-MORE!

WTC7 is the holy grail - we need no other

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=110
GeorgeWash: William Rodriguez Says He Saw WTC Plane Parts

By ewing2001

(ed: Rodriguez is a respected 9/11 activist in my point of view,
however he is missing the updated detail, that the 9/11 media perps also didn't need a 'bluescreened plane'.
A simple graphic-designed CGI series , then vector-keyed (nowadays you don't even need vector-keying anymore) was good enough for the media hoax.

Rodriguez also rules out, that plane parts could have been planted, that there was possibly a decoy plane for a distraction ("elephant plane") and that witness reports clearly contradicted each other.
Also he should analyse the simulated flight path contradictions in some CGI footage and let us know what he thinks.

"...Was doesn't Haupt look into what hit the Pentagon or what happened in Shanksville??? That might be useful..."

I did all that with "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" and team8plus.org
http://911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html

I'm SO happy Rodriguez rules out "that plane parts could have been planted".

If you believe his statements, Rodiguez also lays to rest the claim that there were no patsy hijackers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/203065p-175130c.html

"I'm SO happy Rodriguez rules out "that plane parts could have been planted"."
What about photoshopped? Couldn't some of the pictures we have seen of the pentagon have photoshopped in the plane parts?

"...If you believe his statements, Rodiguez also lays to rest the claim that there were no patsy hijackers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front...5p- 175130c.html

this statement actually can be used to construct the perp spin, that "Al-Quaeda planted the explosives in the Twin Towers".

We always asked Rodriguez why he's repeating this statement on "Mohand Alshehri" which can be turned against the Controlled Demolition Activists, but he didn't realize this 'trap'....

"The point of it is to demonstrate the random probability of about 80% of the evidence outside the Pentagon being covered in lettering when in reality only about 1.7% of the entire aircraft actually has lettering. It is also worth mentioning that the pieces outside were not scorched."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/088.html

As far as I know, theres a lot of GOOD evidences to question 9/11. No- plane-theory in WTC is NOT one of them. Personally I think such discussions is bad for "our" case.
Stretch the rubber band to far, and it will break.

"As far as I know, theres a lot of GOOD evidences to question 9/11. No- plane-theory in WTC is NOT one of them. Personally I think such discussions is bad for "our" case."

Quit responding to it and it might just go away.

Nico- I agree and thing there is definately something worth noting about this account by WR (re: Alshehri) or rather his lack of discussing it recently, to my knowledge. His accounts are dualistic, in the manner that they could write both sides of the story - if you know what I mean.

I know an employee of some property right next to the towers and he described the sound of the second plane as being so loud that they thought it was on top of them.
I didn't realize so many people didn't believe an aircraft hit.
I guess I'm too new to this topic.

bozo said:

WTC7 is the holy grail - we need no other

Let me guess, you support the 'small fires & no damage' theory at WTC 7 that proves it was a controlled demolition.

Well then you are supporting a half truth, the small fires=true, no damage=false.

So the people pushing this are either; lying or they are incompetent, either way, it sucks to be one of their loyal followers.

I wonder how many will UPDATE their material to correct their inaccurate information?

Personally, I'm putting $5 on: NONE OF THEM, for do to so would be an untolerable admission.

Here are some pics.
http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtcmajordamagetax23hv.jpg

http://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7damage5xi.jpg

http://img472.imageshack.us/my.php?image=okc1lr.jpg

For details visit the blog.

"...Was doesn't Haupt look into what hit the Pentagon or what happened in Shanksville??? That might be useful..."

I did all that with "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" and team8plus.org
http://911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 | 07.09.06 - 2:23 pm | #

So why do you only talk about cgi now as if nothing else matters?

Well then you are supporting a half truth, the small fires=true, no damage=false.

Very minor damage to WTC-7. Nothing to account for a controlled implosion.

Except for Larry "pull-it" Silverstein, of course.

Just for info;

Indira Singh at 14:20 on this clip talks about being an Emergency Medical Technician at ground zero, how rescuers were putting body parts wherever they could "including on the floor next to me" and that "we were seeing evidence of what some had been through on the flights."

