It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why they didn't use planes...

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
There are still some disinfo guys left, working like crazy saying the videos are real.

If by "some" you mean the whole 9/11 truth movement, then yes we will all continue to say the videos are real. You will never convince anyone in the 9/11 truth movement because for one, it's the TRUTH movement and what you peddle is not truth, and second, you have absolutely no evidence at all to support your "theories'. Keep trying.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Who died and made you chief of 9/11 conspiracies?

So the "truth movement" won't entertain the theory just because you and the "movement" think its preposterous.

Let me guess you think the towers were demolished?, but at the same time as there being masses of evidence to support otherwise.

You no doubt believe that no plane hit the pentagon? Again at the same time there is evidence to claim that it was a plane that crashed into it.

I could go on but I think you get my point. Just because you don't agree with the NPT (and im almost positive you haven't watched all if any of the docs regarding it) It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

The footage from that day that is now etched in time has been messed with, edited, colours added, colours removed, objects superimposed over other objects, buildings removed, buildings added, planes dive bombing towards the tower, planes going dead straight at the tower, faked audio of planes and crowd noises, CGI smoke added to the 1st tower to make the building look in more danger than it really was, honestly the list really does goes on.

If you so vehemently believe planes were used that day then fine. If you don't believe that the footage (in large parts) was faked on that day then your so called "truth movement" has a serious flaw in it.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
im almost positive you haven't watched all if any of the docs regarding it

Watched them all, debunked and continue to debunk them all. They are also debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by thesneakiod
It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Nobody said it shouldn't be discussed. But I'll be there to debunk every single "theory" you guys try to peddle.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
The footage from that day that is now etched in time has been messed with, edited, colours added, colours removed, objects superimposed over other objects, buildings removed, buildings added, planes dive bombing towards the tower, planes going dead straight at the tower, faked audio of planes and crowd noises, CGI smoke added to the 1st tower to make the building look in more danger than it really was

Everything you just said has to do with camera angles, camera positions, poor video quality from compressed, resized and recompressed videos, DIFFERENT CAMERAS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT COLORS, and then just your pure bias and opinion based on your misunderstanding of all of the above.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
If you don't believe that the footage (in large parts) was faked on that day then your so called "truth movement" has a serious flaw in it.

No flaw, just real scientists and engineers and several others, including myself, that have looked at your "theories", concluded them to be without merit. And when you guys purposely make things up to try to peddle your "theories", you become instantly uncredible.

You have no scientific evidence, no forensics, no physical evidence, nothing. That's really all that needs to be said.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thesneakiod
im almost positive you haven't watched all if any of the docs regarding it

Watched them all, debunked and continue to debunk them all. They are also debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by thesneakiod
It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Nobody said it shouldn't be discussed. But I'll be there to debunk every single "theory" you guys try to peddle.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
The footage from that day that is now etched in time has been messed with, edited, colours added, colours removed, objects superimposed over other objects, buildings removed, buildings added, planes dive bombing towards the tower, planes going dead straight at the tower, faked audio of planes and crowd noises, CGI smoke added to the 1st tower to make the building look in more danger than it really was

Everything you just said has to do with camera angles, camera positions, poor video quality from compressed, resized and recompressed videos, DIFFERENT CAMERAS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT COLORS, and then just your pure bias and opinion based on your misunderstanding of all of the above.



Originally posted by thesneakiod
If you don't believe that the footage (in large parts) was faked on that day then your so called "truth movement" has a serious flaw in it.

No flaw, just real scientists and engineers and several others, including myself, that have looked at your "theories", concluded them to be without merit. And when you guys purposely make things up to try to peddle your "theories", you become instantly uncredible.

You have no scientific evidence, no forensics, no physical evidence, nothing. That's really all that needs to be said.


Well Ladies and gentlemen,

There you have it.

Thats the truthmovement for you..................


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 



Indeed!

And now being characterized with sickening arrogance, bumptiousness and
self-admiration.

Somebody should tell this man that,

SELF-PRAISE IS NO RECOMMENDATION

for any kind of 'movement'!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


There is no telling this guy anything. He continually calls each person that he responds to a disinfo agent in every thread and has any conversation going around in circles due to his moving of the goal post.

As to the OP... this has been shown by DD quite easily and others that this was indeed staged and using video footage from the MSM. That is one point that he constantly harps on. He questions the same footage he uses to justify his statements. He says that we need a higher quality video to prove anything, yet its the same one he provided for his proof of nothing.

This OP has been proven and is closed as to questions....



