It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by warisover

I am happy to see that "warisover" has finally conceeded that his original OP is invalid:

Can this thread now be given a decent burial?


Oh, well...."original OP"? That one slipped right out of the 'Department of Redundancy Department", I'm afraid.

My bad.

[edit on 18 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover

I am happy to see that "warisover" has finally conceeded that his original OP is invalid:

Can this thread now be given a decent burial?

It's called sarcasm, I'm sure you know all about sarcasm. Just trying to get the sheep to start using their noodle. BoneZ is almost there

[edit on 18-4-2010 by warisover]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The buildings were NOT "rigged with timed explosives".

You forgot to say "in your opinion, the buildings were not rigged with explosives". Because you have no proof that they weren't. And although we don't have proof that there were either, there is more evidence to suggest there were explosives than not.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by warisover

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The no plane theory makes completely 0 sense.
Is it easier to fake every single piece of footage and eyewitness evidence, or is it easier to actually get two planes to crash into the towers?

Real planes would not have done that much damage, anyway, flying real planes into a building that is rigged with timed explosives would mess up the plan. They couldn't use real planes, not with a building full of explosives.

That doesn't mean anything, why would they fake all these videos and eye witnesses when they could have easily just made two planes fly into the building, then set off explosives?
And why wouldn't it work, again?

[edit on 18-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by warisover
So it seem you have come to the conclusion that there was not a plane at the Pentagon correct?

Well this eyewitness saw a plane. CASE CLOSED

I've not concluded anything - like I said before, I've not seen anything convincing either way with regards to 93/77.

I can see the point you're trying to make (albeit in a pretty rude and abrupt way), but that's only ONE eyewitness. I've only come across a handful of 'Pentagon' eyewitness accounts that say they saw a plane, and there's no video evidence. I don't know those eyewitnesses, and there are so few of them it's plausible to me that they could've been planted to support the official story.

With the WTC.... there are thousands of eyewitnesses alongside seemingly endless video evidence, both from the media and the public.

Please, please tell me you can see the difference?

And, just so that we're clear... I don't claim to have an explanation for 93/77 - there's not enough evidence in the public domain to support the official story, nor any of the many conspiracy theories.

As for WTC, in my opinion.... the planes were hijacked and flown into the towers - there's too much video and eyewitness evidence to support that, and all the evidence to the contrary has been pretty thoroughly debunked imo. The towers were then brought down in a manner very similar to a controlled demolition. I don't believe the planes caused the towers to fall, they were deliberately demolished.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by eightfold]

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:28 AM
Well this is pretty interesting about the "planes" that supposedly crashed on 9/11

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB's air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency's painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question's purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.

However the NTSB has confirmed that—apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents—it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that [color=gold]the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the "Black Box" Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93. It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.

hmmm, interesting, so the debris of the four "crashed planes" were NEVER identified!?? Is this true?

Can anyone post documents positively identifying the four planes that allegedly were used in the 9/11 attack on America?

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by warisover

I already answered that here

You think that answers it? Every single person who took a video handed it over?

That's massively unlikely, but it doesn't even address what I'm asking. How would the PTB know that they definitely had every video without asking every single person in NYC if they had taken one?

You can't seriously suggest that a conspiracy powerful and evil enough to pull off what you're envisioning would have simply relied on every video witness handing in their tape of their own volition. The probability of someone with a "no plane" video not turning it in is waaaay too big a chance to take.

Also thesneakiod did a good job explaining it below your post.

Thesneakoid freely admits that planes hit the towers. I think he was just feeling sorry for you.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
A real nose didn't come out because there was no exit hole:

you're exactly right bonez... there was no real nose because there was no exit hole.

i wonder how long it will take you to realize what you're essentially validating.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Originally posted by warisover

I do not have you on ignore. To answer your question just look at the first video in the OP.

The video is a joke. The creator states asks how an aluminum plane can go through concrete. Well obviously he is an idiot. An aluminum plane weighing about what 500,000lbs going, lets say 300mph WILL go through concrete and steel...


and be sure to show where newtons 3rd law is occurring during that alleged impact and don't forget to include what the engineer of wtc stated about the buildings design as it pertains to "planes".

now since you're probably like MOST who have never done any real in-depth research into the fakery or nrpt and don't understand what its about, i'm sure you'll ignore this simple challenge as most do.

