Challenge Match!! titorite vs _BoneZ_ "No Planes Struck the WTC Twin Towers On 09/11/01"

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "No Planes Struck the WTC Twin Towers On 09/11/01"

titorite will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
_BoneZ_ will argue the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by semperfortis]




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
A big thanks to Semper as always. Being the man who helps keep all this running. And a special thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge.

I have issued this challenge to _BoneZ_ over the issue of 911. We are both believers of 911 being an inside job. However, based on the bulk of the evidence available I have reached the conclusion that it was don with out any planes but through the use of planted bombs, CGI fakery, and repeated propaganda to reinforce the idea of planes hijacked by box cutter terrorists , the evidence of this I shall speak about extensively through out this debate.

The main tool of evidence that I shall be relying on is common sense and the video images of the events of that day. In the end that is all we have. The building being recycled before it could be properly forensically analyzed and the plane parts being far and few in between what we as 911 investigators rely on is the videos.

With the video we can see the controlled demolition squibs. We can see the the "hole" at the pentagon that was too small for a plane to fit through, we can see everything reported by the Main Stream Media or MSM, and take a critical look at it for anything we may of missed before.

I know how this idea sounds. I was opposed to it myself for a long while. Then when day I took a look at what the other no planers were talking about and by take a look I mean I watched their videos. Their videos were not altered or special in any way but just the same film that was shot live on that day.

What was different was were I was told to look. Look here see this thing pointed out. Not believing what I saw online could be true I went to my own VHS recording of that day and I looked at the same places in the film on my VHS tape that I was told to look at in the online videos... AND I SAW THE SAME THING which could only mean one thing.... They were being honest.

and if that was the case it turned the whole of my 911 understanding on its side and meant the truth was so bizarre that it sounds like fiction. BUT! as Sherlocke Holmes said. "After you have eliminated everything that is not true what you have left no matter of bizarre sounding, is the truth"

And so it is and so it begins, I leave the floor to my opponent.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Thank you, Semper, for setting this up and good luck to my opponent.


Opening Statement:

The internet series called "September Clues" claims to show anomalies in impact videos of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. "September Clues" goes even further to say that the anomalies "prove conclusively" that "tv fakery" was used by the news networks. In essence, what we saw on tv regarding the plane impacts was all orchestrated by the news organizations in real-time and that no real planes were used to impact the WTC. By "no real planes", those that support "September Clues" have alleged that either the planes were CGI'd into the live stream in real-time, or holograms were used, or a combination of both.

From my study of "tv fakery" and the "September Clues" series, I've found no evidence that the networks knowingly broadcasted fake images. In fact, I've found that every claim made by the "September Clues" series lacks conclusive evidence despite the series' claims of "fact" and "proven conclusively".

In this debate, I shall show that there is no factual or conclusive evidence of tv fakery involving the planes that struck the WTC and that real planes did impact the twin towers.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
My opponent believes that the entire "No Plane" idea revolves around one documentary. It most certainly does not. Now there are two schools of "No Planers". The first school refutes holograms , like me. The second school think holograms were or at least could have been involved. Neither school relies on one single documentary for their entire view about the cover up.

The following is an external photo link from nomoregames.net...
I invite you to open a new tab for easy back and forth viewing and analysis.




It was the highest resolution still video frame I could find in a limited amount of time. I believe it is from the CBS footage.

In this photo/frame we can see a plane half way buried into a building. It is so deep into the building that the left wing portion ,from engine to fuselage ,has entirely entered the the building... The first problem is that it leaves no hole in the area of the wing that has fully sunk in. Another problem is the total lack of reaction of plane smashing into building. The best explanation we can offer is that the plane itself is a computer generated image super imposed over a real image of the Tower.

Question 1. What logical alternative explanation can you offer as to why the plane is not destroying the building as it smashes into the building?


Now at the pentagon we have spoken about your belief that no plane was involved with the pentagon event. Yet, we have some film footage and eye wittiness testimony as well as plane parts. Despite all of this, you do not think the evidence provided by the government and independent sources is sufficient to prove that a plane really hit the pentagon.

Question. 2 If you accept that a plane was not involved in one location is not equally possible, that a plane was not involved in a second or a third or all four locations?

A note about the noise. Planes a very noisy. This is a given. When planes fly low people have a tendency to look up at the noise. It is a natural human reaction.

In this photo link from www.oilempire.us...




We can see 12 frames. I would draw your attention to the man giving the interview and his attention facing forward with the plane above him. One tower has already been hit yet this fellow does not have the attention to spare for a loud low flying plane not 3000 feet above his head. He only looks up AFTER the explosion. Also at the bottom of every frame you can see the ABC news ticker... In the four frames that the man looks up during the most traumatic explosion the ticker reads, "Four planes were hijacked and crashed."

