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.

 

Flight 11 vs. 175 -- Impact Study & Fakery Anomalies

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker HUH???

Now, it's a drone? Thought you were of the cruise missile flavor?


where have i said only a drone is possible?

missle, drone, uav, combination, whatever... At least i'm open-minded enough to consider more than just "it can only be a real plane"



Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND....cgi 'live'? What, they had a giant green screen erected overnight, and projected images? Oh, that would explain all of the eyewitesses. People too stooopid to know the difference, eh?


Are you telling me the technology to create real-time cgi didn't exist on 9/11/2001?

And how do you explain the fake gash thats inserted in real-time in the naudet fakery?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, Loose (screws) Change? Two college drop-outs in their basements, and Simon Shack (now there's something to investigate!) whoever he is, are far superior to everyone else in their analytical skills?


funny how it seems ad homs from you and posters like bonez always seem to go unscrutinized here.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am sorry, but the Conspiracy of "No Planes" is one of the shakiest out there. Even most of the folks who proclaim a Government involvement and prior knowledge aren't buying into that crackpot notion!


No need to be sorry. Its not your fault you're not knowledgeable enough to understand what the npt is really about or encompasses.




posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

posted by thedman
reply to post by ATH911
 


Oh yea !

Here is picture of an exterior panel from WTC 1 with piece of airplane
landing gear embedded in it




Of course you will find some reason to ignore it.....


What has that to do with his statement?



I do find it interesting that no plane debris remains in either of the two WTC gashes.

Nothing.


That photo piece is laying on the street. There are no visible aircraft parts sticking out of the gashes in the towers even though supposedly the aircraft hit several floor sections.

Landing gear? That is a rubber tire. Zoom in on the photo. (Ctrl mouse wheel) Anybody could have set that tire down there. How could a rubber tire embed itself in steel? In fact how did a rubber tire stay in that piece of steel when the steel allegedly fell 80 stories and hit the street with a clang?

Sounds like another 9-11 myth doesn't it; invented to fool the sheeple? You bought it hook, line, and sinker didn't you thedman? Just like the paper passports and the red bandana and the light pole through windshield and all the other nonsense.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



There are no visible aircraft parts sticking out of the gashes in the towers...


Please, with the understanding of physics and kinetic energy (momentum), explain to everyone why there should be 'visible' aircraft parts 'sticking out'. I'm curious. Would you be accepting of the airplanes' having caused the gashes if there were aircraft parts sticking out? Because I, and many, many others would immediately see THAT as an indication of fakery!



Landing gear? That is a rubber tire.


Now, that's just disingenuous to thedman. It is a subtle form of ad hom, maybe? (This is for Orion, because he accused me of ad hom...but in this forum I was not directing anything at an ATS member, but at the producers of bad CT videos. AND, I was just saying they were poor researchers -- surely not ad hom???)

Back to you Preston: The term "Landing gear" is in the photo caption, as supplied by the NYPD. thedman simply provided the photo link, he didn't write the caption!!! (Notice the copyright?)



Anybody could have set that tire down there.


True, by innuendo. Proof?


How could a rubber tire embed itself in steel?


Argumentative, and not based on the visual evidence to hand. The tire appears to be wedged into an opening in the structural component of the building.



In fact how did a rubber tire stay in that piece of steel when the steel allegedly fell 80 stories and hit the street with a clang?


Supposition. Rhetorical. Who alleged, where and when did someone allege that the tire and the piece of building fell together? NO ONE!

The question was posed about airplane debris at the WTC site. There is plenty of it to show, thedman chose one that hadn't been seen a lot, apparently, but sure enough, debunkers come around to try to tear anything apart that doesn't fit their niche.

Here we are, once again standing on the ruins of the No Plane Theory!!!




posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ You just had to invoke the names of two of the biggest disinfo artists to have ever walked this earth, didn't you?You gotta ask yourself why those two clowns keep getting themselves banned from everywhere. And banned over and over and over under their countless socks. You'd think they'd give it up after so long, but I guess the satisfaction of putting out disinformation and disturbing the real truth movement motivates them.


