"No Planes" debunked here!!

The following is an exchange between me and Nico (Click on the images to see them separately, the second image might be cut of by the page);

I really feel sry for you Nico, you’re a hopeless case it seems.

“quot;...when the plane hits the building the momentum it carries with it translates into the direction of the impact....quot;

Nico: There is no crumbling of the walls. Are you blind?

Crumbling of walls? The walls are being blown out as the jet tanks in the wings and elsewhere explode. WTF do you mean "There is no crumbling of the walls"?

"...In that video the plane hits from the left..."

Nico: But according to the WABC7 live footage it couldn't have come from *this left direction. You ignored this all over again.

I don't give a shit about "WABC7", the plane is coming from the left hand side from the perspective that the video was taken.

"...the debris is hurled through the building and out the other side to the right...."

Nico: Which comes from internal explosives.

Your logic is utterly mind-boggling, these "explosives" that you imagine would have been stationary. And so the material that they displace would have travelled at the same speed, and over a similar predictable distance. In reality the plane parts travelling at 500mph-plus crash through the building, and maintains a certain degree of that initial Kinetic momentum. As you can see here in an illustration that I’ve just made for you;


Unless what you’re imagining is that the A-Team’s evil twins got to work, and kitted out the twin towers with something that would launch debris at a faster rate then the expanding fireball. And direct it out of the opposite side of the building from where the plane enters.

"...Furthermore an explosion of jet fuel inside the building would have to be generated by huge tanks of jet fuel..."

Nico: I never claimed that jet fuel was used.
As a matter of fact, the color of the explosion does not point on JP4 or JP8 and the fire does INDEED dissipate too quickly for jet fuel. Therefore there was none. No jet fuel, no plane.

Total insanity, the behaviour of the fireball is entirely in keeping with jet fuel, from the fast yellow to orange dissipation of heat, to the fast developing black smoke.

"...which trained sniffer dogs can detect..."

Nico: Not to play devil's advocate for you now, but you have no clue about ANY 9/11 research. All sniffer dogs had been removed a week earlier in advance, very often pointed out by controlled demolition researchers and widely reported at Killtown's smoking gun list.

Laughable, I know all about the sniffer dogs being called of assclown.

Finally, if you look at the initial impact area for both buildings you will see that what’s produced is initially a greyish cloud that eventually gives way to an orange fireball;


The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material.

"smashed concrete ect" It's

"smashed concrete ect"

It's spelt "etc.", which is short for "et cetera". Common spelling mistake.

"Et" not "Ec"

Etc. Et cetera

I have nothing bad to say about you. I just wanted to point that out. :)

Thanks for spotting that

Thanks for spotting that man! What you think, Nico's lunacy debunked for good?

In my opinion, Nico's lunacy

In my opinion, Nico's lunacy doesn't even merit acknowledgment lol

Nico's "no plane" stuff is absolute nonsense. And should simply be ignored as such.

LOL

True words!

i heard and saw the first plane fly over my head

i have very low tolerance for people who try to tell me i was hallucinating or watching a hologram.

Why Nico, why?

Why do you only talk about the most divisive, absurd theory of "cartoon planes" at the WTC? You are obsessed with dividing the truth movement & turning-off curious newcomers. I think you are doing this deliberately! Cease & desist!

You got your answer in your own comment...

...dividing the truth movement & turning-off curious newcomers.

you didnt even have to do

you didnt even have to do all that. the "no planers" have yet to produce a single witness that claims to have seen "no plane" at the towers and only an explosion.(vague comments on local news about only seeing a fire ball do not count.)thousands of people in the streets of NYC and these guys cant produce 1 single person to back up the bullshit no plane theory.

It's got to be disnfo dude,

It's got to be disnfo dude, but it needs to be confronted I’ve heard this shit on TV to many times now.

"See the plane...virtually came out the other side"

Someone care to explain this for me:

Dan Rather: "...and this is the reverse side of the building. See the plane actually pierce the building and virtually came out the other side."

(Notice the large shadow casted be the object coming out of the building and then notice the large object totally disintegrated afterward.)

