More evidence of missiles - not planes - hitting WTC on 911

[Peter Lemkin]

There are multiple lines of evidence now that planes did not hit the WTC towers, but missiles did [as well as at the Pentagon]. 1] No films of 'planes' hitting the towers were hand held - all were tripod mounted [and suspicious for other reasons]...allowing for the generation of false images using digital techniques. 2] No Aluminum craft could have penetrated the outer wall, let alone 'melted' into it, less so exited the far end. 3] multiple eye witnesses stated smaller 'craft' than a passenger jet. 4] several other reasons I'll not go into here.

Here is yet one more piece of mounting evidence captured on video.

[Anthony Thorne]

No films of 'planes' hitting the towers were hand held

How many TV networks, using heavy, tripod-mounted/heavy on the shoulder 2001-era broadcast TV cameras, do you think would choose to film extended shots of stationary buildings, where the burning is restricted to the one location, and where the filming is expected to continue throughout the day, with a handheld camera? And with what technology do they broadcast these holograms, that are required to appear 100% convincing at every viewing angle for an extended period of time to a city of more than 8 million people? And if they're trying to disguise missiles, why not just use remote-controlled jets with modified interiors or additional exterior flight mechanisms as the 'missiles' to kill two birds with one stone and have the airborne craft actually look like what they're supposed to look like? You're a smart guy Peter, and I can buy the notion of remote controlled craft or substituted planes, but I think Jim Fetzer snuck into your house overnight and put something he shouldn't have into your morning coffee. You'll snap out of this quickly.

[Lauren Johnson]

Not buying this at all. The object emerging from the building is usually interpreted as the engine.

[Peter Lemkin]

Not buying this at all. The object emerging from the building is usually interpreted as the engine.

Way too large and was not found on ground in that trajectory. Once engine that was found was quickly removed to where the scrap metal was stored and was photographed as having changed size and type. Neither the one UNDER an unbroken wood structure nor the one at the storage facility match the engines on the plane that supposedly flew into building.

[Peter Lemkin]

No films of 'planes' hitting the towers were hand held

How many TV networks, using heavy, tripod-mounted/heavy on the shoulder 2001-era broadcast TV cameras, do you think would choose to film extended shots of stationary buildings, where the burning is restricted to the one location, and where the filming is expected to continue throughout the day, with a handheld camera? And with what technology do they broadcast these holograms, that are required to appear 100% convincing at every viewing angle for an extended period of time to a city of more than 8 million people? And if they're trying to disguise missiles, why not just use remote-controlled jets with modified interiors or additional exterior flight mechanisms as the 'missiles' to kill two birds with one stone and have the airborne craft actually look like what they're supposed to look like? You're a smart guy Peter, and I can buy the notion of remote controlled craft or substituted planes, but I think Jim Fetzer snuck into your house overnight and put something he shouldn't have into your morning coffee. You'll snap out of this quickly.

I am only talking about the shots of the planes hitting [sic] the building. How strange is it that any tripod based cameras would catch that and there are several. Stranger still that no one with a hand held camera managed to capture it. I do not believe holography was used and didn't mean to give that impression by posting a video with that title. I think more likely CGI was used [blue screen = blue sky] The melting into the building of which there are better videos than the one I tried to find also is impossible - and there are problems with the plan-shaped hole in the building, which I believe was blown out using pre-placed charges, not by a plane. I'll try to find the video on that. It is technical, but the way the steel is bent shows force from inside or another angle than that 'seen' of the plane. Some things Fetzer believes in are too strange to believe in. Some are not.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

The problem is that all of the available images of planes hitting the towers are unrelieable as evidence of what really happened. They contradict each other regarding the flight path of United 175 and careful measuring of the plane's speed approaching the towers leads to impossible (too fast) results. The depiction of the melting plane is unphysical. Wind vortices, which should be present, are not. The "plane" is black in some and shiny in others, but always unrecognizable as the passenger plane United 175. And so on.
So if you take serious the sum of all the available videos, you arrive at strange rockets disguised by holograms as the only objects to fit the videos, and even that is ignoring most of the discrepancies.

The point is you cannot take serious the videos. None of them are to be trusted.

Given that fact you can discuss endlessly, whether planes have been there at all, if it were the "correct" planes, if it were holograms, rockets or space weapons, but it does not make much sense given that we do not have the evidence to support one or the other. We simply do not know, we simply cannot know.
What we do know is that three buildings finally fell, and if you follow ae911truth it cannot have happened due to airplanes and fire.