Question 3. Can you grasp the propaganda value of placing those words about "Four planes were hijacked and crashed." in those frames at that time?



I shall leave this to you for now. I await your reply and hope to respond from a high speed connection.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Question 1. What logical alternative explanation can you offer as to why the plane is not destroying the building as it smashes into the building?

The outer columns of the towers were connected together by spandrel plates 3 columns wide and 3 storeys high. The outer columns were assembled on the tower in a staggered formation:





The non-mechanical floors were made out of lightweight floor trusses with 4-inches of a light concrete mix on top for the office flooring. The combination of the lightweight floor trusses and the way the outer columns were connected together proved no match for a large 300,000 pound jetliner travelling circa 500mph.

Let's take a look at the following image:




Looking at the image, we can clearly see the slits where the wings went through, we can see the holes where the engines went through, and we can see the large hole that the fuselage went through. In otherwords, if we stuck the plane back in that hole, there wouldn't be much hole left around the plane that would be visible from as far away as is indicated in the image my oponent posted. Not to mention the poor, blurry quality of the video and image anyway.

Just because we can't see the very small opening around the aircraft in that blurry image from far away, does not provide evidence that the aircraft was CGI'd.

ANSWER #1:
The outer columns and floor trusses were no match for a 300,000 object moving at circa 500mph and simply gave way with ease allowing the planes to fully enter the buildings with little resistance.



Originally posted by titorite
Question. 2 If you accept that a plane was not involved in one location is not equally possible, that a plane was not involved in a second or a third or all four locations?

One of the main reasons why the 9/11 truth movement does not believe that a plane impacted the Pentagon is because of the lack of 200,000+ pounds of aircraft wreckage. There have been a few photographs of small pieces of aircraft debris, but every available photo lacks even a fraction of the 200,000 pounds of wreckage required to acknowledge that a plane had, in fact, impacted there. Further, the initial damage to the facade of the Pentagon lacks the damage we would see from a large jetliner having impacted. Then there's witnesses like Jamie McIntyre from CNN, who stated not too long after the alleged impact, that from his close-up inspection of the Pentagon, there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. His reasoning was that there were no large wing sections, tail sections, fuselage, or any other type of debris that is typical of aircraft crashes. Not to mention that out of the video cameras on top of that side of the Pentagon alone, and with the other video cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon, not a single video has been released showing an actual plane impacting the Pentagon. In otherwords, all available evidence suggests that no plane hit the Pentagon.

The WTC, however, is the total opposite. With 40+ different videos of the second plane impact and 2 of the first, that should be sufficient enough that real planes impacted the towers. The videos consisted of news organizations, independent journalists, and private citizens' home videos. There's also visible plane wreckage in the rubble and on the ground blocks away from having been thrown out of the other side of the towers. At least one person on the ground was killed when a piece of aircraft debris flew through the tower and down onto the ground striking him.

Out of the video mentioned above, there's at least one video that shows the swaying of the south tower after being impacted by a 300,000 pound object travelling circa 500mph. CGI'd planes can't make buildings sway.

Then there's the countless thousands of witnesses that were standing outside for miles around the WTC watching the north tower burn and witness to the second plane. Not a single person has ever come forward and said that when they got home, they saw planes on tv, but when they were watching the towers, no plane ever struck the tower like was being advertised on tv.

ANSWER #2:
The Pentagon lacks the physical evidence of a plane having crashed there, where the WTC has all of the physical evidence of plane having crashed there. Based on all available evidence, it is not logical to say there were no planes at the WTC because they were CGI'd, and that there were no planes at the Pentagon either because of CGI because there's no clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon to CGI. If there were and even if it were CGI, you would think a CGI video of the Pentagon would clearly show a plane impacting.



Originally posted by titorite
Planes a very noisy. ...One tower has already been hit yet this fellow does not have the attention to spare for a loud low flying plane not 3000 feet above his head.

If you've ever been to an airshow, you would know that in the case of fast-flying jets, you don't hear the engines until they are either in front of you, or already past you. Not to mention in the image you've show, there are tall buildings behind that man further blocking any noise of an approaching aircaft. Then there's all of the loud city noise on the ground from cars driving by in front of him to the non-stop sirens from the emergency vehicles on their way to the WTC. All cancelling out any noise from an approaching aircraft in his position. Just because he didn't hear the plane coming does not constitute tv fakery in the form of a CGI plane.



Originally posted by titorite
Question 3. Can you grasp the propaganda value of placing those words about "Four planes were hijacked and crashed." in those frames at that time?

