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

Nothing happened to any aircraft since they never existed in the first place. What we have are a couple of videos and photos that are fake. No single agency needed to have been involved. For example, the floors rigged with explosives were occupied by bank and insurance companies etc. Not even any major television network needed to have been involved in the initial conspiracy (except for a few people such as a CNN boss who was one of the (or the first) [false] witnesses of the first plane).


First Anders, where's the evidence that they "never existed".

Second, where's the evidence that the videos & photos are "fake".

Third, where's the evidence for "explosives"?

Fourth, where's the evidence for the TV Networks being involved in this made up "conspiracy" of yours?

Answer: You got no evidence!

Edit: FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS

http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm

Smoke explosions: Firefighters know that explosions happen suddenly and are unpredictable. They cannot be prevented during a fire. Explosions are a constant part of the firefighter's... deadly uncontrolled work environment. , However, warning signs of smoke explosions are taught to firefighters. They are: reversal of air pulling smoke back into a smoke-filled doorway; black smoke pushing out around a closed door; or window frames and glass windows stained with smoke condensation and pulsating from the pressure of the fire.

Gas meter explosion: Firefighters are trained when fighting gas meter fires to shut off the supply. They are trained not to extinguish a gas fire with a hose stream. They are trained to let the gas fire bum and protect exposures from fire until the gas can be shut off.

Gas pipe explosions: After a fire is extinguished, and before overhauling begins, gas and electric supplies are shut off. During a serious fire, gas pipe joints may fail and leak explosive gas. When performing structural overhauling where walls and ceiling must be opened to examine for hidden fire spread, gas and electric supply to the area is shut off, limiting the danger of explosion due to leaking gas and electric spark ignition.

BLEVE explosions: When encountering a burning propane cylinder, firefighters are trained to: 1. Cool the vapor space of the cylinder. 2. Shut off the gas by the control handle, if possible.
3. If the flow of burning gas cannot be shut off, withdraw to a safe distance and allow the propane gas to burn. Flammable vapor explosions. After a fire is extinguished and explosive or flammable liquid residue left by an arsonist is discovered in the burned-out rubble, firefighters are trained not to disturb the area, to withdraw, do not overhaul and notify the fire investigators to respond.

Explosion occupancies identified: Firefighters are trained to identify the occupancies where explosions occur. Explosion occurs in stores more than in residences. Stores, unlike residences, are more likely to contain explosive and flammable solids, liquids and gases. These include paint stores, hardware stores, woodworking shops, motor vehicle garages, restaurant kitchens, construction shanties, flower and garden shops, stores under renovation and buildings illegally storing propane cylinders. Fire inspections should require fire suppression system to be installed in these occupancies. Also, like truss construction these dangerous occupancies should be the subjects of fire pre-planning and notification to the first-in firefighters. First-responding incident commanders should be notified of the explosion danger and the pre-plan when responding to that location.

Manhole explosions: When a manhole cover is emitting smoke and popping off the street, firefighters stretch a hose and stand a safe distance from that and other nearby manhole covers. They do not park fire apparatus in the street near other manhole covers. Nearby cellars are checked for fire and smoke spreading to or from the manhole to the cellar through electric or gas conduits. The utility company is called to the scene and firefighters await electric supply shutoff.

Vehicle fuel tank explosions: When extinguishing a vehicle fire, firefighters use the reach of a hose stream and stand away from fuel tanks and explosive bumpers.

Bombs: When an explosive is found at, a scene, firefighters do not disturb the device. They evacuate people, withdraw to a safe area, notify the bomb squad, and stretch a hose line and prepare for an explosion, collapse and fire.
Explosion fragments: At an explosion flying fragments such as glass, brick and shards of splintered wood cause most injuries. Shrapnel should be foremost in the minds of firefighters operating at a scene of a potential explosion. Eye shields should be down.

And that explains the reason for the sounds of explosions on 9/11. No explosives were used!
 
Last edited:
Nothing happened to any aircraft since they never existed in the first place. What we have are a couple of videos and photos that are fake. No single agency needed to have been involved. For example, the floors rigged with explosives were occupied by bank and insurance companies etc. Not even any major television network needed to have been involved in the initial conspiracy (except for a few people such as a CNN boss who was one of the (or the first) [false] witnesses of the first plane).

