No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 35
19
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

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.


and your argument falls apart because its obvious you've never done any real research on what you're criticizing and imply can't be explained logically nor has any evidence to support, when in fact every single one of your points have been addressed and debunked in countless threads and posts you've failed to take into account.
If I can show even one of your points thats been addressed in detail, your argument fails.

But Let me guess, you haven't seen them.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 





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


And this is why its useless to hae a discussion with you. You believe that steel vaporized it didnt. You dont believe that things like passports and driver's licenses will survive, when items like that survive EVERY airliner crash (that happens on dry land..else some fool will ask about water crashes) You believe it was just office fires that fell the buildings....when it was the fires, combined with the damage they suffered. You think that boeings vanished, when in reality all four of the jets that day left plenty of wreckage. You also dont believe an airliner at high speed couldnt burrow its way into the earth of an closed strip mine. Then you rely on your limited views of science.......

Like I said, I will stick with reality. Say hi to Alice for me though.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Can we get back to real discussion please?

Lets talk about the major disagreements between both parties:

The media fakery point.
No Planers say that the photos and videos where doctored or fabricated, Real Planers say they are genuine and they often use them as evidence to support their theories. I see a clear conflict of interest here.
Jet neither Party has performed forensic analysis of the media in question. Claiming it is self-evident is clearly not enough. (On both sides)

The witnesses.
Real Planers say that there are very many witnesses who can confirm that planes really did hit these Buildings No Planes say that there aren't any witnesses and they were fabricated by the media and use that as evidence again. Conflict of interest again.
As above no party has compiled a complete list of witnesses, independent if they were interviewed by the media or not. Just stating that a witness is honest or dishonest is not enough. There have be attempts made to check if the witness was actually there independent of the persons statements or background.
If one lived near the WTC they would have recites from the flat they lived in, if they were employed nearby.. and so on. Documents could at least prove that a person might have been a witness so we can at least rule out made up witnesses.

It would be very difficult do discard such a witnesses since the witnesses themselves would have to been lying.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
the NAUDET footage which has IRREFUTABLE evidence of fakery and tampering via the obvious edits for starters.

ATS member mister.old.school did something that not a single no-planer has done to prove their point: he purchased a high-definition copy of the Naudet footage and thoroughly ripped apart your arguments. His thread can be found here.

You won't find any no-planer that will spend their own money to obtain original copies because it would debunk their own claims.


On the other hand, you keep claiming "evidence" this and "IRREFUTABLE evidence" that, but what you aren't doing is posting any of this "irrefutable evidence" that you have repeatedly been asked to post. That's called dodging.

You've typed pages of text that wastes bandwidth and forum space, but you haven't posted one single piece of "irrefutable evidence". People have to ask themselves why you won't post any evidence when continuously asked. The only conclusion one can come up with is:

You don't have any "evidence" to post!




Originally posted by truthseekr1111
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.

Thank you for conceding that you have no real evidence and that I would win every time. If you don't have enough real evidence, and can't present it in the moderated and time-allotted way that is required in the debate forum, then:

You don't have any "evidence" to post!


All you're doing is using excuses to explain why you or any other no-planer won't debate me in a moderated forum. You have no convincing evidence to remotely prove your case and thus you admit that I would win every time.

And this is what happens when people are caught spreading disinformation. When asked to prove their disinformation, they type pages and pages of text without providing any evidence to prove their claims. Then when asked to debate in a moderated forum, all you get is excuses about why it's automatically set up to prove the no-planes disinformation is wrong.

There's really nothing else to say here. Your deliberated dodging of posting "irrefutable evidence" and making up excuses about why you can't or won't debate, proves that the video fakery/no-planes "theories" are, in fact, disinformation with no provable, verifiable basis of evidence.

We're done here.





edit on 2-2-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
BoneZ you are engaging in the same kind of thing. The work done with the higher resolution footage doesn't debunk anything. It does dis-prove one theory about how one specific shot was manipulated yes.
(Evidence within the scope of the discussion that is.)

