Disappearing planes

reply to post by Alfie1


On the contrary, ALL I am interested is " vanishing plane " air disasters

Unfortunately I can't find any, and, despite you protestations, I still haven't been presented with any.

my 'purported' research (as opposed to what?) failed to find any either, which is why I resorted to the two examples given, because they were the closest I could find to what we are discussing.

Bijlimer was merely showing that even at a low speed, an immense amount of damage was caused, and a fireball, and yet lots of wreckage remained.

Lockerbie, well, the plane was blown apart, it was IN PIECES and yet still produced a massive crater. And large chunks of wreckage.

No, they arn't the same type of plane, but neither is the F4 you gave as an example, and at least these are airliners, not fighter jets.

Sounds to me as if you want me to go and find proof of your POV - well, I tried and failed. Im sure that, in you assurance that things are on the up and up with the OS, you will be able to find that proof yourself.
Until you do I think casting aspersions on my, admittedly not very professional, attempts at research, is a bit beyond the pale.

PLEASE do go ahead and find something more convincing than I have managed!

reply to post by lambros56


Flight 77
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

16 foot hole? I dont think so.
www.geoffmetcalf.com...

reply to post by neformore

Stop...wait. You want to claim that this was CGI because you've seen CGI in movies? Really?

Absolutely not. I'm not claiming anything is CGI or not, i'm pointing out that there are plenty of 'special effects' from popular culture, movies, games and so on that feature an aircraft of one type or another crashing, some into buildings.

I said this in answer to your earlier post.

Umm How many jet airliners have you seen flying into skyscrapers in your lifetime? I'm 40, and in the sum total of my life I can only say I've seen two. What I'm trying to say is that you would have had no idea what it would look like prior to the event -because it had not happened before - so making the proclamation that its CGI is, frankly, a complete straw man argument.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by neformore

 

Stop...wait. You want to claim that this was CGI because you've seen CGI in movies? Really?

Absolutely not. I'm not claiming anything is CGI or not, i'm pointing out that there are plenty of 'special effects' from popular culture, movies, games and so on that feature an aircraft of one type or another crashing, some into buildings.

I said this in answer to your earlier post.

Umm How many jet airliners have you seen flying into skyscrapers in your lifetime? I'm 40, and in the sum total of my life I can only say I've seen two. What I'm trying to say is that you would have had no idea what it would look like prior to the event -because it had not happened before - so making the proclamation that its CGI is, frankly, a complete straw man argument.

Are you saying you know what it would look like because you've seen it in a film?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
According to video, the wings (and the entire plane for that matter) sliced through the towers like a hot knife through butter. I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Isn't it funny how the plane, allegedly traveling at approximately 450 mph, easily sliced through the facing of the towers, but then came to virtually a complete and sudden stop once it hit the middle of the towers. This is even more absurd when you realize the length of a 767 is 160 feet and the width of the tower was 210 feet.

I wonder if they had CGI back in 1945? www.aerospaceweb.org...

No? Didn't think so.

If you want to come off as to accuse those of us who actually worked in the mainstream media of trickery on that horrible day you better damn well bring some proof, not just shooting your mouth off when you so obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
According to video, the wings (and the entire plane for that matter) sliced through the towers like a hot knife through butter. I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Isn't it funny how the plane, allegedly traveling at approximately 450 mph, easily sliced through the facing of the towers, but then came to virtually a complete and sudden stop once it hit the middle of the towers. This is even more absurd when you realize the length of a 767 is 160 feet and the width of the tower was 210 feet.

I wonder if they had CGI back in 1945? www.aerospaceweb.org...

No? Didn't think so.

If you want to come off as to accuse those of us who actually worked in the mainstream media of trickery on that horrible day you better damn well bring some proof, not just shooting your mouth off when you so obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

okay... thats easy... plenty of evidence and PROOF presented in docs like Sept Clues for starters. If you want to ignore the visual evidence, physics, and basic common sense, okay, sure, you have every right to be in denial.

Originally posted by Orion7911
okay... thats easy... plenty of evidence and PROOF presented in docs like Sept Clues for starters. If you want to ignore the visual evidence, physics, and basic common sense, okay, sure, you have every right to be in denial.

Sorry, but if you want to embrace the ignorance of Sept Clueless, then be my guest.

Unfortunately for them and everyone that believe in this nonsense, I was there working that day, I know for a FACT there was NO TV fakery. That is not denial, that is reality.

Originally posted by Icerider

Now, having read the reasons given for this, I would like, just once, for someone to show photographs of other air disasters thats have taken place with the same outcome.


Well that is easy, just tell me the date that someone else flew a commercial airliner into the side of the building and I would be happy to locate a picture of it for you. Oh....wait, that's right it's never happened before. So, because its never happened before how are we to know what it is should or shouldn't look like. You can guess and say that there is no way that it could have caused the damage that it did due to this scientific reason or that one, but its just as much of a guess proving that no plane hit the building as it is proving that one did.

