As always a thought provoking conversation. I am an agnostic as regards 'no planes' despite being a confirmed 'truther'. What I really struggle with is this... In the Naudet footage of flight 11... I can appreciate that there was a 'set-up' shot of the North tower, then the supposed testing for gas in the street. As 'flight 11' approaches the tower Chief Pfeiffer et al respond to a sound overhead. Now, if the entire shot was faked - ie no plane at all, all the participants would have had to be prompted to the presence of the sound that was to be dubbed in later on in the editing suite and they were therefore all actors and 'in on it'. The 'acting' would have to continue throughout the Naudet filmOr, there WAS some genuine aerial activity, albeit plane/missile/some other solid entity and the only fakery was in the nature of the photography of the impact with the building ie the editing of the footage to simulate a crash. Therefore this would indicate some sort of 'plane' was in the air and the 'no planers' are all wrong in their thinking.So, in conclusion, either there were some very good and compliant actors and cinematographers present on 9/11 ( and there would have had to be LOTS of them!) OR the 'no planers' are all way off the mark. Yous comments please.
There was something in the sky. It made a sound. Maybe the sound we hear. Maybe not.The object(s)are way too small to be a plane. The law of perspective says if there was a plane in the footage, when it was closest to the camera it would be real big, and it would never be smaller than the plane shape hole.