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

That's a good question which people in aviation have tackled. Something about the impossibility of a plane going 500 mph a thousand feet above ground. The silly idea that dumb arabs did this, whose instructers said were basic dummies.

Dummies or not, they were certified pilots. If they had not died on 9/11, but joined Pilots for Truth, you would have taken them as authorities.

Whether I've proven beyond all doubt that no aircraft impacted the south tower is in question, but I have raised a ton of reasonable doubt.

In fact, you have debunked your own thesis. Look at it this way:

You have shown that a video can be called in doubt. Not too convincingly, but still. Since we have tons of direct eye witnesses, plus tangible forensic evidence, it follows that this evidence could never be disproved by videos.

Well done!

I have thoroughly debunked the divebomb footage and the cgi from the west. That leaves one possibility of the low south to north path which was filmed from the east and west. The orb cannot be excluded because it appears in 4 live clips and was referred to as flight 175.

Ahh, sorry, but all videos, plus direct witnesses corroborate on the same flight path.

The government has only one possible flight path that was most likely not visible from the north view, which is good for denialists. But you still have the other flight paths which are very different with media reptiles giving credibility to the orb by calling it the plane. A very big mess (it would be) with the orb being involved, whether it was some guidance device or the sole object that impacted the south tower. The divebomber is 13 seconds before impact and is behind, south of the towers. The orb in the all-important cbs footage is 15 seconds before explosion and is northwest of the towers, flying southeast over the Hudson.

I'm afraid I couldn't make head or tail of that. Could you elucidate, or must I read the entire thread?

The small buidling circled provides conclusive proof of the orb's diametric flight path to that of UA.

How does it do that?


http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcbbcdivebomb.jpg

Are you aware of what telescope objectives do to angle perception?



Is that what you call an orb?! I hope you are aware that the circle was added for emphasis. The black speck in the middle of the circle is the plane. That's what a distant plane looks like in VGA resolution.

As already said, I don't get what you mean about the building.


What about that? Is it a chopper? - Difficult to see on a low res still, but there were several choppers in the air, so.... what is your point?

Hans
 
OK, forget me asking for his point.

I now read more of the thread. :boggled: :nope:

Hans
 
Those photos are of an orb. You won't show the altered photos because I will post the orbs from 4 different news stations. It seems an odd thing to do, showing an orb and then calling it a plane. They simply didn't alter the orb (it seems) except in the WB11 footage. You should really show the altered pictures so I can post the orb. The first fake plane came one minute after the orb was last shown. IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF FAKERY.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-926-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-927-morph_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

Ahh yes, I see. It is definitely an orb, and not a plane. You can see the pictures are genuine and full of detail by looking at the WTC towers: As we all know the faces of the towers were featureless grey slabs.

Hans
 
Ahh yes, I see. It is definitely an orb, and not a plane. You can see the pictures are genuine and full of detail by looking at the WTC towers: As we all know the faces of the towers were featureless grey slabs.

As we know, the towers were coated in asphalt. That video accurately represents the towers, and the orb.

that's it. I'm convinced. Last one out turn off the light, folks. ;)
 
No planers like 7forever, Jammy, Bill Smith and Judy Wood are my favorite truthers, they make the whole truth movement seem even crazier than it already is, helping to kill the dying cult from within, while everyone else dismantles it from the outside.

Ahh, who am I kidding, the truth movement died two months ago.

It (the 'Truth' movement) died 9 12 2001...
In spite of attempts at resurrecting the corpse it remains dead
 
Yeah, but those videos didn't capture a plane CRASH at 9:03AM. It looked like a plane, but it didn't act like a plane when it "hit" the WTC. It glided really smoothly into the building from nose to tail, and then explosions happened.

Very strange.
You're supposing that you know what such an impact SHOULD look like.

Either you know because you've been trained to know and you should share the results of that training with us OR you're arguing based on your incredulity.

Which is it?
 
Why would you expect anyone to be able to answer that? Determining that Flight 93 did not end up in that ditch is not contingent upon locating the plane in another location.

Your logic suggests something like finding a child missing. The child is not in his bed, so unless we find the child somewhere else, he is actually in the bed.