Video: "Indira Singh Sibel's Letter" at
http://911busters.com/a911-Commission.html

With all the visual evidence on what we have on 9/11 TV Fakery, all we need is a credible new york activist committee to press answers from WABC7/FOX NEWS and FOX5 LOCAL (plus CNN) on the following questions:

How can ABC7 explain the conflicting simulated flight path of their aircraft silhouette, as also picked up LIVE from FOX NEWS, CNN, NBC etc.. as to the live broadcast footage from FOX5LOCAL?
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
FOX Local 5 'broadcast' CGI contradicts FOX News angle and 'live' CGI

What was the name of the camera operator and pilot of the helicopters, who filmed and zoomed into the Twin Towers from almost 6-8 miles away?

Can ABC7 and FOX5 confirm if these choppers are in reality no media choppers but have been part of the confirmed 16-18 US Military Helicopters (WINS!), as also visibly seen on Rick Siegel's footage 911EyeWitness.com?

Furthermore can CNN tell us the name of the 'unknown amateur camera team', which produced "exclusive" not live shown footage from the north-east side?

Can CNN show us unedited footage which also proves that the camera was pre-positioned and furthermore shows a nother flying object which seems to assemble the so called "Elephant Plane" as captured on footage, provided by Camera Planet.

Can CNN explain why there are logical aircraft silhouette size contradictions between other conflicting footage:
The non-shaking unsized CGI (07/06/06)
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/

Can ABC7 explain yet another flight path contradiction between these clips:
check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ65iKJGr_M
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roc8mwO5Udk

Can CNN explain CNN why on their other non live footage, compared with FOX Local LIVE (!) it shows conflicting smoke directions = different positions and therefore clearly proves CGI fakery?

Can CNN and official camera man Scott Myers (NIST) explain other physical violations of his close-up butter entry shot (not shown lIVE either)?
Can Myers provide us unedited footage and explain why his silhouette did not become bigger, when closing into the South Wall of the South Tower?

Why did ABC7 studio anchor Charles Gibson oppose their street reporter Don Dahler, who insisted, that he didn't see or hear any plane ("the building just exploded...") ?

Why did another not live CGI aircraft silhouette not shrink, when an unknown camera operator clearly zooms out a lot?
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
The unshrinking antizoom CGI (06/11)

Furthermore to Camera Planet:
Who edited the footage at Camera Planet?
Where are the names of all other original camera operators?

Furthermore how can US Mainstream Media explain, that various amateur footage, NOT "seized" by either FBI, FEMA or CAMERA PLANET does not show any plane at second attack?
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html

and many other questions, as logically derived from the findings at
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
and many other website supporters of this research?

some minor additions and corrections:

Furthermore can CNN tell us the name of the 'unknown amateur camera team', which produced "exclusive" not live shown footage from the [sic: south]-east side?

Can CNN explain ...why on their other non live footage [simulating IDENTICAL flight paths], compared with FOX Local LIVE (!) it shows conflicting smoke directions = different positions and therefore clearly proves CGI fakery?

Nico was defending pods, too, back in the day. It was pretty pathetic.

AND YES, WTC7 had some damage and heavy smoke. I too hate the "light fires, not much damage" view, but just look at the way it fell...nuff said.
pockybot | 07.09.06 - 5:12 pm | #

Come on, pockybot, don't be fooled, & don't try to fool others.

Heavy smoke only came out of WTC-7 moments before it fell, most likely due to the incendiaries (thermite) that led up to the more convetional explosives.

And that police dept pic of the corner of WTC-7, if it is even legitimate, has to be the narrow west side of the building. Let's see the wide south-side of that massive structure!

there WAS a pod. what's REALLY pathetic is that it pops up from out of nowhere at the last possible moment, emits a weird flash right before the composite plastic nosecone of 175 slips thru the tower like a ghost, and none of you find that odd!
__________--
you guys should figure out what's up with the planes instead of ignoring them as if they weren't the basis of the entire 911 fairytale.
_____________

Good on William Rodriguez !!!

5 Stars ***** for a TRUE HERO :)

Now if he could talk sense into Jimmy Walters, that would be GREAT.

"...Nico was defending pods, too, back in the day. It was pretty pathetic..."
fyi

John Albanese,
hiding behind your silly 'anonymous' or other nicknames, which can be easily tracert, is silly.

You are furthermore a liar.

I never supported 'the pod' at all.
We confronted Phil Jayhan on the TV fakery and hoped he would wake up by dumping cartoon details.

I also advised Jimmy Walter at Confronting the evidence not to focus on the 'pod', while i pointed out, that the 'flash' could have come from internal explosives.