Videos of the impacts came rolling into the news stations for days after 9/11.

ANSWER #3:
This is obviously a replay of a video of the impact after all 4 impacts had already happened.


Now, questions for my opponent:

Question #1:
If the planes that impacted the towers were CGI, do you have a logical explanation as to how CGI planes ended up on private citizens' home videos without their knowledge?


Question #2:
If there were no planes that impacted the towers and they were only CGI'd on tv, what did the countless thousands of people on the ground see impact the towers?

And before answering question #2, remember that there are several videos of people reacting to the plane before it strikes the south tower. If the planes were CGI'd onto a live tv stream, what did people on the ground see and react to before it impacted the south tower?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
My opponents Question #1:
If the planes that impacted the towers were CGI, do you have a logical explanation as to how CGI planes ended up on private citizens' home videos without their knowledge?

Answer one: My explanation would be that these "Private Citizens" are not really private at all but part of the further conspiracy to cover up the truth of the matter. These alleged home videos are not home videos at all but further attempts to distort the truth from what "The Powers That Be" really did that day.



My opponents Question #2: If there were no planes that impacted the towers and they were only CGI'd on tv, what did the countless thousands of people on the ground see impact the towers?

Answer two: Nothing. They even said they saw nothing then heard loud explosions and then the news crews would leave that witness and ask the next one "What kind of plane was it"? Thats called a leading question asked in such a manner so as to obtain the desired answer. Kinda like cold reading.

No, I do not rely on eye witness testimony for this event. I rely strictly on the same thing you saw that day. The mainstream media footage. We have loads of it unedited same today as the day it was "shot live". Other folks who hit record on their VHS then uploaded that media onto the web.

Often I have heard for folks calling for analysis of these original videos. When A no planer tells them, these same folks, where and when to look they are brushed aside saying the original footage was not analyzed. SO THEN! What can reach a closed mind such as this.



I have taken the liberty of using this photo again from nomoregames.net with the minor addition of arrows to point out the section that is missing because it has sank into the building. NOTE that despite being totally embedded into the building no hole is there. The plane is making no shadow. No plane or building parts are flying everywhere. No friction sparks are flying from the point of impact.

This particular photo can be found in various videos all over the net as well as in the CNN Tribute: America Remembers.


QUESTION 1: Can you offer an explanation as to why this plane is casting no shadow?


QUESTION 2: Did the media in the year of 2001 have the technological compatibility to create something like this?



QUESTION 3: If those responsible for this tragedy can plant plane parts as evidence of a plane in Shanksville or the Pentagon why would they not do the same at the WTC?



Above is the famous nose out footage. The image is from photobucket /democratic underground / youtube/ google/ ABC, I have no idea how much more credit for the photo I could give this particular photo. At any rate this same footage can be seen at other places such as metacafe or camera planet ...I am unsure if it has been uploaded to ATS media yet past this one single photo.

In it we can see the CGI image of the nose leaving the opposite side of the building because those in charge of this operation used a bad frame of reference.

I would like to call attention to something else.

QUESTION 4: If that is not the nose but the explosion then why does the explosion start at the other side of the building in this shot instead of at the point of entry, as with the majority of the other 911 images?

I leave the floor to my opponent.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Answer one: My explanation would be that these "Private Citizens" are not really private at all but part of the further conspiracy to cover up the truth of the matter. These alleged home videos are not home videos at all but further attempts to distort the truth from what "The Powers That Be" really did that day.

Question 1:
Got any proof to back up the above claims? You can't just go around accusing innocent people of treason and murder without some sort of evidence. I'd like to see what sort of evidence you use that proves these innocent people are 9/11 conspirators, and I'd also like to see the evidence you've obtained to prove that their videos are fake.


I asked what the thousands of people standing outside watching the towers saw impact the south tower and you said:


Originally posted by titorite
Nothing. They even said they saw nothing then heard loud explosions...

Either you haven't done enough research on the subject you're debating, or you're purposely twisting and/or omitting the real facts. Saying the people on the ground saw "nothing" is blatantly false. There are some people that were interviewed that said the tower exploded and that they saw no plane. But by insinuating that it's a fact that there was no plane because of their statements means you are taking their statements out of context which is dishonest and untruthful. The real truth of their statements shows that they were not in a position to see the plane, i.e., on the opposite side of the south tower.

**NOTE** In other matches as part of the rules, I've seen that no videos are to be posted. I don't know of it was an accident as to why it's not stipulated here in this match or just a stipulation of those other matches, but since it's not a stipulation in this match, I'll post a couple videos to prove my point.

