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.

 

Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   


That is what a historian does when accessing historical documents for explanatory scope and power.


Well I believe that historians looking back on 9-11 will agree with me. Of course they will be afforded the advantages of hindsight.



One can't be agnostic on Reality.

Yes you can . . .



I said you implied fake planes to which you respond

“No I haven’t”

Then explain your statement:

“I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "cgi"

“I have not discounted corroborated testimony because corroborated insinuates the testimonies represent the truth. I discount the testimonies of a large audience of people who were duped by a magic trick.”

Self-refuting as I have already shown.

You’ve said it, but you have shown no proof.



One could sit there an argue that 9/11 didn't happen by rejecting "testimony" and "video".
yes, one could do that. Doing so would be perfectly valid.



One could argue 9/11 itself was a *magic trick!*

Yes they could, and that would be perfectly valid, but that’s not what I am saying.



This type of skeptical approach refutes itself.

You’ve said that many times, but you’ve shown no evidence.



So then you admit the amateur video was real and caught real planes on video?

What amateur video?




“Of course, 9-11 is a day, it happened, but what happened on that day is disputable.”

Of course??

No, using your logic, you can't say what you just said.

This is something we can agree on. 9-11 may not have happened, you may be a figment of my imagination, but there is no need to digress any further.



You think that large amounts of people were duped by a magic trick, that the video testimony was not real.

No, I KNOW that large amounts of people were duped. There is no question in my mind and I would stake my life on it. What video testimony?



Now unless you do believe the visuals are real, then you can argue differently.

I can argue exactly the way I have been thank you very much.



But one can't be agnostic on the reality of the planes.

Yes you can. You can be agnostic on everything but your own existence.




“For the sake of this debate we both agree that we exist, and that there is a reality in which the event “9-11” happened. There is no need to digress any further down my VALID “slippery slop”.

No I don't admit to this. One of the key weaknesses in arguing the way your arguing(if that is your argument) is that the skeptical approach and method falls under its own weight and doesn't allow for *reaosnable* conclusions.


You’re telling me that it’s a reasonable conclusion that a 757 fits through that hole?????

My conclusions concerning 9-11 are substantially more reasonable than yours if your answer to this question is anything other than “no”.






Inference to the *best* explanation that is not ad'hoc is what it is about.

Inferences* that lead to* the best explanation, that are* not “for this purpose” are* what “it” is about.

is that what you meant to say? In context what you said didn't make much sense to me, and honestly this doesn't make much sense either.

Define “this purpose”
Define “it”



if you can explain your position.

I can, but prefer not to.

I told you how I believe one must pursue the truth in this situation. I’m offering you the “red pill”. Take the blue pill if you wish, but I KNOW you need to question your reality before you’ll get anywhere in regards to the truth.

[edit on 10/27/2009 by JPhish]




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


www.freedomdomain.com...


I have heard mil vets have state that the shape and characteristics of the 'explosion' pre crash (not a composite radome) are identical to a tomahawk booster stage firing, indicating a close proximity launch.
Doesn't leave me with any more answers. 19 rector street is facinating however.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 




I do not need prominent magicians to agree with me for what I am saying to be correct. You are insinuating I do.


It certainly would help the cause. It would offer some reason to suppose such an "effect" is possible.



how about, a 757 doesn’t fit into the hole created at the pentagon? How about, plane crashes leave wreckage? (shanksville) How about steel skyscrapers don’t collapse from fires? Reflect on those for starters.


I agree with you. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the idea that there were No Planes regarding the Twin Towers over New York City, which is a different ball of wax.

The Pentagon hole, you have my agreement.
Shanksville, no disagreement from me.
Steel Skyscrapers especially Bldg-7, there is no disagreement from myself.



there is no proof those people were ever on those flights, in fact, there is more proof that they weren’t.


I have to disagree here. There are at least Two people who were confirmed to be travelling to Los Angeles that morning.



Nearly all of the footage shot on 9-11 was shot by PROFFESSIONALS. I don’t know where you are getting this “amateur footage” bs.


I disagree with you. Jennifer Speel's video is as amateur as one can get.



Moreover, this does NOT ADDRESS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.

THE MILITARY WOULD NOT KNOW WHO IS GOING TO AT ANY MOMENT PULL OUT A CAMERA!



If you figured out who killed JFK would you really tell anyone? I’m not telling anyone how I think they pulled off 9-11, because I feel like living for a few more years. I’m telling you how to figure it out and the mindset you need to employ.