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Case in point. If you take an empty aluminum soda can and with your hand smash it against your skull (bone) the can will crush and NOT penetrate the harder bone. Now, take that same empty can and fire it hat your skull at about 80-100mph and tell me what happens,....I can promise you one WILL penetrate your skull....but by the video turds theory it should still just crush and fall to the floor....

again, PROVE IT.

but when you want to compare relevant materials or scenarios and use real science to support your claims, let everyone know.

steel and aluminum planes are not comparable to the make up of ones skull and an empty beer can and the force required for each scenario has different variables to measure not to mention the speed necessary for such a plane to penetrate what it had to and how its said to have occurred, was not and could not have been remotely achieved aside from it being impossible ASL anyway intact.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:14 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If my debunks on the last page weren't enough to shut down the NPT/tv fakery disinfo, here's proof that there were planes that struck the towers on 9/11:

In this first video, which is a private home video, you can hear the guy say "What's this other jet doing? What's this other jet doing?" He explicitly sees the jet and acknowledges it orally before it hits the south tower, indicating he's seeing a physical jet in the air with his own eyes. Embedding has been disabled, so you'll have to click the link to watch. (*WARNING*-strong language):

bonez... why do you persist in using a suspect clip thats been addressed in detail, debunked and exposed as likely disinfo as evidence there were real planes and nrpt is bs? how can you accuse the nrpt camp of peddling disinfo or using things like youtube clips etc that have not been properly verified etc, and then you turn around and do the SAME THING? I expected a much better job from you than that and its really quite unimpressive.

If you were truly unbiased and objective, you'd not only at least show the counter-argument thats been done, but you'd be able to present a counter-argument showing exactly how and where you're right and the other is wrong... you only present your opinion and leave out so much context its disturbing to say the least. This is just one example why you have no credibiity with me or anyone that genuinely seeks truth. You obfuscate, evade, twist words, play semantics, derail, attack, and have such an arrogant attitude of being righteous and all-knowing its scary that more don't call you out here for it as I do.

Using disinfo material and fake footage to prove what you claim, doesn't help your case at all. Your bias, closed-mind, and claims of infallibility especially on nrpt along with your arrogance, is why you keep losing arguments and have NEVER nor will ever disprove NRPT.

You continually make claims about nrpt and how its nonsense etc, but have never actually PROVEN it in not only the same manner you expect it to be proven, but you ignore so much context and evidence that does support it. Its the same game with you.

FACT: YOU NOR ANYONE HAS EVER SHOWN CONCLUSIVE PROOF OR EVIDENCE THAT CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVES NRPT. NOR HAVE YOU OR THOSE YOU CLAIM THAT HAVE DEBUNK THINGS LIKE SEPT CLUES, OFFERED ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS SHOWING EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE ALL THE ANOMALIES ETC ARE FALSE, COINCIDENCE OR NOT EVIDENCE OF NRPT. If even ONE anomaly or physical impossibility hasn't been addressed or proven false or even ONE video, pic or footage contains fakery, the entire story and evidence you claim proves there were real planes or NRPT is bs, is put into question and claims of absolutes about nrpt being bs is ABSURD to those who do REAL in-depth RESEARCH and can have civil debate or intelligent discourse without being talked down to as you and so many here do.

There IS REAL EVIDENCE and QUESTIONS alone that support why NRPT is VALID and has never been disproven the way you'd like most to believe.

NRPT is in its infancy just as such things like Controlled Demolition, Pentagon, and shanksville were when they were beginning to be exposed. Those who laugh at NRPT without showing any intelligent detailed line by line arguments for or against what they claim is true or not in FULL detail and context, are no different for all intents and purposes than those who laughed at the idea the world was round.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In this next video, people are standing by the pier watching the north tower as the second plane comes over head. You can hear the people scream as they see the jet above them before it strikes the south tower, indicating that they do, in fact, see a physical jet with their own eyes and not magically CGI'd into thin air. Not to mention the loud jet sound coming from the real jet that people are reacting to:

see same answer above.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
These are just a small sample of the proofs that real jets hit the towers on 9/11.
[edit on 3-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

... which are really NOT proofs at all... they're merely your OPINIONS based on footage thats contains evidence of fakery and has not been verified.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:11 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by warisover
Here is another great video that shows how the CGI plane could have been added.