Titorite, you say the witnesses saw nothing impact the south tower while they were outside watching the north tower burn. There are many videos that prove your claim to be false, but here are two:

In this first video that happens to be a home video, the male in this video says "What's this other jet doing? What's this other jet doing?" as he clearly sees the second plane right before it hits the south tower **WARNING - extreme language**:
www.youtube.com...

In this next video from CNN, many people are standing together in an area as the plane passes over them. Some of them start to scream as the plane flies by and then scream louder as the plane impacts the tower. Again, people clearly see the plane and react to it before it hits the tower:
www.youtube.com...

There are more videos out there of peoples' reaction to the plane before the impact, but observers of this match should get the idea.


Watching those videos is disturbing even to this day. It's one thing to watch the impact on tv or in a video, but I can't even imagine being there in person and witnessing the events first-hand. It is both disturbing and disgusting to think that someone is calling these innocent people traitors and conspirators and without a single piece of evidence to support those accusations.



Originally posted by titorite
QUESTION 1: Can you offer an explanation as to why this plane is casting no shadow?

Answer 1:
I would venture to guess that the plane is casting no shadow for the same reason the smoke on the north tower is also casting no shadow: because the sun is at an angle that it is shining on the north side and east side of the towers and the sunlight hasn't reached the south side of the towers yet that early in the morning.



Originally posted by titorite
QUESTION 2: Did the media in the year of 2001 have the technological compatibility to create something like this?

Answer 2:
I haven't the slightest idea what the media corporations' technological capabilities are or were. And nobody would really know unless they actually worked for one of those media companies and was privy to that information.



Originally posted by titorite
QUESTION 3: If those responsible for this tragedy can plant plane parts as evidence of a plane in Shanksville or the Pentagon why would they not do the same at the WTC?

Answer 3:
I answered this in my first rebutt when I said that the physical evidence at Shanksville and the Pentagon are both lacking while the physical evidence at the WTC was the opposite.



Originally posted by titorite
Above is the famous nose out footage.

For those coming into this debate without having seen the "September Clues" internet series, I'll explain a little as to what the "nose-in/nose-out" is.

"September Clues", which I will refer to as "SC" from here on out, shows us a video clip of the south tower impact. The "nose-in" is when the nose of the plane enters the view of the camera. The "nose-out" is where the alleged nose of the plane exits the south tower. "SC" alleges that the "CGI" plane was accidentally moved past the south tower creating the "nose-out".





As we can see in the above image, there is no exit hole where the real nose could have came out of the south tower. Let's take a look at the next image:





As we can see in the above image, the noses do not match in shape nor size indicating that the nose is not from a CGI'd plane either. Since this "nose" coming out of the south tower is neither a CGI nose or a real nose, the logical conclusion is that this is just smoke appearing to look like something that it's not.

Further, the author of "SC" purposely manipulated the video to make the above images "match" and then dishonestly professed them as a "match". The following 2-minute video shows how the author of "SC" manipulated the footage:
www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by titorite
QUESTION 4: If that is not the nose but the explosion then why does the explosion start at the other side of the building in this shot instead of at the point of entry, as with the majority of the other 911 images?

Answer 3:
The second plane mostly missed the core and was able to make it further into the tower, while the first plane hit the north tower near the middle and most of the plane was stopped by the core.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   


Question 1:
Got any proof to back up the above claims? You can't just go around accusing innocent people of treason and murder without some sort of evidence. I'd like to see what sort of evidence you use that proves these innocent people are 9/11 conspirators, and I'd also like to see the evidence you've obtained to prove that their videos are fake.


Answer 1:In a manner of speaking. As I said before I rely one the forensic video evidence, not on eye witness testimony. ESPECIALLY when the majority of the eye witnesses interviewed on 911 where MAINSTREAM MEDIA PRODUCERS OR OTHER UNCLEAR SOURCES. Lord knows I can not book a tour of New York with Mark Roberts.

The question of whether or not these people are innocent is a matter of evidence to be considered in conjugation with WITH the video evidence. Still, you question is one of deflection and by the same token I can do the same.

Question 1: What sources do you have to your claim that thousands of people witnessed the planes crash into the WTC?

That is a phone book of references I am asking for. And yet I ask. It is nigh impossible to produce and takes away from the REAL evidence of the mainstream media coverage. Still If you can source you claims please do so.

Now then...

You posted two video links. I asked first about doing so instead of assuming I could. I got a reply, but I do not want to argue semantics. I want to address your videos.

In the first video link your video has a jet black plane. Seriously? You want us all to accept that we can see the colors of the buildings green, and of the sky but that plane is painted jet black absorbing all light? Sorry but no. I say fake. A jet black image not in line with a size frame of a real 737. Try again.