I does not however dis-prove media fakery per se, but the desperate fronts in the discussion will grab every straw instead of admitting:

Based on available evidence I cannot say for certain if the available footage is genuine and planes really did hit these buildings.
edit on 2-2-2011 by kybertech because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseekr1111

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




Because the CIA are unable to use paypal?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

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

And this is why its useless to hae a discussion with you. You believe that steel vaporized it didnt.


No, thats what OS supporters and the MEDIA claimed and tried to pimp to the world.

wasn't something i came up with

But Glad you agree the notion is absurd.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
You dont believe that things like passports and driver's licenses will survive, when items like that survive EVERY airliner crash (that happens on dry land..else some fool will ask about water crashes)


Not in the conditions they were found in and allegedly would have gone through... Its an impossibility. And no one with any real common sense who knows the facts of each case would ever claim otherwise.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
You believe it was just office fires that fell the buildings...


No, thats what the OS claimed.

Not me.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
.when it was the fires, combined with the damage they suffered.


which was caused by the fires...or in other words, fires were the cause of the collapses.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
You think that boeings vanished,


No, OS supporters pimp that rubbish.

Not me. Glad you agree boeings don't vanish.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
when in reality all four of the jets that day left plenty of wreckage.


yet not one single piece of that alleged wreckage has ever been forensically identified and proven to have come from any of the four "jets". but those like you accept these ridiculous claims that they came from those four jets on nothing but pure faith in what the OS, Media and government tell you.

What reality are you living in anyway? one where you blindly accept whatever you're told and ignore facts and evidence that suggest otherwise?? SCARY.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
You also dont believe an airliner at high speed couldnt burrow its way into the earth of an closed strip mine. Then you rely on your limited views of science.......


No, I rely on basic common sense, the facts and science that when combined, prove it was impossible.


Originally posted by vipertech0596
Like I said, I will stick with reality. Say hi to Alice for me though.


Whatever you say Peter Pan.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Friends, Brothers and Sisters:

Look how many pages....most in defense against the offense. I think once a post gets to perhaps 3 pages of replies, if they seem as hostile as this one began, we should end there. The OP will accept nothing as proof, and wants to debate that which is obvious and without using the most basic of common sense in leiu of all evidence.

O.P.? If you need to argue...stand in front of the mirror. There you will have a ready and most agreeable adversary. And in fact you will always be right and win in your world of fantasy. We still respect your right to do so.

I think most of us see the futility arguing with one who demands proof where proof is not neccessary, warranted or required to understand all the presented facts in this particular case.

We've better things to discuss and debate. This one is hopeless. The real question becomes why is it so important for the O.P. to be right? Proof was requested, and almost all refuted. The cause is lost. Lets move on....



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
ITT are Internet Zealots of the worst kind, find yourself a nice spot.
please
edit on 2-2-2011 by kybertech because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
the NAUDET footage which has IRREFUTABLE evidence of fakery and tampering via the obvious edits for starters.

ATS member mister.old.school did something that not a single no-planer has done to prove their point: he purchased a high-definition copy of the Naudet footage and thoroughly ripped apart your arguments. His thread can be found here.


and in that same thread, several members including matrix911 debunked and ripped apart HIS arguments.

Oh and your dodge on the Naudet fakery noted.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You won't find any no-planer that will spend their own money to obtain original copies because it would debunk their own claims.


It wouldn't make any difference when the "copies" are in fact from the originals.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
On the other hand, you keep claiming "evidence" this and "IRREFUTABLE evidence" that, but what you aren't doing is posting any of this "irrefutable evidence" that you have repeatedly been asked to post. That's called dodging.


No, its called waiting for you to present examples point by point.

dodging is what you're doing by saying you won't debate me in a forum for debate but another "special" type of debate that has restrictions because you know you can't win outside it as its been shown many times.

oh and dodging is also what you just did above in the first line of your response.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You've typed pages of text that wastes bandwidth and forum space, but you haven't posted one single piece of "irrefutable evidence".


