Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 33
2
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Were you expecting the plane to bounce off the side of the building instead of crashing through at a couple of hundred miles per hour? And not to mention that one image you just edited and took out, shows some objects being left behind after the trail of the plane as it impacted.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by deltaboy]


Yes it is not like the building was made from solid steel or stone. The plane is not going to bounce like deltaboy asks... The planes are real, question is what kind of planes, military or civilian, my opinion military based planes more than likely remote controlled driven and detonated. So many youtube videos you can check out show a small blast at the front of each plane an instant before they hit the buildings. Believed to be the detonator which in turn triggered a mass explosion. That probably began the decay of that section of the building and then it was just a matter of time. Someone most likely waited till the buildings began to fall and then detonated charges set inside the building creating the quick demoliton yet making it look as if it collapsed because of the crash. Either that or the building was simply too strong to fail and the entire collapse of the building was controlled demo. In my opinion it was setup. Also the pentagon attack was a smaller drone type plane. Anyone can look at the damage done to the building to see nothing larger than that could have crashed there... If the plane the media claims crashed into the pentagon there would mass wreckage everywhere. 2 engines instead of only one and much larger "hole" in the building. Just too many mistakes and too much probable evidance to deny.

[edit on 24-2-2008 by HruthTurts]




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Hi FatherLukeDuke,

The military, in any walks of life, but mostly the U.S. will use any tactic to 'try out' their latest weapons (those that the public still don't know about). I mean the 'Bunkerbusters' were not really meant for the mountains of Afghanistan, but the opportunity arose so they were used to see what woulk happen.

The thing is that if holographic projections (and there are many commercial companies who make them these days, just look on the web) worked on 9/11, just imagine wat havoc they would create in the lesser technologically advanced countries of the world.

If commercial companies are producing these thing, even some are touch sensitive!

If you were a teenager or older in the 1980's you might remember Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Satellite Defence shield. Those satellite's and others have a Holographic projection system built in . In a time a war these projectors could make the enemy think there were large Fleets of ships or Aircraft where in fact there were none. Also they had particle Beam Weapons & High Powered Lasers etc. to knock out missiles & Satellites . However they also had a program to make a false flag Alien Invasion , very realistic , very solid looking Holograms.

Check this stuff out on Youtube. It's not top secret anymore.... you just have to imagine and look for it.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


Then the video or web page with engine maker employee that could not
recognize the engine was a lier.



No, the guy they asked worked in the US.

Problem is, those engines are made in England. SO he's correct when he says he doesn't recognize them, because he's never worked on them.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Jim Fetzer


Madison, WI (OpEdNews) July 30, 2008 – A recent dispute between the prominent 9/11 activist, Kevin Barrett, and me, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has led to the presentation of what I take to be five of the strongest, if not the strongest, arguments for video fakery on 9/11. Indeed, having spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, I would describe them as "decisive" in establishing the complicity of the media in misleading the American people about the events of that day. It is a sad commentary on the state of freedom of the press that we now have overwhelming evidence that the mass media – television, in particular – was crucial to the deception.

Barrett, who is running for Congress in Wisconsin's 3rd District as an Independent Libertarian, challenged me to offer stronger and more formal support for my views on video fakery, which have evolved during the past year and a half from skepticism to acceptance. During that time, I conducted more than fifteen interviews with students of video fakery and became convinced by the evidence they produced that there is no reasonable alternative explanation. Ironically, Kevin and I jointly host a radio program, "The Dynamic Duo," on gcnlive.com, where Barrett hosts Mondays and Fridays and I host the rest of the week. The five arguments that I consider to be the most compelling were published in Barrett's Truth Jihad News (July 16, 2008) as follows:

(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system," has recently explained in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed," which is archived here While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.

(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late -- from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds -- have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.

(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions.


For more: www.opednews.com...
edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Added 'ex' tags



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"

Jim Fetzer

A recent dispute between the prominent 9/11 activist, Kevin Barrett, and me, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has led to the presentation of what I take to be five of the strongest, if not the strongest, arguments for video fakery on 9/11.