Video & audio

 

PS - And notice its amputated right wing:

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#amputeeplanes

I'm sorry but how in the

I'm sorry but how in the flying fu*k can you expect anyone to believe that your "videos" are legit when people like you believe things like this are real?;

http://www.911blogger.com/node/1920

You really have ZERO credibility with me I'm afraid, I used to occasionally check your site for resources etc because I thought it was quite comprehensive. But clearly your reasoning skills are seriously in doubt, that or your a paid shill.

Explain the coloration of the initial impact zones!

hahahahahahahaha

no, i think it did deserve a
Submitted by Chris (not verified) on Thu, 07/06/2006 - 5:11am.
no, i think it did deserve a thread. so we can have people like Nico on record as saying this is a real video.save these responses GW.

» reply

Chris wrote: "...we can have

Chris wrote:
"...we can have people like Nico on record as saying this is a real video.."

What do you mean with 'real video'?

This was footage, which wasn't shown live on TV.
That's what i said.
It has no real plane in it and was soundtracked.
The simulated flight path contradicts with the flight path from WABC7. It was officially produced by Scott Myers (NIST).
The walls on the side of the impact do not crumble.

That's basically all what i said.
You didn't debunk anything. You distracted with an analysis of the fireball which has nothing to do with TV Fakery.

Nico, you believe in

Nico, you believe in doctored footage. your on record. keep diggin your own grave you dumbass german. and try and learn the language you fucking fool.

Ad Hominem

It's this kind of incivility that will destroy the Truth Movement long before the exploration of alternative theories. You should really take a breather and think about whom we're really supposed to be discrediting.

I may not be convinced by Nico's line of reasoning, but he does have an ample reserve of provocative evidence against the authenticity of a lot of the television footage taken as incontribertible proof of certain elements of the OGCT. Even assuming a plane did hit WTC2, it is important to recognize that a bunch of bogus TV data may have been spread to brainwash the viewing public, yourself included. The fact that you dismiss the possibility outright is testament to the power of televised images to supplant the capacity for rational analysis.

And in the end, you completely fail to make your case; on the other hand, Nico is capable of making a very intriguing one. Your hubris is blinding you if you think that you can blithely "debunk" with a researcher of the abilities and accomplishments of Nico Haupt.

your a good friend Mr.Id. i

your a good friend Mr.Id. i bet Nico really appreciates your ass kissing. do you, like him, beleive the footage that DBLS provided is real? im trying to get you no-planers on record in regards to that footage. Killtown had the good sense to admit its obviously doctored. Nico thinks its real because it fits his agenda. where do you stand on it?

Here's the footage Mr Id;

Here's the footage Mr Id;

http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash/

^ Real, or not real?

Well that there's some

Well that there's some bullshit. But I don't really see the point...

No, the "no plane" idea is

No, the "no plane" idea is lunacy, period. Its got nothing to do with suspending belief. It's got something to do with reality and the fact that thousands upon thousands of people in NY city saw planes hit the towers. And I'll think you'll find confronting this disinfo is critical now that clowns like Morgan Reynolds are endorsing it.

"And in the end, you completely fail to make your case"

^ Right, explain the colouration of the impact zones then...

owned.

Submitted by Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 (not verified) on Thu, 07/06/2006 - 5:01am.
..if it's 'fake' , prove it.
For me it's clearly authentic.

Calling me a "paid shill" aye?

You're a real class act. You debate like the skeptics (OCTs) debate; immature, profanity, and ad hominem attacks.

You know what they say about people who point their finger and yell "shill," three fingers are pointing back at them.

Killtown, do you believe

Killtown, do you believe that the video(above) of the fire ball erupting before the plane hits is authentic? i would like to get all the no planers on record on this specific video.

Damn right lol!

Answer the question Killtown;

http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash/

^ Do you believe this is real?

This is another edit of abc7

This is another edit of abc7 we found a while ago.