Nor have you... you keep claiming you've debunked this or that but haven't shown any supporting evidence that proves what you claim. If thats how you operate, why should anyone else be any different when answering you?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
People have to ask themselves why you won't post any evidence when continuously asked. The only conclusion one can come up with is:
You don't have any "evidence" to post!


And thats exactly what others have concluded when you've refused to and just tell people to "debate" you in your absurd challenge that I've already explained is pointless which btw you still haven't responded to showing how what I've explained is wrong.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by truthseekr1111
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.

Thank you for conceding that you have no real evidence and that I would win every time. If you don't have enough real evidence, and can't present it in the moderated and time-allotted way that is required in the debate forum, then:
You don't have any "evidence" to post!


To which I've explained WHY such a debate is pointless and doesn't invalidate the evidence nor prove there isn't any. This entire forum is designed to DEBATE, so why would anyone want to put restrictions on evidence or a debate unless those putting the restrictions and setting parameters have an agenda and know it rigs the debate in the favor of the OS. Its the same principle that the MEDIA and Government perps counted on by controlling the flow of information and restricting it. Its what maintains the status quo and perpetuates an environment of censorship where only certain information is allowed to be dispersed. So the only ones who would want to use that tactic, are those who fear losing arguments and being exposed.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All you're doing is using excuses to explain why you or any other no-planer won't debate me in a moderated forum. You have no convincing evidence to remotely prove your case and thus you admit that I would win every time.


I've explained very logically and reasonably why the type of debate you'll only have now, is worthless and you're just upset because you know I'm right. I have plenty of convincing evidence to support what I claim and I can point to thousands of posts, threads and/or sources that have also done it. You want to debate me or others, go right ahead and choose whatever subject or examples you'd like and i'll be happy to debate you point by point.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And this is what happens when people are caught spreading disinformation. When asked to prove their disinformation, they type pages and pages of text without providing any evidence to prove their claims.


which is exactly what you've done and continue to.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Then when asked to debate in a moderated forum, all you get is excuses about why it's automatically set up to prove the no-planes disinformation is wrong.


this IS a "moderated" forum. LOL. so why would you need to enter another moderated forum within a moderated forum? That is unless... well,,, uhm see above ^ cuz i'm tired of explaining it to you. I can't be any more clear.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There's really nothing else to say here. Your deliberated dodging of posting "irrefutable evidence" and making up excuses about why you can't or won't debate, proves that the video fakery/no-planes "theories" are, in fact, disinformation with no provable, verifiable basis of evidence.
We're done here.
edit on 2-2-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


If it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead. But Like I said, I'm willing to debate you any time, but not on your terms where there's restrictions that you can hide behind and are stacked in your favor. I'm onto your game Bonez and it won't work with me.

At least there's nothing else for you to say here and you can go back to your fantasy world that you've disproven no real planers. Must be bliss Bonez



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
O.P.? Over and over again you keep referring to "your fantasy world". There is a reason you must be so familiar with it. Odd you make that distinction from experience. Over and over again. It labels your efforts as misguided with that continual reference.

As such and according to yourself ...we hear over and over....you must be very well informed with experience in...to use your own words....in "your fantasy world".

What color is the sky in your world?

Mod: Close this thread. It is futile!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I am new on here but HAD TO respond to this. How can you claim this? I suppose tens of thousands of New Yorkers who witnessed with their own two eyes are actaully all liars. Sorry, but you could not be more off the mark. I suppose what I witnessed that day, what friends and co-workers witnessed did not really happen and we are part of a mass conspiracy. I do not claim to know what happened at The Pentagon, but I can say with upmost certainty living in New York and working on Wall Street ( aprox 3 blocks from the WTC) that 2 planes did INDEED go into those buildings.You should Thank God you did not witness it first hand, as so many off us had to.
edit on 21-3-2011 by RedSongbird777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Dont worry these no plane threads are moving to the HOAX area and are not welcomed by ATS.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Dont worry these no plane threads are moving to the HOAX area and are not welcomed by ATS.
***********************************************************


Good to know,The No plane belongs in the Hoax bin. I do not buy into the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories either; however I understand people have their opinions/ ideas. Having said that; to say planes did not hit the WTC buildings at all is downright ridiculous and somewhat insulting to those ( myself included) who did witness it firsthand.
edit on 21-3-2011 by RedSongbird777 because: typo



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedSongbird777
Dont worry these no plane threads are moving to the HOAX area and are not welcomed by ATS.
***********************************************************
Good to know,The No plane belongs in the Hoax bin.