First and foremost, the real scholarly 9/11 research organization is called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". It's where the real scholars broke off to when they left "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" due to the disinformation theories of DEW, no-planes, video fakery, cgi, etc. that a select few were spreading around at the original "Scholars" website and organization. The real scholars didn't want to be associated with that above disinfo garbage, so they left "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and created "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".

Secondly, you can type any number of words onto your screen to "prove" video fakery, but until someone actually gets copies of the originals and has them professionally analyzed, then there is no actual proof.

See this thread for more information:

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



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ you can type any number of words onto your screen to "prove" video fakery, but until someone actually gets copies of the originals and has them professionally analyzed, then there is no actual proof.
See this thread for more information:


No need to. because you can type any number of words on "your" screen that there is no actual proof, when there is in fact more than enough evidence that proves beyond a doubt, there was video fakery and tampering.

So until you use your own standards of proving something, the same can be said about those who claim
there were real planes even though overwhelming evidence has been presented that proves otherwise.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
the same can be said about those who claim
there were real planes even though overwhelming evidence has been presented that proves otherwise.

Let's see some of this "overwhelming evidence". Because to this day, not one single no-planer has provided such "overwhelming evidence".

While you're at it, take a look at the no-planer threads throughout this forum. Notice all of the no-planers that have been banned. Over and over they post their "evidence", it gets debunked, then they're left with nothing but to attack and get themselves banned. It's a never-ending cycle that's been going on for several years now on different forums.

Here's a thread in the debate forum with me kicking the asphalt of a no-planer, even though the no-planer thought he had "overwhelming evidence". If you think you have real evidence, post it. Let us all take a look at it. I'd be willing to lay down any amount of money that says you don't have real evidence.

Ball is in your court.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111[No need to. because you can type any number of words on "your" screen that there is no actual proof, when there is in fact more than enough evidence that proves beyond a doubt, there was video fakery and tampering.

So until you use your own standards of proving something, the same can be said about those who claim
there were real planes even though overwhelming evidence has been presented that proves otherwise.


Please show real, proper sourced evidence that there were video fakery and tampering.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
the same can be said about those who claim
there were real planes even though overwhelming evidence has been presented that proves otherwise.

Let's see some of this "overwhelming evidence". Because to this day, not one single no-planer has provided such "overwhelming evidence".


The implication and inference there isn't any evidence is nothing more than your opinion. But from all the research i've done and discussions I've seen that contradict you, there's plenty of evidence proving Nrpt and Tv fakery beyond a doubt. However, one thing I will say is that if we were to use your reasoning and standards of proving real planes, then you have no real evidence either. So once you concede that fact and lose the arrogant tone proving you can be objective and demonstrate you're an unbiased true critical thinker, maybe i'll respond further


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
While you're at it, take a look at the no-planer threads throughout this forum


I have, and there seems to be a fierce debate on the subject that you've definitely not come close to winning or proving and debunking.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Notice all of the no-planers that have been banned. Over and over they post their "evidence", it gets debunked, then they're left with nothing but to attack and get themselves banned. It's a never-ending cycle that's been going on for several years now on different forums.


actually from what I've seen, the ones doing the attacking is coming from the real plane camp and they appear to be allowed to do so for some reason.

So saying they've all been banned implying thats invalidated their arguments is not only disingenuous, but its out of context and shows you have a bias which is evident in several posts where when you've begun losing the argument, you've attempted to push censorship, and you've taunted and bullied those attempting to have intelligent discourse.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's a thread in the debate forum with me kicking the asphalt of a no-planer, even though the no-planer thought he had "overwhelming evidence". If you think you have real evidence, post it. Let us all take a look at it. I'd be willing to lay down any amount of money that says you don't have real evidence.


well since you never proved, disproved or actually debunked anything in that debate, I'd bet money the status quo on your end as to what you claimed you'd be able to debunk, hasn't changed at all. Winning a debate didn't disprove or debunk anything. It just means that the rules and debate were stacked in the favor of the OS and the debate only had a limited amount of time in which to present material/evidence etc. Considering how much data and evidence there is on the subject, its no wonder you were found the winner because the debate rules restricted context and information from being presented in totality which several people also pointed out during your victory lap.

so your kicking the asphalt of a no planer remark is misleading if not extremely fallacious. In fact, I see many threads where the no-planers have done the real kicking.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   


But from all the research i've done and discussions I've seen that contradict you, there's plenty of evidence proving Nrpt and Tv fakery beyond a doubt.