What's truly inconsistent is assuming Flight 93 is in the ditch even if there is zero photographic record of it having crashed there.
Um, why does it have to be photographic evidence of the moment of impact? Why cannot eyewitness testimonies suffice? I respectfully submit that you're demanding far too much from what was a crash in a rural area. Unlike the WTC crashes that happened in front of the eyes of NYC, the Shanksville crash would have been suspicious to me if hundreds of people HAD come forward and said "I saw it!"

And, we do have photographic evidence of the wreckage and the impact damage on the ground. Tons of it. Have you seen it?
 
Crazy folks do not defend their crazy beliefs when faced with proof that those beliefs are easily proven lies.
Insanity, by definition, is irrational. When faced with evidence to the contrary of their beliefs, nutjobs either ignore it or rationalize it. Heck, even sane people do that all the time.
 
In case you're wondering where 7forever went, he's resurfaced over at DU, spouting pretty much the same line of thought and the same countless GIFs.
 
The following three were filmed on 911; Chopper 4 orb, WB11 chopper, and a plane that evening. It is clear that camera zoom on an object will reveal more detail and will often provide positive identification as it does with the chopper and plane. The orb shows no identifying characteristics of any known flying object or aircraft, staying true to its drone status. Note the speed and efficiency of the chopper and plane compared to the laughable cartoon dive of the orb.

very-close-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wb-chopper_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

plane-zoom_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=related
 
Yes they do and you just did. There is good clear video of both planes hitting the towers. A few poor videos do not cancel out the good ones and even if there was no good video at all the eye witness and forensic evidence is overwhelming.

To insist otherwise is insane.

There is ZERO video of a 767 hitting the south tower. Countless videos of fake planes with at least three different flight paths debunks that fairy tale. Chopper 4 all by itself proves no plane was involved in the south tower. There was an orb and nothing else around. That is in fact the best footage available.

You insist otherwise because you are insane.
 
Last edited:
Insanity, by definition, is irrational. When faced with evidence to the contrary of their beliefs, nutjobs either ignore it or rationalize it. Heck, even sane people do that all the time.

Exactly. Video footage is conclusive and kills any contrary eyewitness accounts. The live footage showed an orb moving behind the towers with no plane in sight.
 
7forever will repeat it ad nauseum if you try to engage in a debate... his "style" is quite different from Jammonious - crazy as his posts were.

You can't debate facts, only ignore them. An orb cannot be a plane and that's what you kooks are left with and would never testify to that simple falsehood (in the real world) because it wasn't. An orb, abc's joke plane, and a real 767.

very-close-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif

wtcliveabc.jpg

wtcunitedleftwing.jpg
 
Is this a joke?

Is this guy really comparing a photograph to a god damn 47th generation you tubey?

Lulz. You sure you got the correct video sport? because I'm pretty sure the WTC wasn't a monolithic gray slab.
 
Sorry, oblivious to reality seventh grader, you have been debunked.

no planers easily debunked


You can't debate facts, only ignore them. An orb cannot be a plane and that's what you kooks are left with and would never testify to that simple falsehood (in the real world) because it wasn't. An orb, abc's joke plane, and a real 767.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/very-close-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcliveabc.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcunitedleftwing.jpg
11178317.jpg
 
The following three were filmed on 911; Chopper 4 orb, WB11 chopper, and a plane that evening. It is clear that camera zoom on an object will reveal more detail and will often provide positive identification as it does with the chopper and plane. The orb shows no identifying characteristics of any known flying object or aircraft, staying true to its drone status. Note the speed and efficiency of the chopper and plane compared to the laughable cartoon dive of the orb.


You post an extremely low resolution video of your “orb” and compare it to high resolution videos? That may work very well over at U Tube U, but in the real world, you would be laughed off the stage. If we were drinking, which is highly probable if we were at your presentation, we would have thrown you off the stage.

And then, you call us insane? I’m astonished that you are allowed out in public unaccompanied. If indeed you actually are.
 
There is ZERO video of a 767 hitting the south tower. Countless videos of fake planes with at least three different flight paths debunks that fairy tale. Chopper 4 all by itself proves no plane was involved in the south tower. There was an orb and nothing else around. That is in fact the best footage available.

You insist otherwise because you are insane.

Would you PLEASE then show us the video of the fake plane? You keep showing the video of the real plane. Why are you having such a hard time with this? Maybe you should create two folders, one for the real plane video and one for the fake plane videos. That way you wouldn't confuse them so much.
 

Back
Top Bottom