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I usually stay out of the 911 forums because of all the snide remarks, But i will say this, So far the whole 911 conspiracy is playing out as an absolute dream to those who perpetrated the whole "hit"

to me it is so clear that so many tricks, dissinformation misdirection smoke and mirrors false accusations and true admitants has really made sure that the spin factor put into the effort to keep the truth from the members of the public who are not a part of or privy to the "plan" is working as planned.

just take a step back and count the tricks used then and the ones being used now as well as any further explanations of the so called truth.

thermite,thermate,explosives,planes,no planes,planes with pods, dancing Israeli's,directed energy weapons,nuclear bombs,controlled demolition,squibs,laser painting,etc...etc...etc

on cue as planned. round and round you all go,it's so futile to me.sad



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 


Firstly, your post should be reported as it's off topic and only serves to create more animosity. You should also be reprimanded for saying you don't come here because of the snide remarks, then you make a snide remark saying it's sad that people believe in such things.

Now that I've pointed out your hypocrisy, I'll educate you on some facts.

The 9/11 truth movement does not support no-planes, pods, directed energy weapons, nuclear bombs or laser painting as most or all have been deemed disinfo.

As far as the thermite/thermate, there's not only video evidence of it, there's hard, tangible, forensic evidence of it. Of course, you'd know this if you were a real researcher or someone interested in the truth. Further, the squibs/explosives/controlled demolition has been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt with video evidence, witness evidence and scientific evidence.

Now go back wherest you came from before you type something else that will get you into trouble.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

this was accidently posted in the wrong thread and was meant to be a new thread about the futility of investigating 911, and you just showed yourself to be the opitomy of snide. so why you dont just say sorry and then i will move on.

oh sorry i did not realise that you moded every post and choose to attack those that dont fit in with your theorys. well we have to put up with narrow minded people like you good bye.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Who died and made you chief of 9/11 conspiracies?

So the "truth movement" won't entertain the theory just because you and the "movement" think its preposterous.

Let me guess you think the towers were demolished?, but at the same time as there being masses of evidence to support otherwise.

You no doubt believe that no plane hit the pentagon? Again at the same time there is evidence to claim that it was a plane that crashed into it.

I could go on but I think you get my point. Just because you don't agree with the NPT (and im almost positive you haven't watched all if any of the docs regarding it) It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

The footage from that day that is now etched in time has been messed with, edited, colours added, colours removed, objects superimposed over other objects, buildings removed, buildings added, planes dive bombing towards the tower, planes going dead straight at the tower, faked audio of planes and crowd noises, CGI smoke added to the 1st tower to make the building look in more danger than it really was, honestly the list really does goes on.

If you so vehemently believe planes were used that day then fine. If you don't believe that the footage (in large parts) was faked on that day then your so called "truth movement" has a serious flaw in it.



Re your edited videos what about all the other videos posted by people in and around the city with video cameras camera phones etc
post some links to these altered videos with BUILDINGS added taken away MAKE up your mind.

Planes crashed into towers ,towers suffered structural damage the weight of the buildings above impact point could not be supported remember 1500 tons per floor so buildings collapsed no explosive no conspiracy thats it!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by stealthyarouraNow that I've pointed out your hypocrisy, I'll educate you on some facts.

The 9/11 truth movement does not support no-planes, pods, directed energy weapons, nuclear bombs or laser painting as most or all have been deemed disinfo.


No, thats what your personal 9/11 truth movement says.

And since its your OPINION that has no factual basis, its worthless in determining TRUTH of 9/11.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_I'll be there to debunk every single "theory" you guys try to peddle.


I've said it before and i'll say it again;

the bottom line is that _BoneZ_
and his minions refuse to accept there were basic laws of physics broken which PROVE beyond a doubt what was "seen" were not commerical jets that hit the towers. Hence NO PLANES...

Something that looked like a plane, perhaps...

Holographic imaging or cgi and fakery, probably...

but I challenge anyone to show and prove that a real plane hit the towers.

It can't be done because the evidence that supports the RPT, is contradictory and factually flawed.

FACT : Its physically and structurally impossible and against the laws of physics for a boeing 767 to have acheived the speed that the OCT claims it did. That LIE about the SPEED alone, proves NO PLANE/BOEING 767 could have been there.

FACT: the Law of Inertia proves NO BOEING/PLANE did the damage or was there that day...

FACT: There was NO DE-ACCELERATION of this alleged "plane".

