No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
it is fairly obvious that things are anomalous with many of the videos

It's only "fairly obvious" to those that lack the basic understanding of photography, videography, and simple physics.

and its MORE THAN OBVIOUS that you cannot prove the anomalies don't exist and are only the figment of peoples imagination or that its the result of peoples lack of understanding of photography, videography and simply physics.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
What point? I don't understand, what does those videos you posted have to do with the cgi plane on the other video?

There is no CGI plane in any videos. That's the point. You haven't shown any evidence what-so-ever of CGI planes.

A real no-plane researcher would obtain the original videos and have them analyzed by a professional studio for fakery. But they will tell you the same thing we're telling you: the videos are real.

Originally posted by warisover
I already answered that here

Actually, no you didn't. You have no proof of who turned their videos in and who didn't. Furthermore, many people made copies of their video to turn in because many people still released their own home videos to the public.

Your word is meaningless without some kind of proof to back up the claims you make. If there were CGI planes, prove it by some kind of video analysis done by professionals, not by posting bunk youtube videos created by known disinfo artists.

and one need only to refer to the answer in this post to answer your response.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Reply to ALL posts by Orion7911[/url]

I've got four very simple questions...

1. You've not explained why there are planes on ALL the amateur videos. To be clear, are you saying they're all faked, that every one of them was tampered with?

2. If so, who tampered with them?

3. Were all the people who saw planes, with their own eyes, on the day somehow mistaken?

4. If so, what's your explanation for them seeing planes?

Thanks.

eightfold

reply to post by eightfold


I have to tell you 8fold, you are truly wasting your time, the no plane theory people are almost as bad as the Debunkers.

I believe most of them, if you really sat down and got into how much information they actually have regarding 9/11, you would see that most know very basic 9/11 facts and theories. Most have probably never even read one book on 9/11 let alone the Commissions report.

Fortunately, I bought the 1st edition of the Commissions book as soon as it came out and by the time the no plane theories popped up I was reading entire books on witness recollections just to gather more information.

So even before the entire hour I wasted watching Sept Clues was up, I was completely convinced these people were either...

A) Deliberately spreading information that was intended to make anyone who believed in a 9/11 conspiracy look like a nutcase(I wouldn't be surprised if the people behind SC's are Debunkers).

Or B) This was a business venture, that was simply out to profit somehow off 9/11 conspiracies. It seems to me most people (like Jesse Ventura cough) seem to be in the 9/11 conspiracy world simply for money.

I think the no planers have a hard time grasping their heads around how brilliantly the attacks were orchestrated. How utterly ruthless they were. It's a whole lot easier to just say "There couldn't be any planes, it all MUST be a complete fabrication".

It's like coming upon Mount Rushmore or the Giza pyramids and after careful inspection saying "oh...well there's NO question these were naturally formed through earths geological processes". It goes against even the most basic human abilities to understand what we see. IMHO

Why is it "obvious" that air planes did not crash on that day? Could you really go and claim something like that to the hundreds of people who actually saw it happen and took videos of it?

With this conspiracy that all the videos were edited and made with the best CGI available those days, don't you think it would just be easier to target a rocket into the towers? They couldn't afford even that.

I suggest you keep your feet on the ground. Air planes did hit the towers.

They might have been airplane-looking rockets, but they did hit.

Originally posted by Orion7911

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

I totally agree, I don't think Bonez knows just what he is saying AND validating

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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 CLAIM

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.

This is was I was trying to get across to sheople that are still buying into the "fake plane theory", A lot of the 'eyewitnesses seem to have ties with the media, like this eyewitness and also the "home videos", which I tend to have doubts about ALL of them, but this one seems to be a little telling: note the people that were videotaping the event say, "It was a missile", and also keep a close eye on the very first part of the video when the guy zooms in and then zooms out.. the "plane" just seems to appear out of nowhere. hmmm

*Warning language*

Orion and warisover, I challenge either or both of you to a debate in the debate forum. If you think you have enough evidence to prove "no planes at the WTC", then send a U2U to semperfortis and he will set up the debate.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I think it should be made clear that every one of you is getting TROLLED-TO-THE-EXTREME on this one.


