September Clues - There Were No Planes

ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"

I took the work from September Clues and transformed it into something more conclusive. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

rsol' pid='241190' dateline='1333985462 said:

thanks for that but you are wasting your time. in about a week these goons will post yet more of the same "evidence" they posted 6 pages ago as they seem to think quantity beats quality every time.

Ive said it before. no planers are BY DESIGN undermining anything associated with 911 truth.

They have had their bullshit shown to them but they deny ANY data to the contrary.

In fact its almost starting to feel like spam. attention seekers every last one. they are not interested in the truth but prefer outlandish theories because they are simply more fun.

Click to expand...

I've said it before, anyone who ignores that an orb bumped into the south tower is BY DESIGN undermining anything associated with 911 truth. The orb was not a plane, could never be a plane, and will never be a plane in any world but fiction. The 911 research community has simply ignored the 'pink elephant in the room', just like they did with jfk, by acting like the driver didn't shoot the President.

It is the common man that keeps these obvious truths from the masses by those few people who actually research these events. They ignore the most conclusive proof in favor of less controversial theories that leave room for debate. Saying the orb is a plane is a simple falsehood, nothing more or less. If all 911 researchers agreed on that simple fact, there'd be a real truth movement that would spider off in so many directions it would make peoples head spin.

They've had their bullshit shown to them but they continue to ignore 4 broadcasts which show an object smaller than a chopper.

Flight 175 never showed up, but an orb coming from the west did, an impossible direction based on reality and the 911 commission. There's nothing complicated about it. The media was forced to call a dot 'the plane' and that's the only truth movement that'll ever catch on with every-day-people. A plane cannot go between two towers before crashing into the back of one of them. The media pretending an unknown flying object was a plane is the most important smoking gun in 911 truth.

To be honest, my first bit of thought that "that ain't right" was seeing the nose of the plane stick out past the building when it hit the tower. There was chopper footage that shows it quite clearly and I knew that was weird. I saw it on a film maybe about a year ago, i'm not sure, how it was a clipart image superimposed on top of what i now know is an orb, as you're referencing it. And then there's the different impact angles of the second plane. Nothing adds up with the cover story.

Over time, what I didn't see as odd, have ALL come into clear view. Like, the passports and Qurans of the supposed hijackers were the ONLY remnants of the 'planes' and the people who were supposed to be on them. Doesn't make sense, how could paper survive, intact, and everything else disintegrate. Oh, and then there was the engine found, which is too small to be a jet the size of the ones that supposedly hit the towers.

Even though at the time that this happened, I knew it wasn't the 'planes' that made the towers fall. That one I knew from the beginning. These were controlled demolition takedowns.

This whole thing is a big damn joke to the Illuminati. It was planned from a long time ago. And we're all just pawns in their game.

And then there's Building 7. I've heard the stories there about a guy who got out. He was walking on bodies that were covering the entire floor on his way out. These people were murdered. And then it was another controlled demolition. I didn't see that one until after. And of course, that didn't make sense.

I love all this information you've brought in here. More stuff yet that I hadn't yet heard about. Some that I had. I didn't know about the drones or orbs. I knew that the planes didn't exist. I did see the report of the guy on the ground that said it was more like a missile that flew over, but then he changes his story on air to "plane".

This whole big thing is a cover-up for mass murder. First, kill all those people in the buildings and in the surrounding area, and then send our people to a war which was unnecessary to murder more innocent people, and have our people killed as well.

There is just soo much information out there that SHOULD be seen and taken into account, but no one seems to want to look at it and/or take it seriously. And those that do, are considered to be crazy or worse, or they don't admit that they know it to be true (which is worse than those of us looked at as crazy, because they are keeping it a problem instead of being part of a solution).

Lexion said:

It's a fucking chopper.

Click to expand...

Close is good enough for horse shoes and hand grenades, but unfortunately for the trolls, not on 911. The orb was smaller than a chopper and was simply an unknown flying object that was filmed by 4 news stations.

Helicopters don't come down on such an angle, great find! it's definitely a UFO but I'm willing to bet is one of ours and was involved in taking down the towers. IMO

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

"A lot of ah, uncertainty right now as to what is happening, you can see there are choppers--I believe that could be a police helicopter that is co...oooh."

She only mentioned choppers being in the area after the drone came into frame. She was stunned and shocked when the tower exploded because what appeared on screen had no wings or propeller, which is the very reason she said it only might be a chopper. She used the smallest aircraft that most people would be familiar that fit closest in size to the unknown flying blob. She could have said it was a green concord, but its unknown status would remain for anyone dealing in reality.

"We just saw another (long pause because she did not describe a plane) live picture of, duhhh, what I believe, duhhh, was a plane that just hit another plane?" So, it went from an unidentifiable chopper, to, duh, what she knew had to be a plane, because that's what was supposed to happen, but didn't.

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the bogey move directly east and cgi more left/north.