FACT: The photographers who took the pics of the so-called planes contradict each other in their accounts and also claim not to have heard the roar of the engine that a boeing 767 would have made as it flew DIRECTLY OVER them... thats their EYE WITNESS TESITMONY. A FACT that should have any investigator baffled and needing a logical answer to before accepting any RPT.

but technically, the NPT'ers don't have to prove there were no planes... they only have to prove that the facts and evidence claimed by the OCT about planes hitting the wtc, are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and false since that FACT is far more powerful than any proof of NO PLANES.

So _BoneZ_
, please tell me what could have hit the towers if the above evidence is correct that it couldn't have been a boeing 767?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
there's direct visual and forensic proof that there definitely could not have been planes at the wtc and pentagon. "The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them -because people saw them, that proves they were there." Deduction isn't proof of planes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the evidence and facts above are false, then please show exactly how and where they're factually incorrect.

If you can't, then how can you call the NPT bs?

a wise man here said recently, if you haven't seen enough evidence of controlled demolition or NP's in five years of researching 9/11, you've been looking with the intention of not finding it.

with that said, _BoneZ_
agenda is beyond obvious.

a pseudo truther



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by asala]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Firstly i stated i posted in the wrong thread ok?

"The 9/11 truth movement does not support no-planes, pods, directed energy weapons, nuclear bombs or laser painting as most or all have been deemed disinfo. "

I never said it did! and agree with most of what you state.

"As far as the thermite/thermate, there's not only video evidence of it, there's hard, tangible, forensic evidence of it. Of course, you'd know this if you were a real researcher or someone interested in the truth. Further, the squibs/explosives/controlled demolition has been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt with video evidence, witness evidence and scientific evidence."

I agree and did not say there was no evidence.

"Now go back wherest you came from before you type something else that will get you into trouble."

I don't have to GO anywhere thanks, and if i did YOU certainly would not make a difference,

Oh and i meant "sad" as to the way the 911 movement is going with all the bickering getting know one anywhere,shame as this was not a personal attack on you _BURNZ_ and i may of enjoyed replying to some of your post's.

This is why i stay out of this part of ATS and rarely post, you seem so wound up like a coiled spring ready to burst.CHILL OUT.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
FACT : Its physically and structurally impossible and against the laws of physics for a boeing 767 to have acheived the speed that the OCT claims it did.

I wonder what physics law book you read!
It's just simply your misunderstanding or miseducation of aviation. If you take a 767 to 30,000 feet and point the nose down, the plane will meet and exceed the 500mph speed reported on 9/11.

Also, you can again take your 767 to 30,000 feet and turn the engines off and glide your plane down to 800 feet at 500mph.

What YOU are talking about that's not possible is a plane taking off and reaching 800 feet and trying to get to 500mph. The 767's engines are not powerful enough to reach that speed at that low of an altitude. But if you're comeing down from 30,000 feet, you don't even need the engines to reach 500mph.

You could do yourself a favor instead of spreading this deliberate disinfo, go buy any flight simulator and see for yourself. I doubt you will though. You don't want to be wrong, no matter how wrong you are.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
FACT: the Law of Inertia proves NO BOEING/PLANE did the damage

Again with these laws from another dimension.
It's another case of your misunderstanding of physics. We've already been over that a smaller and slower plane did similar damage to the Empire State building.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
FACT: There was NO DE-ACCELERATION of this alleged "plane"

It's "deceleration" and there was plenty of it when the plane hit the core.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
FACT is far more powerful than any proof of NO PLANES.

Well, I've just destroyed your facts AND you have no proof of no planes.
Keep trying.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
So bonerz

This is what the no-planers do when their disinfo get's debunked and they have nothing left but to attack and demean others.




Originally posted by matrixNIN11
"Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them -because people saw them, that proves they were there." Deduction isn't proof of planes.

43 angles of the second plane from big media, independent journalists AND home videos from private citizens IS proof of planes:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 18-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_I'll be there to debunk every single "theory" you guys try to peddle.


I've said it before and i'll say it again;

the bottom line is that _BoneZ_
and his minions refuse to accept there were basic laws of physics broken which PROVE beyond a doubt what was "seen" were not commerical jets that hit the towers. Hence NO PLANES...

Something that looked like a plane, perhaps...

Holographic imaging or cgi and fakery, probably...

but I challenge anyone to show and prove that a real plane hit the towers.

It can't be done because the evidence that supports the RPT, is contradictory and factually flawed.

FACT : Its physically and structurally impossible and against the laws of physics for a boeing 767 to have acheived the speed that the OCT claims it did. That LIE about the SPEED alone, proves NO PLANE/BOEING 767 could have been there.

