No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 34
19
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Titorite was inadequately prepared for your ambush and engaged a battle that was rigged against him

Titorite challenged me to the debate and lost, plain and simple. If you think you are "better prepared", by all means, set up the debate. I'll debate any no-planer, any time.......... and win every single time.


and I explained why you probably would. It would only be a pseudo-win giving false bragging rights and does nothing to prove your case or disprove the no plane position. In which case what purpose would such a debate serve? Why would you want to debate somewhere else other than a forum designed for debate? Unless of course
you can only debate where unreal parameters are set that puts restrictions on what can be debated and limits CONTEXT which really can only benefit those who support the official version of events. And thats something you refuse to address because its a valid concern that titorite hadn't thought about. So yeah, you might very well win every time. But the win whether you or he won, in actuality proves or disproves nothing unless ALL the evidence can be presented in full context and without restrictions.



edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Translation: If I can't respond to direct questions by saying "Yeah, but what about... [something else entirely unrelated]" then it's not fair.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Translation: If I can't respond to direct questions by saying "Yeah, but what about... [something else entirely unrelated]" then it's not fair.


translation: I'm unable to show how what you explained isn't a valid observation, so i'll evade it and move on to another tactic in hopes no one will notice my fail.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Lol - really? I'm absolutely able to show why your "observation" is so completely useless. I'd argue whether there's much point, since it's so breathtakingly obvious, but anyway...

You suggest that Bonez would win the argument, but it doesn't count as a real "win" because his interlocutor is apparently not allowed to respond outside the context of the argument. This is eminently stupid.
edit on 1-2-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
4. The fake CNN video which shows a large commercial aircraft disappearing into one of the towers like a hot knife melting its way through butter?
Can you please provide the professional video analysis that shows how any CNN video has been faked? If you can't provide a professional, provable analysis that shows video fakery, then there is no fakery and you should add the words (in my opinion) because without verifiable proof, it is only your opinion.


NO, its far more than a mere opinion that the CNN video contains visual EVIDENCE of fakery.

Can you show proof from a professional video analysis that the CNN video is REAL? If you can't and the anomalies cannot be explained by you or anyone, then its a reasonable assumption that what appears inconsistent with reality, is exactly what the visual evidence is showing. not enough for you to ignore the anomalies by using your "it hasn't been analyzed by and expert" excuse you fall back on when you don't want to or are afraid to confront the evidence!


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
8. The fake witnesses on the phone who called in the networks, alleging to have witnessed the second airplane striking the tower
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Can you please show verifiable proof that any of the witnesses were "fake"? If you cannot, then you should add the words (in my opinion) because without verifiable proof, it is only your opinion.


SO WHATS THE DIFFERENCE IN REVERSE?

You and those who support the official story or other aspects, claim that (these) WITNESSES are evidence that support certain CLAIMS or theories which includes being PROOF of real planes. So why when it suits your case are you allowed to use Witnesses as evidence or proof something is true? Thats another classic disinfo technique.

The overall point is that you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you expect those against you do. Or are you going to deny that FACT? Its a classic disinfo tactic and only shows how closed-minded you are at best... and SphinxMontreal said it the best:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cannot understand these alleged self-proclaimed truthers who take it personally and attack the no-plane theories with such viciousness. What's the deal with that insane train of thought? This was a perfect psyops operation because of the numerous idiots like this who unwittingly push the agenda of the perps. They're just too stupid to figure this out.

There were many levels to the 9/11 operation. If you're going to get caught up on just a few aspects of the attacks (example: planes or no planes, demo collapse or no demo), you're just going to end up going around in circles. One has to take a step back and see the wider picture to really try and understand who and what was behind these incidents.

You see...when you start any investigation, a professional investigator starts with a clean slate and DOES NOT DISCOUNT ANYTHING off the bat. He accumulates his evidence (physical evidence, witness statements, video, audio, whatever) analyzes it and then forms a working theory as to what happened.

A lot of you seem to have this investigation business backwards. You do not go into an investigation by already having drawn a conclusion and trying to prove or disprove the conclusion. Again, you start with a clean slate and when your investigation is complete, you let the chips fall where they may. And I don't care how many stupid low quality CGI green screen videos or fake photos of aircraft parts you show me!