Now in your second video link , as the plane crashes we see lots of dust. No throw back of destructed parts and pieces , no sparks, a few missing frames as the fire blows out in the majority of the side and a minority of the front... second 22 and 23 is very interesting in the video.

STILL

We see a dust cloud in second 22/23 which is not evident in my nose out photo.

QUESTION 2: You addressed my fourth question. You said the second plane missed the core. Where is "YOUR" proof your Physical evidence, the plane missed the core?

I can show you where the news said the plane entered. I can show you where the news said the explosions were.

HOWEVER, I can not show you what happened inside. If you have video footage from the surveillance cameras inside the WTC ( an instillation that rivaled the pentagon for self surveillance) then please do share.



ONTO


Answer 1:
I would venture to guess that the plane is casting no shadow for the same reason the smoke on the north tower is also casting no shadow: because the sun is at an angle that it is shining on the north side and east side of the towers and the sunlight hasn't reached the south side of the towers yet that early in the morning.


You must be unaware that even the explosion of the south tower fire ball cast a shadow. At that time in the morning it was past 9:30 am.

The earth was well lit in that area at that time. The plane should of cast a shadow just like your jet black plane from video link one should of reflected light.



Answer 2:
I haven't the slightest idea what the media corporations' technological capabilities are or were. And nobody would really know unless they actually worked for one of those media companies and was privy to that information.


So I could sum this answer up in three simple words. "I don't know".



Personal problems arise Back later



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Answer 1:In a manner of speaking. As I said before I rely one the forensic video evidence, not on eye witness testimony. ESPECIALLY when the majority of the eye witnesses interviewed on 911 where MAINSTREAM MEDIA PRODUCERS OR OTHER UNCLEAR SOURCES.

You've just made yet another claim without providing any proof, all while dodging and not answering my question. Since there are no more rebuttals left, I guess I won't be able to ask for your proof that the majority of eyewitnesses were media producers.



Originally posted by titorite
The question of whether or not these people are innocent is a matter of evidence to be considered in conjugation with WITH the video evidence.

I'd say that people filming a home video of the WTC saying "What is this other jet doing?" while the jet is flying through the air and before it hit the south tower, is proof that the witnesses corroborate the video. Same thing with the CNN video. Loud jet flies by overhead, people scream as a reaction to the jet before it hits the tower proving again that people are seeing the jet with their own eyes and not some CGI pixels on a tv.



Originally posted by titorite
Still, you question is one of deflection and by the same token I can do the same.

How is asking you for evidence of your claims "deflection"? You clamed and accused innocent people that recorded home videos of being conspirators to 9/11. You also claimed their videos were fake. I asked you specifically what evidence you use to show that they are conspirators and I also asked what evidence you have obtained that proves their videos to be fake. The only thing you could muster up was that you rely on the forensic video evidence?

You were required to give me a direct answer per the rules of this debate. Instead, you dodged the question altogether and called my question a "deflection". Who is the one deflecting?



Originally posted by titorite
Question 1: What sources do you have to your claim that thousands of people witnessed the planes crash into the WTC?

Answer 1:
Besides all of the major media on the ground recording and interviewing people:
www.archive.org...

One of the Naudet brothers walked the streets recording people and their reactions to the events as they unfolded:
www.amazon.com...

That gives you lots of video to look at of all the people on the streets watching the towers and who would've seen the second plane impact.



Originally posted by titorite
In the first video link your video has a jet black plane. Seriously? You want us all to accept that we can see the colors of the buildings green, and of the sky but that plane is painted jet black absorbing all light?

The buildings weren't green in real-life. That should've been your first clue. The towers were actually gray. If the color/contrast of the towers was off in the video, it would be safe to assume that all the colors/contrast were off, including the color of the plane.

No two cameras will record with the same color and contrast. The color and contrast of a camera is dependent on it's software and/or hardware. That's photography/videography 101.



Originally posted by titorite
I say fake.

The contrast/color of the camera is off, so you declare a fake? Based on what evidence besides the colors not matching? For you to declare something fake based solely on color/contrast distortion without any other evidence, is not very convincing.



Originally posted by titorite
Now in your second video link , as the plane crashes we see lots of dust. No throw back of destructed parts and pieces , no sparks

All of the force of the impact was going into the tower. There was nothing inside the tower that would create an opposite force to push debris 180-degrees back out.

As far as "sparks" are concerned, aluminum doesn't spark. Aluminum is also listed in the Periodic Table of Elements as a non-sparking metal.

Now that you've addressed both videos, you forgot the main point of me posting those videos. And that would be the witnesses reacting to the plane before it hits the tower indicating people saw a real plane. Deflection again noted.