Um, that shows how a CGI plane "could have been added" in real time on live tv in your view.

so you admit it COULD have been done? lol

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

What it doesn't explain is how the CGI plane "could have been added" to the home video I posted earlier. Nor does it explain how the CGI plane "could have been added" to peoples' eyeballs as they saw the plane first-hand.

which video are you talking about first of all... please post it again and i'll comment.

second, what YOU don't explain is that you're asserting another type of APPEAL and all inclusive insinuation how EVERYONE allegedly saw "planes" while leaving out context such as the videos being in the hands of the FBI and therefore being tainted or from those with connections to the media and video effects industry and key facts like contradictory witness testimony or acknowledging what nrpt has explained about what it means by saying NO REAL PLANES.

Imo your tactics are at best dishonest and nothing more than your opinion rather than conclusive proof or evidence of what you claim is true and false. Everyone here thats objective sees it, but many are rarely anything other than observers for fear of being attacked in the way you do to anyone asking sincere questions and wanting to discuss what nrpt is really about and trying to uncover or question.

You like most here and everywhere that don't seem to understand what nrpt is saying and presents as evidence, ridicule and belittle anyone that wants to discuss it and has valid questions as to the unanswered anomalies in nearly ALL of the footage thats been used as evidence of real planes etc. Instead of showing exactly how and where all the anomalies are irrelevant or innocuous, you cherry-pick only what fits your version of the truth.

Of course you do that because you support the official story of real planes and you know the more detail thats revealed about the fakery issue, the more it shows the official story is a lie and that no real planes were used on 9/11.

Until you can PROVE all the footage is real and doesn't contain whats been questioned, nrpt will continue to grow as it has due to people objectively analyzing the footage and anomalies etc in an academic which also includes using common sense.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by warisover
The shots that show a plane hitting the tower are strange, note the weird color of the sky, some show it green, some pink, also the buildings seem to be tilted in some shots. Don't you find that peculiar.

Any sane, intelligent person would not find the poor color/contrast of a camera the least bit peculiar. Nor would any sane, intelligent person find a tilted camera peculiar. Not in the least.


and no sane intelligent person would NOT find the poor color/contrast of a camera SUSPECT when its supposedly LIVE FOOTAGE on a CLEAR SUNNY DAY from CAMERA EQUIPMENT thats supposed to be BROADCAST QUALITY and CALIBER.

To not question such BASIC THINGS, is whats INSANE and DISTURBING.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by warisover
Also, what about the screen "blackout" just after the "nose out" happened?

The "blackout" was them switching cameras and if you slow the video down, you can see that. In the following video after the first minute, the "fade to black" is explained and debunked:

Google Video Link

.... which has already been debunked with no subsequent redebunking from you or anyone anywhere other than silence.

gee, i wonder why.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You do realize that out of the almost 12-thousand active members of ATS, not a single, solitary individual is coming to this thread and saying "OMG! I can't believe it but now I see that there really were no planes on 9/11!!!!"

actually i believe thats false as i've seen many posts from those who have in fact said they initially believed there were planes and after doing real in-depth research on all the evidence, have changed their position, joined nrpt's and agree with what you say has never occurred.

why do you lie bonez? If i can show even ONE such post, i'm not sure what else to think about you. Either that, or as I've suggested, you really haven't done any real research and cherry-pick only what fits your version of the truth. And thats not the behavior of someone who claims to be honest or objectively seeking TRUTH.

so which is it bonez?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nobody is falling for the disinfo produced by disinfo artists, so I'm not sure why you continue to waste your time.

All you're doing is giving the world a laugh while we easily debunk these ridiculous and outlandish "theories".

[edit on 4-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

actually, anyone thats truly objective and open-minded who has done real in-depth research don't fall for the bs out there by disinfo artists who ONLY CLAIM nrpt is disinfo.

you sound like the same person who was pushing the line about how we shouldn't listen to outrageous conspiracy theories and accept the official conspiracy story blindly.

your ad homs and insults to all those genuinely questioning the obvious problems and fakery going on that have yet to be properly answered or disproven, are disturbing and imo nothing more than an attempt to censor, derail intelligent discourse, and hide the truth by preventing the free-flow of ideas and information... similar tactics that were used in nazi germany and have been employed by those in the media and government perps trying to hide the truth of the 9/11 hoax.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
There does seem to be some disinfo agents here but I'm afraid that most are just unable to believe that the media could trick them with CGI planes.

The media can't put CGI planes in peoples' eyeballs as they saw the planes with their own eyes. The media also cannot put CGI planes onto private citizens' home videos either.