As for flight 93, there have been a few that you can compare as similar, but the DNA of a monkey is similar to that of a human but we sure do look different. There is no sure fire way of proving it one way or another.





[edit on 8-2-2010 by HLYWUD74]

"Well that is easy, just tell me the date that someone else flew a commercial airliner into the side of the building and I would be happy to locate a picture of it for you. Oh....wait, that's right it's never happened before. So, because its never happened before how are we to know what it is should or shouldn't look like."

Correct. Prior to 9/11, never in the history of modern aviation have two large commercial airliners crashed, leaving absolutely no evidence which even remotely resembled wreckage. The unsavory mainstream media then took the ball and sold the general public a very heavy and expensive bag of rocks which they are still carrying around on their backs.

Therefore, the title of your thread is incorrect. The airplanes did not 'disappear' because there were no commercial airplanes to begin with.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The airplanes did not 'disappear' because there were no commercial airplanes to begin with.

There were no planes to begin with? Seriously? You honestly believe that?

So those four planes never took off that day from their airports, the passengers of those four flights never boarded their planes, and the family members of those passengers never drove them to the airport that morning, and there were no phone calls to their loves ones to say good bye, and no funerals weeks later for the passengers that were on the planes that never existed???

There are no pictures to produce, that's why no one has answered your question, If you believe that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, or that crashed in PA, then what happened to the people that should have been on those flights.

reply to post by HLYWUD74


Have you read any of the previous posts? Including the one I added of the crash into apartment block in Amsterdam?

I'm not guessing at anything, I'm asking for evidence of the possible, to help me form an opinion. If you can't provide it then I don't see what you feel your rhetoric adds to the debate.

I can't find ANY crashes 'similar' to flight 93, they always seem to leave bloody great big holes and lots of wreckage.

Monkeys and DNA? Erm, well, actually, we share quite a bit of DNA with Chimps, but they are apes, of course.
Quite how that relates to the thread......Monkeys? well, I think the tale may be a bit of a givaway.
WTF are you on dude?

Perhaps you need to rethink your arguments, or come up with some support for your assertions
Or just go play with your tail.

reply to post by Icerider


No I read them, and I saw the pictures of the crash at Amsterdam, its no where close to being "similar." An apartment building has no where the structural reinforcement that the Pentagon has. Flight 1862 was trying to make an emergency landing with only one engine left working, it had to slow down to try to land, that's what caused it to crash, it no longer had enough wind resistance under the wing that had the failed engine to keep it flying straight. While flight 77 was going in excess off 500 mph and plowed into a building had just been reinforced to be protected against explosions from bomb threats. So really the only thing that is "similar" in the two is that they were both airplanes.

As for the monkey-chimp thing, yeah you got me there but obviously I still made my point because you clearly understood what I was getting at. So DUDE I'll trade what I'm on for what your on any day since yours clearly causes better delusions.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by HLYWUD74]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
But then again, when your captive audience consists mainly of gullible moronic suckers, you can tell them anything and they'll believe it.

Which is one of the better statements I've seen of why the Truther movement is still alive today.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by trebor451]

Originally posted by HLYWUD74
reply to post by Icerider

 

" While flight 77 was going in excess off 500 mph and plowed into a building had just been reinforced to be protected against explosions from bomb threats. "


[edit on 10-2-2010 by HLYWUD74]

That being the case surely it would have in been HARDER for the whole of the plane to disappear into that little hole, up against a reinforced building?

Yeah, I knew what you were trying to say, doesn't mean it made any sense though. As far as delusions, well, what exactly am I delusional about? Im not the one raving on about monkeys and DNA, all Im asking for is a little evidence showing the possibility of whats claimed.
Is that delusional?

As I said, pointless rhetoric without any solid evidence to back up your claim.

reply to post by trebor451


That from someone with an interest in suppressing the truth, I assume?

Truth requires proof, please present some.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Icerider
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

I dare say I am ignorant of the facts, but then I think the same applies for 99.999% of the population.

Still doesnt meet my challenge though - aircrashes with vanishing aircraft!

In this thread Its kinda put up or shut up as far I am concerned.

How about addressing the Iranian air crash then ?

the Tu-154M is not a boeing 757 or 767-200

the photos show what looks like one of the wings which btw, didn't disintegrate.

and the photos that do exist, are so minimal, that an accurate and fair assessment of that crash cannot be determined visually or in any context. Can you source an in-depth summary of the investigation?

So to use this as a valid comparison of the 9/11 hoax, is absurd if not laughable... its apples and onions

nice try though

reply to post by Icerider


Here you go , Icerider , this is the closest thing I have found that might meet the criteria of what you are asking for .

PSA Flight 1771 , December 7, 1987 .

www.abovetopsecret.com...