Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Video: It was a missile, not a "plane" which hit the South Tower

Sam has a good point. You might want to run and catch these videos while they're still hot. It's actually 3 nine minute plus videos. The first two are the explosive ones. (The third, mostly on the Pentagon I didn't find very helpful although there are some good shots of the lack of plane wreckage at Shanksville.)

The second video shows that it was a missile that struck the South Tower, the second hit, the one where we were shown a "plane" which is very nicely exposed here as a CGI image. Critics will say that it's not clear that it's a missile. It could be something quite harmless. That's true. It's evidence, not proof. But I would ask them: would they rather be on the side of the prosecutor or the defense trying Bush and Cheney for treason with this evidence? The video also shows how the puppetmasters realizing their mistake, erased evidence of the missile with later copies of the same video, but to do that, they also had to erase the Jersey coastline.

Other notable moments from the first two videos were when the producers showed us how the CGI images of a plane were managed. They got video of the Twin Towers from a mile or two from the North taken from a helicopter, and into that video they later inserted the CGI image of a plane going into the South Tower. Also nicely shown in the two videos are the use of a blank screen at a moment when the bad guys noticed that a critical image had to be hidden.

Viewers will note that these videos are fodder for the tiny but hopefully growing No Planes subsection of 911 Truth.

Sam wrote:
The light is shining on this. Shine more light if you wish, by "spreading the light".
Maybe you should view this soon, as it may disappear.

Brasscheck TV: Explosive new 9/11 evidence

Brasscheck TV
Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:55 AM
To: Sam


Three days ago, the 40th anniversary
of the cold-blooded ambush and massacre
of crew members of the USS Liberty by
the Israeli military went unnoticed and

It's a testiment to the power of media
manipulation...making "inconvienient"
facts disappear.

Sometimes, instead of making facts
disappear media manipulation requires
creating images of things that never

Shocking and convincing new evidence of
video image manipulation of what was
supposed to be "live" footage on 9/11:

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV videos
and e-mails with your friends and colleagues.
That's how we grow. Thanks.

Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

Check out Sam Butler's commissioned web site
Sam Butler's permanent e-mail address is


Anonymous said...

I watched most of video number two only (it loaded so slow), so I don't know what's on the others, but number two is full of sheer idiocy. The first example shows one video where you see a plane flying horizontally across the screen but in another video the view makes the same plane appear to be descending.
But that is just what one should expect if the first viewpoint is from Brooklyn near ground level and if the second 'descending' view is from above the airplane's altitude and approaching.

Another example is text on the screen complaining about the different colors of the plane in different videos. How come there is no mention of the fact that the sky is green in one and blue in the other? Or how WTC2 is yellow in one video but white in the other?

Just as stupid is the comment about how the supposed plane looks like a missle as viewed between buildings. When just before, the (supposed) is shown approaching at the precise angle that would align the wings with the fuselage from the second viewpoint.

Please don't recommend people to watch this kind of bullshit. Now I am pissed off at wasting the time, and am thinking you 'no planers' are just fucking with people

Ronald said...

Thanks for responding. I liked the part where they showed that it was a missile that struck the South Tower.
Why are we no planers? Simple. There's no answer to the question: Where's the wreckage? Where's the proof that passenger plane victims died at those sites?
There's no evidence of a plane anywhere at any of the sites. Try searching for some and see what you come up with.

Anonymous said...

OK, so you won't answer to any specifics. "I liked the part where they showed that it was a missile". Is that supposed to be some sort of tribute to Joel Siegel?

Now I've looked at the the first video. (September Clues, Part 1):

You know, you didn't need "superhuman vision" to clearly see WTC buildings from 16th street along 8th avenue. Its not that far. And, for all you can tell from the clip, Renaud could even been using binoculars!

And the video's 'nose in', 'nose out' explanation doesn't make sense with numerous other clips showing the same 'nose out' phenomenon. All of those different views couldn't all have been due to one drifting helicopter miles away, could they? Didn't you think that the proposed explanation was pretty stupid?

Ronald said...

Thanks for responding. Yes, you're right, I don't have the expertise to go into specifics, neither on your questions, nor on the videos.
However, I'll see if I can find someone to answer your questions.
Meanwhile, you may be interested in my summary of some of the reasons why I believe there were no plane crashes on 9/11. In a word: where's the wreckage?

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

1. why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
2. why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
3. why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
4. why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
5. why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
6. why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
7. why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
8. why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
9. why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
10. why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange.[27]