In your opinion, they're disinfo artists...and you hate them for personal reasons primarily because their work has put your concept of reality and truth into question and its uncomfortable and inconvenient for disinfo artists like yourself to accept and confront. To many many others they're revered.

In the future, their brilliance and work will be hailed and embraced for its true genius as their ideas, discoveries and analysis are vindicated and validated by even those like you who aren't advanced enough yet to comprehend, acknowledge and accept what they've exposed.

Throughout time, Great minds and those with advanced or controversial discoveries have always been ridiculed by their nation and peers. Its a normal process TRUTH and SEEKERS usually go through.

No real planes hit the towers.. Nor did any Real plane hit the Pentagon or crash in Shanksville. One day very soon, you and most on this planet will realize you were wrong and they were right.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Orion7911
EXCEPT advanced military THERMATE cutter charges wouldn't necessarily BLOW ANYTHING IN OR OUT in the way you're eluding.thermate/mite doesn't have the same properties or react as regular demolition c4 etc cutter charges do.they MELT STEEL.

You've already contradicted yourself in this one single quote. Firstly, if there were thermite/mate cutter charges, they would have been visible either inside the offices or outside on the facade.


there were. As evidenced in the Naudet.

but how would they have been visible INSIDE the offices?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There was no way to hide them.


Says you.

and each tower had different impact anomalies.

Not even to mention the fakery going on which could have easily
masked certain aspects.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Secondly, since thermite/mate isn't an explosive and cuts steel slower than an explosive, we would see the plane cut-outs being formed in real-time.


Which is exactly what happened.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Third, that wouldn't explain the large hole and massive chunks of building being pushed inward.


It sure would if a drone/missle etc hit the tower in conjuction with pre-placed charges.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Orion7911
As for your argument about BENDING INWARD... its already been answered, addressed and debunked.

Well, your answer would be a missle and I would say that missiles don't travel as slow as jetliners and find us all a missile that is as large as a jetliner. We'll be awaiting your reply to back your claims up.


No, my answer would be a drone/uav etc.

But I've already addressed that in depth.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Orion7911
PEOPLE *DID* NOTICE AND MENTION SEEING A CRUISE MISSLE.
Disinformation. People said they "thought" they saw a missile. You're twisting their words which = disinfo.


now you're parsing words, nit picking and playing semantics in this case.

The two meanings are similar and hardly the type of disinfo you're implying since the same meaning can be interpreted differently.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker The term "Landing gear" is in the photo caption, as supplied by the NYPD. thedman simply provided the photo link, he didn't write the caption!!! (Notice the copyright?)


but he used it as evidence to disprove ATH911.

ITS IRRELEVANT to whats at issue.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
How could a rubber tire embed itself in steel?

Argumentative, and not based on the visual evidence to hand. The tire appears to be wedged into an opening in the structural component of the building.


preston was pointing out more physical impossibilities that lends more evidence to the depth of the deception which even you've been fooled by.


In fact how did a rubber tire stay in that piece of steel when the steel allegedly fell 80 stories and hit the street with a clang?

Supposition. Rhetorical. Who alleged, where and when did someone allege that the tire and the piece of building fell together? NO ONE!


it was implied by dman.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Sigh.....

The 'dman' used a photo that was documented as having been taken by the NYPD on the morning of 11 September that clearly showed an item that would not come from a cruise missile, and that fell from the sky. It is significant because, after the collapse of both buildings, that evidence was buried forever.

I believe ATH made an assertion that there was no evidence of airplane fragments to indicate a B767 was responsible for the buildings' damage. The point of that photo was to prove ATH incorrect.

Just because the tire had separated from the hub has nothing to do with its authenticity. It is a wild stretch beyond all things imaginable to allege that the tire was somehow 'planted' (I;m not sure if anyone made that specific allegation, but it seems to be implied by the tone and subtext of various comments).

