All of you 'No-Planers' need to see This :

Originally posted by Orion7911
The evidence overwhelmingly has shown

You should go look up the definition of "evidence". Here, I'll do it for you:

evidence -

1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident
3. a matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc.

1. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no data with which to base proof or establish truth on.

2. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, there are no marks or signs that makes CGI evident.

3. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no professional studios to give statements as witnesses, nor documents or material objects to prove CGI.

Posting videos of someone giving their opinions is not evidence. If you want real evidence, you must obtain copies of the original videos and have them analyzed by professional studios for evidence of fakery to prove CGI. If you do not do this, you have no evidence and will only continue to be peddling disinformation, period.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by okbmd
I want to see credible arguments for the 'no-planes' theory

You're going to be waiting a very long time because there are none. I've been debunking "no planes at the WTC" for a few years now. And it's so easy to do because there really is no credible evidence or theories to substantiate this claim.

and your so-called debunkings have been addressed and redebunked because actually there is credible evidence and theories to substantiate the valid aspects of nrpt which you and most still for some reason don't seem to understand yet.

Originally posted by mikelee
S & F as the no planers have no ground here to stand (or land) on. Two planes hit the towers for surwe.

except there's facts and evidence that proves otherwise... so its dishonest for you to assert such a ridiculous claim unless its because you haven't done any real in-depth research like MOST.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
I honestly never heard of anyone denying the existence of the planes.

then as i suspected as is the case around here and most everywhere, you haven't done any real in-depth research into what you claim to be nonsense. How can you make claims like you have below without showing any specifics and arguments or evidence for or against what you're asserting?

Originally posted by OrphenFire
I mean, it was all recorded live. I watched the planes crash into the buildings myself. The first and the second. There were clearly planes at work.

prove it was recorded all "live".

prove what was recorded, was REAL and conclusively showed flight 175 or real planes.

prove what you allegedly "watched" were real planes ie 175 and 11... why should anyone believe what you claim? Many so-called witnesses have been shown to have been wrong or lying or stating physical impossibilities... anyone can say they saw this or that which they do all the time... wheres your evidence and detailed accounting of what you witnessed?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by DalMil54
How Do You Know It Was A Plane ?

That would be called 44+ videos of both plane impacts.

44 angles of fake, tainted or otherwise unverified footage isn't proof of real planes ie 175 and 11 impacting. sorry.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Then there's the still-images of the planes. Then there's all the witnesses that were outside watching the first tower burning. Then there's all the plane parts scattered all over Manhattan.

still images of or from fake, tainted or otherwise unverified footage isn't proof of real planes ie 175 or 11.

what witnesses? oh, you mean witnesses who repeatedly contradict one another on what they saw? or the ones that were stating the official story line before anyone knew what happened?

plane parts? oh you mean parts that could have been planted and have not been proven to have come from flight 175 or 11? oh okay.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by ATH911

 

That isn't a debunk. That's deliberate disinfo artistry. All Simon "disinfo artist" Shack did was tweak the images in photoshop to a point where the images appear similar. You can make any two images look similar with the right tweaking.

Sorry, but if you're going to compare the two, you should stick with the originals. Creating disinfo isn't debunking anything.

uhm, yes it is a DEBUNK and they are the "originals"... and the fact you nor ANYONE can't offer any logical counter-argument other than to CLAIM that its "disinfo", its not from the originals, or he supposedly "tweaked" the images without showing any evidence to support that aside from the fact ANYONE can verify the original footage he analyzed was no different than what was analyzed (meaning it was NOT TWEAKED as you claim), speaks volumes about those who are really peddling the disinfo.

reply to post by gamma 49


Are you able to look at those photos and tell me if that is a pratt & whitney or a general electric engine , or is this just something you read somewhere that you are repeating and have no knowledge of ?

reply to post by Anti-Evil


And we are still waiting for you to provide us with those 'demolition plans' .

I am going to assume that you aren't able to do that for the simple reason that the construction of the towers was not subject to the building codes of New York City , nor was the construction subject to the fire codes of NYC .

The Port Authority was a multi-state entity and therefore was not obligated to follow either code .

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Orion7911
The evidence overwhelmingly has shown
You should go look up the definition of "evidence". Here, I'll do it for you:

evidence
ex1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

which has been MET

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
2. a mark or sign that makes evident

which has been MET

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
3. a matter produced before a court of law

Not APPLICABLE for obvious reasons and therefore IRRELEVANT and not necessary at this time

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc.

which has been MET

so whats your point again?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
1. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no data with which to base proof or establish truth on.

Its not been necessary for the GOVERNMENT and OS believers to meet such a standard, so how can you require it for anyone else?

The FBI used footage thats never been professionally analyzed as evidence of planes etc to indict Moussaoui. Thats pretty amazing they've been allowed to proceed considering that FACT. But then, not really a surprise since the PERPS/fbi etc control and created this kangaroo court thats a travesty of justice.

In any case, its irrelevant and not necessary for any such analysis really, since one doesn't need to be an expert to use basic common visual sense to see theres overwhelming evidence of fakery or that nrp is far from merely a THEORY or the fictional nonsense that you and most will ever admit.

the irony though is that the (DOUBLE)standards (excuse the pun) and tests you require as a measure for truth over at WTC7, is almost identical to what you won't accept for measuring Nrpt etc. Which again, is just another reason why your OPINION has no credibility in judging/measuring whether NRPT/fakery is valid or not.

Perhaps a better way to describe it is HYPROCRISY

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Posting videos of someone giving their opinions is not evidence.

various documentaries/videos have exposed and analyzed more than enough REAL visual evidence of fakery and ample evidence to validate nrpt which has been based on far more than OPINIONS not to mention would easily meet the standards necessary to use and proceed with in a criminal trial.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If you want real evidence, you must obtain copies of the original videos

since the footage needed thats been examined in this case has and can be verified or been taken from the same footage used in places such as the moussaui trial, that criterion is irrelevant and not necessary/required in measuring the merits of nrpt and
tv fakery.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
and have them analyzed by professional studios for evidence of fakery to prove CGI. If you do not do this, you have no evidence and will only continue to be peddling disinformation, period.

already answered.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by okbmd
I want to see credible arguments for the 'no-planes' theory

You're going to be waiting a very long time because there are none. I've been debunking "no planes at the WTC" for a few years now. And it's so easy to do because there really is no credible evidence or theories to substantiate this claim.

Wouldn't you consider debunking something that has no credible evidence to back it a waste of time?