By research do you mean Google and Youtube?
Can you show us where any professional research is done using those two as their foundation?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Considering how much data and evidence there is on the subject, its no wonder you were found the winner because the debate rules restricted context and information from being presented in totality

If there's such "overwhelming evidence", the limited restrictions shouldn't stop you or anyone else from proving your case. If there's such "overwhelming evidence", then it should be an open-shut case with very little debate.

I, and others, have already asked you to provide some of this "overwhelming evidence" and in return you typed a bunch of meaningless text onto your screen.

The very fact that you provided none of this "overwhelming evidence" just further proves you don't really have any "overwhelming evidence". Imagine that.




edit on 31-1-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



But from all the research i've done and discussions I've seen that contradict you, there's plenty of evidence proving Nrpt and Tv fakery beyond a doubt.


By research do you mean Google and Youtube?
Can you show us where any professional research is done using those two as their foundation?


Can you show us any professional research thats been done on the videos the OS and those who support it, use as proof flight 175, 11, and 77 crashed on 9/11 or were real?
edit on 31-1-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by samkent



But from all the research i've done and discussions I've seen that contradict you, there's plenty of evidence proving Nrpt and Tv fakery beyond a doubt.


By research do you mean Google and Youtube?
Can you show us where any professional research is done using those two as their foundation?


Can you show us any professional research thats been done on the videos the OS and those who support it, use as proof flight 175, 11, and 77 crashed on 9/11 or were real?
edit on 31-1-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



You are the one claiming the OS is incorrect. So you must prove it. Not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
">Considering how much data and evidence there is on the subject, its no wonder you were found the winner because the debate rules restricted context and information from being presented in totality"

If there's such "overwhelming evidence", the limited restrictions shouldn't stop you or anyone else from proving your case. If there's such "overwhelming evidence", then it should be an open-shut case with very little debate.

I, and others, have already asked you to provide some of this "overwhelming evidence" and in return you typed a bunch of meaningless text onto your screen.

That very fact that you provided none of this "overwhelming evidence" just further proves you don't really have any "overwhelming evidence". Imagine that.


There's a multitude of sources with evidence thats been presented in thousands of posts and threads on this site alone that includes evidence in vids like September Clues and many many other videos, sources and analysis as well as several recent threads here where those presenting EVIDENCE of impossible speed etc, have been banned for no reason other than responding to pseudo-challenges like yours. So why present that same evidence again which supports what I'm claiming that you and so many detractors keep trying to censor, deny, silence and claim to be spam, if presenting it or linking to it gets people banned? LoL. You demand evidence, yet when its presented, you deny it or try to get people banned so you can keep making people believe the evidence posted was somehow invalid or discredited because they "got banned". Nrpt has been victorious if not just based on this latest crackdown to silence and stop those who present factually based evidence to support their arguments.

But Its really backfired imo and apparent to most here who rarely come forward anymore to challenge you and some others due to this censorship of the truth and intelligent discourse. You've already started the "ban" threats to intimidate and bully even before anyones responded to your post which only hinders any real intelligent discourse from happening. As long as there's a fear of being banned for presenting evidence against you (which is what it was designed to do), you'll continue the charade and false premise that Nrpt and Tv fakery have been debunked.

You can't lose now can you Bonez?