Nice try, but nobody is falling for the disinfo.


prove that the alleged amateurs, were really amateurs and weren't plants, tools or shills. After all the dodgy and questionable footage and questions and anomalies that have yet to be answered, this is a very valid and reasonable challenge.

and once you can do that prove that the footage from that "amateur" was ORIGINAL uncut footage and/or that said footage could not have been tampered with and technology doesn't exist that could add cgi.

nice try bonez... you're not fooling anyone, especially me.

To this day, you've never conclusively proven or disproven anything as it pertains to nrpt.

which is why its still alive and kicking and gaining momentum as people do real research into it and can't put aside their ego's to consider an uncomfortable reality you can't handle.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:08 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by warisover
Bonez, why do you think every network that showed the "plane" hit the tower had a different color sky?

Every camera from a different manufacturer has different color and contrast levels. No two cameras from two manufacturers have the same color/contrast. That is a very simple, easily researched answer.

its one thing to say they don't have the SAME contrast/color... but thats not the case on 9/11... the term SAME is specific and way too narrow to describe the anomalies and problems with the footage on 9/11... sorry pal. The color/contrast in almost all the footage in question was not an issue of it being due to different types of cameras etc that you imply. The picture quality didn't remotely depict reality or what LIVE FOOTAGE from broadcast equipment should have recorded on a perfectly sunny clear day.

For you to make an all-encompassing statement ignoring so many anomalies and questions, is DISHONEST and truly bizarre actually. But not surprising when one examines your tactics and criticism of nrpt here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The bridge wasn't moving. The helicopter was moving. This is a simple test you can try at home with your own video camera. Stand about 50-feet from a tree, zoom in a little, walk slowly around the tree and watch the tree barely move as the background flies by. It's simple videography and photography.

There are gazillions of links on Google to learn you about photography and videography.

an argument which has in the past been addressed and debunked since thats not whats going on in that anomaly.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Furthermore, there is a debate forum here on ATS. Here's the one and only no-plane debate so far:

I'll let you read who won, but anytime you think you have enough evidence of no planes at the WTC, then you contact Semperfortis and he'll set up the debate.

To say you won that debate and therefore means you've disproven nrpt is beyond ridiculous when so much context and detail was left out not to mention such a debate on such a complex subject with such restrictions and limited time allotted could fairly fit and present all the CONTEXT AND DETAILS and ISSUES necessary to come to an objective fair conclusion, is ABSURD.

I will however congratulate you on the win and concede that you SOMEWHAT presented perhaps a better case in the time allotted even though its a close call and really hard to fully measure considering how much evidence there that titorite wasn't able or didn't get into or know about thats out there that overwhelmingly supports nrpt or at the least shows why it has never been disproven or its just disinfo as you CLAIM.

your debate results not by any stretch of your imagination, disproves nrpt. sorry

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:25 AM
I firmly believe there were planes hitting WTC but not the Pentagon. And terrorists flying them??? Hmm it's more likely staged. I heard, but can't confirm it, that Bush's brother was head of the security at WTC when this all happened. And the day before he ordered the bombsniffing dogs and the k9 unit to leave the building.

Just what i heard though so don't shoot the messenger

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by ugie1028

now, i will say again, and again; what i saw were planes. I see them over my house a LOT. i live about 10 miles from Newark airport. I know a plane when i see one.

I saw planes, i gave descriptions in that thread.

there were alot of flying objects and planes flying around that day... so whats your point?

but then you're just ONE of many various witnesses not to mention there are other witnesses who contradict what you claim to have seen.

and thats the problem right? you CLAIM to be a witness and CLAIM to have seen something... what does that PROVE?

how does that DISPROVE Nrpt?

answer: it doesn't.

so how can you call nrpt nonsense without showing how all the evidence in favor of it, is wrong?

Originally posted by ugie1028
Hell if that's not good enough for you i suggest you talk to the other witnesses who saw the planes hit the WTC.

which ones? the ones who contradict what you and others claim? or the SHILLS who posed as witnesses?

Originally posted by ugie1028
I know i saw both planes hit the WTC 1 & 2.

anyone can make such an unsupported claim... and they HAVE.

where were you exactly? please show a detailed account of what you witnessed and then we'll move to the next level of determining whether your account is real, valid and credible.

Originally posted by ugie1028
I am also still in contact with a few classmates who saw the second plane hit from the second floor in my high school. That's 50+ people were crammed in that room (5 who i still talk to) who all saw the same thing, not to mention the thousands of witnesses who were in NYC.

oh yeah great.. more anonymous witnesses. lol

so where was your school located? please give the exact address etc. thanks

but where and who are all these thousands of witnesses who you CLAIM saw the same thing? ROFL
You know as well as i do that anyone can and has made that usual ridiculous claim not to mention its a FACT you CONVENIENTLY fail to mention that there was CONFLICTING testimony... so if you want to be taken seriously, the trick is actually proving what you claim is true or false and showing FACTS and supporting evidence for starters.