FWIW, the tire looks to be just the right size for the B767 MLG. I've flown them long enough to know! And remember, at impact, the gear were retracted, putting all eight Main tires in the Wheel Wells, mostly in the fuselage. Where are the others? The dynamics and chaotic nature of forces involved guarantee that every part goes into a direction that simply can't be predicted or modeled EXACTLY! Examples of this fact are seen in EVERY airplane crash ever investigated.

There are plenty of other photos of B767 fragments. But, after the collapses, most anything at street level was covered, however some debris was found on adjacent rooftops.

Since I cannot see the post I am responding to, I can't answer more points, since I don't remember what you wrote.

What I can't fathom is this rabid devotion to the NPT in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to include video, film, eyewitness, debris and DNA. It is astonishing.



[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


You said: "missile, drone, UAV, combination, whatever..."

This indicates a fatal lack of knowledge surrounding the concept of a UAV/'drone'.
EDIT before you read on: I forgot to mention the speeds of your average UAV do not even approach the speeds of a B767 or cruise missile!! UAVs are designed for surveillance, mostly...not as guided missiles. Although, some military applications might have the ability to carry a weapons payload....cluster bombs, or something similar.

Looky!

This is from a .pdf from www.hf.faa.gov...

It is intended to examine the factors and difficulties involved in UAV piloting as it concens future civilian applications, but it is pertinent, as you'll see I've enhanced a few points:


HUMAN FACTORS CONCERNS IN UAV FLIGHT

Jason S. McCarley & Christopher D. Wickens
Institute of Aviation, Aviation Human Factors Division
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


Unmanned aerial vehicles have potential to serve a range of applications of civil airspace. The
UAV operator’s task, however, is different from and in some ways more difficult than the task of
piloting a manned aircraft. Standards and regulations for unmanned flight in the national airspace
must therefore pay particular attention to human factors in UAV operation. The present work
discusses a number of human factors issues related to UAV flight, briefly reviews existing
relevant empirical data, and suggests topics for future research.


Introduction

System developers have proposed a
wide range of government, scientific, and
commercial applications for unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), including border
and port security, homeland surveillance,
scientific data collection, cross-country
transport, and telecommunications services.
Before these possibilities can be realized,
however, FAA standards and regulations for
UAV operations in the NAS must be
established. Given the military’s experience
that accident/incident rates for UAVs are
several times higher than those for manned
aircraft
(Williams, 2004), the import of
carefully designed standards and regulations
for UAV flight is clear. Human factors
issues are likely to be of particular concern
in establishing guidelines for safe UAV
flight. As noted by Gawron (1998), UAV
flight presents human factors challenges
different from and beyond those of manned
flight, arising primarily because the aircraft
and its operator are not colocated. The goal
of the current work is to identify human
factors issues in UAV operations, and to
review relevant studies in the existing
literature. The present document provides a
preliminary summary of this work.
Issues discussed below will be
grouped into the categories of Displays and
Controls; Automation and System Failures;
and Crew Composition, Selection and
Training. As will be clear, however, the
topics presented within various categories
are highly interrelated. Answers to questions
about crew complement, for example, are
likely to depend in part on the nature and
reliability of automation provided to support
UAV operators. The nature of automation
required for safe UAV operation, in turn, is
likely to depend in part on the quality of
displays and controls provided to the UAV
operator.


Displays and Controls

One of the primary consequences of
the separation between aircraft and operator
is that the operator is deprived of a range of
sensory cues that are available to the pilot of
a manned aircraft.
Rather than receiving
direct sensory input from the environment in
which his/her vehicle is operating, a UAV
operator receives only that sensory
information provided by onboard sensors via
datalink. Currently, this consists primarily of
visual imagery covering a restricted field-ofview.
Sensory cues that are lost therefore
include ambient visual information,
kinesthetic/vestibular input, and sound. As
compared to the pilot of a manned aircraft,
thus, a UAV operator can be said perform in
relative “sensory isolation” from the vehicle
under his/her control. Research is necessary
to identify specific ways in which this
sensory isolation affects operator
performance in various tasks and stages of
flight, ...



