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

It starts as a faint grey thing and morphs into a horsefly.:D

fake-bird-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcbirdplane.jpg

wtcfakeblackplane.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyWAjVpZzY&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=37
 
Four flying bombs were recorded on 911, by NY1, WB11, CBS, and chopper 4 NBC. All of these crazy repitilians eventually called the orb a 767. TWILIGHT ZONE ON 911.:eye-poppi Watch close on chopper 4 to above and right of T1.

orb-wide_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

orb-cbs_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

shadow-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcunitedleftwing.jpg
 
7forever said:
"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never the saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnoplanepic.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25
Click to expand...

Sound takes time to travel, he missed the plane. Ironic you prove him wrong showing a photo or proof backed up with RADAR, which you can't refute, he can't refute. RADAR has 11 and 175 impacting the same time hundreds and thousands of people saw 11 and 175 impact. You must of missed reality 10 years ago.
 
7forever said:
"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never the saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.
Click to expand...

The only case closed is that which states that you lack most of the basic skills required to assess photographic evidence.

Dude was on the wrong side of the building to have seen the in-bound aircraft. DERP!
 
7forever said:
"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never the saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

wtcnoplanepic.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25
Click to expand...


This is a distortion on the level of the no planers talking about how the Sommerset County coroner said he didn't see any debris i.e. it completely subtracts all relevant context. Such as David Handschuh never denying that the jets hit, and on the contrary frankly discussing the event as we know it, not as the truthers try to portray it (http://video.answers.com/photographer-david-handschuh-on-his-images-of-9-11-517157902).

Furthermore, this is also a classic quotemine. If you watch the Charlie Rose interview of David Handschuh (you can find it elsewhere without giving the truther hosting it any views), you realize that what he was describing was not watching an explosion sans plane, but being told that a jet hit and trying to function while being in total shock.
... And somebody said "That was a plane." I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane. And didn't realize that I had that picture 'till a neighbor brought the Daily News over the next day and it had my byline underneath.
Click to expand...
He wasn't a no plane witness, he was describing being under the gun and the shock he was experiencing at trying to take it all in in real time. He never, ever denied the presence of the jets, and on the contrary has talked about 9/11 in the context of the jets impacting.

This is how truthers operate, people. As an example, look up previous threads about Wally Miller, the Somerset County Medical Examiner discussing the crash scene and identifying the victims. Truthers quotemine his statement of shock regarding the total disintegration of the jet plane as if he were stating that no jet was present. The very man who led the team that recovered the human remains. Truthers distort. They subtract context. And they build lies. 7forever's post here is a perfect example of it.

Handschuh is someone who documented the presence of Flight 175. Look up his interviews on non-truther sites (such as The Digital Journalist: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/int_handschuh.htm). You'll see that what he actually describes was the second jet hitting. And that he never witnessed 9/11 the way the truthers try to portray him as witnessing it.
 
leftysergeant said:
The only case closed is that which states that you lack most of the basic skills required to assess photographic evidence.

Dude was on the wrong side of the building to have seen the in-bound aircraft. DERP!
Click to expand...

Yes, this also. Look at the photograph 7forever posted, folks. That's the exit side of the tower.

Now, I'm not going to go as far as Lefty and say that he couldn't have seen it. I think he could've gotten a glimpse of it inbound had he known to pay attention. But again, he was operating under stress and shock, and no one knew there was going to be a second jet there. No one but the hijackers. He had no reason to expect FL175 was coming.

Folks, go watch the Charlie Rose interview (here's an alternate link: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2853). Handschuh frankly discusses thinking that the first impact was just "a Cessna" (a point he strongly reinforced by discussing the Hudson River air traffic and student pilots flying it all the time), and how he was there to document that. When you all view the entire context, you'll see just how baldface a distortion 7forever tried to pull on everyone.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Yes, this also. Look at the photograph 7forever posted, folks. That's the exit side of the tower.
Now, I'm not going to go as far as Lefty and say that he couldn't have seen it. I think he could've gotten a glimpse of it inbound had he known to pay attention. But again, he was operating under stress and shock, and no one knew there was going to be a second jet there. No one but the hijackers. He had no reason to expect FL175 was coming.

