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

I have one question for 7forever.

Why would they fake the plane crashes when its thousands of time simpler just to crash real jets? Did someone double dare them to make it as complicated as possible?
 
7forever said:
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.
Click to expand...


so Orb boy......what is this "orb" of yours? Any theories? Looks like a rather out of focus over video processed 767 to me......but lets assume you are right and it isn't........what is it? What was its mass? velocity? how did it make a plane shaped hole in a building if it was "orb" shaped? how much fuel was on the orb? what propulsion system does an orb use? who biulds orbs that big nowadays? why use an "orb" when 767s are free if you hijack them? and if there was an orb where is the scepter? Everyone knows that wherever there is an orb it comes with a scepter! The Queen has at least one of each, could this have been a royalist plot to recapture the States?

Just asking questions!
 
7forever said:
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
Click to expand...

You show Flight 175, verified by RADAR (which you can't comprehend due to?), and they you call people kooks, and this is your zenith. 10 years of failure for 911 Truth, but you have your goal set at infinity. You will achieve it. You set goals, and you will achieve them.

How do you ignore RADAR data? Ignorance, or are you telling lies on purpose?

911 truth no plane claims are insane. Only a few nuts believe them. What are your claims, and how do they dovetail with RADAR data?
 
Now now, I see pixelation in the sky ALL the time.


:rolleyes:

Edit: Come to think of it, Pixelation in the Sky, that HAS to be the name of my pretend-Indie band.
 
Last edited:
7forever said:
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. It goes on and on but my work is simple just like I did with jfk. I focused on tower 2 because of so many cameras filming after T1.

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. 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.

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

[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcbbcdivebomb.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtccbsnw.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcchopper4nw.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Okay so we know about the four planes that were hijacked three of which crashed into the buildings. Now I get lost on where these fake planes come in . Are you saying that there were eight planes, four real and four fake?
 
Woody- said:
I have one question for 7forever.

Why would they fake the plane crashes when its thousands of time simpler just to crash real jets? Did someone double dare them to make it as complicated as possible?
Click to expand...

Apparently it was some sort of "inside bet" they had... :rolleyes:
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The fact that planes hit the buildings isn't even in debate
Click to expand...

No plane showed up in 4 live broadcasts. The chopper 4 lady and the people in the studio failed to see the orb, and when it was pointed out they called it the plane which of course it was not. Lucky for you, you'll never be tasked with proving a negative, that a twin engine jet could show up as a small circular object moving at 40-50 mph.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You cannot show video of a real 767 on 911 because there was none in the area. You never showed any footage because it's all ******** fakery of computer generated images with different shapes and sizes, some with wings and some without. Why are you having such a hard time with this? You will continue to do nothing which is all that's expected from quacks who cannot prove lies perped by the government and media.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The fact that planes hit the buildings isn't even in debate
Click to expand...

The fact that media reptiles called an orb a 767 on 911 is beyond refute. They gave it credibility by acknowledging that it was responsible for T2's explosion. It needed to be ignored and written off as a chopper or artifact but wasn't, because humans are incapable of covering almost anything up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why did you just post a picture of a plane flying towards the WTC as evidence that a plane didn't crash into the WTC?


ETA - I could watch videos of landings at Princess Juliana International Airport all day.
 
Last edited:
7Forever:

1. Wouldn't it have been simpler and less risky for your perps to just crash jets into the buildings rather than go through all the CGI shock and awe bait and switch mind game rigmarole your insinuations inevitably suggest?

2. Do the rhetorical gymnastics required to gainsay virtually every aspect of the so called "official story" ever cause you any pain or embarrassment?

3. If the US Government really is as evil as you think it is, wouldn't you expect occasional blowback in the form of what is commonly termed "terrorism"?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
For those of you even considering engaging this argument, you can search the CT subforum for 7forever's JFK posts. He simply sees "proof" of things in photos that we can't see. Some type of solipsistic argument I think. I enjoyed when he posted actual photographs of his monitor screen, vs. screencaps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I started typing something and then just figured it wasn't worth my typing. It's like someone just drove by and threw a beer can in the yard and by the time you run out to argue with them they are gone, and the argument wouldn't have done any good anyway because they just wanted to get a rise out of you in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom