No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

reply to post by warisover


I know how CGI works, but yet again you don't answer the question... how were all the amateur videos edited?

Would it help you understand if I wrote it in all caps? I've only asked about 20 times in this thread so far and not one of you have answered. If you claim they're all fake, you must have some theory as to how that happened.

I've got a vision of a big queue of people with dv tapes, vhs tapes, dvd-ram's etc, all patiently waiting outside the Pixar truck to have planes added to their video.

reply to post by warisover


I have a challenge for you.

Come on to the ATS Live show and explain your theory to me and the listeners, and take some questions on air.

How does that sound?

reply to post by warisover

....for all you slow learners.

Ladies and gentlemen, the winner of "Most Obtuse on ATS" is:

(Do I have to say? Isn't it obvious by now?).....


I think the history of certain posts, combined with the cognitive disconnect displayed speaks for itself. This topic is done, and is embarrassing, frankly.

NO...more than 'embarrassing', it is damned disrespectful! It disrespects the victims aboard American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, on 11 September 2001 --- and their families, loved ones, friends, and just about any other caring, feeling, thinking person.

It is a poison on their memories, and sullies the very thing that should count as Human compassion, and understanding....in its sheer LUNACY, and continued "efforts" at stupidity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'Nuf said....there is only ONE way, from this point forward, to deal with ATS trolls..... [click].

reply to post by neformore


Good luck with that, I can't even get them to answer one incredibly simple question. It's one they can't answer tho, poor things. It's a bit sad really.

If you did manage to get one of them on I imagine it'd go a bit like this....



Edited as I can't spell, and should've used the preview button.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by eightfold]

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by warisover

 

I have a challenge for you.

Come on to the ATS Live show and explain your theory to me and the listeners, and take some questions on air.

How does that sound?

Thanks for the invite, but I'm afraid talking to the brainwashed masses will not prove or disprove anything, the government gave them a plane on 9/11 so a plane it is. The few people who have managed to see through the fog of mass mind control and media manipulation know the truth but proving it to the brainwashed majority is another story.

Originally posted by eightfold
reply to post by warisover

 

I know how CGI works, but yet again you don't answer the question... how were all the amateur videos edited?

Would it help you understand if I wrote it in all caps? I've only asked about 20 times in this thread so far and not one of you have answered. If you claim they're all fake, you must have some theory as to how that happened.

Your question was already answered in previous posts but maybe this will help,







The "so called" amateur home videos were not as "amateur" as you might think. If you do a little research you might figure this out for yourself.

Originally posted by warisover
Thanks for the invite, but I'm afraid talking to the brainwashed masses will not prove or disprove anything, the government gave them a plane on 9/11 so a plane it is. The few people who have managed to see through the fog of mass mind control and media manipulation know the truth but proving it to the brainwashed majority is another story.

You know what, you're absolutely right. The people who believe that planes hit 9/11 due to the overwhelming evidence of video footage, photos, news coverage, and witness testimony are the brainwashed ones, as opposed those who believe that all videos and photos were doctored, the news coverage was pre recorded, and all witness testimony is fake, without any evidence to back their case. But hey, people including some in the truther moverment are ridiculing you, so you guys must be right!

reply to post by warisover


In other words, what you are saying here is "I don't have the power of my convictions to come and discuss this with you".

Which basically means you don't have faith in your own theory - right?

And if you don't have faith in your own theory - why do you propogate it?

Please, reconsider. I'd really love to discuss this with you.

How did the people who carried out the "attacks" ensure that they had every single amateur video that was taken in NYC that day? Why are there no videos with no planes on them?

It isn't enough to say "they rounded up all the videos" because leaving aside the near impossibility of such a task, I'm asking something different. How would they have known for sure that they could get hold of every video taken that day by amateurs?

Do they have a database of camcorders sold to every New Yorker? Did they go round and make sure every camcorder owner didn't use it to record the attacks?

Originally posted by neformore
Which basically means you don't have faith in your own theory - right?

I've challenged all three of those that believe no planes hit the towers, to a debate in the debate forum. None have obliged. That tells me they don't really have evidence and proof like they claim. And like you said, they are not confident in their theories to discuss them on an intellectual level either in the debate forum, or on the live radio show.

To those that I've challenged to a debate: I'll be there on the radio show as well if you change your mind and want to discuss "no planes".

ahhh, back from vacation... catching up on some posts....

Originally posted by warisover

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

EXACTLY the irrefutable point and argument i've been challenging bonez and others with for years now which they refuse to answer or show how its wrong.

why? because they can't.

well said WIO

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.

no its not that simple... you'd like everyone to believe it is, but the fact is that the nature of the evidence is a complex puzzle based on a psyops that must be analyzed in context, academically and methodically which cannot be done within the parameters that restrict all the data and material that are essential for the proof you're talking about.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.

the only thing definitive is that you nor anyone has ever proven real planes hit the towers or the evidence supporting NRPT and TV FAKERY is conclusively false or disinfo.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.