"f.y.i",
Do you still wanna overthrow Les Jamieson with your "Gang of 4"?

Paging PerpetualYnquisitive?

So are you gonna update your blog/website/whatever with the information about Building 7 that I posted here:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/115246528776286837/#168138

There was quite a bit of damage to wtc 7. To what exact extent is unknown, but even if the damage was significant, (Though this is highly unlikely) the damage to the south face cannot describe its collapse characteristics.

The building does not collapse towards the damaged face, but rather it collapses uniformly straight down in its own footprint. Not to mention the visible "crink" in the center of wtc 7, indicating its observed inward collapse. Collapsing toward its center of mass is not explained by debree damage hypothesis. In fact, it completely contradicts this hypothesis.

It is physically impossible for debree damage to cause a total collapse. Even in conjunction with exploding diesel in the basement, and fire damage, the collapse would only be partial if it all.

There is simply no way to scientifically describe the totality and speed of its collapse without some type of vacuum induced implosion. To collapse uniformly and straight down, at anywhere near the free fall speed of gravity, requires the PRECISE eradication of specific steel infrastructure.

The only way that debree damage, diesel explosions, and fire damage, could cause the observed collapse, would be if we lived in fantasy land.

A land where astronomical amounts of luck and physical impossibilities override scientific analysis. A land where exploding diesel and debree fires reach temperatures hot enough to eradicate steel and leave behind its molten residue behind for weeks. A land where such physical impossibilities magically occur at the exact critical locales needed to create a straight-down, uniform, collapse into nothing.

Please tell me when you hear of this idea called reality.

there was a pod - there's a bunch of pictures of it - the fact that it only appears at the last moment from out of nowhere is yet more proof of video fakery.
_______________

"There was quite a bit of damage to wtc 7."

No, there really wasn't! Try to prove that there was.

Just ask Larry "pull-it" Silverstein.

Dear Nico,

I am just a tourist to the 911 truth movement, really. I have done nothing in the way of giving out flyers, or organsising rallies. I have definitely done nothing in the way of independent research. I have convinced my girlfriend and a few of my freinds, and talk about it with anyone who I feel may listen.

Even as the casual observer that I am, it is clear to see that you passionately belive what you say. I have also noticed that you make points and ask questions that people do not directly answer to. As engaging with argument about 911 on forums is the chief passtime of many 'truthers', I obviously understand how annoying and frustrating this must be. But there is an obvious reason for this.

The no-plane theory, true or otherwise (and I have no right to make a judgement one way or the other, and thus will not.) is fantastical. It indicates a deceptive power that is beyond logical comprehension. You know the J. Edgar Hoover quote about a 'conspiracy so monstrous..the individual cant see it (or something)"? The no plane theory brings that feeling even to people who have accepted 911 truth.

If such a theory (or fact, again - not my place to say) can do that to 911 truth activists; people who have more passion and zeal for this subject and its conclusive findings that 99% of the worlds population...what will it do to the non believers?

If the goal of all 911 truth activism, including flyering, blogging and even simple commenting, is to make people stop being dismissive and close minded and say to themselves 'right, im going to have a proper look at this', can you not see how the no-plane theory that you, rightfully, promote with passion is one of the cheif pieces of evidence (or arguments, or theories) that is likeley to make the average person think 'this is crazy - my governemnt could/would never do that, I think Ill go back to bed'.

Do you not agree that when trying to convince an average, busy person of a monsterous, villanous, incredible horror such as the truth about 911, that it is not better to focus on the things that will not be likely to amaze and confuse them at first bat? Like if I was trying to teach a child about it, would you start with telling him that planes that he could plainly see, by the authority of everything he already trusts, are actually not there? Such an approach will obviously confuse and frustrate the child.

Better to start with things that are simple to understand. I perosnally alwaysd start with northwoods. But thats just me. At any rate, do you not agree that the no plane theory is so mind blowing and incredible, that it is too much so for an introduction to 911 truth?

It being such a mind blowing theory, it is of course the one that will be picked up on by any potential media coverage. So the 'child' that we are trying to educate on the horror ofd 911, when being taught his first lesson by the rare stray MSM covearge of an aspect of 911 truth, will be confronted by this no-plane theory, as the MSM outlet has latched onto it as the most outrageous, unbelievable, amazing aspect of our case.