Originally posted by titorite
QUESTION 2: You addressed my fourth question. You said the second plane missed the core. Where is "YOUR" proof your Physical evidence, the plane missed the core?

Answer 2:
We know how the towers were built and we know where the planes hit on the towers. In the case of the south tower, we can use this example:



Other evidence of most of the plane missing the core is the wreckage crumpled up in the corner of the south tower:



We don't see that at the north tower as the majority of the plane was stopped by the core, unlike the south tower.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
CLOSING STATEMENT

In the year of 2001 it was possible to create a CGI mock up of a plane. My opponent admits to having no idea about the mainstream medias technological abilities but insists that they could not be capable manufacturing a fake plane. I know that if it can be done in a Hollywood studio then it could be done for Fox News.

At the pentagon we have photos of the plane. And Yet, we have a lack of evidence for one actually being there. If we have a lack of evidence there is it not possible we have a lack of evidence else where?

I have stated time and again about my unwillingness to rely on eye witness testimony. After all we can not cross examine the eye witnesses here. The only reliable evidence we truly have is the video evidence and only from that can we examine what really happened.

My opponent would like us to believe by drawing some lines over photos, that makes them fake. I would say watch September Clues for yourself and see if the photo in there Doc matches _BoneZ_s' photo. Come to your own conclusion from the REAL photo that has no lines drawn over it meant to draw one into a false conclusion.

My opponent has also attempted to demonize me by saying I can not go around accuse innocent people of murder and treason. But is that not how we hold court? When the innocent is accused of something they are innocent until proven guilty in a court. Also I have made the accusation of certain peoples being complicit in the conspiracy but never did I accuse anyone of murder or treason.

Demonizing , and deflection are traits of the disinformation artist. I have asked for direct evidence and been given illustrations and hearsay. I have offered my own photos and insight and done my best to avoid the circumstantial.

May the truth set us free.

I would like to thank Semperfortis and MemoryShock for doing their part and you the judges for taking the time to evaluate all this and my opponent for his participation.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Closing Statement


My opponent stated in this match that "September Clues" wasn't all that the "no-plane" theories had to offer. However, most of this debate was over evidence presented in "September Clues". If you decide to watch SC, it would also be wise to watch the debunking of SC as there's always two sides to a story:

"September Clues - Busted!"
video.google.com...

"Debunking 'September Clues' - A point-by-point analysis." A 27-page paper debunking SC line-by-line:
truthaction.org...

My opponent believes explosives made the holes in the shape of planes and that the planes were CGI'd into real-time live video. There are several flaws with these theories:

1. If explosives were responsible for making the plane-shaped holes, the explosives would have been planted on the outside of the building for all to see. Explosives don't suck debris in, they blow things out. Explosives could not have been planted on the inside of the building and suck the building in. Therefore, any explosives that would have made the plane-shaped holes would have been attached to the walls on the outside where everyone could see them.

2. In many different videos, witnesses react to the plane before it hits the tower, proving there was a real plane and people saw it with their own eyes, cancelling out any CGI fakery.

The no-planers get beyond these problems by saying that all of the witnesses who saw a plane are lying. And that every video that shows a plane, whether it be from the media, independent journalists, or private home videos, all of them are all fake.

Think about that: all videos showing a plane are all fake and all witnesses seeing a plane are all lying and/or conspirators.

I could do the same exact thing. I could say that Godzilla destroyed the towers. I could also say that all of the witnesses who did not see Godzilla are all lying and all videos not showing Godzilla are all fake. See how easy it is to make something up and not need any proof?

I specifically asked for direct evidence and not only was I shown none, my questions were dodged and evidence ignored. I asked my opponent what the witnesses were seeing hit the second tower and he said they saw nothing! That is blatant dishonesty and/or disinformation. I showed two videos where people were reacting to the plane before it hit the tower, proving they saw something.

My opponent makes this comment:


Originally posted by titorite
Demonizing , and deflection are traits of the disinformation artist.

The above statement is not relative to what a disinformation artist actually is. I would say that someone who is purposefully dishonest about what people saw hit the towers with their own eyes, or someone who manipulates video and then professes it as "precision match" or "fact", would constitute disinformation artistry. Someone who creates false information and professes it as fact with no proof.

I will end with this: When someone claims to have recorded a "real" UFO on video, producers of UFO tv shows obtain the originals and take them to professional video studios and special effects studios and have the video tested for fakery. A professional analysis can usually tell if there is CGI or any other type of fakery invovled in a UFO video.