An investigator is not paid to make dimwit knee jerk off the cuff assumptions - he is paid to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation.



Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
17. The fact that there is absolutely no credible video or photographic evidence, of airplane seats, cabinets, luggage, engines, mechanical parts, personal effects, etc.?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's an aircraft seat that fell through the air into the back of a car:


PROVE IT FELL THROUGH THE AIR ON 9/11
PROVE ITS BEEN FORENSICALLY & INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED as BELONGING TO ANY of the FLIGHTS
PROVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN PLANTED
PROVE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING & OBFUSCATION OR WITH-HOLDING EVIDENCE on 9/11

Its not enough for you to CLAIM an aircraft seat "fell through the air" while at the same time demanding others to PROVE their claims. Or in other words, lets again look at what you've said and use as a justification to deny things:

Originally posted by _BoneZ
Can you please provide the professional video analysis that shows how any CNN video has been faked? If you can't provide a professional, provable analysis that shows video fakery, then there is no fakery and you should add the words (in my opinion) because without verifiable proof, it is only your opinion.


So using your own logic, you've just debunked yourself because your claim that the seat fell through the air, is nothing more than an opinion based on speculation. Why is it that you can't see the hypocrisy in your own expectations and standards? Omg.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's an aircraft engine that fell through the air and crumpled up on the ground:


SEE ABOVE

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's an aircraft wheel after falling through the air:


SEE ABOVE


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Over on the very right-hand side, you can see all of the aircraft and other debris that has smashed through the building and coming out of the other side:


which proves what exactly?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The above are just a few of the many aircraft parts recorded in NYC. A simple Google search will turn up many more images.


...all which haven't been forensically identified nor passed through any real chain of proper evidence handling and custody. So how can you make claims like you do about it being reliable or proof of anything?

Better yet, lets use your own logic and words: "can you provide the professional analysis" that shows and proves what you claim?


Iow, see above again


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
18. The claim that a landing gear fragment with wheel in tact was able to fly through both sides of the Tower, drop 800 feet and be able to land on the street near a scaffolding with no sign of damage to the surrounding street or area?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Looking at the image of the landing gear above, I see a downed light pole laying in front of the wheel. That light pole must've got tired of standing and fell on its own. Or maybe the light pole got startled from the landing gear falling there and the light pole just fainted?


Dodge noted.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
However, I cannot understand these alleged self-proclaimed truthers who take it personally and attack the no-plane theories with such viciousness.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Maybe because there's no truth to the no-plane "theories'?


and Maybe there is.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Maybe because we don't want those disinformation "theories" associated with us?


If you could ANSWER and EXPLAIN the anomalies, maybe you'd get your way.

The fact you nor anyone has been able to logically or adequately if at all explain anything, is why no real plane theorists continue to grow.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Oh, and it's not "self-proclaimed truthers", it's the whole 9/11 truth movement.


And if only that were true, you might have more credibility. Parts of it perhaps, but asserting every single aspect doesn't, is at the very least disingenuous if not a blatant lie.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not one single research organization in the 9/11 truth movement supports the no-plane disinfo. Most of the research organizations have even banned the discussion of the no-plane disinformation. In my thread here I give a few examples of 9/11 research organizations' statements regarding the no-plane and DEW disinformation.The research organizations have made it abundantly clear that they do not support, nor want any association with those "theories", period.


Even if any of that were all true, it doesn't disprove the evidence, facts and arguments that have been presented...in fact, you and those you claim don't support it, have failed to refute all the evidence that supports Nrpt and Tv Fakery, let alone many times even address it with anything more than empty assertions and claims.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_ there's been no "video analyzing" in the no-plane crowd. All there has been is deliberate disinformation spread around with poor-quality, low-res internet videos on YouTube.


And there's been no "video analyzing" by those who have used the videos as evidence and proof of planes in the planer crowd. The Burden of PROOF is upon those who first CLAIMED they prove real commercial planes ie flight 175, 11, 77 and 93 crashed anywhere on 9/11... to this day, that claim has never been proven.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If you want any credibility what-so-ever with the video fakery/CGI garbage, you have to obtain copies of the originals and have them professionally analyzed for fakery. If you cannot do this, you have zero verifiable, provable evidence, period.


and you have zero verifiable provable evidence that the planes were real commercial boeings ie flight 175, 11, 77 and 93.

Until then, most logical intelligent reasonable persons with an open mind, will agree Nrpt and Tv fakery haven't been debunked by any stretch of your imagination.

The opinion that there's no evidence or those who support nrpt have no credibility, is irrelevant when evidence
does exist that supports it and hasn't been proven invalid. Many said the same thing about 9/11 being an inside job early on and now MOST of those now believe the opposite. Its one thing to claim there no credible evidence in existence, but quite another to prove it. Good luck, cuz to this day you and everyone has failed to do so.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You do not go into an investigation by already having drawn a conclusion and trying to prove or disprove the conclusion.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The no-plane disinformation was thoroughly looked at by myself and many others in the 9/11 truth movement several years ago, with a clean slate. It was quickly found that there is zero evidence for the claims. Been that way ever since.


Yet the evidence proves quite the opposite.

See above.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nice try at the cop-out thought. Pull the "but you never even looked at the evidence" card. It was looked at, very thoroughly. It's still disinformation.


And yet you still haven't PROVEN that claim or opinion.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
And I don't care how many stupid low quality CGI green screen videos or fake photos of aircraft parts you show me!
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'll remind you and every single other no-planer to recognize this point when showing YouTube videos and calling fakery, CGI, or any other such nonsense. You have to obtain copies of the originals and have them professionally analyzed, or you're wasting your time and everyone elses. Plain and simple.


The only way your premise is remotely true, is if the youtube vids etc, are not taken from the original sources which can easily be proven they are from the original sources in most cases like the NAUDET footage which has IRREFUTABLE evidence of fakery and tampering via the obvious edits for starters.

Plain and simple.

Now the more interesting and profound question might be is, if you claim even the Naudet footage isn't from their original source and has been edited, where is their original and WHO did the EDITS?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As I've said over and over: if you or any other no-planer think you've got enough evidence to debate in a moderated forum, then set up the debate. Otherwise, there is no debate and the no-planer side automatically loses, and thus proves you really don't have any verifiable evidence.


And I've explained why thats a fallacious premise which you've completely evaded because you know my points are valid.

Just because its your opinion that anyone not debating you is an automatic loss for the no planers or that there's no credible evidence to support it, doesn't make it true. Sorry. I suggest you revise your strategy and argument because its not changed in years even though the evidence has.
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
PROVE IT FELL THROUGH THE AIR ON 9/11
PROVE ITS BEEN FORENSICALLY & INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED as BELONGING TO ANY of the FLIGHTS
PROVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN PLANTED
PROVE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING & OBFUSCATION OR WITH-HOLDING EVIDENCE on 9/11

.
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: edit


Quite frankly, the above rant, is typical of the...insanity... of which so much of the "truth" movement (not all) operates under. It shows that there is absolutely NO way to present them with any evidence they would accept. If you presented them with a sworn statement, backed up by video of the driver who was driving the car that the seat crashed into.....he would scream "the driver is a government plant" or some other nonsense.

There is always a reason why they will not accept the facts.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
A wild troll appears out of nowhere!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
PROVE IT FELL THROUGH THE AIR ON 9/11
PROVE ITS BEEN FORENSICALLY & INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED as BELONGING TO ANY of the FLIGHTS
PROVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN PLANTED
PROVE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING & OBFUSCATION OR WITH-HOLDING EVIDENCE on 9/11

Quite frankly, the above rant, is typical of the...insanity...


yet you cannot show ANY evidence or prove exactly how it is. Those are very reasonable & logical questions to ask especially considering how nonsensical the OS has been proven beyond a doubt to be.

But If its so insane, why is it that you can't support your claim other than the assertion it is?

You actually support a claim from someone that makes another wild claim that an unverifiable photo taken by unknown persons in an unknown unverifiable location and date, shows a seat from a plane that allegedly was from a plane that crashed on 9/11 and supposedly flew through the air and landed there?

After all the problems, inconsistencies and contradictions in the OS, you don't see any reason to question this alleged "evidence"?
You believe thats rational?

So Let me get this straight even further; The person making the CLAIM is asked/challenged to PROVE it, and those asking for PROOF are somehow insane?
Just Wow.

Its that type of mindset which contribute to why the perps haven't been brought to justice. Its why proponents of the TM and even the Nrpt, are alive and well and growing because not everyone blindly accepts as truth whatever they're told by the media or government like you do. Clearly you and many here do so for some strange reason, yet cannot offer any logical basis for doing so.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
of which so much of the "truth" movement (not all) operates under. It shows that there is absolutely NO way to present them with any evidence they would accept. If you presented them with a sworn statement, backed up by video of the driver who was driving the car that the seat crashed into.....he would scream "the driver is a government plant" or some other nonsense.


and the Exact opposite can be said by those who make such unsupported accusations and lack basic critical thinking skills to analyze and use basic methods of seeking truth by questioning claims and demanding supporting evidence. So Your comments only validate what SphinxMontreal explained, but the difference is there's far more credible evidence and arguments that support no planers and tv fakery than the argument against.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
There is always a reason why they will not accept the facts.


And its because the evidence claimed that supposedly proves real boeings crashed like above, DOESN'T nor has any factual or verified basis which is even a standard bonez claims must be used when determining veracity... but for some bizarre reason, you have no problem that it doesn't even when there's been very valid reasons WHY it doesn't that you and many others have refused to address or refute because its easier to make more claims and opinions without actually having to prove them with real evidence or facts... Thats the true insanity and its coming from those who support the most insane conspiracy theory in the history of the world.

So whats your excuse? Because by your logic, I can upload any photo of an airplane seat real or photo-shopped, claiming it fell from the sky from any plane on the planet, and anyone that asks me to prove the claim must be insane because everyone should just blindly accept it as fact?
The frightening thing is thats exactly the type of thinking that most Americans have. No wonder the Perps were able to dupe so many and continue to get away with it.
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Thank you for illustrating my point. Next?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


Thank you for illustrating my point. Next?


and your evasion proves mine yet again... i rest my case.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111


Can you show proof from a professional video analysis that the CNN video is REAL?


Can you prove to me, without a shadow of doubt, that you are not being paid to advance these no-plane theories by the CIA?

I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Wow...talk about clueless. I mean, you cant be serious rt? You look up...theres as explosion from the plane entering the otherside of the building...one plane-one tower head on...another plane-at angle-another tower.

If anything didnt happen...it was this guys observation...and I use that term loosely. Eat your carrots sir......



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Wow...talk about clueless. I mean, you cant be serious rt? You look up...theres as explosion from the plane entering the otherside of the building...one plane-one tower head on...another plane-at angle-another tower.

If anything didnt happen...it was this guys observation...and I use that term loosely. Eat your carrots sir......

What?
I've read it for times and still can't make sense of it



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
Can you show proof from a professional video analysis that the CNN video is REAL?


Can you prove to me, without a shadow of doubt, that you are not being paid to advance these no-plane theories by the CIA?

I doubt it.


if you set up a paypal account and make it worth my time I will. Lol



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I havent evaded anything. I have correctly pointed out that there is absolutely no way to prove the evidence to you.

Hundreds of people saw the second plane....you would claim they were all government plants.
Dozens of people had airliner wreckage fall onto the streets around them...you would claim the "wreckage fairy" was tossing parts to the ground.

It does not matter, you will always find a reason not to accept the evidence. And while we are speaking of evasion, why didnt you answer this question when it was asked. How did the images of the second airliner get onto all of the private cameras in the hands of private citizens that day?


Oh wait, I forgot...they all worked for the government.....



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Wow...talk about clueless. I mean, you cant be serious rt? You look up...theres as explosion from the plane entering the otherside of the building...one plane-one tower head on...another plane-at angle-another tower.

If anything didnt happen...it was this guys observation...and I use that term loosely. Eat your carrots sir......

What?
I've read it for times and still can't make sense of it


neither can I. Obviously a newbie who accidentally bumped into a no planer thread



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I havent evaded anything. I have correctly pointed out that there is absolutely no way to prove the evidence to you.


Thats because I've presented an argument thats irrefutable and there is no way to logically prove evidence
you don't have.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
Hundreds of people saw the second plane....


No, Hundreds of people saw what the perps wanted them to see which may have looked like a plane from a distance... and plenty of evidence exists to support that.

oh and hundreds of people didn't see any plane who contradict what you claim they saw.

and still others saw a missile

But of course you conveniently forgot to mention that FACT right?


Originally posted by vipertech0596
you would claim they were all government plants.


No, just some. and there's evidence to support it.

The others were just victims of the hoax/psy-ops.... which has evidence to support it as well.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
Dozens of people had airliner wreckage fall onto the streets around them...


so please provide evidence and examples to support that claim including names of the witnesses, their POV, where they were, the approximate time and which "plane"/event it was from.

Once you've done that, please show the wreckage you're talking about and forensic evidence that it
belonged to any of the planes on 9/11.

Of course i'm sure you agree and know these questions and requests are BASIC standards and protocols in any real crime scene investigation.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
you would claim the "wreckage fairy" was tossing parts to the ground.


If you can't provide any evidence above, yes that would be one possible conclusion.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
It does not matter, you will always find a reason not to accept the evidence.


What evidence?

but those like you will always find a reason to blindly accept whatever the media and government tell you is evidence whether it was falsified or not.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
And while we are speaking of evasion, why didnt you answer this question when it was asked. How did the images of the second airliner get onto all of the private cameras in the hands of private citizens that day?


If their footage was confiscated by the FBI prior to release which was in fact what happened in nearly every known case, why wouldn't that be enough to put the footage into question as suspect? I've seen several posts
address this issue. Oh but let me guess, you missed those responses. lol

So again then, How do you know the citizens were "private"? How do you know their footage wasn't tampered with?

Oh, and YES, there is evidence that supports the claim that the amateur witnesses and their amateur footage weren't amateur or private. If there was no tampering of amateur footage, please explain evidence of fakery and tampering in the naudet footage, or the luc courchesne footage for starters.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
Oh wait, I forgot...they all worked for the government.....


Nah, Not all... but then who knows when there's evidence exposing several witnesses and videographers as having connections to the media and government.

Even lloyd admitted he was involved...

but of course, let me guess, you think he was tricked into that confession
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2011 by truthseekr1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I will stick to living in reality. Not the fantasy world you live in.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
reply to post by skunknuts
 


This theory does not discredit the entire truther movement. We are all looking to get to the bottom of this crime that we know was carried out by the Bush administration and others. A real investigation would show that there were NO PLANES used in the attacks. Please use your common sense.


You are asking others to use common sense and yet here are you are...clearly lacking in common sense yourself. You claim the videos are fake. What we saw on TV was fake. I can accept that to a point. Your argument however totally falls apart when you take into account the hundreds of home videos from that day that clearly show planes hitting the towers. You fail to take into account the thousands of eye witnesses in New York who saw with their own two eyes, planes hit the towers. Instead, you cherry pick eyewitnesses. You pick the few who say they saw an explosion but not the actual plane impact and use it to build this whole nonsense theory.

I have to ask, why did anyone even bother to dig this thread up from the basement?
edit on 1-2-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 


I will stick to living in reality. Not the fantasy world you live in.


Right, I guess you'd rather live in a fantasy world like 9/11 where you don't have to confront the evidence, where passports and drivers licenses can survive infernos that melt and vaporize steel, office fires can cause steel skyscrapers to free-fall into their footprints, boeings can vanish and burrow themselves 25ft underground, amateur witnesses are psychics with more initial knowledge than engineers did months in advance, and where the laws of physics don't apply... I'm sure your ego is safe there and Peter pan would feel right at home.

so yeah, go back to sleep, your government has everything under their control, literally.



new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join