Any time a post or thread is deleted or moved to the hoax forum, especially an NRPT thread, its usually a classic disinfo tactic or attempt to censor and hide a TRUTH because it cannot be disproven or debunked.
The level of fear and denial there is on the NRPT and lengths the PTB/cointel will go to discredit NRPT, is astounding and quite comical tbh. It only further proves to genuine truthseekers, that NRPT is NOT a theory.

Jim Fetzers Tv Fakery thread being moved, is yet another example of the relentless disinfo campaign being waged to hide the truth being exposed.


Originally posted by RedSongbird777
I do not buy into the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories either;


But of course, as usual, rather than actually attempting to show exactly how and where its wrong, its easier to
make unsupported claims that prove or disprove nothing.


Originally posted by RedSongbird777
however I understand people have their opinions/ ideas.


NRPT and TV fakery are supported by overwhelming facts and evidence, not opinions or 'ideas" which is actually what your claims are based on since you offer ZERO evidence for your argument. Typical.


Originally posted by RedSongbird777
Having said that; to say planes did not hit the WTC buildings at all is downright ridiculous


and its too bad you're unable to offer any evidence to prove your OPINION that it is which is really worthless in measuring truth.


Originally posted by RedSongbird777
and somewhat insulting to those ( myself included) who did witness it firsthand.
edit on 21-3-2011 by RedSongbird777 because: typo


So did i and THOUSANDS of others who saw no planes


can you spot the sarcasm?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
[
Truthseeker,
I have a question for you. Were you actually in NYC or sorrounding areas on Sept 11th? Close enough to see with your own 2 eyes the events that unfolded?


I see you disregard my previous thread in which I stated I worked 3 blocks form the WTC and was not watching it on TV, but live in front of me..


I suppose it was a mass hallucination?
shhhessh
I guess you cannot argue with crazy

I am all for an interesting conspiracy theory, even those involving 9/11 but this one is just LAME and absurd
Skunk bin is where this thread needs to GO!!
edit on 24-3-2011 by RedSongbird777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-3-2011 by RedSongbird777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Warisover,
I was there too as well as many of my friends, family, coworkers. I suppose you are involved in the mass conspiracy as well LOL
I would imgaine you would have to prove you were there. A video? Maybe? However; you would then be told your video was faked
I am all for a good theory but this one takes the cake.

My eyes do not Lie and I am not a LIAR



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Interesting thread.

I opened a thread that used the available images of the damage to the North Tower to explain that planes couldn't cause the damage, and further explained what could have caused it.

My thread was moved to the HOAX section by the admins who proclaimed all No Plane threads are considered hoaxes...so imagine my surprise to find this one.

Anyway, you might be interested in my analysis of the damage:

Shameless plug:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I opened a thread that used the available images of the damage to the North Tower to explain that planes couldn't cause the damage, and further explained what could have caused it.



Yesssss......and your entire concept and "theories" are bunk. Sorry.



My thread was moved to the HOAX section by the admins who proclaimed all No Plane threads are considered hoaxes...so imagine my surprise to find this one.


Oh, yes...had forgotten about this silly one. Now that it's been re-acknowledged, it can be alerted, and located as deemed proper......



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


For a guy who goes around claiming the poured in place, reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon Litghtwells are made of lathe and plaster, I'm not surprised at your response.

Since this thread is about no planes, perhaps you can tell me how the damage shown below WAS caused by a plane. This is a close up of the left side of the impact gash of the North Tower. Tell me how the official story supports the damage to these beams being caused by a jet wing please:






new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join