That doesn't say anything. Earlier you implied you weren't really sure, now your saying you feel like "living" a few more years?

I really don't understand where you are coming from.



Why does anyone need to agree with me?? This is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/MAJORTY. The amount of people who may disagree/agree with me and their credentials, have absolutely nothing to do with me being right/wrong. Stop bringing it up, it is a fallacious way of thinking.


This is incorrect. We consult with experts in certain fields to build upon reasonable conclusions. If there is an accident, we consult with accident experts. Does this in and of itself mean they are correct? No, but it moves the evidence in a certain direction and gives us good reasons to argue a case if we are employing reason.

When we do history, we check with historians. When we do construction, we deal with people who build.



False dichotomy. (4)


Not it isn't. Either the planes were Real on 9/11 or they weren't. There is NO *out* here. It can't be and not be as I have showed with the law of contradiction.



You need to read more carefully, that’s all I’m going to say; it should be very obvious where you are in error.


This is mere assertion.



I’m purposely being ambiguous for my own reasons. You don’t know what position I am holding which is why I find it humorous that you are so sure that I am wrong.


I think it is fair and charitiable for someone to offer what it is they are defending when debating! What your doing is only right in your own mind.



Also, last I checked, 9-11 was under controlled conditions.


How could anyone control all of the camera's in New York? Let's be real here for a moment.



This is very different; your situation happened by chance, I’m talking about a ruse that has intent.


But for the people that saw the first plane, it seemed to be an accident. At that point the result is the same.

Also, let us focus on the Point. The point is not what is the intent. For example, How do I know? Perhaps, the Car's driver had the intention of going through the rail. If he did or didn't, it wouldn't change the fact that I saw what I saw, and others saw what they saw.

It is the nature of eyewitness testimony that is being discussed.



That’s some weak inductive reasoning . . . People miss things during situations Therefore: People missed the planes on 9-11


Really? Eyewitness testimony is always filled with people who have "missed" things, so your first premise is faulty. Its not just that People Miss Things, but one EXPECTS people to miss things given the nature of Eyewitness Testimony.

I don't see a long list of people coming forward and saying...."hey there were No planes!" You say there is, but how many years later?



many of them are, what you just said is a blatant lie.


Really? Its interesting, where were they when it was fresh in their memories?

Where were they on NEW YORK's Talk Radio Stations that night?

Eyewitness testimony that appears years after is always suspect, especially if there is no evidence to back it up.



Really? Explain why I should listen to the testimonies of planted individuals in the audience and the actual dupes themselves?


So all the firemen that risked their lives and said they saw a plane are lying?
All the police that claimed they saw a plane are liars as well?
All the people that came forward are just liars eh?

I think with all those LIARS you have a Conspiracy to big that I already am starting to see your skeptical approach break.

I could take your approach and say everyone is lying including you. 9/11 never happend.

With such reasoning you have just abandonned reasonable discourse and opted for "EVERYONE IS LYING"

Do you think All the People that were Chatting Live on the Net were liars to?

Known users on forums etc?





if what is my position???



Yeah, the same question. Do you even know what it is you believe?





That’s a blatant lie.


Now don't just assert.

You are trying to use testimony of some who only saw an explosion. Some of those were on the Media on the day of 9/11 to which I explained.

So, if YOU THINK THAT IS going to prove there wasn't any planes because of that testimony and YOU GOT THE INFO FROM THE MEDIA????

Guess what?

The Media wasn't hiding that Testimony!


Now I am talking in the context of the VISUALS THAT DAY.

No one was hiding the reports of explosives. I heard that all over the Media.

"THE HIDING" came later.





Dude if you live in New York (LIKE I DO) you either have a skewed view of the reality which is the average New Yorker, or you are blatantly lying about this. I have not met one person who claims that they saw the first plane impact the first tower. My cousin worked in WTC 2 I have a friend who was working on the verrazano bridge that day, as well as family that was working in the high rise buildings adjacent to the towers. NONE of them saw the plane impact and they said that NO ONE they were working with or talked afterwards saw it either. My friend Nick said that his wife claimed to have seen the plane hit the tower, but we both agree that based on where she says she was when the tower was hit; she must be lying because she had no view of the tower.


I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.

Besides if there truly were NO PLANES== 600 thousand Muslim LIVE and WORK in New York they are a vocal bunch, they didn't even say "
BOO!"