The no-planers, to this day, have not obtained a single original video to have it professionally tested for fakery. All of the "facts" of the no-planer/tv fakery followers rest solely on theory, opinion, and disinformation. Without obtaining copies of the originals and having them professionally tested for fakery, they have no verifiable, tangible evidence of fakery.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Now Off To The Judges!!!!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
We have a Winner!!!!


titorite and _BoneZ_, you both put on one heck of a show, and should both be commended for the effort in taking up this very difficult topic to debate. It is this judge's opinion that both of you deserve the win here, but that's not possible. So, with that, I present my judgment on the debate.

Titorite:

Introduction: Decent basic intro there titorite. You set the topic up nicely. (0)

First Reply: Great use of visual stills from the recordings of the crashes on 9/11. I would at least like to call your attention to the second link you provide here… You state that there could not have been a plane there, since the man didn’t look up until after the plane hit. I don’t know if that would be an accurate statement, as there was a ton of noise in that clip, and it’s possible that he just couldn’t properly negotiate where that noise was coming from. Let us remember that this man was on the scene of a very frantic group of people, all trying to get somewhere safe. To say that because he didn’t look that no plane was actually flying over isn’t exactly verifiable.

Regardless, excellent post, with great Socratic Questions! (+1)

Second Reply: Titorite, your response to the first Socratic Question was a weak one, because the likelihood that TPTB could pull something that grandiose off would be virtually impossible. People all over were carrying cameras that day, as they do any other day. There are countless home videos showing the same things over and over again, and they all show the same thing.

I liked your response to the second SQ though. Very thought provoking. You have four very reasonable SQ’s of your own, and you again use outside sources for your work. (0)

Third Reply: I noticed that you failed to address your opponent’s observation that the people in the videos he posted responded before the plane made impact. I figure this was an accidental omission. Your insistence on using only video evidence, without the use of corroborating eye witness accounts hurts your case considerably. Eye witnesses on that day were plentiful, as can be witnessed by all of the cameras on the scene there. (0)

Closing: Really good closing statement!! Even though your argument is weakly supported, you pulled together a nice closing statement, tying it all together. Excellent work! (+1)

Total Points: 2
________________________________________


_BoneZ_:

Introduction: A fine opening statement. You take the counter position to your opponent well. (0)

First Reply: WOW!! Talk about a powerful reply!! You easily refuted your opponent’s claims, and rebutted his Socratic Questions with ease, all while asking very pertinent questions yourself! Stellar post! (+1)

Second Reply: Again, you answer your opponent’s questions with ease, and you go on to continue to establish your argument by providing good evidence, via the “nose-in/nose-out” theory. Good work. (+1)

Third Reply: Decent rebuttal. The illustrations of plane impact on the South Tower were nice. (0)

Closing: You tie everything together nicely, and further illustrate why you feel that your argument is the superior one. The added touch that was most appreciated were the two videos that show how SC is not correct. (+1)

Total Points: 3

I must admit that it seemed to get a little heated in the middle of that debate, and I was at one moment in the 3rd reply afraid that someone was going to overreact. I'm glad that didn't happen.

You both did a heck of a job, and I'd like to congratulate both of you on a hard-fought debate.

In the end though, only one person could win, and so, _BoneZ_, congratulations on the win!! Wear it with pride!



This was an interesting topic and one that I was kind of taken aback by as defending that the planes of 9/11 were CGI'ed video, suggesting probably the greatest hoax on the world we have ever seen.

Needless to say I settled in to see what there was to it.

Titorite starts by citing his first piece of evidence - common sense.

Their videos were not altered or special in any way but just the same film that was shot live on that day.


The above is actually contradictory to titorite's position. If we are assuming a world wide hoax of epic proportions than we can assume that there was no 'live' footage and that there is alteration.
As well, the personal account of comparing internet video with the 9/11/01 recorded VHS is weak without any visual presentation or extended commentary. I will be loking for this from him in future arguments.

_BoneZ_ opens with a very short commentary on September Clues. He doesn't really refute titorite's points here and seems to peripherally set up his defense.

I've found no evidence that the networks knowingly broadcasted fake images.


The rhetoric provided by _BoneZ_ is something he should look out for in the future as he is implying that titorite's position is true (the statement above is actually a commentary on the networks and not the reality of the planes.

His last sentence does accurately display his intent.

Titorite begins by refuting that a no plane theory necessitates a belief in holograms and proceeds to offer his first visual piece of evidence.

As a judge, I am not soley tasked to interpret the validity of the evidence (which in this judge's opinion is weak as the plane doesn't appear to have even touched the building yet; a time stamp would have gone a long way in asserting that the plane had already made impact), rather I am tasked with looking at how the Fighters interact with each other's arguments. As well, the frame issue with the huamn reaction to sound negates the fact that human reaction is variable and dependent upon more than one factor. In this case, an explosion had already ocurred, there were many people and sirens going about and he was involved in an interview. The human phenomenon of dissciation is at play here and I find that this piece of evidence to not really be evidence. I am how ever looking for _BoneZ_ to comment on this.

-BoneZ_ comes out swinging in his response and his answer to the first Socratic Question was succinct. It is, however, a seemingly innocuous sentence in his focus towards Socratic Question #2 that is a huge blow to titorite's argument:
The videos consisted of news organizations, independent journalists, and private citizens' home videos.


Private Home Video. This is a huge piece of evidence, if it were supplied, that would have placed titorite in a huge compromising position. As well, thousands of eye witness accounts refute the CGI. Were they brainwashed or hired? Again, these seemingly secondary pieces of evidence place a huge burden on the assertion that the planes of 9/11 were CGI'ed as such a hoax would require many people and much direction and cooperation before hand. Human Nature in reaction to 9/11 as expressed in shows of support suggests that so many people would not have agreed to such perpetration.

_BoneZ_ also found the argument I was looking for when he responded to the sound question regarding the man giving the interview.

Titorite's answer to the first socratic question is insubstantial, in this judge's opinion. By asserting that they part of the conspiracy without going into deal as to how it possible to bridge so many people and video and angles to allow for what is an incredibly large collaborative hoax he shows an inclination to focus only on a segment of what his argument requires to be successful, which he repeats when he discounts eye witness accounts.

I rely strictly on the same thing you saw that day.

The above quote discounts what other people saw (even those watching the news reports) and as such is contradictory as the news reports included eye witness account. Were these interviewed witnessess placed in proximity to news reporters in anticipation of the interviews?

Again, too many factors for a hoax to be adequate.

_BoneZ_ finally gives an example of a home video and I find that the continued discussion is more of the same.

I give the debate to _BoneZ_ by quite a large margin.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

The opening post for titorite was very good. Init he laid out his plan of attack and covered what he intended to produce as evidence.

_BoneZ_ 's opening post was equally well done; he went on immediate attack on titorite and also explained what evidence and argument he intended to produce.

titorite's first response refuted _BoneZ_ assertion that "No Planers" relied on single source contrary to the claim made in _BoneZ_ opening post. He used some pictures to good advantage but didn't really expand on his argument but relied on _BoneZ_ answering the questions to support his argument. At this point titorite seemed to lose steam.

_BoneZ_ first response gave good responses to the questions, however, they were far from the responses titorite had obviously hoped for. His answers and sources were used to excellent advantage to support and solidify his position.

In his second response titorite attempted to regain the ground lost in his first response. He did produce a rather interesting photo and ask some good questions but I would have liked to have had him make a more in depth argument.

In _BoneZ_ second response he aggressively refutes titorite's seond response and used the questions posed to him to shore up his argument and posted videos that supported his arguments well. He took excellent advantage to tear some gaping holes in titorite's arguments.

In his third response titorite failed to refute _BoneZ_ arguments or to answer the questions posed to him in a clear manner.

In his third response _BoneZ_ continued to attack titorite's position while continuing to produce evidence to support his.

Both closing arguments were very well done. Both fighters effectively summarized their positions and arguments.

This was an interesting debate that posed some interesting questions. I would have liked to have seen the pro position explored in greater depth.

The debate goes to _BoneZ_


The Win Goes to _BoneZ_

Congratulations!!!

Great Debate by the way!!!

Semper



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Ahhhh yes... I expected as much. I did not get to make this as nice as I wanted too.. I had a personal issue to deal with at one point and the hinderence of 56K is a burden... When video was busted out I thought the dead black plane would be a great point in comparison to other photos.... As I have waited _BoneZ_ and I have had more conversations and I have thought of other aspects to introduce that I did not introduce here.

Thanks to _BoneZ_ for indulging and if you want a rematch then I am down with that. TO be honest their is bad blood between us. I have read the 25 rules of disinformation and I think you post by those rules too often when making your points. All the same I try to keep it civil with you, agree to disagree when I have too, I still think your wrong though. Not just about your POV but the way you go about sharing your POV.


ALL THE SAME. I have lost to the better fighter and on this I bow to you for now sir. I hope you will accept an open ended invitation to a rematch.

Forbidden edit addition.

Yeah I used an edit. Just to say maybe we could reopen the Pub now. I'd like to nurse my wounds after yet another loss... WHEN AM I GONNA WIN ONE!.. I have yet to break my win cherry.

Also thank you for the pointers yall. Hopefully that shall help me out next time and I shall definitely use this as a reference for the next debate of mine.



[edit on 9-8-2009 by titorite]





top topics
 
8

log in

join