UFOSeek Forum

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one because there was no plane.

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25

Whomever Cloud turned his footage over to, added a black blob. Clifton, did not hear nor see a plane. It would have been coming from his left. Clifton, debunks all video fakery shown on 911. Advance to 2:00 for his real-time account. He says it over and over and over and over. He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. The blob cannot be seen south of where it magically appeared. He was about a mile east of the towers and slightly north.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY30&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=139&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc

Even if one accepts that a plane hit the north tower, then the small south tower hole confirms something much smaller impacted it. This proves the witnesses were right and the bogey seen in 4 broadcasts were accurately depicted.

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS orb did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion.

The final 14 seconds of approach by the 911 commission was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

A fake plane was added for south tower explosion : Politics & NWO - Page 41
9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

Thanks goes to Rich for comparing fiction against reality. He should have a 1 and 4 at the top, but it's self-explanatory. Rich's post is below the picture. Robert Clark is credited with this and one other fake photo image from 911. Rich didn't line up the fake right engine with its way out of alignment left counterpart. Every discernible plane part is out of sync with a real boeing 767-222, including the joke image being a black smudge with no windows or markings.

1. Horizontal stabilizer
2. Right Wing
3. Tail Fin
4. Left Engine




I've resized the blue/grey plane to make it the same length as the colour photo underneath it... some interesting anomalies pop up right away. I lined the planes up from their ass end to their noses marked A and B. The rest is self explanatory...

I don't know how much these planes need to be twisted and turned, rolled and pushed about to get the 4 anomalies to line up as they should... But I just can't see how they can line up.. No. 2 is the standout for me..

Even if the coloured plane was rolled more to it's left, the right wing that we can see would naturally go up and move further away from the tail section.. not closer to it and right thru it.. not a chance. I also cannot see how a planes fuselage can become 25% thicker.. ok bad photo.. but it shouldn't look like that.. it makes no sense at all..

As Doogle has shown, maybe it's the angle.. I'm not seeing it yet and I'm not sure I will.

She saw the same ball that was filmed by cbs, nbc, ny1 and wb11, above. JERSEY SIDE=NOT 175.

As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms. Patricia Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames. She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight:

“I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.” And she’s got a lot more to say. - See more at:

Witnesses Saw People ?Vaporized? on 9/11 « Just Wondering ? Alternative News and Opinions



Something, is definitely not a plane

[QUOTE=Henry David;1062390952]

Yes, I've watched the videos regarding the orb, several years ago, and find it most interesting. I cannot explain it.

Neither can I reconcile it with the pictures taken by so many individuals of a Boeing striking the south tower. It doesn't make sense. I can accept that it was real, but cannot see how it fits in.[/QUOTE]

I can fully accept that William did not take a picture of a plane because of his slip up that he didn't see one, even though he supposedly captured it right before it impacted the South Tower. All these people were forced into a life time of lunacy after getting back these obvious fakes added to their pics. No one took a picture or shot video of a plane crashing into either tower on 911, and this tidbit of proof fits perfectly with all the evidence that points to flying objects, not boeings being present near the towers when they exploded.


William D. Nuñez — amateur photographer 9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.

- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.

Go ahead and film a plane flying more or less in a straight line. It can't be flying toward or away from the camera, but side to side. It must start as a speck that morphs into something like a plane in under ten seconds. It's not possible in this footage unless it was initially captured, either, way south or west of the towers. Neither happened, therefore the image was added. The fake image was within the frame's short view before explosion.



Second Plane Hitting the WTC - YouTube

I'm sticking with what he said two minutes after it exploded. If the government didn't want the truth to be known, they would not have released it, in pieces.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."

NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 1-3 (WTC2 Plane Impact, 9:03am) - YouTube

And again, here are the very lies from Clifton Cloud himself, 7 years later.

"I am telling you absolutely ... you know ... there was a plane" ~ Clifton Cloud

@1:56

pumpitout Jeff Hill Talks to 9/11 WTC Witness Clifton Cloud - YouTube

I already stated the facts. Chopper 4 is the only authentic looking footage. At no time during the two minutes prior to the orb appearing, was a plane filmed coming from behind/south of the towers. That is essential to the flight 175 myth. It would have been filmed had it really been there. It was not there.

Camera zoom demonstrates how a distant object will show more character detail. The zoom on the ball shows no detail of any known flying object and was smaller than a chopper.