That people might "miss" seeing something is perfectly explainable as I have already stated.

Also important:

The events would have been seen by the Russian Diplomats and Chinese Diplomats.

Why would The Chinese lie?

The Chinese had their Embassy Bombed in Serbia just 2 years prior to 9/11.





you just agreed with me, but didn’t answer the question of why no one heard a 757 flying at lower than 1000 feet at 500 mph.



No-one heard it??

Thomas Spinard - FDNY


As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one.



www.swulinski.com...
Maciej Swulinski



At this moment hearing a coming sound I raised my head. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower.


John Albanese



at approximately 8:45 we heard the sound of a plane approaching.






Eye witness testimony is utterly useless.



Well you saw it fit to try and use your own!

What you just said is ridiculous. Our court system is based on corroborated eyewitness testimony.

Sometimes that is all we have.

Yes, there are serious problems with it, but we weed through it then we see what keeps occuring and what is consistent. We also like to get early sourced material, the earlier the better.

Your claim about "tainting" is also ludicrous.

A tremendous amount of people were reporting the plane! That isn't "tainting"


Again, your own skepticsm means you have no position. Your logic is self-refuting.

What you have done is set the standard.

Your logic leads to 9/11 never happening!




Well I believe that historians looking back on 9-11 will agree with me. Of course they will be afforded the advantages of hindsight.


And believe what? Your failing to really offer a position. Are you talking to yoruself at this point?




Yes you can . . .


You can't be Agnostic on Reality. Do you "really" exist or not?

Also what you just said contradicts what you said earlier.

"LOGIC is never wrong"

That is what you said, and I agree. Reality operates under the framework of Logic.







[edit on 28-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


do you also support:

www.septemberclues.info...

The idea that all the passengers were "vicsims?" That none of the passengers were real?

The idea that Simon Shack is now supporting?

Do you not see where the logic of denial leads?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 


do you also support:

www.septemberclues.info...

The idea that all the passengers were "vicsims?" That none of the passengers were real?

The idea that Simon Shack is now supporting?

Do you not see where the logic of denial leads?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by talisman]


Things like this take time. That is why people cannot just look stuff up on the internet and claim they know everything.

I support September Clues and the idea that the passengers never existed. If they existed then they have been shipped off planet to work on some Moon or Mars project possibly. I cannot say, only speculate.

I do know that the passengers situation should be looked into much more closely. I will be doing my own personal investigation into the passengers list and the whereabouts of the passengers both before and after the "supposed crash". There are all sorts of confusing and conflicting bits of info, and I will be spending more time researching this.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Do you not see how ludicrous this is?

Every single piece of evidence you deny, is the same evidence that supports 9/11 as a real event.

You would also have a conspiracy so large and wide that it would be very difficult to keep the thing quiet.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Do you not see how ludicrous this is?

Every single piece of evidence you deny, is the same evidence that supports 9/11 as a real event.

You would also have a conspiracy so large and wide that it would be very difficult to keep the thing quiet.



It's not ludicrous at all. I do not believe you or anyone else. There are too many discrepancies about the airliners, like missing black boxes, missing airplane parts, missing passengers and families, planes that were not booked to take off that day, etc etc etc.

It is difficult to keep it quiet because there is more to it than even you may realize. All the videos are faked. That is my conclusion and as far as i'm concerned, nobody has refuted anything to do with fake videos. You never reviewed and debunked the page I provided, you just keep dodging it. You are not to be trusted as far as i'm concerned.

I do my own research, and I am not paid to spend all day online promoting disinfo like some people here, so I only have so much time to do my research. I'll post more results soon. In the meantime, take your planehugging self and find a sandbox and play with your planes all you like.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


You don't accept debunking. You want to believe in this "no plane theory" You have discounted some legitimate amateur footage for extremely loose reasons.

What you have failed to do is answer my question.

How could the military anticipate the odd person pulling out a camera and exposing their plan?

Say for example a Russian Diplomat decides to film the event, for documentating purposes.

Or any other diplomat for that matter.

How would the Military know that something like that wouldn't happen? The certainly are not God!

The NO PLANE PLAN CAN'T WORK.

You would have a Riot if that many people didn't see anything. ITs that simple.


Even *IF* you don't accept the debunking on tv fakery, if your honest then you would quickly realize that tv-fakery does not in and of itself mean NO PLANES. It would just mean "tv fakery"

It could be that they used fakery to hide the "TYPE OF PLANE"

But there would still be Planes.