This is why you are receiveing so much negative feedback here. As I have said, I am nothing to the movement, a mere tourist. But I wonder why someone with your obvious intelligence does not see that, if you share the same goal as everyone else here, the goal of educating the poor people who are too busy and too faithful to see what has happened, and what is still happening; if you see that, then why do you continue to do this? Just because you believe it so passionately? If that is true, then you should accompany your peers in the common goal of education, as that is the only way the full and real ugly truth, (no)planes and all, will come out.

Im sorry.

Matthew Day. (modest and repenetant 911 beginner)

"No, there really wasn't! Try to prove that there was"

If my memory serves me correctly I've seen pictures where damage was apparent. There are also fire fighter quotes in firehouse magazine describing the damage. I don't know how significant the damage was. But in the event of future data that shows conclusively that there was a high amount of debree damage, we should realize that it doesn't even matter. Because in no way could it cause the observed collapse.

If my memory serves me correctly I've seen pictures where damage was apparent.
Oh no, there she goooeeesssssss: http://mac01.eps.pitt.edu/harbbook/c_iii/Earthquakes/realquakes/Kobe/Kob...

Oh no, there she goooeeess: http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/WFC3_close.jpg

Matthew wrote:
"...Better to start with things that are simple to understand...."

How often should i repeat this?
The same innuendo was driveled when we're fighting for the evidence on the controlled demolition.

Since you are 'new' then it's also clear for me, that you don't know that the same people who opposed this evidence, now also manipulated all other activists not to touch the issue the TV Fakery, which is btw. very easy to understand if you just compare the footage. I convinced people within 5 minutes also by showing them the footage.

And if you carefully read this comment section, one of the saboteurs who blocked both evidence on controlled demlition AND TV Fakery is Jon Albanese aka fyi aka some "anonymous" , who still wants to overthrow Les Jamieson from ny911truth.org to limit their activism and sabotage again the 5th year anniversary protests at Groudn Zero.
His silence should tell you a lot, but since you're apparently also infected from this double think standard, why should i repeat it to you again?

this is just another evasion technique and on the other thead government shill skyking@scientist.com shows that he's a master of this technique as well. You guys learned a lot of him...

Also btw, also HE (= daisy committee of multiple IPs) couldn't debunk anything of our findings as well, but i'm sure he will try to confront me here again as well.

If you want him to do the dirty work for you, then just push the ignorance card again, until the house of limited hangouts will finally crumble this 'movement' at one day and that might be sooner than you think, especially because of the Oliver Stone movie and the forthcoming anniversary....

and then we still have pending world war between US, Russia and China.
The gatekeepers already allowed Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you really wanna decide what is good and what is harm for all of us? Then do it if you feel better about this...

Conversations with a spook Pt.2
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/SKYKING_open_debate2.txt

matthew day,
if 911 truth is about comfort, then by all means, be comfortable. but if it is about getting to ALL the truth then keep digging and don't accept dismissals.
besides, kids relate to video imagery better than they do to discussions of stand-downs, financial trails or collapse times/energy, so put your kids on the case and see what they say -

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/critique-of-complete-offici...

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=66

http://webfairy.org/
________________

"put your kids on the case and see what they say"

But what if they say 'Im not going to accept such fantastical explinations, therefore I will disreagrd everything else you have to offer, even what is 100% provable" (like the precedent northwoods case, for example?)

Don't feed the disinfo trolls!

above was me.

Nico's 2nd plane: http://www.beatmag.com/images/images147/article/cartoon_plane.jpg

The trolls bit was me, not MD :)

"...Nico's 2nd plane: http://www.beatmag.com/images/ im...rtoon_plane.jpg..."

wrong, it's this :) ->
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers_files/planehug1.gif
WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html

nico aka ewing2001
"cartoon hugger" and "cartoon nazi"

away from desk for a while...

Nico and James Ha and the no planers are just tower huggers. They want us to think there were towers...everyone on the streets of Manhattan were just actors! All one big show!

Folks, if you want people to keep laughing at 9/11 trth, than by all means keep giving these knuckleheads posts, and let them peddle their fantasy world where cartoon planes can produce real thunderous roars, real life holograms and real life unplantable plane parts. For the 99.9999% of us in reality still, we'll continue to point out your disinformation tactics.