Must be bliss to think theres no evidence or valid arguments against you. And if you disagree and claim what i'm saying isn't true, how willing are you to accept my challenge that what i'm saying is true? I doubt there'll ever be any serious debate again here with all the unjust bannings, double-standards or hypocrisy thats taken place more and more and taken over this forum like a dictatorship. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this post is removed even though I've violated no TAC. What happened to deny ignorance and free flow of ideas and healthy debate when those attempting to present their cases, are under threat of being banned for simply responding to demands of evidence to support their arguments?

YEAH, imagine that



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
You are the one claiming the OS is incorrect. So you must prove it. Not the other way around.


The FACT the OS hasn't been proven to begin with, destroys your logic and claim.

So no, you're wrong... its the OTHER way around... the OS claims real planes hit the towers, crashed at the pentagon, and in shanksville and also use so-called "amateur" video you and others claim hasn't been professionally examined/verified by experts (lol), to sell the OS as proof of planes. You can't have it both ways and Its that double-standard and hypocritical stance which alone is evidence supporting nrpt.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
There's a multitude of sources with evidence thats been presented in thousands of posts and threads on this site alone

So what you're saying is that there really is no evidence and that's why you're not going to post any? If the "overwhelming evidence" has already been posted on this site and that's all you've got to go by, then there really was no real "overwhelming evidence" because whatever that's been posted on this site has been long debunked and buried. Just because you decide to resurrect a buried and dead thread, doesn't mean the "evidence" is magically credible again.



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
evidence in vids like September Clues

"September Clueless" is not evidence. It is a video series that was made to make the 9/11 truth movement look uncredible. But the 9/11 truth movement has distanced itself from such disinformation. You can read more about that in my thread here, as well as through debunkings of the "September Clueless" disinformation series.



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
you can keep making people believe the evidence posted was somehow invalid or discredited because they "got banned".

When a no-planer gets their thread moved to the HOAX forum for invoking the name of "John Lear", then yes, any "evidence" in that thread is discredited as well as the author of the thread. When a no-planer's "evidence" gets debunked and they're left with nothing else but to throw temper tantrums and attack other people and then get banned for it, then yes, any "evidence" in that thread is discredited, as well as the author of the thread.



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Nrpt has been victorious

Then how come the no-planer threads have been dead and buried until this past week when you resurrected them?



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Its really backfired imo and apparent to most here who rarely come forward anymore to challenge you and some others due to this censorship of the truth and intelligent discourse.

There is no censorship here, otherwise these no-plane threads would just be deleted.



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Must be bliss to think theres no evidence or valid arguments against you.

I've been researching 9/11 for many years, including in-depth research of the no-plan/CGI argument. And no, there's no evidence or valid arguments.



Originally posted by truthseekr1111
how willing are you to accept my challenge that what i'm saying is true?

Not willing what-so-ever after looking at the "evidence" thoroughly and realizing that there is no real, verifiable, repeatable evidence.


What it boils down to is if you have real "evidence", then you can start a debate in the debate forum, or you can start your own thread after 20 posts and post your "evidence". If you can't do either, then you don't have any real evidence and this debate is over before it even begins.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
There's a multitude of sources with evidence thats been presented in thousands of posts and threads on this site alone

So what you're saying is that there really is no evidence and that's why you're not going to post any?


I'm saying its the same game of denial, circular arguments, bullying tactics, refusal to have civil debate and close-minded attitude is really pointless to engage in with certain members here like you. If you can make claims that offer no real evidence to support, so can I unless you want to start responding to key points and questions i've posed. I've observed your m/o for a long time here and I've explained exactly how and why its not only a waste to engage you, but dangerous for truth-seekers to do due to your threats and bullying. Clearly this forum has a bias when those presenting real evidence and arguments are banned but those bullying and attacking are allowed to continue without any reprimand or warnings. Thats my point. You can only blame yourself for creating an environment where your challengers have this hesitation and challenges cannot be fairly measured or judged. I won't be baited that easily and will continue to expose this mis-carriage of justice occurring here that allows you to so easily put another false feather in your cap claiming victory under false pretenses.

just sayin...


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If the "overwhelming evidence" has already been posted on this site and that's all you've got to go by, then there really was no real "overwhelming evidence" because whatever that's been posted on this site has been long debunked and buried. Just because you decide to resurrect a buried and dead thread, doesn't mean the "evidence" is magically credible again.