Originally posted by ugie1028
no wait, ill be accused of being in on it too and accused of spreading disinfo...

BTW September clues is a real work of fiction!

no you'll just be asked to PROVE what you claim and present supporting evidence so that no one can say you are. Failure to comply will however lead any intelligent person to come to that conclusion.

and BTW, Sept Clues is only a work of fiction to shills, those in denial, those who haven't seen it and can't show exactly how and where its wrong... and since thats MOST PEOPLE, its understandable why it APPEARS so many don't know anything about NRPT and claim its crazy nonsense.

but to actually PROVE its nonsense is entirely different matter... something you like MOST, have failed to do.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Vesica
I firmly believe there were planes hitting WTC but not the Pentagon. And terrorists flying them??? Hmm it's more likely staged.

what leads you to believe there were planes hitting wtc but NOT at the pentagon?

How is it that you can BELIEVE it was staged, but not believe everything else was staged?

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:55 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

This series, "September Clues" has been posted over and over, been debunked over and over, and the world has moved on.

nothing but your OPINION not to mention the facts prove otherwise.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This is starting to equate to spamming of disinformation on these forums.

well since you nor anyone else has proven SC to be disinfo, how can it be spam?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"September Clues" and TV fakery debunked:
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

September Clues, TV Fakery Debunked

Debunking September Clues - A point-by-point analysis

aside from the fact i can post links from counter-debunks, every one of the points in each of those so-called debunkings has an equal amount of responses and counter-debunking that has yet to be answered and re-debunked.

so once again, in the end, you've proven and disproven nothing as it pertains to nrpt and tv fakery.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by rcwj1975 are actually using that video as a means to justify the NO PLANES theory....

Not just that video, all the videos throughout this thread adds up to NO PLANES. use your brain.

Well luckily for me I AM using my brain and NOT getting caught up in complete BS. NONE ...I REPEAT...NONE of the videos you posted proved anything except there are people out there who truly have NO IDEA how to investigate using common sense, real facts, real circumstances, and last but not least, lifes reality. They simply see something they WANT to see and run with, or don't care to wanna see the truth, so in their delusional mind they come up with their fairytale crap that makes them look foolish to the other 99.5% of people who actually understand things.

Logic is a good thing not to waste on made up BS....

the only problem with your flawed logic and assessment is that 99.5% of people have never actually looked at the evidence that supports nrpt and make claims about how absurd nrpt is without ever showing any evidence to prove what they claim is true or false.

these are people who are either afraid to investigate, haven't bothered to do any real in-depth investigation, or too ignorant to understand how to debunk something and prove its crap.

and once again, like 99.5% of people, you make claims about how the videos (which you probably have never watched or analyzed), prove nothing while never offering any PROOF to prove what you claim. Where's your evidence and line by line counter-argument showing where and how exactly each of the issues presented by docs like SC, are based on falsehoods and wrong?

why do so many act and criticize things they know nothing about like you have?

because anyone that actually does any real in-depth research and uses logic, facts, science and common sense, usually more often than not, agree there is real evidence to support nrpt and its not the type of fictional crap MOST would like everyone to believe.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:20 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
A jetliner cannot take off and reach 500mph at sea level because it's engines aren't powerful enough.
A jetliner can reach and surpass 500mph on it's way down to sea level from altitude.
And it doesn't even need it's engines to do so. It's called gravity. Once the plane reaches sea level at that speed, the speed will quickly bleed off as the engines aren't able to keep up that speed at sea level. The plane that impacted the south tower came down from altitude and only leveled out just 2-3 seconds before impact, keeping most of it's speed from descension.

If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself in any flight simulator. It would appear that you are lacking in the research department.

Even if what you say were true and applied to this scenario and it doesn't, what you fail to mention is that it would not be controllable if it even were to reach that speed to begin with and not suffer structural failure long before it reached its target ie wtc.

But then, again, there's different footage and testimony that contradict any DIVE that you claim occurred aside from what boeing engineers have stated that disagree with what you're asserting.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Keep posting false information and it'll keep getting debunked.

yup... and you should heed your own advice bonez

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ThePatientMental
Actually there are several different subsonic cruise missiles that have a cruising speed of around 500mph. Just search google and you will find several different models of subsonic cruise missiles that do in fact look like small planes.