Please, remove your heads from your ass's.

reply to post by SmittyPuffs


Can we let this thead die now? The no-planers have been challenged to a debate in the debate forums, neither one have accepted so that means they don't have any real proof. If they did, they would be jumping all over the debate to show their proof.

This thread is dead, no-plane disinfo is dead. Let this thread get buried like the rest before it.

Originally posted by SmittyPuffs
I think it should be made clear that every one of you is getting TROLLED-TO-THE-EXTREME on this one.


Please, remove your heads from your ass's.

Hi SmittyPuffs, Do you have anything further to contribute to the "no planes theory" that this thread is about, from what I see your post is completely off topic, did you just stop by to tell people to remove their heads from their ass's?

reply to post by warisover


How about we cut the crap and either do the debate or not. I've already talked to Semperfortis and he's waiting for your private message to agree to the debate. Now, you have 2 choices:

1.) You accept the debate because you have definitive proof and evidence that no planes were used at the WTC.

or

2.) You run away from the debate and concede that you don't really have any proof or evidence of no planes hitting the WTC.

Which is it going to be? You either have proof and evidence or you do not. I await your final answer...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by warisover

 

How about we cut the crap and either do the debate or not. I've already talked to Semperfortis and he's waiting for your private message to agree to the debate. Now, you have 2 choices:

You forgot choice number 3..

Originally posted by warisover
You forgot choice number 3..

But instead of posting what "choice number 3" actually is, you decide to play childish games. I'll have to take that as you have zero proof or evidence of no-planes at the WTC and that you concede that there were planes. Thank you. We're done here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Orion and warisover, I challenge either or both of you to a debate in the debate forum. If you think you have enough evidence to prove "no planes at the WTC", then send a U2U to semperfortis and he will set up the debate.

I don't know why i'm bothering to respond to this, but its time to put an end to your little game.

Sorry Bonez… i'm not falling for your trap like others have.

Your challenge is nothing more than a DIVERSION from the FACT you CANNOT AND HAVE NOT DISPROVEN NRPT and TV FAKERY or the docs that you CLAIM have been debunked. You're HIDING behind your "challenge" so you don't have to answer my latest responses and rebuttals to your so-called debunkings because you know you can't since ANY attempt to respond to what i've rebutted, will only expose your weak arguments even more.

I've debunked your arguments and proven you've proven and disproven NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH. You have ZERO EVIDENCE that conclusively disproves nrpt and fakery.

I've posted more than enough responses and rebuttals to your posts that you continually IGNORE and have yet to even respond to or present any COUNTER-ARGUMENT showing exactly how and where what i've said is untrue and false.
So now you want to ignore all my posts and instead pose a challenge to a debate on your terms which imo is for all intents and purposes, RIGGED to your side?

AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

start answering my responses, and then maybe i MIGHT consider taking your challenge and debate you.

But then, THIS ENTIRE FORUM IS TECHNICALLY A PLACE FOR DEBATE.

EVERYTIME I POST OR RESPOND, I'M DEBATING AND HAVING INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE, so the only thing such debates do is LIMIT the scope of discussion, RESTRICT and conform to the same type of CONTROL that imo favors those peddling disinfo, perpetuates ignorance on this subject, and has led to CONFUSION and main reason why so many still don't fully understand NRPT even though there is overwhelming evidence in favor of it that has not been conclusively disproven.