It has apparently a glitch, showing parts of the CGI nose coming out of the building. That's why Rosalee looped it to show this oddity. We don't know the original source, but there is one edit from ABC7, shown on KTLA and EURONEWS which shows the same 'mistake'

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1sJ2o1d1rM

Chris, maybe you should look

Chris,

maybe you should look up in your dictionairy the word "authentic".
This video is authentic but it has a CGI aircraft in it.
That's it. Simple.

i'll look in the dictionary

i'll look in the dictionary just as soon as you learn how to spell and speak proper english."butterhead",HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Go look in the dictionary for “Hypocrisy” Nico LOL!

Go look in the dictionary for “Hypocrisy” Nico LOL! Everybody makes mistakes, but you can't go around typing shit like this "And slush your damage drivel", and then start trying to pick up others on their grammar. LOL, that’s almost as unbelievable as your no planes disinfo.

No

Obviously manipulated, but by whom is anybody's guess.

Btw, I think all of the "real" WTC crash videos have been manipulated (and not by any no-planer).

Well Nico thinks that shit

Well Nico thinks that shit's LEGIT dumbass!

Killtown and me said exactly

Killtown and me said exactly the same.
The video included a CGI, but in some WABC edits it shows the CGI nose accidentally coming out.

Btw, CNN put a blankout signal on their screen right after the second hit, which synched into the WABC7 feed.
FOX5 local did the same right after the same accident happened.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
FOX 5 CGI nose visibly exists South Tower, then censored (07/26)
As one can see with a stop and go procedure (or by analysing the converted video frames) from the CGI aircraft silhouette which was live inserted into the FOX5 live broadcast, the CGI 'nose' exits accidentally in one frame out of the South Tower.

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FOX5_CGI_nose.jpg
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FOX5_CGI_nose_after.jpg

see
http://911tvfakery.net/
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
FOX 5 CGI nose visibly exists South Tower, then censored (07/26)

no, Killtown said the

no, Killtown said the footage was clearly faked. Nico said:Submitted by Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 (not verified) on Thu, 07/06/2006 - 5:01am.
..if it's 'fake' , prove it.
For me it's clearly authentic.

but then, it fits your agenda, so i guess its in your best interest to believe that obviously fake footage is real.

heres what Nico thinks of it

Submitted by Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 (not verified) on Thu, 07/06/2006 - 5:01am.
..if it's 'fake' , prove it.
For me it's clearly authentic.

you see it,for him, its CLEARLY authentic. can we ignore this fool now?

Truly unbelievable

Gullibility is an amazing thing lol.

Real planes

Apologies if this has already been covered by anyone here, but re: the silly argument of no the planes not being real, what about the engine which landed on Murray Street? I have several pics but am not seeing how to attach to this comment.

the no planers will claim

the no planers will claim that it was planted, despite the fact that NYC is one of the most crowded places on the planet.

LOL

You don't want to know dude seriously. They think that shit was planted in broad daylight, we're talking Manhattan here LOL!

You mean the engine that was moved under

the construction canopy that didn't make a dent in the ground when it landed?

answer for everything huh?

answer for everything huh? how do you know it didnt hit somewhere else and leave a mark? you think it just went THUNK into the ground without rolling at all afterwards?

I was there that morning of 9/11 working on a nearby roof and the following week I was asked to go to Ground Zero to help with the rigging of some of the buildings that were damaged. I worked on, 1 Liberty Plaza, Century 21 Building, Hilton Millenium Hotel, and The Federal Building.

Working at the Federal Building, it was our job to hang swing stage scaffolds from the 7th floor setback roof. When I first got up on the lower setback roof and saw the amount of debris I was amazed. Giant pieces of the World Trade Center aluminum siding were everywhere. We had to move most of them to fasten our tie-back scaffold cables. While moving one of these 7 foot pieces of aluminum I noticed what looked like an airplane part. I picked it up and it had a serial number on it and something in writing "hydraulic piston".

Ah, Chris the "scaffolding guy".

Can you prove those piece you discovered weren't planted?

and about the engine, you saying it wouldn't leave a dent somewhere? There is a photo of the engine that shows a dolly next to it and its wheel imprints in the dust leading up the the engine, proving it was moved there.

proving? you havent proved

proving? you havent proved shit. you've done a lot of great work Killtown, its sad to see you fall for the no plane bullshit. oh well, at least you dont ONLY talk about no planes like Nico and crew.

