Seemingly right on cue, just in time for the 9/11 anniversary, former Bush administration member and fellow Texan Morgan Reynolds discusses the "no planes theory" on Fox News:

http://www.total911.info/2006/09/dr-reynol...-fakery-on.html

And now ... I'm going to veer off into what some may possibly deem as "kook-ville" and say - I think he may be onto something.

(Heavy emphasis on MAY)

He does not allege no planes in the interview but instead NO BOEINGS and also emphasizes that the most revealing videos of the second impact are all non-live RECORDINGS.

Some of these recordings do seem a bit odd (planes with missing wings as seen in "9/11 Eyewitness")

In addition to Mark Birnbach of Fox claiming that UA 175 had no windows, I have in my possession a recording of one other on the scene NYC government employee describing a military style plane hitting WTC 2, (don't worry, I'll reveal it soon enough) as well as having seen another recently released recording of an eyewitness located 500 yards from the WTC who also describes UA 175 as a "military plane".

3 witnesses to date who describe a military or non passenger aircraft.

It is a fact that NONE of the aircraft debris from 9/11 has EVER been formally identified via serial number identification per NTSB methods.

It is also a know fact that the alleged hijacker pilots on 9/11 simply could not fly even basic aircraft.

And finally, Operation Northwoods cited the utilization of remotely controlled drone aircraft in a project that is nearly 50 years old.

One can't rule out that the small handful of recordings of the impact WTC 2 may either have been altered after the fact or provided "pre-doctored" by individuals part of a larger ... ahem - "conspiracy"

(I hate that word)

"No planes" is one thing.

But "no Boeings" is something I have always deemed a compelling possibility.

Time will tell.

In my mind, I'm 100% sure they were Boeings. I'm convinced that Boeing was in on it, and helped set up the drones.

They may have been non-commercial (maybe that's what you mean?) but they were definitely Boeing. Why use another manufacturer when Boeing is by far the most logical choice and has deep ties with the military?

Good stuff Badmachine,

This has been a theory I have considered for a long time now; that a plane may have indeed hit the tower but that many if not much of the photos/videos released to the public that 'prove' what hit are actually fake and or doctored to hide the identity of what actually hit the tower.

As you say, time will tell. [thumbsup]

Yeah well, as true as this MIGHT be...I think it's a major waste of time talking about it. We already have plenty of "food for discussion" without including this possible nonsense in with the mix. Besides it's too closely related to the disinfo-ops that we're still dealing with. I recommend leaving this stuff alone until a later date. That means we should stop talking about it until 9/11 truth is a household conversation topic.

That's a fair point Wakingupamy.

Maybe we should just put these posts up in ALt if people want to discuss them there.

That way it's not the 1st thing newbies see when they visit and yet people can still debate it.

Does that seem fair?

It sure does Quest, thanks for understanding. [cheers]

[cheers]

The same Morgan Reynolds who promoten BLUESCREEN HOAX at beginning of march
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...1=we_have_holes

when 1 week before he had been EXPLICITELY WARNED by Eric Hufschmid about this deceptive group

its on Daryl Bradford Smith's site - the interview dated 21st of February.
(since posting the direct link will immediately get response targetting Daryl instead of what Morgan did)


Note: it was wingTV who heavily promoted Morgan from beginning.
He even won their so-called Patriot Oscar.


Why would Morgan do it?
WHY?

So the ordinary citizens who recorded footage doctored footage, right?

2 boeings hit the towers, that's it!