Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[bill smith]

Only? Only? Here is the video of all the TV channels for 9/11. You'll see all the crowd shots you care to see if you take the time to look.

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Of course, you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about seeing anything. You are a troll.

Bill is a perfect example of why there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11 in the Truth Movement.

''...there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11 in the Truth Movement.''

Is that true ?

 

[BigAl]

''...there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11 in the Truth Movement.''

Is that true ?

Name one.

 

[bardamu]

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=12390 part of 175 on the roof of WTC 5

So the fact that its obviously been ripped from the aircraft isn't significant damage is it?

You can deduce that the paint is fully intact in this shot? Can you also predict lottery numbers Bill?

Do you think there are two separate pieces to that bit of wreckage:

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Copyofplanepartrf20-full.jpg

If so, did they land next to each other or were they positioned there specially for the picture?

I really think that bardamu should spend some time looking at what the eyewitnesses saw that day, vs. posting more comments about video here. This event did not happen virtually; it happened in real life. Life is not a CGI.

Like I said a couple of days ago, I've seen all the day's footage for ABC and the BBC, and the first couple of hours for the other four channels. Many eyewitnesses say they didn't see a plane. If you have any particular eyewitnesses in mind, please indicate the channel and the time.

 

[bill smith]

Name one.

I can't offhand.

 

[carlitos]

Like I said a couple of days ago, I've seen all the day's footage for ABC and the BBC, and the first couple of hours for the other four channels. Many eyewitnesses say they didn't see a plane. If you have any particular eyewitnesses in mind, please indicate the channel and the time.

I linked this before, so I can only guess that you missed it. There are dozens and dozens of quotes, all linked with sourcing. How do you respond to this?

LINK

 

[BigAl]

Many eyewitnesses say they didn't see a plane.

Given that anyone on one of the three "wrong" sides of the building or inside some building wouldn't see the plane, "most" would be completely expected.

We know that Boeing 767-223ER, registration number N334AA and Boeing 767-222/ER registration number N612UA crashed into the towers. There is a massive amount of evidence supporting this. Your fixation on trivia doesn't make a dent in the evidence. Your lack of any alternative theory that passes the laugh test just makes your anklebiting even sillier.

 

[apathoid]

Like I said a couple of days ago, I've seen all the day's footage for ABC and the BBC, and the first couple of hours for the other four channels. Many eyewitnesses say they didn't see a plane. If you have any particular eyewitnesses in mind, please indicate the channel and the time.

We aren't talking about them. It's obvious to anyone with a brain cell or two that not everyone in Lower Manhattan would be in position to see the impacts. We are talking about the thousands that did see them. Yes, them. Proceed.

 

[bardamu]

O/T - anyone notice that truthers always have these weird random nicknames?

Random?

T'es fou, toi ?...

 

[apathoid]

Random?

T'es fou, toi ?...

Have you an explanation for the eyewitnesses or not, no planer?

eta: random was a poor description, strange is a better one.

 

[BigAl]

For Bill; Video explains in detail how a plane cuts through a WTC wall

I just came across this link. It shows how the WTC walls were constructed and shows in detail the damage that was done by the impact of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No-planers are at the bottom of the Truth totem pole.

 

[DGM]

Does anyone else think it's funny that these guy's won't talk to eyewitnesses and demand media interviews knowing full well (as they claim) they are in on it.

 

[carlitos]

Just taking the scientific method for a moment, eyewitness testimony is the least persuasive. The mounds and mounds of documentary and physical evidence make eyewitness testimony regarding these events completely moot. And yet, there are still thousands of eyewitnesses anyway, most of whose stories fit the actual events of the day. I remember that there was one shop that had a great view of the towers and something like 30 or 40 people in that one location all saw the second plane hit. Boggles the mind.

 

[apathoid]

Just taking the scientific method for a moment, eyewitness testimony is the least persuasive. The mounds and mounds of documentary and physical evidence make eyewitness testimony regarding these events completely moot. And yet, there are still thousands of eyewitnesses anyway, most of whose stories fit the actual events of the day. I remember that there was one shop that had a great view of the towers and something like 30 or 40 people in that one location all saw the second plane hit. Boggles the mind.

Very true about eyewitnesses, however I trust them when you keep it simple. Undoubtedly bardumak will now go through the eyewitness record and start pointing out inconsistencies, and claim that proves they are fabricated.

 

[bill smith]

I just came across this link. It shows how the WTC walls were constructed and shows in detail the damage that was done by the impact of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

I bet you were not really optimistic about this Al. 'Only the wingtips had to slice hrough the 14'' x i4'' x 1/4'' steel box columns braced at 12-foot intervals against the concrete floor plates.

 

[BigAl]

I bet you were not really optimistic about this Al. 'Only the wingtips had to slice hrough the 14'' x i4'' x 1/4'' steel box columns braced at 12-foot intervals against the concrete floor plates.

It's a six minute video. You replied here faster than you could have watched the video.

Lazy troll.

 

[BigAl]

Very true about eyewitnesses, however I trust them when you keep it simple. Undoubtedly bardumak will now go through the eyewitness record and start pointing out inconsistencies, and claim that proves they are fabricated.

Each bit of evidence and each eyewitness report has to be considered against all the evidence and eyewitness reports and inconstant eyewitnesses are rejected. Then hypotheses are made and tested by how well they fit the evidence and eyewitness reports.

 

[bill smith]

It's a six minute video. You replied here faster than you could have watched the video.

Lazy troll.

In terms of the jref a Troll is a fisherman who draws some bait through a cloud of fish hoping for some bites.

A fly fisherman is one who spots a particular fish rise and sets out to take him.

Fair comment I reckon.

 

[dtugg]

I use his research because he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that no planes hit the towers.

LOL. As I said, no-planers are insane morons.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I use his research because he has proved beyond reasonable doubt that no planes hit the towers.

Ace Baker doesn't know why his theory isn't worth either the breath it takes to say it nor the energy to listen to it. Neither you nor he nor any other no-planer have come up with any other explanation for eyewitnesses other than they're in on it or they're duped.

No wonder other 'truthers' distance themselves from your special sort of wack!