Are you guys saying that you believe a plane hit the pentagon? Cuz I'm waiting for a better video to come to any conclusion.

"...they would call you an idiot and laugh in your face..."

Again, they laughed in our face also on our evidence on controlled demolition, other scientific stuff and tons of investigative material on 9/11.

comparing your rants about CGI and how videos don't align (anywhere near conclusive or even compelling) to the extensive arguement which can be made for controlled demolition is like comparing apples to oranges.

maybe one day you will convert people like me, but your going to have to try a lot harder in the rational analysis and work a lot less on painting everyone else as the crazy ones.

If the manner in which the plane flew into the building was anomolous -- and I stress the word "if" -- would it not make more sense that the plane was modified for the occassion, instead of absent entirely?

Didn't countless witnesses see the plane not only striking the building but approaching from a large distance away?

the key word here is "plane". "No plane" makes no sense whatsoever.

Barnabas ignores not only 16-18 US Helicopters, which also haven't been reported by US Media, but also the "elephant plane" from CP (also accidentally captured by a CNN-unedit/uncrop), which passed the crime scene at almost exact the same time, when alleged 2nd plane hit the South Tower.

Why didn't the witnesses see TWO planes at the same time?
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CPlanet "3rd" aircraft also visible on CNN footage
see also
9/11 Scholar apparently resigned over "8:58 AM plane" (07/02/06), "The Flying Elephant"

The witnesses are contradicting each other anyway and they're irrelevant for the evidence on the 9/11 TV Fakery.
9/11 WTC Aircraft 'Witnesses'
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html

But Barnabas is cherry picking like US Media did...
I don't need to cherrypick to prove the evidence, but if he wants to check some witnesses who didn't see or film anything at all, he can find them all here:

http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html

Don Dahler vs. ABC
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...
Gibson:
That was a second explosion.
You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen...
(=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor)

or here:
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)

or here and many others:

May 1, 2006
Two dudes do not catch any plane

http://tinyurl.com/nhuu6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
tower 1 on fire only filmed by amateur and his buddy,
then unfortunately shortly edited and started filming again...

"...oh my god..."
(amateur camera continues filming after 2nd attack on ST,
but no comment on any plane....!!)

dialogue of two dudes continues:

guy 1:
"...that must have been a fukin terrorist attack.
Probably that just explode..
that doesn't make any sense, that has...

interrupted by guy 2:
"...How did THAT ONE just catch on fire man?...
see this stuff is falling out...

So I guess the giant plane parts in the streets and rooftops were what, cartoons or plastic parts? Yeah, I'm really sure CIA spooks would want to put massive burnong plane parts in the middle of the street with everyone looking.

You guys sounded less looney when you were talking about holograms. No planers are like the 9/11 truth bashers: So many questions they refuse to answer, so everything will fit in their twisted little view.

I never talked about holograms.

And pockypot is yet another double think "truther" who allows plane parts at the Pentagon and Shanksville for his irrational logic.
And where are his "giant" parts in NYC?

Maybe answer my questions first:

How can you explain the conflicting simulated flight path of the WABC7 aircraft silhouette, as also picked up LIVE from FOX NEWS, CNN, NBC etc.. compared to the live broadcast footage from FOX5LOCAL?
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
FOX Local 5 'broadcast' CGI contradicts FOX News angle and 'live' CGI

Why are no names of the camera operator and pilot of the helicopters had been made available, who filmed and zoomed into the Twin Towers from almost 6-8 miles away?
Why didn't they come forward as Evan Fairbanks?

Maybe because they have been part of the confirmed 16-18 US Military Helicopters (WINS!), as also visibly seen on Rick Siegel's footage 911EyeWitness.com?

What was the name of the 'unknown amateur camera team', which produced "exclusive" not live shown footage from the south-east side?

where is the unedited footage which also proves that the camera was pre-positioned and furthermore shows
another flying object which seems to assemble the so called "Elephant Plane" as captured on footage, provided by Camera Planet?

Can you explain why there are logical aircraft silhouette size contradictions between other conflicting footage:
The non-shaking unsized CGI (07/06/06)
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/

Can yiu explain yet another ABC7 flight path contradiction between these clips:
check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h? v=IZ65iKJGr_M
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...h? v=Roc8mwO5Udk

Can you explain why on CNN's other non live footage, compared with FOX Local LIVE (which has both the same incoming simulated flightpaths!) it shows conflicting smoke directions = different positions and therefore clearly proves CGI fakery?

Can you explain camera 'operator' Scott Myers' (NIST) other physical violations in his footage of his close-up butter entry shot (not shown lIVE either)?

Where is his unedited footage and the explanation why his silhouette did not become bigger, when closing into the South Wall of the South Tower?

Why did ABC7 studio anchor Charles Gibson oppose their street reporter Don Dahler, who insisted, that he didn't see or hear any plane ("the building just exploded...") ?

Why did another not live CGI aircraft silhouette not shrink, when an unknown camera operator clearly zooms out a lot?
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
The unshrinking antizoom CGI (06/11)

Who edited the footage at Camera Planet?
Why did CP not give any credit to any name of any amatuer camera operators?

Where are the names of all other original mainstream camera operators?

Why is NY TIMES giving us conflicting names when it comes to alleged photo sessions, which can be linked to TV footage?

Furthermore how can US Mainstream Media explain, that various amateur footage, NOT "seized" by either FBI, FEMA or CAMERA PLANET does not show any plane at second attack?
http://911closeup.com/nico/ witne...radictions.html

and many other questions, as logically derived from the findings at
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
and many other website supporters of this research

again with the plane parts geniusbot?
why haven't you answered my question regarding the fuselage in the street that you were so proud of?
did the fuselage in the street break off when the plane entered the tower and fall to the street below or did it punch all the way thru the tower and out the back side before falling to the other street below or was it trapped in the tower when the tower dissociated?
come on geniusbot, you are beginning to resemble conspiracysmasher with your foolish ridicule. put up or shut up moronbot.
__________--

@geniusbot:
massive burnong plane parts in the middle of the street

oh now they were burning? the photo you'd previously linked showed a section of a fuselage with a brand new coat of paint and not a speck of dust on it.
__________--

To Nico-
VECTOR KEYING is a meaningless term. You are not describing any specific CGI technique that would allow the crazy shit you describe - vector keying is just a fancy term for bluescreening software. Nothing in the cartoon plane theory would require bluescreening or any other type of color keying, so 'vector keying' has no relation to your stupid argument. STOP USING A MEANINGLESS TERM IN HOPES PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND!

"911truth.org was debunked as a Cointelpro asset many months ago.
Particularly '9/11 truthlingsÂ’ are not yet willing to accept that this organization is infiltrated and also operating as a cult rather than an activist group and serious research think tank."

-Nico H

Where are the photographs of the plane parts? Where are the 4 massive engines of these planes? Where are additional photos of plane parts found on the roofs of local buildings? Where is a map showing location of plane parts found? Where are the photos of plane parts being excavated out of the debris? Why haven't we seen photos of plane parts from "hangar 17 at JFK, a high-security area where all the identifiable debris" was sorted? Where are photos of plane parts from "Fresh Kills Landing"? Why didn't the government show us the plane parts found at each crash site? What happened to the parts after sorting? Where are the NTSB reports describing each of the 4 crash sites? Where were the plane parts re-assembled?

please provide links to photos or answers to these questions. In so doing you will help me and other sideliners understand why Nico is wrong. Instead of name calling, which I believe does more harm to the movement than the no-plane theory ever did, locate and present the photographic evidence.

The government and the media has lied to us at every opportunity about every crash site. Right? Should we cherry pick from their list of lies just to feel comfortable? I personally don't believe a single shred of the government story or the 911 commission report. Photographic evidence of plane parts would help me greatly. That is why I am now taking the time to study what Nico has offered.

So far the truthers that believe planes hit the towers have only offered video footage, eye witness reports, and the single photograph of plane parts on the roof. Is that correct? Am I missing anything? It would be helpful to have this photographic evidence presented as a coherent argument supporting existance of planes at WTC.

Nico and others have explained how the video footage can be doctored. And it does appear to be wildly inconsistant. The eyewitness reports, like those from the pentagon don't appear to be consistant and airtight either. (The missing pentagon plane is the smoking gun as to why I am starting to believe no-plane evidence).

Lastly, the argument calling for Nico and others to stop researching and trying to present his truth whatever it may be because it harms the movement is very suspicious. Ignorance and name calling do much more harm.

Until I'm convinced otherwise, I declare myself a no-planer, but I am completely open minded to being wrong and will thoroughly review your photographic evidence.