Even if that's true, how

Even if that's true, how about "moved of the street" so ambulances etc could get by? Just think about reality here, HOW THE F*CK ARE YOU GOING TO PLANT THAT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT?

Dem, you have no clue what

Dem,
you have no clue what you're talking about.

The street was already locked for a renovation of the Emigrants Bank, as visibly seen in the Naudet Documentary
and analysed at Ray Ubinger's website 911foreknowledge.com

Also, i'm not sure why you're so excited about confusing the terminologies "fake" and "doctored".

It's clear that when we talk about the use of a CGI, that it is a fake aircraft while you insist that the CGI "exit nose" was doctored after the fact.

If so, prove it. And it was definetely not doctored from us, because these clips are available at these channels.

For me it's clear the result of a glitch in the vector key-upload and the media perps didn't halt it in time. That's why some channels put a blank-out on it.

Therefore nothing is doctored after the fact.
This clip was shown as is on some channels in some replays, after ABC7 aired it LIVE.

Here is Church/Murray Street

Here is Church/Murray Street before the perps "located" the aircraft part over there. This from a staged reaction shot filmed by an unknown cameraman, while the other shot was 8 blocks away at Church/Lispenard:

http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

Go Nico Go!!

Go Nico Go!!

I can't believe people are

I can't believe people are still arguing this insanity. Thousands of people saw planes that acually weren't there -- not it was a hologram! LOl. If and when the msm gets word of this meme, you can stick a fork in the 911 truth movement: it'll be done.

"Anonymous Holo Dancer" spread lies....

I can't believe that we still get harrassed by anonymous cowards who are spreading lies and/or confusing the issue (no hologram, but CGI!!) on purpose.
Also MSM does continue to ignore the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery, BECAUSE they were part of it.

Bring the URL about "1000s of witnesses"
and then eat this here:
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html

The fork for the movement was already stucked by Prof. Steven "Los Alamos" Jones.
He's the real traitor and hangouter.

Jones also still didn't respond to either the Reynolds/Wood article or the Siegel/Shaw letter (1 month ago!)
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395...

http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Steven Jones, David Kubiak- The Los Alamos Connections

"9/11 TV Fakery" undebunked

"9/11 TV Fakery" undebunked here...

this thread needs a new title,
because DemBruce even chickened out of his own blog
4 hours ago :)
More here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2277

LOL Nico you've been owned so hard,

LOL Nico you've been owned so hard, and shown to be so blatantly wrong that there’s not much point embarrassing your ass much further.

Still, I want you to explain the colouration of the initial impact area;

"Finally, if you look at the initial impact area for both buildings you will see that what’s produced is initially a greyish cloud that eventually gives way to an orange fireball;


The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material."

To all the no planers out there

I really only have one subject that I want to discuss with the individuals who believe that aircraft where not crashed into the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001 and that is the naudet brothers
and Pavel Hlava the only 2 videos known to catch WTC 1 being hit, are you saying that both the naudet brothers and Pavel Hlava are in on 9/11,your really saying that, are you stupid, why would the naudet brothers be chosen to film or "fake" flight 11 crashing into WTC 1? Please enlighten me.

Nico, the fact that the MSM

Nico, the fact that the MSM hasn't caught onto your theory yet (thank God) should not surprise you. The number of people who buy into 'no planes' could fit into a large station wagon. I tried to explain this to you before: they also havent' talked about the lizard people theory: does that mean lizard people pulled off 911? I hear there's a guy in New Jersey who thinks the ghost of Elvis carried out 911. Why haven't the media covered his story? Might he be right? Did the king carry out 911?

No, of course not. No doubt, the media people who receive your emails get a good chuckle and toss em in the trash bin, assuming they read them at all. Just like the rest of us. If it turns out, however, that large numbers get duped by your disinfo and start spreading this nonsense, there's a good chance 911 truth is over. That's my honest opinion.