I'm fairly familiar with the concept of remote control...I've been a Radio Control hobbyist since I was a teenager. Flying a model airplane from the ground, looking at it from outside is difficult, but can be learned. Flying from a more sophisticated arrangement, where you have a simulated cockpit (for familiarity) but still are limited in the view, and sensory cues...again, difficult, taxing, and prone to errors.

This is why modern Flight Simulators for training to fly real airplanes are increasingly more sophisticated. The motion cues are designed to 'fool' the inner ear, to match the ever increasingly realistic visuals (with good peripheral visuals, it adds to the realism tremendously. Pilots use peripheral vision a lot, in real airplanes).

Did you know that a pilot, at an Airline with the proper certified curriculum and a Level-D 'landing certified' simulator, can transition to a new piece of equipment (say, from a B737 to a B757) and after all of the systems training and tests, then the sim training and tests, will fly the real airplane for the first time on a live passenger flight? YES, there is an instructor/check airman along for what is called 'initial operating experience' (IOE). This consists of 25 hours, or about an average four-day trip.

Why mention this? Because, I am tired of hearing that a pilot with "only" 600 hours couldn't possibly fly a commercial airliner. These dudes had purchased time in simulators...some of it overseas. YOU can buy time, too. About $3000-4000 per hour, I reckon......


[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
there can be a lot of views of specific issues in this topic..but from outside its very clear that USA has one of the best defense and inteligence systems in the world, and 911 could not happen without inside help

wings or not wings, missiles or not... real videos or cgi

follow the money trail.. and its clear

but i understand that to some people, the debunk of the official truths is the debunk of their own world, their own life...and the fear of losing it make us blind to everything...

we humans cannot believe that there are real evil people and evil goverments among us



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ozzraven
 



USA has one of the best defense and inteligence systems in the world, and 911 could not happen without inside help


Hey, ozz.

Ya know, I actually can't dispute that sentiment. I can quibble a bit, though.

"inside help" is a whole can o' worms, and despite all of my other mutterings, I won't even begin to challenge that notion, although I lean to the side of an elaborate well-funded plot by determined terrorist factions.

"best defense" is a truth, but unfortunately that system had holes in it...the defense was focused towards incoming from outside the borders, as I imagine most countries are. BUT, that ties in with the "intelligence". To that aspect, I believe we were (probably still are) quite dysfunctional.

My explanation for that comment is from numerous and varied reports, for years, of inter-rivalry bickering and outright territorial-ism between the various Gov't Intel factions, i.e., CIA, FBI, NSA....all the alphabet agencies.

They each had a puzzle piece, but didn't play well with each other, so no one put the big picture together in time. Throw in the serious lack of intelligence exhibited by the Bush administration (or, to touch on your 'inside help' idea, certain admin members intentionally (?) ignored warnings, shielded Bush from the PDB memos??

It was the Human element -- ego, career aspirations, selfishness -- that led to the 9/11 tragedy slipping under the 'intelligence' radar, if indeed it went down that way.

All of the noise about a bigger 'conspiracy' diverts attention, I think, to the possibility of sheer incompetence and mismanagement exhibited.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not sure what your fascination is with cruise missiles, really I don't.


I don't know why you don't seem to understand the fascination i have isn't about cruise missles... its about me being amazed at your blatant disinfo and stating falsehoods about cruise missles only being reported by ONE PERSON when its clearly and factually NOT TRUE.

Its fascinating that you can so easily peddle this disinfo and think you can get away with it.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, when I looked for references to 'cruise missile' I saw the one related to the Pentagon...


and that once again validates what I always say about most not doing enough research.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
and since this thread is attempting to focus on NYC,


exactly... so how and why did you shift the topic over to the pentagon? I was talking about what witnessES were said to have supposedly seen over in NYC.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I will let my previous post stand, since discussing it any more deflects the topic.


right, since having lost this argument, thats you're best bet.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
In NYC we have plenty of film evidence


...which contains overwhelming evidence of tampering and fakery when scrutinized and examined properly.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
of the Boeing 767s hitting the Towers. Have any of the eyewitnesses to those impacts reported to the MSM anything about 'cruise missiles'?


go ask the MSM who in fact did report there were such witnesses.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seems more likely that the "notion" was implanted as soon as someone 'theorized' it,


Oh, you mean like how the notion that planes hit the towers, pentagon and crashed in shankville was implanted?

you mean like the notion that bin laden and muslims with boxcutters were implanted into the American pyshce (by the black pysops of the perps) were responsible for 9/11?

you mean like the harley man plant and various media shills etc implanting the story about the towers structural failure, "because the fire was just too intense"?

I can go on all day listing the lies and "notions" that were implanted as soon as someone theorized it if you'd like.

Are you really just this naive? Or are you purposely implanting more of your disinfo, lies and half truths to further your agenda?

Its amazing more here don't call you out on these things. In fact its even more amazing so much disinfo goes unchecked around here and the net.

No wonder so many are confused about this hoax who don't do real research or refuse to consider things like NRPT.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
and off to the races we go!! As far as the WTC, the "missile theory" seems to be made up by the CT crowd.


No, it was made up and reported by the MSM because thats exactly what some may have seen and reported.

And judging from the evidence, footage and fakery, there's good reason to suggest thats exactly what may have hit the towers.

As I and many others have said all along, the missle/drone/uav theory better explains what happened on 9/11 than the RPT.


[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sigh.....

The 'dman' used a photo that was documented as having been taken by the NYPD on the morning of 11 September that clearly showed an item that would not come from a cruise missile,


so what?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
and that fell from the sky.


PROVE it fell from the sky.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is significant because, after the collapse of both buildings, that evidence was buried forever.


So you're saying that pic was taken before the collapses?

hmmm. So many convenient and stable pics dont' ya think? In the midst of all the chaos nice to see such great shots before it all was buried forever. Funny how so much "evidence" was rounded up and even more interesting is how CLEAR these pics are which is in total contrast to the footage and pics taken of your alleged PLANES.


Lots of staging and photo psyops going imo.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I believe ATH made an assertion that there was no evidence of airplane fragments to indicate a B767 was responsible for the buildings' damage. The point of that photo was to prove ATH incorrect.


but the most important word he left out that changes the entire "assertion" was "VERIFIABLE."


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just because the tire had separated from the hub has nothing to do with its authenticity. It is a wild stretch beyond all things imaginable to allege that the tire was somehow 'planted' (I;m not sure if anyone made that specific allegation, but it seems to be implied by the tone and subtext of various comments).


COMMON SENSE alone due to all the anomalies and unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, says its not a wild stretch as you claim.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I can't fathom is this rabid devotion to the NPT in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to include video, film, eyewitness, debris and DNA. It is astonishing
[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]


whats astonishing is that none of this evidence you describe has ever been proven or been independently verified. Even more astonishing is how so many blindly accept such evidence as proof of planes or anything at all. Things anyone with common sense should be able to understand and point out.

Oh how easily the sheep are deceived and will soon be led to a slaughter.

Thats not astonishing,,, its tragic.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You said: "missile, drone, UAV, combinati
This indicates a fatal lack of knowledge surrounding the concept of a UAV/'drone'.[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]


No, it simply means that there are various other possibilities to consider besides real planes which you nor anyone else has ever proven.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Theres one major problem with your no plane theory it is much harder to fake a plane hitting a building than it is to crash a plane into the building. So this would tell me if the government faked it went though all this trouble there idiots and there is no way they would have been able to maintain there cover up!. So in the end even if it wasn't terrorists I assure you any one planning this would have realized its easier to just crash a plane into the building!



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ozzravento some people, the debunk of the official truths is the debunk of their own world, their own life...and the fear of losing it make us blind to everything...


Exactly. Well said.

This is why Planers hate the idea there were no real planes used on 9/11. The very thought it might be true is too uncomfortable for their ego to deal with. Hence all the ad homs by planers, ridicule, attempts to ban the discussions of it, and the intense disinfo compaign being peddled here and other places to derail intelligent civil discussion of it.