That is one of those 'priceless' moments that would NEVER be caught unless someone goes through frame by frame, examining in detail. Not enough people do though.

That's awesome, man! Keep the evidence coming!

SUNGAZER said:

That is one of those 'priceless' moments that would NEVER be caught unless someone goes through frame by frame, examining in detail. Not enough people do though.

That's awesome, man! Keep the evidence coming!

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's not that hard if someone wanted tell it like it really happened.

Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was assinine. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the faux image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its first plane morph until 9:27 and the similarities between the two are profound. Only a cgi could have a fake left wing and no right wing.

Truth Vibrations said:

Helicopters don't come down on such an angle, great find! it's definitely a UFO but I'm willing to bet is one of ours and was involved in taking down the towers. IMO

Click to expand...

It's definitely a smoking gun if enough people want to acknowledge that it wasn't a plane or chopper. Watch the northeast corner as it illuminates during ignition. Bombs were were triggered in the opposite direction of impact and created explosions along the east side and lastly to the drone's impact area on the southeast corner. The drone was used as an ignition device and to have something in the area moving toward the buildings even though it wasn't a real plane. It was at least something people could eyewitness and call a small plane or remote controlled drone like Dick Oliver had.

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..."



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."

You got some great posts... Roger please keep it up... I look Forward to seeing more!

100th Monkey said:

You got some great posts... Roger please keep it up... I look Forward to seeing more!

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

You've dug up some footage and some photos that I've never seen before. Thanks!!!!!

Plainview said:

An ex-girlfriend's brother is a NYC Cop. He worked the financial district when the attacks happened. He was there. He saw both planes hit.

Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence and has put more innocent people behind bars than any other. I already explained it many times and posted the clips. The fake plane images from the west circled the towers which is impossible for a real airplane, and the official flight path had fake 175 flying over the bay in the final 14 seconds. The orb passed east of the north tower in the final few seconds which is why the shadow was cast. Flight 175 could not have left a shadow logically or officially, therefore the official myth of planes is in doubt for that fact and many others. The shadow is so distinct because the orb literally moved in between the towers, turning right and finally left across the rear of tower 2.

Abovetopsecret, bans NO REAL PLANE TRUTH.

reply posted on 14-5-2011 @ 05:35 PM by truthseekr1111
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
If you're going to examine 9/11 with restrictions and blinders towards certain hypothesis, you might as well find better things to do with your time.
What restrictions are there? "TV fakery/no-planes/CGI" and the likes of "September Clues" has been proven to be deliberate, made-up disinformation.


And You've been making that out-dated ridiculous debunked claim for years bonez. its nothing more than deliberate made-up disinformation.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
A HOAX. And that happened years ago.
yes the real planes theory was proven a hoax years ago.
It's just taken this long for ATS to finally come to that realization and send those threads that are made about that topic to the HOAX bin. ATS has finally caught up to the truth movement on that aspect and banned the discussion of deliberately-created disinformation and HOAXes.


wrong...it has nothing to do with what you're trying to CLAIM... the FACT that ATS has repeatedly attempted to hide the evidence, censor debate, and put the arguments in the hoax "bin" is one thing... but the fact they went even further to ban it even there, is evidence alone of a cover-up because NRPT cannot be disproven by even the most seasoned disinfo agents.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So, on the subject of "TV fakery/no-planes/CGI" and the likes of "September Clues", there's nothing left to discuss. Why would deliberate HOAXes need discussing or debating?


if that were true, why would ATS have a hoax forum and not allow a HOAX to be discussed in that forum? LOL you keep falling all over your failed logic bonez. Your failures and denial only make the Nrpt theory stronger.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So, I ask again: What's being restricted and what needs discussing that hasn't been discussed and debunked years ago?


do you hear yourself bonez? Are you seriously mad? you say how ATS has restricted and banned any discussion of the NRPT (which is a disinfo tactic to deter debate under THREAT of being BANNED), and
now you taunt and again challenge people to DEBATE the theory KNOWING it cannot be debated!!
just wow.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I would suggest that since the above "theories" have been debunked and proven to be HOAXes ad-nauseum, it is you that should find better things to do with your time.


so you claim without any proof whatsoever not to mention the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign, page 6

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

"And then heard this noise that seemed to come from everywhere but didn't...had no idea what it was and then the south tower just exploded, it just it just, it just blew up. And somebody said that was a plane and I was like, "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."

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one. He would have heard the roaring engines and plane coming in at over 500 mph. NO REAL PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER.

9/11 Reflections Part 2: Interview with Simon Shack of September Clues - Salem-News.Com

An independent journalist in Oregon, Ersun Warncke, actually did perform this tedious task and came up with this data:

Out of 2,970 9/11 victims listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file.

Ersun Warncke Salem-News.com

I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error, or maybe Simon Shack is not as crazy as it would seem at first glance[2].

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.