If there was "TV fakery" -

If there was "TV fakery" - and so far I havent' seen any "evidence" that can't be explained by videographers - there can be only two reasons for this:

1. the "fakery" was added to coverup certain details of the planes or

2. the "fakery" was added to lead people down the rabbit hole of "no planes", making us all look like quacks.

But 'TV Fakery" certainly does not equal "no planes"; that's simply not possible (obviously).

The people who are trying to spread this meme are either (1) mentally ill (2) not very bright or (3) disinfo (and I don't throw around that word lightly).

well put.

well put.

Awesome, awesome site

hi folks, I discovered this blog yesterday (new laptop, better browser) and it's great.

Re no planes, I don't think it's lunacy and I don't think it's worth fighting over. So what if there weren't real airliners, which there seems to be no persuasive evidence of and much against? It's just one more lie in the pack.

p.s. thanks Micahyah for your response in

your blog, no need to respond again.. I hadn't seen it when I posted the above, sorry.

Nico: First. Why wouldn't

Nico:
First. Why wouldn't they have used real planes? This would only make it harder for the perpetrators.
Second. I have always looked at the links you presented, but the videos prove nothing. I mean, you show footage in which the camera isn't even directed at the building or just shows a black image on the moment of impact. Get real.
But most importantly: can you prove that the buildings didnt't sway? Because they could not have pulled this off by just the use of explosives (or missiles).
And if the buildings didn't sway, that in itself would be proof that 9/11 was an inside job.
This being said:
Can't you just leave the no-plane-theory? Just stick with the facts we agree on and stop dividing 9/11 truth. You know you're doing unnecessary harm to the movement.

I don't really understand

I don't really understand the argument either.

Are you saying that the planes were modified in some capacity? If so, I see no problem with that. I think the planes were most likely swapped anyway.

Are you saying that the object was some sort of super-duper missile that was made to look like a plane? If so, why bother? Why not just modify the plane?

Or are you saying that there were "no planes" (WTF!?) at all? In which case you're a friggin' loon.

I have just 2 questions for Nico and Killtown

(1) How do you explain the momentum of the fireball and debris exiting the other side of the tower in a forward motion? Keep in mind that a giant cannon firing a napalm projectile would be difficult to conceal inside the tower.

(2) How were the explosives used to cut out a silhouette of an airplane on the side of the building - especially the detail of the wing tips? Keep in mind explosives needed to be positioned on the shell of the building in the detailed shape of an airplane.

If you can explain these two points to me, then I may be able to accept the possibility that no planes were used.

Knock yourself out.

Lets see them explain

How come the hole in WTC 1&2 looks like a plane, please explain

MediaPuppet, Nice Job...

You've apprently silenced the no-planers with your logic.
Thank you :)

Come to think of it... this could be an all purpose reply to any post from a no-planer... sort of like a Debunking Draino. I've cut and pasted it for future use :)

"...(1) How do you explain

"...(1) How do you explain the momentum of the fireball and debris exiting the other side of the tower in a forward motion? Keep in mind that a giant cannon firing a napalm projectile would be difficult to conceal inside the tower.

(2) How were the explosives used to cut out a silhouette of an airplane on the side of the building - especially the detail of the wing tips? Keep in mind explosives needed to be positioned on the shell of the building in the detailed shape of an airplane...."

This was explained already months ago.
Internal Explosives indeed planted to create the shape of an alleged aircraft. The hole was btw. too small for a 767
and shows many other irregularities for an alleged impact of a commercial aircraft.

I also never said, that "a napalm projectile" was used.
I refer to the answer of this question as "nothing + x".
It is an own investigation by itself and has nothing to do with the TV Fakery as well.

see
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html
WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ
Since this has more to do with the forensic evidence, it has nothing to do with the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery.

How kooky can disinfo kookiness get?

Pretty damn kooky, eh? And why not, this op doesn't require that anyone at all believe one damn thing that you say. All that's necessary is for you to be there for your counterpart shills in the media to mock.

Your boss is an idiot, btw.

Indeed

The NPT disinfo ops need to be responded to only with c/p's... less time wasted that way.