Find a missile that comes anywhere near the size of a jetliner. None of the pictures and videos show small planes hitting the towers. So that point is automatically moot.

right, because the videos are FAKE or tampered with... so of course you won't SEE what was edited out or faked. You'd think that'd be obvious.

But then, witness testimony contradict what you claim and there's plenty of other evidence to consider that answers how the gashes could have been created ... that alone is reason to question the OS and evidence to support nrpt which you refuse to consider or acknowledge as possible proving why your OPINION has no credibility.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ThePatientMental
In saying that, asking me to producing a list of witnesses that didn't see a plane goes both ways, do you have a list of witnesses that did see one?

Following is the definition of "burden of proof" that you should read and understand regarding your above question:

burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.

The proper presumption is that jetliners hit the towers on 9/11. All videos and images show jetliners hitting the towers. Most all witnesses that had a view of the towers also concur that planes hit the towers.

Since you and the rest of the no-planers are seeking to prove the opposite, then you bear the burden of proof to provide witnesses that saw no planes or that saw missiles, etc. I hope that's clear enough.

I believe i've addressed that logic and use of IF IN SOME CASE and PROPER PRESUMPTION for starters and why its irrelevant in this case, a while ago.

if the govt never proved its CONSPIRACY THEORY to begin with, then the definition of BOP cannot be applied. So since when can BOP be used in arguing whether one has the burden to prove a CONSPIRACY THEORY?

But then, ample evidence has been presented that puts the official conspiracy theory into question at the very least and therefore the burden of proof is shifted especially when FOIA requests have gone ignored which alone shifts burden if those who created the official conspiracy story/theory, control evidence and information that would ANSWER the questions and problems that created the PRESUMPTION to begin with.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ThePatientMental
how many of them say they saw a large commercial airliner compared to ones that saw a small plane?

That is irrelevant. We know from videos and images that the planes that hit the towers were jetliners. People who claimed the planes were "small planes" were either too far away or didn't have a good look/view of the planes.

says you.

no its not irrelevant now that evidence exists that the images and videos contain fakery or were tampered with and not from the original or LIVE uncut footage.

and those who claimed they saw jetliners WERE ALSO TOO FAR AWAY or didn't have a good look/view of the alleged planes which were most likely missles disguised to look or LOOKED like planes from a distance if there even were any.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ThePatientMental
but that you can't take either side as concrete evidence because there are problems to both sides of the argument.

That's a false statement due to your lack of research. There were plane parts all over Manhattan as well as in the debris.

and since you nor anyone can prove the parts were from the alleged planes that allegedly hit the wtc, the argument is moot.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All videos and images show large jetliners hitting the towers and all witnesses that had a view of the towers and the plane trajectories saw the planes.

FALSE... not to mention blatant disinfo especially with respect to your use of ALL

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That gives you witnesses, video and physical evidence all proving planes hit the towers. That means there is 100% absolute concrete evidence that planes hit the towers, period. And that's not even mentioning the physical damage to the towers which further proves jetliners hit both towers.

MORE FALSE STATEMENTS too numerous and general out of context to bother addressing at this time since they've all been previously addressed and debunked.

whats most disturbing though, is how you and most can make such absolute loaded statements as if its been 100% proven... something you and ANYONE with a brain thats done real in-depth research knows isn't true. But I guess the disinfo agents and those in denial, are counting on the fact most will never do any real research so the CONFUSION and misdirection just like the OS, usually works pretty well on the robots.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ThePatientMental
This also reinforces what I said at the end of my original post, when you already have your mind made up it's hard to look at something from a non-biased perspective.

I do have my mind made up. The "no planes at the WTC" theories were well-researched years ago, debunked, and deemed disinformation. Nowhere in the entire 9/11 truth movement are such theories supported and most places have even banned the discussion/debate of the topic.

except unfortunately for you, the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Witnesses, images, videos, physical plane parts, physical damage to the towers all prove jetliners struck both towers. The no-planers get around this by saying the witnesses are all liars, the images and videos are fake, the plane parts were planted, and the damage to the towers was done by explosives. All without a single piece of evidence to prove their deliberately false claims.

Any sane, intelligent, researched person can see that. There's nothing else to debate on this topic

Any sane intelligent researched person can see that what you've just said from top to bottom, is at best dishonest, half the truth and purposely misleading.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in