Folks, go watch the Charlie Rose interview (here's an alternate link: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2853). Handschuh frankly discusses thinking that the first impact was just "a Cessna" (a point he strongly reinforced by discussing the Hudson River air traffic and student pilots flying it all the time), and how he was there to document that. When you all view the entire context, you'll see just how baldface a distortion 7forever tried to pull on everyone.
Click to expand...

Looks like the impact (south) side of the south tower to me, North tower already in flames, Handschuh camera appears to be facing east.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Sound takes time to travel, he missed the plane. Ironic you prove him wrong showing a photo or proof backed up with RADAR, which you can't refute, he can't refute. RADAR has 11 and 175 impacting the same time hundreds and thousands of people saw 11 and 175 impact. You must of missed reality 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

I missed nothing, neither did he. He saw no plane because there wasn't one. Four live clips show no plane but an orb, that had crazy news reporters eventually calling the orb a 767. There is no defense for lunatics who claim a plane impacted the south tower. Denial of facts and reality is not a defense.

This man and woman reporter originally said there was no plane in the area because they literally didn't notice the orb and a little while later acknowledged it and called it a plane. Of course it's not plane and NO honest person would ever raise their right hand and make that simple falsehood. The smoking gun is the orb not being noticed, being called a possible helicopter and later referred to as flight 175. The orb was not a helicopter and certainly wasn't a plane.

wtcorb4x.jpg

wb-chopper_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=97&feature=plpp_video
 
7forever, can I suggest that you contribute to this thread with a full account of what you believe happened on 9/11? A clarification of what you are referring to by the word "orb", if such things are a major part of the account, would be a useful addendum.

Dave
 
A W Smith said:
Looks like the impact (south) side of the south tower to me, North tower already in flames, Handschuh camera appears to be facing east.
Click to expand...

At least you're being honest. Whether from the north or south view, tower 2 is always behind T1. From the north it's behind and to the left, and behind and right of T1 from the south. David's pic shows the west side and south impact area of the south tower. On the left, look under David and notice the smoke and fireball on the northeast corner of T2.

wtcnoplanepic.jpg

wtctruth.jpg
 
Dave Rogers said:
7forever, can I suggest that you contribute to this thread with a full account of what you believe happened on 9/11? A clarification of what you are referring to by the word "orb", if such things are a major part of the account, would be a useful addendum.

Dave
Click to expand...

If you're asking to me to explain most every thing about 911, no individual could take on that immense task. I focused on the easiest aspect of 911 because of all the available news footage showing fake planes on different flight paths and an orb that really came from the northwest that was called a plane.

I can't explain how the orb flew because it had no apparent characteristics of any known aircraft which leads to some exotic, very slowing moving drone. Notice the building circled below that is clearly north and west of the towers. The circled orb took a long 15 seconds before tower 2 exploded. It was moving slow and there was a witness who laughed at that very fact.

wtcchopper4nw.jpg

wtccbsnw.jpg
 
Of course, the whole 'orb' argument would make a lot more sense, if it wasn't that just about nothing in those GIFs appear to be any recognizable shape.

Low resolution, 7th generation YouTube videos, shot from a long range. The treasured possesions of noplaner nutjobs.
 
Last edited:
7forever said:
If you're asking to me to explain most every thing about 911, no individual could take on that immense task.
Click to expand...

How immense a task can it be for you to just make things up, take things out of context, quote mine, and ignore vast amounts of eye witness accounts and physical evidence?

Sounds pretty easy to me--my 4 year old does it all the time.
 
twinstead said:
How immense a task can it be for you to just make things up, take things out of context, quote mine, and ignore vast amounts of eye witness accounts and physical evidence?

Sounds pretty easy to me--my 4 year old does it all the time.
Click to expand...

I tried to tell you earlier in the thread, its Jammonious all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom