I doubt there is anything that could convince this guy. He has made his mind up. If thousands have seen the airplane hit then how is that not PROOF. A couple of crazy interpertations of footage is also not PROOF.

I posted a thread a long time ago about the witnesses, I was challenging anyone to find me a credible witness on that day that saw a plane hit the building but guess what...No one was found other than the one I pointed out, there are 2 interviews that are ridicolous but exept for those nothing.
So again
WHERE ARE THE WITNESSES??????
I can provide you a good amount of No plane, missles, plane passing by witnesses. You are under the tower you hear the plane you see the plane correct? Wrong not on 911.
And where are the Videos in high resolution? Give me one I mean one good Video without anomalies.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Just to hammer another nail into the coffin;

The engine found on Murray Street, from the 2nd plane impact, does not even belong to the plane that supposedly hit the towers! The engine found was a CFM56, which is not the type of engine used in 767's.

And you really think an organization capable of staging such a huge event would plan everything so perfect then just use the wrong engine and hope no one notice despite the thousand/millions of people tuning in? Give me a break.

Originally posted by nick7261
..
If there was no plane, and there were people videotaping WTC1 burning, wouldn't there be a lot of people with videos that show WTC2 exploding without a plane hitting it? And more importantly, how could there possibly have been a plan to pull off tv fakery when the hundreds of amateurs videotaping WTC1 couldn't be accounted for in the plan?
..

the plan is actually quite simple, swamp the conspiracy 'market' with 100s of videos and mildly persecute (no violence, just obstruction) undesired videos.

it is true that a lot of bogus footage is out there, missing wings, surreal reflections, missing flap actuator housing, pods, flashes (very strange, what for?) - you name it. unfortunatly, none of this proves anything, many discrepancies might as well be compression artefacts, all that remains is the sobering conclusion that we can't trust the footage. the results can (imho) be seen clearly already - WTC7 announced collapsed and standing in the background resulted in universal, deafening silence, as usual.

your thread does question the validity of alledgedly 'Live' TV, in particular its vulnerability to pre-planned take-overs.... the integrity of Live feeds hinges on a very short broadcast delay. with prior planning, this one and only safeguard flies out of the window.

iow, we can't really trust Live footage either, which might have been the whole point of the exercise, discredit _everything_ and watch CT'ers struggle with the resulting quicksand.

it's of course up to everyone to decide which is more accurate, Live TV at the very instant they see it or YouTube clips d/l'ed and viewed a whopping 6 3/4 years later.

PS: too bad WTC1 obscured the view, would be nice to see if they set up a new studio shortly before 9/11 - must have been hard to find the right location ....

You can shill all day and all night and you can't suppress the TV Fakery evidence any longer. By the end of the Summer everyone is going to know. It's breaking wide open and the collaborators and shills are going to be exposed as traitors. When things happen they happen fast. You might want to think about finding some place to live where there aren't too many Americans around. I don't think you'll find many people who like you in the USA when they realize that you've been posting lies to protect the murderers of 3000 9/11 victims.

Hey man if the footage of the planes crashing into the buildings were fake then would it not also be true that there were no people in the buildings when they went down. You can't tell me there were because the only information you have that there were people in the buildings comes from the very same people that faked the footage. So....hmmmm.... were there 3000 people in the buildings?

Oh yeah if you point to documents or witnesses then would they also be fake since the witnesses to the planes crashing either are lying or don't exist. The documents would also be faked....so what murderers...hmmm. Which is true?..... the plane were faked...or they were true.....and if faked then why not just claim to have had people in the buildings. By the way i still think the original post was complete junk...lol. Just throwing theories out there.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by soulstealer2099]

Yawn you suggest there were no planes yet i know more than 1 person who was present when the planes hit am i a lier ? No are the persons i know liers no.

So if you are now going to turn around and say they were brainwashed and they did not see the planes then well. I would have to call you the lier.

Dont get me wrong i dont think we know everything we should know about 9/11 however the way you go on talking about brainwashing ect. Just make me dis-interested in anything you say. Thus if i am dis-interested guess how others feel ?

I beleive there was a goverment agenda behind it all but you forcing it in my face makes me feel like saying get bent.