I dont' believe that of course.


But here is your problem.

Using your logic, you loose the ability to argue that 9/11 was a real event!!

You already said:




I do not believe you or anyone else.



Good, now you with your own methodology can't even argue 9/11 even happened!

#1. No-one is to be trusted.
#2. All video evidence is not to be trusted.
#3. The victims are not real.

What else is left to know 9/11 even happened!

Simon Shack is now arguing that the Video's of the Demolitions contain fakery!~!

Does that mean the Demolition is fake??

Seriously, this type of approach eventually eats itself up.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I have already stated I'm not sure there were no planes, but if they faked the videos, why have real planes, which could mess up the whole plan?

Your theories and logic are flawed.

I am not sure the demolitions are real on video. I know that there were more than bombs that brought down the building but that bombs were used as well. It appears that this was the ultimate conspiracy to pull off. The videos were faked, something could have struck the buildings, it was not the planes on the videos we saw, and it was not the planes that contained any passengers that went missing.

Why don't you start answering some questions for me?

Why all the faked videos?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I believe the amount of people who really believe the NPT is ALOT smaller than people think.

There's just a few who are very loud, and boisterous, and make MANY different webpages promoting this theory.

You'd be suprised how much information, websites, and posts(alises ect) even just one or two or three people can put out on the internet, makeing it seem there's like an actual group of thousands of people who actually buy this No Plane nonsense.

More than likely the majority of this very small group of people who actually believe in the NPT are probably disinfo agents anyway.

Remote control takeover of the planes is one thing, but saying NO planes hit either of the WTC towers is just ludicrous and has been jamming up the real investigation that should have been done a few years ago.

The truth movement fortunately is figuring this out, and soon will cut away all the fat and get to just the meat of the issues. As in the 20 Questions thread by BSBray.

Only then after we cut all this fat away, will we have an oppourtunity to get a REAL, unbiased investigation into what happened on 9/11, and how our government at the very least had foreknowledge, and let these events happen; and at the very worst, planned it, and funded it, and was responsible for the acts on 9/11, instead of just turning thier heads the other way as they did, you can't argue that there wasn't mass incompetence on 9/11.

So hopefully silly theory's like this will die out, and we'll stick to the REAL issues, and again get a Proper investigation which the 9/11 Commission report Failed to give us.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


I agree with you, but if you look at the people I have been arguing with, I honestly think they are just young and gullible and have been influenced by the garbage that is No Planes. Its a sad commentary on our youth to so Naïve.

Its akin to "Urban Legends" that teenagers love to chat about.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Nola213
 


I agree with you, but if you look at the people I have been arguing with, I honestly think they are just young and gullible and have been influenced by the garbage that is No Planes. Its a sad commentary on our youth to so Naïve.

Its akin to "Urban Legends" that teenagers love to chat about.


Perhaps thats what it has turned into, but I believe the original NPT was concocted by disinfo agents or just nutjobs. Hell they even had me on the fence thinking "some" not all of the videos may have been manipulated. But after looking at it for a long time, I have come to my senses.

Regardless of how it started and what it's become the NPT is working against the people looking for real truth; wherever it might lead them. We get lumped together with these whackos, which is a HUGE hinderance to us ever getting a real un-biased investigation of the events of 9/11.

It's really burning me that this is still being considered by any open minded, non disinfo regular home type reasearcher (which there are hundreds of thousands) of 9/11.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


I agree 100%. My take is Its damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do we engage them or just ignore them? I think we must engage them. I took a couple of years off from engaging them at all, I just started to ignore any thread they had and just recently I had enough, it was like swatting at gnats


It definitely is a distraction from the real work at hand. That is for sure.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Nola213
 


I agree 100%. My take is Its damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do we engage them or just ignore them? I think we must engage them. I took a couple of years off from engaging them at all, I just started to ignore any thread they had and just recently I had enough, it was like swatting at gnats


It definitely is a distraction from the real work at hand. That is for sure.


Real work? You mean you're disinfo tactics and paid propaganda?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
Real work? You mean you're disinfo tactics and paid propaganda?


Are you serious? Lord I hope not.

If anyone seems to be a "paid propagandist" it's the september clues folks and you for trying to "inform us" about them.

Your basically telling anyone who reads this "I'm right, and if don't agree with me your delusional not me".

Did I get it right there?

I'd love to see your video analysis and findings if you wouldn't mind posting them.

