Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by djeminy
Plane parts were obviously planted around the pentagon lawn, so there exist no good reason why the same could not have taken place around the towers.

That could've been conceivable had we not had video proving otherwise. In the following video, after the second plane hits, you can hear the plane parts slamming into buildings and landing on the street. For a brief second, you can see the plane parts falling through the air and landing on the ground.

Sorry, but I didn't hear any "plane parts" slamming into buildings, and I didn't see any
"plane parts" falling through the air and landing on the ground.

However, I did see that the video was edited at 06.41, whereafter the camera zooms in
on something that could look like a plane part, but could also be part of something
entirely different. Much more evidence is definitely needed here.

And neither did I see a man that had been killed, but instead saw something that could look like a person lying on the ground, as too many people was obstructing
a proper view of the scene.

By the way, I also noticed that the sound of the "roaring"! jet engines that could be
heard, was of an amazing short duration; like a second or so.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by djeminy]

Originally posted by djeminy
I seem to recall that the engine part and the wheel was both found underneath construction awnings over sidewalks, and that this 'coincidence' was far too suspicious to be taken seriously.

Far too suspicious to be taken seriously by a few who concoct and spread disinfo. Look at the wide-shots of the collapses of the WTC and notice the huge construction crane in the air a few blocks away from the WTC. But construction anywhere in New York on 9/11 is just too suspicious. My gawd, the things you guys make up...

Originally posted by djeminy
And the parts have never been identified as belonging to the Boeings in question. The same goes for the part embedded in the car, as far as I remember.

You have no explanation for the plane part embedded into the car, or the person lying on the ground that died from a plane part hitting him. Or the several hundered pound jet engine that knocked over a street sign on it's way to the ground.

And it doesn't matter what planes those parts went to. The fact is that the parts came from the impact of the south tower and are seen and heard slamming into buildings and raining down onto the streets in the video I posted.

Originally posted by djeminy
(It was a long time ago all this was discussed in various forums, and basically
debunked then).

Well here's the problem. You keep saying that it's "debunked" but you show no papers, no pictures, no videos, nothing at all but your "opinion".

But you keep telling yourself whatever you need to. The real, physical evidence speaks for itself.

Originally posted by D.Duck
Well BoneZ, CGI planes make a lot of noise and different ones too, ON TV, because that is where you saw them, get it.

The only thing I get is the physical evidence of the damage to the towers and the plane debris on the ground that killed at least one person and another part that embedded itself into the back of a car.

Every single video has the sound of the plane whether the video is from a news organization or an independent journalist or just a home video. Even an office meeting that was being recorded in a building across the street from the WTC has the plane sound in it.

You're not going to sit there and say that every single video and audio recording was faked because I'm pretty sure that private citizens would have a problem with their audio or video tapes being altered.

Then there's the fact that thousands of people were outside staring at the towers after the first impact and there would be a huge uproar if those thousands saw an explosion with no plane while the news kept showing a plane that nobody saw.

Your logic is flawed, your disinfo is debunked and you have no evidence at all. So instead of you "blah blah blah" on an internet forum about a subject that is already debunked before you even post anything, show us some hard, factual, scientific evidence. Or be gone.

Put up or shut up.

I know at least two people that were standing in New York City on that day, and they both were able to identify a 767 as being what hit the second tower. They didn't see it on video, they saw it with their own eyes. They were watching the first tower burning, and watched the second plane hit. They heard the engine noise before impact, saw the plane, and saw the plane hit the tower.

One of the two also has a coworker who was almost killed by a falling plane part. He was responding to the scene and a large piece of plane hit the road in front of his vehicle.

[edit on 3/1/2009 by Zaphod58]

Originally, I was leaning towards Donald, but this is definitely Daffy....

Answer me this question D Duck. If it was not a 767 that hit the second tower, HOW did the image of a 767 get onto all the video/still cameras that were there that day?

I ask that question of everyone who starts talking about CGI/holograms etc.... There were dozens of video cameras that recorded it...there were hundreds of still cameras that caught it....HOW did the image of a 767 get onto all of those? No one has answered that question yet.......