9/11 No Planers who claim no planes struck the WTC, and think all the video is fake

[332nd]

So can I condense your stupidity down to: you can't make a ball into a plane or make a real plane circle buildings.

Ok, I wanted to keep it going a bit longer but my wife came home early so its time for our gamin lets see how 7 responds to high res video.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/videos.htm

My guess is he'll insist fake.

 

[7forever]

Not a blob.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914f4027647dd38.jpg[/qimg]


Compus

It would have crashed into the north tower. The south tower is south and east of T1. No right wing. It's totally fake and a simple overlay of the bogey that moved straight west to east.

 

[7forever]

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

 

[beachnut]

No need to condense your stupid claim of planes, your stupid claims, not your stupidity, your claims are stupid and disproven by simple facts. The forum is about the idiotic claims of plane hugging fools. They are the dumbest claims made. You are calling people stupid, and have not presented a single calculation to support your claims. Can you do math?

Explain why you can't figure out RADAR?

Do you have any math to support your video claims?

How does this post suport your claims. You don't understand. You have to back your claims up with math, or some anaylisis. You made the claims and RADAR proves your claims are idiotic lies.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

You plagiarize my posts as your support. You repeat junk, when it is your obligation to support the claim, to prove your point; plagiarizing posts.

RADAR, explain why you fail to use real evidence, hard evidence.

Explain Bogey, the source related to 911. Why post photos showing 767 hit the WTC?

You are delusional. The south tower hole is way smaller and that fact disproves it from being the same thing that created the north tower hole.

The size of the impact is exactly the size of a 767. You are wrong again, and offer no math, or science. I give you RADAR, and you failed to figure out you are spreading lies.
RADAR
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

 

[beachnut]

...
No need to condense your stupid claim, your stupid claims, not your stupidity, your claims are stupid. The forum is about the idiotic claims of no-plane people. They are the dumbest claims made. You are calling people stupid, and have no presented a single calculation to support your claims. Can you do math?

Any progress on the RADAR?

No need to condense your stupid claim of planes, your stupid claims, not your stupidity, your claims are stupid and disproven by simple facts. The forum is about the idiotic claims of plane hugging fools. They are the dumbest claims made. You are calling people stupid, and have not presented a single calculation to support your claims. Can you do math?

You copied and pasted my post. This is called plagiarism.

RADAR, any progress?

 

[jhunter1163]

I have just moved 54 posts to AAH. There will be further moderation action taken on some of these, up to and including possible suspensions. Do not personalize your arguments and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[BStrong]

If you think you can prove planes to normal people against the evidence that there were no planes, then let's debate it in a more traditional way. I showed footage that was ignored by the truthlings, in the same way the evidence of Greer shooting jfk was ignored. No difference, stupid humans protecting their masters.

^Delusional human refusing to read, listen or comprehend^

 

[triforcharity]

175 and 93 weren't de-registered until 05. Flight 11 was nowhere near T1, but a blob showed up. At least it looks more like something than the south tower ball.

[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnorthtowernothing.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/north-tower-impact_h_GIFSoupcom.gif[/qimg]

And yet, in both of your images, neither of the buildings had windows.

Where are the buildings' windows?

 

[CompusMentus]

It would have crashed into the north tower. The south tower is south and east of T1. No right wing. It's totally fake and a simple overlay of the bogey that moved straight west to east.

Want some onions with that tripe?

Compus

 

[dc1971]

You're a joke, your plane theory is a joke, the movement you're apart of is a joke.

WOW!

WOAH!

 

[Craig4]

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwb11926.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcliveabc.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcunitedleftwing.jpg[/qimg]

um.... it's still a picture of a plane flying into a building.

 

[000063]

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. Very obvious fake imagery was aired on TV which the average person had no knowledge or reference with which to understand what they were seeing was failed computer generated imagery that didn't produce a single image that came close to depicting a real boeing 767.

Yet close enough to fool the vast majority of people watching, including those with actual experience in the field of aviation.

It is impossible to do that sort of real-time CG. It would be nigh-impossible to pull off even today, ten years on. You can't explain how the people on the ground thought they saw a plane, or how plane parts were found in the rubble.

 

[dc1971]

Yet close enough to fool the vast majority of people watching, including those with actual experience in the field of aviation.

It is impossible to do that sort of real-time CG. It would be nigh-impossible to pull off even today, ten years on. You can't explain how the people on the ground thought they saw a plane, or how plane parts were found in the rubble.

...plus that many people working through several TV stations had to keep a CG project, where many died, secret!

 

[plague311]

Yet close enough to fool the vast majority of people watching, including those with actual experience in the field of aviation.

It is impossible to do that sort of real-time CG. It would be nigh-impossible to pull off even today, ten years on. You can't explain how the people on the ground thought they saw a plane, or how plane parts were found in the rubble.

Or the sound of the planes for that matter, am I expected to believe they had a sick sound system setup to mimic the sound?

 

[George 152]

There are a number of conspiracy kooks who have recorded the aircraft videos at such a low resolution that the once sharply defined elements are badly blurred to a point where nothing is really identifiable ...
The they post their adulterated videos to 'prove' there was no aircraft

 

[twinstead]

Or the sound of the planes for that matter, am I expected to believe they had a sick sound system setup to mimic the sound?

Yea. You should hear the Beasty Boys through them. It's awesome!

 

[atavisms]

I'm a newbie, this is my first thread..This is a great site! If there is already an established 'No Planers' thread,my apologies....First off, I think the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is absurd-

You reveal only your profound ignorance of the subject.
Because contrary to what you hear on CNN: there is no question explosives were used..or why would we have such features we know were present??
Features only explosives can explain.

No denier can explain wtc 7 in freefall. 2800f temps two weeks later, molten metal, 100 day fires.. skyscrapers turning to dust in midair leaving tens of thousands of small body fragments and 1100 missing bodies from the towers because they were so powerfully and systematically blown up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw that it pulverized most of the concrete.

wake up!! I know how difficult it is to believe but the facts speak for themselves. Or so they should

 

[Edx]

Because contrary to what you hear on CNN: there is no question explosives were used..or why would we have such features we know were present??

So why is it only a tiny fringe minority believe in it, and totally ignored in the professional world?

Features only explosives can explain.

Except if we were to talk about details you'd require from these explosives characteristics and behaviours that no substance in the world has.

 

[atavisms]

The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings. [

Total nonsense... tens, if not 100s of thousands New Yorkers (Jersey is just a mile across the river) watched the planes plow into those buildings. Certainly all eyes were on them after the North Tower was impacted and many (including people I know personally) were close enough to read the airlines logos.

What you are doing, besides revealing a complete ignorance of the facts (and an astonishing lack of common sense) is hurting the quest for real 9-11 truth.

Your claim has nothing whatever tor do with real 9-11 truth (which center on on well documented easily verifiable features that prove those building were brought down with explosives) and everything to do with disinformation.

 

[Edx]

Total nonsense... tens, if not 100s of thousands New Yorkers (Jersey is just a mile across the river) watched the planes plow into those buildings. Certainly all eyes were on them after the North Tower was impacted and many (including people I know personally) were close enough to read the airlines logos.

What you are doing, besides revealing a complete ignorance of the facts (and an astonishing lack of common sense) is hurting the quest for real 9-11 truth.

Your claim has nothing whatever tor do with real 9-11 truth (which center on on well documented easily verifiable features that prove those building were brought down with explosives) and everything to do with disinformation.

The only difference is they believe in CGI planes and sometimes space beams.