Having spent hours and hours looking at every angle of this I'm still willing to update my brain files with new ideas. The NPT isn't new, neither is September Clues.

Show us something new nwodeath.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 


I agree with you. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the idea that there were No Planes regarding the Twin Towers over New York City, which is a different ball of wax.

I never said there were no planes regarding the twin towers.



The Pentagon hole, you have my agreement.
Shanksville, no disagreement from me.
Steel Skyscrapers especially Bldg-7, there is no disagreement from myself.

Glad to hear it.



I have to disagree here. There are at least Two people who were confirmed to be travelling to Los Angeles that morning.

I have no doubt that some of the people who were supposedly on those planes were intending to go to LA.



Nearly all of the footage shot on 9-11 was shot by PROFFESSIONALS. I don’t know where you are getting this “amateur footage” bs.




I disagree with you. Jennifer Spell's video is as amateur as one can get.

You know, I had never seen this video before, but the moment I watched it I knew there was something “off” about it.

www.youtube.com...

You really think this video is real?

Why does the sound of the plane continue for over 2 seconds even after it has penetrated the building and has exploded?

Why do we hear the explosion when it happens?

She is at least 2,000 feet away from the towers

1,133 feet per second was the speed of sound.

There should have been at least a 1 second delay between when we see the plane hit and when we actually hear the explosion. If you slow it down, you hear the explosion slightly before the explosion even occurs. The sound of the plane also should have disappeared roughly 1 second after impact, it continues for much longer than that.

The video is either completely fake or tampered with.



Moreover, this does NOT ADDRESS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.

THE MILITARY WOULD NOT KNOW WHO IS GOING TO AT ANY MOMENT PULL OUT A CAMERA!

Why would they need to?



That doesn't say anything. Earlier you implied you weren't really sure, now your saying you feel like "living" a few more years?

I really don't understand where you are coming from.

I could be 100% right by chance. I don’t believe I am, but I could be.



This is incorrect. We consult with experts in certain fields to build upon reasonable conclusions.

Most “experts” have no idea what they are talking about.



If there is an accident, we consult with accident experts. Does this in and of itself mean they are correct? No, but it moves the evidence in a certain direction and gives us good reasons to argue a case if we are employing reason.

Reason should tell you that no one is to be trusted on these matters except YOU and your application of logic. The moment you feel as if you need to rely on someone else to deduce truth for you, you are !@#$ed.



When we do history, we check with historians. When we do construction, we deal with people who build.
That’s a horrible way of going about things. If I’ve ever wanted to learn something, I’ve always taught myself. It’s the only way to do things.

Pro Se all the way.

You don’t need lawyers, architects, teachers or any of those things. You can teach yourself their professions in a matter of months and you’ll probably be better at it than they are.

Most people are very bad at what they do, because they do the minimal amount of work required.



Not it isn't. Either the planes were Real on 9/11 or they weren't. There is NO *out* here. It can't be and not be as I have showed with the law of contradiction.
I choose option C. Since option C exists and is reasonable, what you are saying is a false dichotomy.



I think it is fair and charitiable for someone to offer what it is they are defending when debating! What your doing is only right in your own mind.
I’m not advocating my position, I’m questioning yours.



How could anyone control all of the camera's in New York? Let's be real here for a moment.
what cameras?



But for the people that saw the first plane, it seemed to be an accident. At that point the result is the same.

Also, let us focus on the Point. The point is not what is the intent. For example, How do I know? Perhaps, the Car's driver had the intention of going through the rail. If he did or didn't, it wouldn't change the fact that I saw what I saw, and others saw what they saw.

it has everything to do with intent, the intent is so overwhelming that you're missing the slight of hand



It is the nature of eyewitness testimony that is being discussed.

Well I’m saying that eye witness testimony is garbage unless the people are untainted and are all saying the same thing.



Really? Eyewitness testimony is always filled with people who have "missed" things, so your first premise is faulty. Its not just that People Miss Things, but one EXPECTS people to miss things given the nature of Eyewitness Testimony.

You’re definitely assuming to much and not accounting for other variables.



I don't see a long list of people coming forward and saying...."hey there were No planes!" You say there is, but how many years later?
I never said that there weren’t any planes. It’s not as simple as that.



Really? Its interesting, where were they when it was fresh in their memories?

I wouldn’t know, I’m not them, but if I had to guess?