To say you won that debate and that 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.

your debate results DO NOT by any stretch of your imagination, disprove nrpt. sorry

but still, what you don't seem to be able to understand is whats being argued.

my contention is that 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 LINE BY LINE COUNTER ARGUMENTS SHOWING EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE ALL THE ANOMALIES ETC ARE FALSE, COINCIDENCE OR NOT EVIDENCE OF NRPT

your challenge and a debate here can NEVER yield any fair assessment or measure that conclusively disproves nrpt or tv fakery and proves what you claim that its disinfo, nonsense and debunked.

and so any "debate" within the PARAMETERS set by this forum as i've seen are imo UNREALISTIC and IMPOSSIBLE to fairly or properly measure NRPT or TV FAKERY.

Whatsmore, the RULES and PARAMETERS are tipped in favor of the HOUSE DEALER who is YOU in this case making the ODDS of being able to properly debate this issue and "win", is nearly impossible for the NRPT/FAKERY CAMP at a time when so much "evidence" is controlled, incomplete and in its infancy… the HOUSE almost always wins and YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE which puts the odds in your favor.

So i'm not going to be baited or DE-BAIT (mispelling intended) on your terms or be CONFINED AND RESTRICTED to the terms that titorite was subject to which made it impossible to "win". HE HAD LITTLE IF ANY CHANCE to win such a debate since the odds are tipped in your favor.

It has nothing to do with you being able to present so-called conclusive evidence thats irrefutable and proves or disproves what you're claiming.

My questions, rebuttals, arguments, and debates on nrpt and fakery are archived all over ats (along with many others), which you've evaded and anyone can see and verify have presented overwhelming EVIDENCE that supports NRPT and tv fakery which has never been conclusively disproven by anyone, especially YOU.

If you want to "believe" your "win" with titorite disproved NRPT and tv fakery when
anyone thats done REAL research on the subject would disagree, then thats your choice... but i could care less because the TRUTH will continue to validate and expose NRPT and TV FAKERY.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by Orion7911]

reply to post by Orion7911


So what you're trying to say is that you don't have any definitive proof of no-planes and you don't want to get embarrassed like titorite did, correct?

And there is no rigging to one side or another. All that is is an excuse to keep from debating because you don't really have any evidence of no-planes like I've been saying all along.

And by the way, titorite had the same restrictions I did. If you can't prove no-planes within those restrictions, you have no proof, period. That's all it boils down to.

Whenever you think you have enough proof and evidence to prove NPT, the debate challenge will remain open. Until then, we're done here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Orion7911

 

So what you're trying to say is that you don't have any definitive proof of no-planes and you don't want to get embarrassed like titorite did, correct?

You don't have any proof that there were planes used in the attacks that day, all you are going by is the false flag, OS that you were served up that day on t.v. and you bought it. You bought it like most of the brainwashed masses. If it was on t.v. it must be real.

To have a debate with you would be unfair because you would be able to use the "fake CGI plane hitting the tower" as "proof" that a plane hit the tower. You would be using the criminal governments own faked video against people who are really seeking the truth. SAD

When videos like this are presented, forward to 5:39,



it seems to be o.k. to say that the plane was somehow taken out of the video by special effects artists fooling around. But it is not o.k. (to you) to say that a plane could have just as easily been ADDED to the video.

Remember, we weren't watching "live" t.v. on that morning, there was a 17 second delay in the broadcast. hmmm

Originally posted by warisover
To have a debate with you would be unfair because you would be able to use the "fake CGI plane hitting the tower" as "proof" that a plane hit the tower.

What you just said is that you're scared to have a debate because you're afraid I'll use your own videos against you. You should not be worried about that in the least if you have such definitive proof of no-planes. You no-planers either have definitive proof or not. It's just that simple.

If you have definitive proof, you should not have to worry about doing a debate or it being unfair. If you have definitive proof, then you should be able to convince people that no planes struck the WTC.

But neither you nor Orion will accept the debate which proves you also don't have enough proof to convince people that there were no planes. What's really sad is that neither one of you are even trying.

That tells me there is zero proof of no-planes at the WTC. I sure have been saying that for years.