Any consideration of NRPT shatters the illusion of real planes they've been programmed and brainwashed to believe. These people hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious cultic fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary and will go to extreme lengths to silence and try to discredit anyone attempting to enlighten or bring to light the real evidence that exists which validates NPT.

Pretty much the same tactics the MSM and Government aka perps have been using throughout the 9/11 investigation.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not sure what your fascination is with cruise missiles, really I don't.



I don't know why you don't seem to understand the fascination i have isn't about cruise missles... its about me being amazed at your blatant disinfo and stating falsehoods about cruise missles only being reported by ONE PERSON when its clearly and factually NOT TRUE.



Ya know, you accuse a lot. It's a continuing tactic. I don't write 'blatant disinfo'... I NEVER SAW anyone in NYC talk about cruise missiles, OK??? SO, better stop the accusations, here and now. I come here with opinions based on facts I've seen and experiences I've gathered in over 30 years of flying airplanes, so don't ever accuse me of something I'm not!



Its fascinating that you can so easily peddle this disinfo and think you can get away with it.


Since that was in the body of the same post as above, I only repeat it to show others...


and that once again validates what I always say about most not doing enough research.


This applies perfectly to the point I am making, up above.


I said that there is plenty of film evidence in NYC, and you replied:


...which contains overwhelming evidence of tampering and fakery when scrutinized and examined properly.


To that, I say rubbish. You have lost that argument time, and time again. I assume you refer to the work "Simon Shack" did? I refer you to your quote from up above, repeated here:


and that once again validates what I always say about most not doing enough research.


Truest words you have spoken, so far, and you should heed your own advice.

Now.....I could continue in the same vein as yourself, parsing and replying to each and every sentence or phrase, but when I try to read such posts made by others I get a headache. So, I will spare our fellow members the pain. They are smart, and can see for themselves.

Only a few tidbits to be emphasized:

you mean like the notion that bin laden and muslims with boxcutters were implanted into the American pyshce (by the black pysops of the perps) were responsible for 9/11?


That's a favorite one, and shown to be full of holes, yet still it persists?



Are you really just this naive? Or are you purposely implanting more of your disinfo, lies and half truths to further your agenda?


Sorry, fellow members, but that missive bears repeating, and emphasis, to show the true mindset we're up against.



A few final gems, commentary unnecessary:

Its amazing more here don't call you out on these things.



In fact its even more amazing so much disinfo goes unchecked around here and the net.



No wonder so many are confused about this hoax who don't do real research or refuse to consider things like NRPT.



No, it was made up and reported by the MSM because thats exactly what some may have seen and reported.


(This one was too good not to comment on, sorry. The parts in bold I enhanced because it shows a great example of contradiction, compared to previous statements...references to 'cruise missiles')

In that same vein, I present this:


And judging from the evidence, footage and fakery, there's good reason to suggest thats exactly what may have hit the towers.

As I and many others have said all along, the missle/drone/uav theory better explains what happened on 9/11 than the RPT.


Well, a lot of evidence to refute the "missile/drone/uav theory" HAS been presented, and I spent some time posting why the 'uav theory' is rubbish, right here in this thread, yet it seems for naught.

So, in essence, real evidence is ignored, and schlock hack-job stuff promoted by a charlatan on YouTube is taken as 'gospel'?

That's the state of affairs so far....



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr Theres one major problem with your no plane theory it is much harder to fake a plane hitting a building than it is to crash a plane into the building.


Not if you control the sources responsible for dispensing information and recording the event.

Not if you have total access and control over the most powerful and sophisticated/advanced miltary, technology and government on the planet and unlimited financial resources.

You can't make such a claim without also considering those very relevant and real factors which has overwhelming evidence to support its validity.

Its not really as big a problem as you say.

So for those like you who ask:

"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"

Please refute this argument by KT:
killtown.blogspot.com...