Except for the four we know about. I'm still unclear about these four faked aircraft.
 
First Anders, where's the evidence that they "never existed".

Second, where's the evidence that the videos & photos are "fake".

Third, where's the evidence for "explosives"?

Fourth, where's the evidence for the TV Networks being involved in this made up "conspiracy" of yours?

Answer: You got no evidence!

Edit: FIRE AND EXPLOSIONS

http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm



And that explains the reason for the sounds of explosions on 9/11. No explosives were used!

I wrote that the television networks need not have been involved in the attacks. And all videos and photos being faked indicate that the planes were not real.
 
http://americancityandcounty.com/security/state-local/restoring_video_evidence/

We have solved a lot of cases thanks to our video evidence from VideoFOCUS,” Pincince says, adding that criminal convictions have since increased as a result of the video forensic evidence captured by the Salient Stills technology.

http://expertpages.com/news/photographic_evidence.htm

The paramount value of pictures lies in their ability to offer graphic credibility and convincing proof of facts in search of truth, which should be the ultimate goal of all litigation.

And Anders thinks that every piece of video & photographic evidence is "faked". I'd like him to write to the 2 websites above & submit his theory about the 9/11 planes. That's if Anders is up to the task!
 
Last edited:
Ok.

But you have not shown that any of the videos and photos were faked. This is just "the way it looks to you". How can something you have not proven indicate ANYTHING?

In a recent post I wrote that some videos show flight 175 doing a dive and then leveling out just before impact, while one video shows a level flight without dive. That proves that at least one of those videos are fake. I say that they all are fake.
 
Explosives.

Oh well then that would be easy to prove. There should be massive amounts of explosive residue covering New York and New Jersey then. The Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter can neither be created or destroyed. So all you've got to do is get a hold of some of the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and show us the residue. It has to be there. There are no options. There is no rationalization or conspiracy theory available to you. If there were explosives then there would have to be residue from the explosives. I'll wait while you find some.
 
In a recent post I wrote that some videos show flight 175 doing a dive and then leveling out just before impact, while one video shows a level flight without dive. That proves that at least one of those videos are fake. I say that they all are fake.

A diving & non diving plane doesn't prove that the videos were "faked". They still show a plane flying, reguardless of what you think or say.
 
Do you have evidence of explosives? Not just explosions that would be expected in a fire like that, but explosives?

Yup. In one video the ground is shaking approximately 10 seconds before the onset of the collapse of one of the towers. That was imo a massive amount of explosives detonating under the basement of the tower to emulate an earthquake to bring the tower down. In other videos the start of the fireball explosion looks suspiciously slowed down, to make it look like a slower start of the explosion than it was in reality. They had to slow down the videos because the explosives made the start of the fireballs too fast.
 
In a recent post I wrote that some videos show flight 175 doing a dive and then leveling out just before impact, while one video shows a level flight without dive. That proves that at least one of those videos are fake. I say that they all are fake.

You not shown anything of the sort concerning those flight 175 videos, you only think you have. You do realize that if even ONE of the photos or videos of each plane is real, you could have 100 so-called fakes, yet it will have been proven that there were planes. But, good luck proving even a single one faked.

There are too many videos, pictures, eye witness accounts, and physical evidence for a rational person to simply say "they all are fake".

You're not irrational, are you Anders?
 
So you're accusing officers of the United States Government sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution of mass murder and you don't have any evidence.

No, I accuse the U.S. government for a cover-up, not for the attacks.
 
Yup. In one video the ground is shaking approximately 10 seconds before the onset of the collapse of one of the towers. That was imo a massive amount of explosives detonating under the basement of the tower to emulate an earthquake to bring the tower down. In other videos the start of the fireball explosion looks suspiciously slowed down, to make it look like a slower start of the explosion than it was in reality. They had to slow down the videos because the explosives made the start of the fireballs too fast.

See, there you go AGAIN. Looks? All you have is what it LOOKS like to you? What are we to do with "evidence" like that? What would a jury do?
 

Back
Top Bottom