Shell shocked?
Doubting themselves?
Scared of ridicule?
Scared of being silenced?



Where were they on NEW YORK's Talk Radio Stations that night?

Read above.



Eyewitness testimony that appears years after is always suspect, especially if there is no evidence to back it up.
there is no un-doctored, untainted evidence that two 757s crashed into the twin towers. Absolutely none.



So all the firemen that risked their lives and said they saw a plane are lying?
I didn’t say that.
All the police that claimed they saw a plane are liars as well?
All the people that came forward are just liars eh?
Those are all loaded questions Simply because someone is not telling the truth does not mean they are lying.



I think with all those LIARS you have a Conspiracy to big that I already am starting to see your skeptical approach break.
thanks for answering your own loaded questions for me.



I could take your approach and say everyone is lying including you. 9/11 never happend.
except that isn’t my approach at all, nice straw man.



With such reasoning you have just abandonned reasonable discourse and opted for "EVERYONE IS LYING"

straw man.



Do you think All the People that were Chatting Live on the Net were liars to?
loaded questions straw man




Known users on forums etc?

loaded questions straw man



Yeah, the same question. Do you even know what it is you believe?

Of course I do.



Now don't just assert.

You are trying to use testimony of some who only saw an explosion. Some of those were on the Media on the day of 9/11 to which I explained.

So, if YOU THINK THAT IS going to prove there wasn't any planes because of that testimony and YOU GOT THE INFO FROM THE MEDIA????


You made a claim that lots of people saw the plane impact the towers; I said that EVERYONE I had spoken said that they didn’t. This only casts doubt on your claim that lots of people saw the impact. It does not prove anything and I never claimed that it did. You were the one claiming that eyewitness testimonies amounted to anything other than $#!^ most of the time.




Guess what?

The Media wasn't hiding that Testimony!

What testimony?



Now I am talking in the context of the VISUALS THAT DAY.

No one was hiding the reports of explosives. I heard that all over the Media.

Why wouldn’t you?


"THE HIDING" came later.

What hiding???

[edit on 10/29/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   


I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.

And he’s probably full of $#!^.

It is nearly psychically impossible for anyone directly under the towers to have seen the first plane hit. Your friend is either superman, was staring up at the impact zone the whole time, or is lying.



Besides if there truly were NO PLANES== 600 thousand Muslim LIVE and WORK in New York they are a vocal bunch, they didn't even say "
BOO!"
why would they say anything?



That people might "miss" seeing something is perfectly explainable as I have already stated.
especially something that isn’t there.



Also important:

The events would have been seen by the Russian Diplomats and Chinese Diplomats.

Why would The Chinese lie?

loaded question Who said they are lying?



The Chinese had their Embassy Bombed in Serbia just 2 years prior to 9/11.

Allegedly.



No-one heard it??

Thomas Spinard - FDNY

As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one.

If the plane came over their heads at 500 mph, it would have impacted the building before they had time to turn around. He does not claim that he saw the plane impact the building. He says “it just impacted the building” (past tense) “it had just impacted the building” is what he probably meant to say, which means he probably did not see the impact.



www.swulinski.com...
Maciej Swulinski

When I looked above at 1 WTC I saw a little smoke. Like in everyone’s mind at this moment I had the simple explanation: unlucky pilot, probably small plane line Cessna hit the tower.

That was not the first thing on everyone’s mind, most people though the first plane was an explosion until the news media told them otherwise; already you can see the testimony has been tainted chronologically.


I noticed shoes and other passengers' belongings, wires and electrical equipment probably from the airplane.

Completely impossible.


Human flash was everywhere. Standing in the middle of the street, right at the entrance to the Tower Two I was beginning to understand what a tragedy took place here. It could not be a small plane.
perhaps she meant ASH or even pulverized concrete. Human FLESH being anywhere let alone everywhere is impossible.

At this moment hearing a coming sound I raised my head. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower.
He says that he raised his head and saw the plane directly above him, but doesn’t say that he saw the plane impact the WTC.

I was standing at the base of the building that was the target of terrorist attack.

Now his story is physically impossible.
500 Miles per Hour = 733.3333333333334 Feet per Second
If he was directly under the base of the building, she would have looked up and saw the plane and in less time than a human being can react, it would have been inside the building. A “blink of an eye” is actually too much time for the event she is describing to have taken place.

Parts of the building and from the airplane were falling on the street around me.
Parts of the airplane that purportedly went completely into the trade center on every video?


