DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
9/11 No Planers who claim no planes struck the WTC, and think all the video is fake
- Thread starter Tinfoil Hater
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no planers
WB11 looks more egg-shaped and the other three look more or less like dots. It cast its own shadow clearly in wnbc and wb11, proving that it was a real object. I've seen it cast in cbs also but ny1 is the worst footage.
A W Smith
Philosopher
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I haven't responded because you have offered no "proof". In fact, you have simply shown us grainy, low res snapshots of a....plane....and claimed it was a blob.
You're the only one who insists it's a "blob" and not a plane. I say it's a low-res image of the very plane you deny exists, and my description is supported by a whole crap load of corroborating evidence. You simply show a picture of something you claim doesn't exist, and because the resolution on your images is so poor, which makes the plane's features hard to make out (as it would ANYTHING), you decide that it's a blob. Apply circular reasoning, and viola! It has to be a blob because you don't think there was a plane.
Well, sir, it's a freakin' plane.
Last edited:
I call it a drone, bogey, jetson floater, orb...it doesn't really matter. It was a small floating object that was laughed at by Burnback, and a woman named Renault. The most important thing, is that it wasn't flight 175. It had no apparent ability to fly and no I don't how it flew, but it did, because it cast its own shadow behind the towers and then T2 exploded. 2 and 2 and all that jive. No wings or propeller; it was a ball.
A W Smith
Philosopher
You will have to take that up with the hundreds of documented eyewitnesses who saw flight 175 impact the south tower. So far you have nothing but a grainy video that doesn't even show the windows of the towers.I call it a drone, bogey, jetson floater, orb...it doesn't really matter. It was a small floating object that was laughed at by Burnback, and a woman named Renault. The most important thing, is that it wasn't flight 175. It had no apparent ability to fly and no I don't how it flew, but it did, because it cast its own shadow behind the towers and then T2 exploded. 2 and 2 and all that jive. No wings or propeller; it was a ball.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I call it a drone, bogey, jetson floater, orb...it doesn't really matter. It was a small floating object that was laughed at by Burnback, and a woman named Renault. The most important thing, is that it wasn't flight 175. It had no apparent ability to fly and no I don't how it flew, but it did, because it cast its own shadow behind the towers and then T2 exploded. 2 and 2 and all that jive. No wings or propeller; it was a ball.
Cleverly disguised as a...plane...
The video footage completely destroys the myth of planes in NY. There were no planes because there isn't a single image of real boeing, period. You cannot prove a lie but will continue to believe the lie that was actually pretty much destroyed 4 years ago with sept clues. I went further and didn't ignore the pink elephants like those silly euros did.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Why do you ignore images and video that clearly show your "blob" is actually a plane and the thousands of eye witnesses that clearly describe a plane, and concentrate on just a couple low-res stills that also show a plane, but in such a low resolution that it is hard to make out and looks more like a "blob"?
Do you know what preponderance of evidence means?
You can't have it both ways in the real world and that's why you could never go beyond the boards. When the eyewitnesses don't agree with your case, you say they aren't always reliable, but when they do, you rely on it heavily. When video doesn't support your case, you say it's blurry and point to eyewitnesses ...blah blah. Same bs, rinse and repeat.
Like I said yesterday, my work is real and honest. I'm not conspiracy theorist, because if I was, I certainly wouldn't be talking drones, but saying that nothing hit the towers.
Why do you ignore images and video that clearly show a "blob" was aired for 23 minutes and morphed into a fake plane a minute later? Because you are a crazy and defeated denialist....that's why.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Why do you ignore images and video that clearly show a "blob" was aired for 23 minutes and morphed into a fake plane a minute later? Because you are a crazy and defeated denialist....that's why.
What happened to flight 11 and flight 175, the planes and the people on board them?
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Why are you deliberately showing low-res, grainy videos to try and prove a point?
Check at 1:45 of this...sure doesn't look like a stupid orb to me:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Check at 1:45 of this...sure doesn't look like a stupid orb to me:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why do you ignore images and video that clearly show a "blob" was aired for 23 minutes and morphed into a fake plane a minute later? Because you are a crazy and defeated denialist....that's why.
Because the images don't 'clearly' show anything. You've used versions that have been compressed for online use to a degree that it blurs out all the detail. That's at best inept, at worst its deliberate deception on your part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=95&feature=plpp_video
This is the best live footage proving that no plane existed for tower 2. Over 2 minutes elapsed before the bogey comes from top right. She cleverly doesn't acknowledge it and sounds basically stunned. She said they were 5 miles north and it makes sense that she was looking at a small tv monitor. You can see the little object cast it's own shadow behind the towers.
This fake 175 was entirely behind/south of the towers for I believe around 17 minutes. The orb would have crashed into the west side tower 2 if it didn't circle it, which it did, apparently. That is bat **** crazy, but true.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
See post #154
The fakery that you could never defend is crystal clear in all its fakeness. The orb is the orb and you can't change that. It was a blob coming from west which could not have been 175, no matter what it looked like.
You are changing the subject. This debate, which you won't participate in, is about whether a plane impacted the south tower. That is exactly where you will never be scrambling for evidence of a real boeing. It's about the live footage and witnesses who support that footage with testimony that points to something that was definitely not anything commericial. Many witnesses said it just that way.