We don't need to accept the debate for reasons i explained right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and you ignored AGAIN for obvious reasons.

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

and no matter how many times you do, it still doesn't make it true

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Orion7911]

reply to post by warisover


I am shocked that anyone is still making these silly claims. This is absolutely one of the worse ideas related to the 9/11 conspiracies and when associated with the other conspiracies, makes all people interested in 9/11 conspiracies look like tinfoil hat wearing lunatics.

reply to post by Orion7911


Perhaps you'd like to answer the question I pose immediately above?

Or is your waffle about "parameters of complex psyops blah" just a pretentious way of saying that you're going to look only at evidence which suits you?

I want a no plane theorist to come talk to us on the ATS Live! show.

If any of you have the power of your convictions, and actually believe this story instead of just wanting to propagate a myth for the sake of it, then surely one of you can do that?

Come and explain it to us. We're not hard to find. Drop me a U2U if you want to come on.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by warisover
Same goes for this SMOKING GUN clip. Watch the "plane" "flying" into the building, there is NO RESISTANCE, it's going the same speed through the building as it was going through the air, hmmmm. If that had been a real plane crashing into a building there would have been resistance, also a real plane would have crumpled upon impact. C,mon people put your thinking caps on it's really not that hard to figure out.

Tell me...

How many 150 ton airliners have you witnessed ploughing into the side of a building at 350mph+ in order to make that particular judgement call?

As 9/11 is the rule, and not the exception to the rule - because up to that date no one had flown a commercial jet liner into the side of a building deliberately - I'm interested in how you decide to frame your answer
[edit on 4/5/10 by neformore]

Neformore... perhaps the more pertinent question should be how any 150 ton airliner could even reach and/or maintain 590mph near speed of sound ASL well over 100+mph VNE at the hands of amateur pilots let alone plough into the side of a STEEL building with reinforced concrete designed to withstand multiple impacts without ANY reaction to the plane whatsoever clearly violating newtons law of motion.

Bonez and others try to argue the plane could achieve such speeds in a power dive which is allegedly what they claim occurred even though for one, theres plenty of contradictory footage showing no such dive occurring... but again, the dive issue is irrelevant since the plane could never have even come close to 590mph ASL without having suffered structural failure and been uncontrollable especially by such novices they were.

With all due respect, I'm interested how you frame you answer as well.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisoverif you know anything about physics) THERE IS NO RESISTANCE!

Bolts and welds don't offer much resistance against a 300,000-pound object traveling circa 500mph. We've been over this exact point numerous times. To keep bringing it up, and especially in the same thread, equates to spamming and knowingly spreading purposeful disinformation (which is in violation of #1 of ATS's T&C's).

Before you can claim there were real planes and move to the next step calling nrpt and fakery nonsense, you have to PROVE A) flight 11 and 175 were in fact the objects that hit the towers and the videos are in fact real, and B) that such a plane could have maintained let alone achieved well over circa 500mph without suffering structural failure asl and have reached its target intact or have even been maneuvered by amateur pilots as the OCT claims...

The EVIDENCE overwhelming says it couldn't have been done. But i guess since physical laws didn't apply on 9/11, its no surprise you think it did.

double post

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]

double post

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
Before you can claim there were real planes and move to the next step calling nrpt and fakery nonsense, you have to PROVE A) flight 11 and 175 were in fact the objects that hit the towers

WRONG!!!
Before you can PROVE flight 11 and 175 were in fact the objects that hit the towers you MUST first PROVE that there ever even were towers to hit in the first place! How can an "object" hit something that was never been proven to exist?????????

This is another testimate to a flawed theory. Prove this prove that. Prove that we are not in the matrix and everything we see, hear, taste, and touch are not just electrical signals interpreted by our brians while our "real" bodies are just batteries for machines.

I can easily say it's not possible to fake 5 different angles of the same plane crash within an hour of it happening but no one can prove to me that the WTC towers ever existed in the first place.

So if you're going to make claims like and take the "I'm correct untill you prove me wrong" approach then why not just go all out, as I have done, and just say there never were any WTC towers! NO ONE CAN EVER PROVE THEY EVER EXISTED EVER!

I even have a confession that the towers NEVER EXISTED EVER!!!!!

Source: seanwolfhill911.blogspot.com...

"The World Trade Center never existed. It was a hologram"

"I should know. I worked the projector for five years."


www.democraticunderground.com...

"The belief the towers existed was created by clever use of advertising and photoshop pictures of the NY skyline."

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]