FACT: the Law of Inertia proves NO BOEING/PLANE did the damage or was there that day...

FACT: There was NO DE-ACCELERATION of this alleged "plane".

FACT: The photographers who took the pics of the so-called planes contradict each other in their accounts and also claim not to have heard the roar of the engine that a boeing 767 would have made as it flew DIRECTLY OVER them... thats their EYE WITNESS TESITMONY. A FACT that should have any investigator baffled and needing a logical answer to before accepting any RPT.

but technically, the NPT'ers don't have to prove there were no planes... they only have to prove that the facts and evidence claimed by the OCT about planes hitting the wtc, are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and false since that FACT is far more powerful than any proof of NO PLANES.

So _BoneZ_
, please tell me what could have hit the towers if the above evidence is correct that it couldn't have been a boeing 767?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
there's direct visual and forensic proof that there definitely could not have been planes at the wtc and pentagon. "The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them -because people saw them, that proves they were there." Deduction isn't proof of planes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the evidence and facts above are false, then please show exactly how and where they're factually incorrect.

If you can't, then how can you call the NPT bs?

a wise man here said recently, if you haven't seen enough evidence of controlled demolition or NP's in five years of researching 9/11, you've been looking with the intention of not finding it.

with that said, _BoneZ_
agenda is beyond obvious.

a pseudo truther



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 18-3-2009 by asala]


Holographic planes of course they were but we really know it was Santa on his sleigh!

Fleck of paint that hit shuttles window

msnbcmedia4.msn.com...

estimated at 0.2 mm across did this so ANYONE who thinks a plane could not have went through the walls needs EXTRA physics lessons or possibly their FIRST physics lesson.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
FACT : Its physically and structurally impossible and against the laws of physics for a boeing 767 to have acheived the speed that the OCT claims it did.

I wonder what physics law book you read!


Obviously and thankfully its not the fairy tale that NIST and the OCT rely on which you've bought as well.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's just simply your misunderstanding or miseducation of aviation. If you take a 767 to 30,000 feet and point the nose down, the plane will meet and exceed the 500mph speed reported on 9/11.


No, actually its a MYTH and LIE that a boeing 767 could acheive such a speed or accomplish the MANEUVERS it did and still maintain its structural integrity. But we know a MILITARY JET AND PILOT could easily have pulled off what the OCT and Nist et al apart of the LIE claim.


PILOTS (who have actually flown a BOEING 767), AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS, ATC and anyone that understands THE BASIC LAWS OF MOTION, AVIATION PHYSICS and NEWTONS LAWS SUPPORT WHAT I'VE STATED. The NIST report and the ENGINEERS who created that book of LIES and propoganda tool, offered a fraudulent analysis and animation that TWISTED the facts to fit their lie, and their DATA is NOT supported by the FACTS, SCIENCE, LAWS OF MOTION AND AVIATION PHYSICS.

So The EVIDENCE and FACTS support everything i've just claimed and contradict the LIE you've blindly accepted and continue to spew as truth.

sorry.



Also, you can again take your 767 to 30,000 feet and turn the engines off and glide your plane down to 800 feet at 500mph.


NO YOU CAN'T... Not without the PLANE COMING APART. The air is way too DENSE and air molecules too close for any such speed to have been reached without structural failure! Its an IRREFUTABLE SCIENCE FACT even supported by BOEING ENGINEERS that a BOEING 767 CANNOT FLY OVER 500 MPH AT 700 FEET.

Please come back and apologize for your ignorance when you've properly educated yourself on the correct data and aviation physics of a boeing 767.

do you even know what MEDIA MISINTERPRETATION IS?

but you can still start your education lesson and debunking with this documentary
www.youtube.com...
that INTERVIEWs ACTUAL BOEING ENGINEERS, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND PILOTS. (pay particular attention to what this AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS says @5:50)

here's another relevant clip:
www.youtube.com...

now again, in the link below, please pay particular attention starting @ 30:00m AND ending at 34:30 into the full doc version which discusses and shows the IRREFUTABLE MATH AND SCIENCE which destroys your argument including your laughable logic about 30,000 foot gliding or dives.

video.google.com...

www.youtube.com...

so let me know when you finally realize NIST lied and the OCT is an absolute fairy tale. and feel free anytime to present a LINE BY LINE detailed counter-argument showing where the FACTS, EVIDENCE MATH, SCIENCE AND DATA presented in the above DOCUMENTARY (CONTINUOUS PIECES) is false or not based on science-FACT.



