Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

Anders Lindman said:
Ok, fair enough. I forgot to add that the hypothesis is that Obama would tell the truth about no planes used in the 9/11 attacks and have the full support of his administration. How would the American people react? Would there be chaos? Or would there only be lame reactions from people? Would the legal system collapse? Would people lose the trust in their government?
Click to expand...

I'd want to see his evidence , otherwise he is just another insane truther:rolleyes:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
How do you project a 3d image of an aircraft on a clear blue sky complete with the sound of two jet engines at full power in full surround sound over an entire city?

pesky problem of physics there......
Click to expand...

You assume the eyewitnesses have given accurate testimonies.
 
We have to remind ourselves that Anders isn't qualified for anything:

He/she's not qualified to pilot planes, not qualified as a CD expert or explosives expert. Not qualified as a fire investigator to rule out fire as the most likely cause.

Yup, Anders is just sitting at the computer spouting misinformation from unreliable sources from gullible people with no educational backgrounds.

I've studied Anders kind for quite some time.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
We have to remind ourselves that Anders isn't qualified for anything:

He/she's not qualified to pilot planes, not qualified as a CD expert or explosives expert. Not qualified as a fire investigator to rule out fire as the most likely cause.

Yup, Anders is just sitting at the computer spouting misinformation from unreliable sources from gullible people with no educational backgrounds.

I've studied Anders kind for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Pilot planes? There were no real planes involved in the 9/11 attacks. :cool:
 
Anders Lindman said:
Pilot planes? There were no real planes involved in the 9/11 attacks. :cool:
Click to expand...

Right, sure, whatever!

True to prove that the Wright Brothers didn't fly their plane at Kittyhawk, N.C.

You think that there weren't real planes on 9/11? I think you have no real brains! :p

No planers = no brainers!

Edit: A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Conclusion

There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
The problem with that review is that there are no authentic videos or photos of any real planes used in the 9/11 attacks. Ha Ha. :D
Click to expand...

The problem with you is that you have no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.

You're debunked no matter how many times you repeat about "No real planes used on 9/11."

The Truth Movement thinks that you no planers are Gov. Paid Shills to make them look bad. Can't hurt to agree with them on that!

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html:

The no-plane ideas are a manifestation of an epidemic of "smoking gun fever," the rush to see promising evidence in any and every perceived anomaly. One could chalk this up to technical incompetence, reckless enthusiasm, or a desperate desire for ammunition to use against a terrifying conspiracy, but the problem is deeper. It is often driven by a partisan imperative to pursue a more radical case. And by radical I don't mean "leftist" but simply more divergent from the official story. If you look at the rhetoric of a no-plane supporter, such as Nico Haupt, you see an attempt to make accepting no-plane claims synonymous with pursuing the "real truth." Likewise, the "Gatekeepers" research of Bob Feldman (for which I helped build the flowchart graphic) has been hijacked and transformed from a complex analysis of elite control of lefty media into a simplistic ideological litmus test: "If you don't support my spurious physical evidence claims you're a 'gatekeeper.'"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
The Truth Movement thinks that you no planers are Gov. Paid Shills to make them look bad.
Click to expand...

But as the original poster in this thread said, that many truthers say that no plane was used in the attack against the Pentagon, but think it's crazy to say that no plane was used in the attacks against the WTC. If I remember correctly there were many eyewitnesses who saw a real plane hit the Pentagon!
 
Anders Lindman said:
If I remember correctly there were many eyewitnesses who saw a real plane hit the Pentagon!
Click to expand...

If a real plane hit the Pentagon (which it did, Flight 77), then the domino effect begins.

Flight 77 hits Pentagon, Truther claims "no plane", photographic & physical evidence collected at scene that a plane hit. Truther denies photos & physical evidence. Switch over to the Twin Towers, photographic & physical evidence of planes that impacted the Towers, Truthers claim "no planes", also they deny photos & physical evidence.

No matter what you think Anders, you can't stop the fact that photographic & physical evidence of the planes existed on 9/11.

You have no photographic & physical evidence of "no planes". You are making it all up!

Since you've got nothing but lack of knowledge & alot of words, shouldn't this be the right time to distance yourself from those idiotic "no plane" theories?
 
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
If a real plane hit the Pentagon (which it did, Flight 77), then the domino effect begins.

Flight 77 hits Pentagon, Truther claims "no plane", photographic & physical evidence collected at scene that a plane hit. Truther denies photos & physical evidence. Switch over to the Twin Towers, photographic & physical evidence of planes that impacted the Towers, Truthers claim "no planes", also they deny photos & physical evidence.

No matter what you think Anders, you can't stop the fact that photographic & physical evidence of the planes existed on 9/11.

You have no photographic & physical evidence of "no planes". You are making it all up!

Since you've got nothing but lack of knowledge & alot of words, shouldn't this be the right time to distance yourself from those idiotic "no plane" theories?
Click to expand...

In one area I am at least more consistent than many other believers of an inside job it seems since I believe all eyewitness testimonies about real planes in the 9/11 attacks are false.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
In one area I am at least more consistent than many other believers of an inside job it seems since I believe all eyewitness testimonies about real planes in the 9/11 attacks are false.
Click to expand...

There isn't any consistency with any believers of the "Inside Job" theory.

Well in a Federal Court of Law, the witness testimony can & will out-weigh hearsay claims coming from incompetent people who doesn't have any evidence.

You can claim this & that, but without evidence to prove anything, all it is is hearsay.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule802

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.
Click to expand...

You need relevant evidence to prove the "no planes" theory.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule401

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Click to expand...

Since there isn't any evidence to prove the "no planes" theory, it's inadmissible.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule402

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
Click to expand...

Of course Anders, you're just confused & wasting time with your "no planes" evidence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule403

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not, you're 100% wrong!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom