reply to post by CB_Brooklyn
Here are some of the LOGICAL problems with the NO PLANE hypothesis. I am using these as examples.
#1. Assume with me that the TV faked all feeds of the event. Now how does that prove there were 'NO PLANES'? Even killtown has said that there may
have been 'fly by' planes etc.
So let me pursue this further. We have a video showing a 'NOSE IN and a NOSE OUT'. Let us suppose this. Now what if the TV fakery isn't hiding the
fact there were 'NO PLANES' but it was used to hide the fact *MILITARY* planes were actually used?
Planes that can penetrate the building, with high explosives on board.
It seems to me this would take into consideration the lack of a riot in downtown NEW YORK the next day.
It would also take into consideration the 'planted pieces' of plane parts, hiding the 'real planes'.
It would also seem more reasonable in a planning sense, since the planners I am sure would be well aware that most of NEW YORK CITY would be LOOKING.
NOT a great plan to fake this on the media when just as many people were looking LIVE!
So really you can't conclude there were NO PLANES.
#2. IF there was that much deception, if there was that much of a conspiracy. IF there were that many eyewitnesses who LIED, then your premise is
Because it would mean that someone could argue that 9/11 was only a demolition and the rest was a put on with actors and visuals! The very same things
you would argue for 9/11 being a *REAL EVENT* is the very same thing other people would argue for there being PLANES!
Sure eyewitness testimony could differ. But look at the twin towers, You probably have different testimony on the time of the Towers Collapse, on the
way they collapsed, or on what sounds they made upon collapsing.
So to be consistent are you now going to admit the TOWERS NEVER COLLAPSED due to different eyewitness testimony??
Of course NOT! By using simple reason and logic we can weed through what must be real and what is common amongst the testimony and make logical
The same can be said on the plane testimony as well.
#3. IF there was truly CGI done so wildly on 9/11 then why on earth would they fail to do as much at the PENTAGON???
Claiming what your claiming is highly inconsistent.
#4. *IF* truly there is that much deception, then in reality what your saying is *NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED* and this means YOU.
Why would anyone trust you after realizing that almost everyone they heard on 9/11 was JUST either an actor or lying.
Why would anyone put faith in your Youtube links? PERHAPS YOU are using CGI?? Maybe they see to many pixels and wonder what your really about???
You see? Do you now see what happens? This then is the Pandora's Box you have opened.
Again the very fact NEW YORK didn't riot the next day is proof positive that there were planes that hit the Towers.
[edit on 4-11-2007 by talisman]