On top of the events described in the article being specious; I believe that article was not written by a man. I’m a writer and the tone is definitely that of a woman.

John Albanese
at approximately 8:45 we heard the sound of a plane approaching.

Too little information to comment



Well you saw it fit to try and use your own!

I wasn’t using eye witness testimony to prove my theory, I was using eyewitness testimony to disprove yours.

My theory requires no eye witness testimony. All that it requires is logic, math and a rudimentary understanding of psychics.

You said that people saw the first “impact”. Everyone I have spoken to says that they didn’t. Both claims are useless.



What you just said is ridiculous. Our court system is based on corroborated eyewitness testimony.
That’s a testament to nothing considering the U.S. court system is horrid.



Sometimes that is all we have.

Yes, there are serious problems with it, but we weed through it then we see what keeps occuring and what is consistent. We also like to get early sourced material, the earlier the better.

You’re an ostrich in the sand on this one then. I’m not going to advocate a system merely because it is the one in place. The system is not only flawed, but completely corrupt.



Your claim about "tainting" is also ludicrous.

A tremendous amount of people were reporting the plane! That isn't "tainting"
Site examples please . . . you can not merely assert that a TREMENDIOUS amount of people saw something.



Again, your own skepticsm means you have no position. Your logic is self-refuting.
straw man



What you have done is set the standard.

Your logic leads to 9/11 never happening!
straw man



And believe what? Your failing to really offer a position. Are you talking to yoruself at this point?

Simply because I’m not giving you insight into my position does not mean I am failing to do so. If I wanted to tell you what I thought, I would.



You can't be Agnostic on Reality. Do you "really" exist or not?

One is questioning reality, the other is questioning your own existence; they are two different things.



Also what you just said contradicts what you said earlier.
no it doesn’t you failed to properly define what you meant by “reality”. Reality is not you, reality is reality, everything you perceive outside of yourself. You can question everything within reality including your own existence. But the moment you question your own existence, you affirm to yourself that you exist. It is apriori.




"LOGIC is never wrong"

That is what you said, and I agree. Reality operates under the framework

Reality operates under the framework???



Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 


do you also support:

www.septemberclues.info...

The idea that all the passengers were "vicsims?" That none of the passengers were real?

I’m unable to open that website. Which passengers?



The idea that Simon Shack is now supporting?

I’m not aware of what he is supporting.



Do you not see where the logic of denial leads?

That’s an oxymoron; denial is not logical.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



My POST


I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.



your response



And he’s probably full of $#!^. It is nearly psychically impossible for anyone directly under the towers to have seen the first plane hit. Your friend is either superman, was staring up at the impact zone the whole time, or is lying.



How quick you respond here and yet on the spanish Ufo you were't so quick to call the video a hoax!! You throw caution in one place, not in another, this is sheer bias. Perhaps, you need a reality check! Confusing what is real with what is a hoax.

I am going to respond to this to show how you misrepresent things people say and sit back and expect people to believe your being honest.

Show me where I said he was "directly under the towers?"

What I said was...."on the ground near the building"


Yes, he saw the plane. That is what he told me, but I don't usually tell people this because anyone can say anything online.


How old were you when you "missed the plane?" 12? 15? Perhpas, your age caused you to have "trauma" and you just put it out of your mind. See, anyone can play that "psychological game." Making excuses this way is easy.










[edit on 29-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Thinking I am a paid disinfo agent when you only came on to these boards when>?

I don't usually engage in such paranoia, but the fact is the eyewitness testimony that day is strong, very strong. Nothing you or JPhish has said refutes this.

What you and JPhish fail to understand is that Corroborated Eyewitness Testimony, is strong. There were numerous people in position to see the plane strike and many of them inside and out of the WTC saw the plane.

In order for anyone to deny this, they are denying reality.

That isn't me getting paid, those are the facts and you and Jpish and others have to live with them and accept the reality that was 9/11.

Lest you deny the event in question.







[edit on 29-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
It could of been a hologram if the technology was available, that would explain many things but i think it may also of been a type of missile for numerous reasons.

For one, the structure is too strong to let a normal passenger plane pass through them.

The horizontal floors of concrete would of provided huge amounts of resistance from the plane, as if it were crashing into a 60ft thick wall with steel inside it!

Also the planes were moving way too fast beyond a normal boeing's capabilities and the precision of the maneuvers were incredibly accurate, way too accurate for my liking.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join