Originally posted by dragonridr
So this would tell me if the government faked it went though all this trouble there idiots and there is no way they would have been able to maintain there cover up!. So in the end even if it wasn't terrorists I assure you any one planning this would have realized its easier to just crash a plane into the building!


So present a line by line counter-argument to this then:

www.911closeup.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Oh, never mind.

Rubbish in, rubbish out. It's like trying to convince a 'flat-earther' that our planet is a sphere.

When Orion has REAL evidence of his own, and not re-hashed schlock and ad hominems, then maybe we'll make some progress.

Maybe.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ya know, you accuse a lot. It's a continuing tactic. I don't write 'blatant disinfo'... I NEVER SAW anyone in NYC talk about cruise missiles, OK??? SO, better stop the accusations, here and now. I come here with opinions based on facts I've seen and experiences I've gathered in over 30 years of flying airplanes, so don't ever accuse me of something I'm not!


Ummm, excuse me sir, but if I'm not mistaken, it was YOU who derogatorily accused ME of having a fascination with cruise missles and I was somehow wrong. I simply responded to correct your implications and pointed out why you're wrong.

it was YOU who accused me of having a fatal lack of knowledge

you imply that anyone researching or discussing NRPT are "crackpots" or in essence have mental problems

you accuse members here of being "socks"

etc.

This is hypocritical behaviour and use of double standards imo

How can you possibly accuse me of attacking you at all when all i've done is RESPOND to your attacks and defend what you've asked me to answer?

Do you not recognize that I've simply replied using the same tone and type of questions etc you've written to me?

Do you know the difference between attacking and responding?

I think you just don't like that I've called you out and shown how and why you're wrong which is uncomfortable for you to admit.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I said that there is plenty of film evidence in NYC, and you replied:

...which contains overwhelming evidence of tampering and fakery when scrutinized and examined properly.

To that, I say rubbish.


and to that I say PROVE ITS RUBBISH... prove the evidence I've pointed to which exists in docs like SC is false. Show me verifiable clear evidence of real planes hitting the wtc. Show me proof that the videos haven't been doctored and fakery isn't occurring.

you continue making claims things are RUBBISH or that simon shack and KT are have been debunked and personally attacking them calling them CLOWNS and many other derogatory innuendos, but you have yet
to PROVE anything you've asserted.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
You have lost that argument time, and time again.


So why is it that you can't show any evidence or proof to support that claim?

you keep saying i've lost the argument time and time again but can't show how.

I ask you once again, please show exactly how and where what you claim is true. Surely if i've lost time and time again, you can show one example.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I assume you refer to the work "Simon Shack" did? I refer you to your quote from up above, repeated here:

and that once again validates what I always say about most not doing enough research.

Truest words you have spoken, so far, and you should heed your own advice.


September Clues is but one of many examples out there that contain irrefutable evidence supporting whatever
I've claimed and asserted.

SS or KT are just a few that have created clear indepth video analysis and documentaries with supporting evidence that validates fakery and tampering of most of the known footage of the alleged conspiracy theory that real planes hit the buildings and other various aspects of the 9/11 hoax.

Until you and anyone else can show exactly how and where their evidence and analysis are wrong, what you claim to be false is nothing more than your opinion and hardly disproves or proves anything you claim.


Originally posted by weedwhacker I will spare our fellow members the pain. They are smart, and can see for themselves.


Indeed. and I couldn't have said it better.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Only a few tidbits to be emphasized:
you mean like the notion that bin laden and muslims with boxcutters were implanted into the American pyshce (by the black pysops of the perps) were responsible for 9/11?

That's a favorite one, and shown to be full of holes,


If that were true, it should be very easy for you to post a link to an example of how its been debunked and shown to be "full of holes"... I'm sure many here are on the edge of their seats waiting for this proof you claim to have.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Are you really just this naive? Or are you purposely implanting more of your disinfo, lies and half truths to further your agenda?

Sorry, fellow members, but that missive bears repeating, and emphasis, to show the true mindset we're up against.


You've made claims and assertions here... I've simply been asking you to prove them.