What YOU are talking about that's not possible is a plane taking off and reaching 800 feet and trying to get to 500mph. The 767's engines are not powerful enough to reach that speed at that low of an altitude. But if you're comeing down from 30,000 feet, you don't even need the engines to reach 500mph.

You could do yourself a favor instead of spreading this deliberate disinfo, go buy any flight simulator and see for yourself. I doubt you will though. You don't want to be wrong, no matter how wrong you are.


except that a REAL PILOT who flew a BOEING 767, BOEING ENGINEERS, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND REAL AVIATION ENGINEERS ALL support everything i've just explained and asserted.

IOW, THEY ALL CONTRADICT WHAT YOU CLAIM.

so are you saying these ENGINEERS are LIARS and you're somehow MORE knowledgeable than they are???




with these laws from another dimension.
It's another case of your misunderstanding of physics. We've already been over that a smaller and slower plane did similar damage to the Empire State building.

It's "deceleration" and there was plenty of it when the plane hit the core.
[edit on 18-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]


These clips below prove otherwise.

You seriously need to educate yourself on real physics instead of relying off the NIST and OCT lies you continue to blindly accept. Now go lick your wounds and come back when you achieve a basic education on aviation physics and can comprehend NEWTONS LAWS of PHYSICS.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



43 angles of the second plane from big media, independent journalists AND home videos from private citizens IS proof of planes:
www.youtube.com...


Using videos and LIVE FOOTAGE thats been PROVEN to contain FAKERY and that has obvious TAMPERING and been edited as a basis for your argument, is beyond LAUGHABLE and beyond pathetic. the only thing that link proves, is that you've proven or disproven nothing and serves only to further validate FAKERY and INSIDE JOB.

so thank you for your help.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I see, so anyone with an oposing view or conradictory information is a Liar,

You just said all of the NIST engineers are Liars, but the engineers from Beoing that you claim have said it is impossible are not.

That shows Bias for your theory and a refusal to view all evidence in the situation.

Just as you discount witnesses who saw the planes, the debri, etc.


Failure to view all evidence without prejudice destroys the scientific method.

You conclude the assumption when you do this,

You know the outcome you want, (no planes) and you build your case by selective research.

You see only what you want so you will find what you are looking for.

Hmmm Boeing and 767 pilots seemd to think it would have sruvied but there would be alarms going off.


Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1,000 to 1,500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 m.p.h., and it would most likely not threaten the structural integrity of the plane, a half a dozen pilots and a Boeing spokeswoman said.


Source

So the pilots and Boeing lied then and now are telling the truth?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Achorwrath
 



Check this out, hopefully it will clear things up for you and help you see who is lying.

video.google.com...


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Achorwrath
 



Check this out, hopefully it will clear things up for you and help you see who is lying.

video.google.com...


D.Duck


Interesting footage, I am not finished with it but I will say something,


As I am watching I hear leading and suggestive comments and questions from the interviewer. You should read This
Over time the power of suggestive comments increases.

They do (unlike many) show a couple of the people's lines of sight, But then fail to discount buildings blocking the view. For example.

Pablos Lopez was 1.79 Miles from the WTC.
Do you think any details are visible at that distance?
But the interviewer asks VERY leading and suggestive questions of this person.

The next witness Kathy, is roughly 1.10 miles away, the plane flew over her head meaning that she had not reference for saying it did not dive.
Look up at a plane overhead and tell if if you can say it is climbing or diving. In the picture they use for demonstration you can see the angle of the plane, it is diving not a power dive but a shallow dive of about 10 degrees. it appears to be (based on perpective and angle) to be heading towards the WTC towers.

Next up at bat is person 2.40 miles away, again please tell me what details are visible at over 2 miles (very little) yet a close up picture is used for demonstration. Here is the google street view from there, can you pick out details? Even elevated up to the top floor (third) the distance is too great to give details.

After that are two more people that they do not give posistions for but use images to illustrate.

They then talk to a person with her own video and although they TRY very hard she never sways from saying she saw it go INTO the building
The video also shows this in detail, including the tellt ail flash of aluminum impacting a hard surface.

I wont go into more of thise until I am finished with the video but those are just my first observations.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Duck... You do realize that the LINKS in my entire post above are links from CONTINUOS PIECES right? which answers/addresses and destroys _BoneZ_ argument that achorwrath is now stepping in to question and dismiss.

just wondering since you reposted the link again.




Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Achorwrath
 



Check this out, hopefully it will clear things up for you and help you see who is lying.

video.google.com...


D.Duck


Admin Edit: corrected the childish, intentional misspelling of another member's name.



[edit on 19-3-2009 by Crakeur]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join