I can unearth threads you claim are dead or debunked, but the fact is I can show how they aren't.. So if thats one method of debating you, then okay, we can go down this route if you'd like since most of these "dead" threads and posts became dead either because you never responded further because you couldn't, you denied the evidence and ignored it, or those who posted it were banned.

If you'd like to show me specific arguments or evidence you claim wasn't refuted or addressed, go right ahead and i'll either address it, or i'll show you how and where each one was refuted, debunked and addressed with no subsequent response or counter-argument.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"September Clueless" is not evidence. It is a video series that was made to make the 9/11 truth movement look uncredible. But the 9/11 truth movement has distanced itself from such disinformation. You can read more about that in my thread here, as well as through debunkings of the "September Clueless" disinformation series.


Wrong. SC is an analysis of evidence that contains evidence and arguments supporting Nrpt and Tv Fakery that has NEVER been debunk at all in context, in full or entirety. Cherry-picking certain arguments and evidence and then those claiming its been debunked without showing counter-arguments that answered/addressed their assertions, isn't what any logical reasonable or educated and objective person would agree is a debunking or accurate measure of such analysis. This is a common theme that plagues those claiming SC has been debunked etc and only further validates the claim by those in the no planer community.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
When a no-planer gets their thread moved to the HOAX forum for invoking the name of "John Lear", then yes, any "evidence" in that thread is discredited as well as the author of the thread.


and who is the one making that decision?
what evidence is being used to make that assessment and whats it based on?
and more importantly, i'm calling BS on that claim because you offer no examples. In fact, evidence can be shown that your premise is false if not just by the fact how many times the message is ignored because you don't like the messenger. Thats not a logical method of critical thinking or debate when you're willing to ignore
evidence and facts because of a personal bias and feelings. Ones feelings and opinions do not invalidate facts or evidence. And i've seen this happen lately more and more which should be something that causes concern but for some reason most are too scared to come forward and discuss it for fear of censorship. very sad to see which only perpetuates ignorance and stunts truth seekers from discussing or finding the real truth.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
When a no-planer's "evidence" gets debunked and they're left with nothing else but to throw temper tantrums and attack other people and then get banned for it, then yes, any "evidence" in that thread is discredited, as well as the author of the thread.


Which is a LIE. Because in most cases, those who got banned threw no temper tantrums, didn't attack anyone or violate any TAC...The irony is If anything, those who did the attacking were those who don't support the no-planers and weren't banned. Imagine that! So stop making that claim. Its not true and its the primary reason you're able to make claims about how you've somehow debunked no-planers which couldn't be further from the truth.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111Nrpt has been victorious

Then how come the no-planer threads have been dead and buried until this past week when you resurrected them?


if thats the case, the only reason might be because you haven't responded or debunked them, or those posting there aren't here anymore.

But then, which threads and examples are you talking about? Of course if you actually had to support that claim, you'd have to admit you're lying if there are any threads or plane posts here that weren't from me.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is no censorship here, otherwise these no-plane threads would just be deleted.


Yet facts and evidence of that will prove the opposite. And saying because a thread hasn't been deleted is proof theres no censorship, is a lie when threads contain "posts" LoL you're sly i'll give you that.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I've been researching 9/11 for many years, including in-depth research of the no-plan/CGI argument. And no, there's no evidence or valid arguments.


and I've research it too, evidently more than you, because I've found the opposite to be true and I can support that claim.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
how willing are you to accept my challenge that what i'm saying is true?
Not willing what-so-ever after looking at the "evidence" thoroughly and realizing that there is no real, verifiable, repeatable evidence.


evasion noted.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
What it boils down to is if you have real "evidence", then you can start a debate in the debate forum, or you can start your own thread after 20 posts and post your "evidence". If you can't do either, then you don't have any real evidence and this debate is over before it even begins.


and by that statement, evasions and circular argument, you've once again proven my case.

thank you
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join