I know you're used to a mindset that usually doesn't challenge you to support claims you make, so i'm sorry you're not used to it. I suggest you get used to it or make sure you can support your claims when you post here.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
A few final gems, commentary unnecessary:

Its amazing more here don't call you out on these things.
In fact its even more amazing so much disinfo goes unchecked around here and the net.] No wonder so many are confused about this hoax who don't do real research or refuse to consider things like NRPT.
No, it was made up and reported by the MSM because thats exactly what some may have seen and reported

(This one was too good not to comment on, sorry. The parts in bold I enhanced because it shows a great example of contradiction, compared to previous statements...references to 'cruise missiles')

In that same vein, I present this:
And judging from the evidence, footage and fakery, there's good reason to suggest thats exactly what may have hit the towers.


You've just claimed my remarks above are contradictory to previous statements etc... So I once again ask you to show everyone here evidence to support that claim.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
As I and many others have said all along, the missle/drone/uav theory better explains what happened on 9/11 than the RPT.

Well, a lot of evidence to refute the "missile/drone/uav theory" HAS been presented,


If thats true, then it should be very easy to provide it. I've asked you repeatedly for this evidence and for some
reason your only response is to repeat the same mantra that you've debunked it, that you've refuted it, its shaky, its hogwash, etc. etc etc.

or you just say this....


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I spent some time posting why the 'uav theory' is rubbish, right here in this thread, yet it seems for naught.
So, in essence, real evidence is ignored, and schlock hack-job stuff promoted by a charlatan on YouTube is taken as 'gospel'?
That's the state of affairs so far....


If you have evidence and proof that the missle/drone/uav theory is rubbish, please feel free to post a link to your post and quote the evidence you claim proves its rubbish.

Be sure to show context and make sure you demonstrate an understanding of what I've explained about that theory.

thanks!

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker.... Maybe you do not understand what you tried to tell me but let me make it more clear.

An F4 Phantom is not the subject of this thread. Commercial air buses are not designed with counter measures for enemy engagements.

A military fighter jet has nothing in common with an commercial air bus past the concept of lift.

Now when you say ...


SO, it seems that's another one of those lies floating around the 'truther' community. A commercial airliner provides a sufficiently large target to Radar just by virtue of its size.


You just prove your ignorance and willingness to misrepresent yourself.

Thunderstorms happen. Thats a reality. Sometimes having a reflective paint or primer in such a situation can help ground control help a pilot... Which you obviously are not. If you were you would of known that and not made such a ridiculous counter argument.

Now that is as far as I am gonna address it because your reply was so far off topic I can only refer you to the ATS hand book and ask that you stay on topic....HONESTLY on topic.

I would now like to address Thedman

reply to post by thedman
 


You are asking us here to believe the planes that produces enough fire to bring down buildings can not burn an aircraft tire...

If you believe that I have some lunar property for sale CHEAP!

I mean fudge, The building comes down due to fire and you want us to believe that this column section on the street has an airplane tire in it that did not melt..not even a little bit.

I am sorry sir but you are insulting everyone's intelligence when you ask us to believe that. We are not that naive.

reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


_BoneZ_ I see you thinking there. I understand one event involved a steel structure and the other was a concrete structure and the third was the ground.

We both get that.

But you know same as I that those wings were full of fuel. And that it does not matter what they smash against, once they rip open ,the heat from kinetic energy ripping metal open will be more then enough to ignite the fuel.

Thus creating an explosion.

So why should the wings in the pentagon incident magicaly fold against the cabin? How is that possible with in the laws of physics?

Then in Shanksville we see photos of the mushroom cloud, (what a coincidence that dude in the field near the event had a camera) but when we examine the crash site we have an impact outline that perfectly matches the airplanes shape.

Can you look me in the metaphorical face and honestly tell me that that impact in shanksville is completely in line with a plane crashing and exploding?

That a plane that smashes into the ground at a 90 degree angle will bury itself into the ground leaving a perfect imprint of itself in the dirt?







[edit on 25-6-2009 by titorite]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join