Regard's
Lee

Originally posted by bsregistration
You can shill all day and all night and you can't suppress the TV Fakery evidence any longer. By the end of the Summer everyone is going to know. It's breaking wide open and the collaborators and shills are going to be exposed as traitors. When things happen they happen fast. You might want to think about finding some place to live where there aren't too many Americans around. I don't think you'll find many people who like you in the USA when they realize that you've been posting lies to protect the murderers of 3000 9/11 victims.

Ok then, I'll give you until September of 2007, when summer ends then EVERYONE will know... If it's not EVERYONE, then this thread will be proven to be just as out there as your theories based on interpretations of TV footage. I have yet to see anything in all this video prove anything but what you believe... It's just speculation.

Again, 9/11 cultists want proof from those who don't buy their theories that they themeselves have not provided.

Originally posted by h3akalee
Yawn you suggest there were no planes yet i know more than 1 person who was present when the planes hit am i a lier ? No are the persons i know liers no.

So if you are now going to turn around and say they were brainwashed and they did not see the planes then well. I would have to call you the lier.

Dont get me wrong i dont think we know everything we should know about 9/11 however the way you go on talking about brainwashing ect. Just make me dis-interested in anything you say. Thus if i am dis-interested guess how others feel ?

I beleive there was a goverment agenda behind it all but you forcing it in my face makes me feel like saying get bent.

Regard's
Lee

Not for me i hope...I'm on your side...lol

[edit on 3-6-2007 by soulstealer2099]

It was for the initial bull#whateveryournameis poster.

As you can see i have become very dis-interested lol.

Regard's
Lee



[edit on 3-6-2007 by h3akalee]

Originally posted by bsregistration
They aired fake videos of a plane crash so they could have an explanation of how Osama could have pulled it off. Loose change is LYING TO YOU.

Why is it with you type, when you make these claims you say it with such authority and make it sound as if we don't believe you, we are dumb, or we are in on it, or sound just like W. only instead of insisiting you're the decider, you're the provider.

Why can't it be that the people who made loose change actually believe what they are presenting, and if what you say is correct, maybe they're wrong. Why does it HAVE to be that they are LYING. I mean, it is possible for people to believe something while it is supported by good reasonable evidence but also it just happents to be wrong.

or does this kind of logic make me disinfo

oh, and one more thing. certainly several people in NYC were out and looking on 9/11 with awe, and i'm sure some of them decided to go grab their video camera. So i'm sure, if what bsregistration says is true, there has to be at least one video out there of someone in the right position showing the twin towers being hit by nothing. that is, you (bsregistration) show us a video of the tower exploding at the point where the plane was supposed to have hit, but show it just exploding with no plane. and i don't mean the back behind view, show us one looking at the building where we SHOULD have been able to see the plane but we don't.

Why be so extravagent with certain adaptive camo ideas and other things ?
Lets face it a lump of coal is a lump of coal.

Why try and make something look like something else ? If they can fly UAV's and drop bombs on precise targets why cant the remote control a empty plane into a building ?

This is more acceptable than no plane a hologram a rocket covered by crude adaptive camo.

Its not even rocket science my friend's

Regard's
Lee

The fact that NONE OF YOU have provided ANY evidence to counter the no-plane theory says it all..

Im done with this thread. Im not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of arrogant little "truthers" who can not even back up their own statements.

Bsregistration, mail me when you post more/come up with more.

Originally posted by bsregistration
You can shill all day and all night and you can't suppress the TV Fakery evidence any longer. By the end of the Summer everyone is going to know. It's breaking wide open and the collaborators and shills are going to be exposed as traitors. When things happen they happen fast. You might want to think about finding some place to live where there aren't too many Americans around. I don't think you'll find many people who like you in the USA when they realize that you've been posting lies to protect the murderers of 3000 9/11 victims.

Are you basically using ATS and other 9/11 movements as a resource to foolproof your own arguement? Basically every time someone comes up with evidence of the contary you will adapt your theory to accomadate it to your liking or deem the person who provided it a sheep or shill? That dear sir is far from wanting to find the truth at the bottom of the matter.