• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

IF Drones hit the towers, what happened to the two aircraft, their crew and passengers?

TGhey certainly existred and certainly took off and started their flights.

Where did they go and where are they?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
IF Drones jit the towers, what happened to the two aircraft, their crew and passengers?

TGhey certainly existred and certainly took off and started their flights.

Where did they go and where are they?
Click to expand...

According to OP, that's changing the topic.
 
atavisms said:
Total nonsense... ...
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.
Click to expand...
You know no-planes are nonsense, but no clue your explosives are delusion claptrap. Your claims are worse than no-plane claims, because your claims need evidence, the no-plane claims are so insane, takes nothing to debunk. You debunk yourself in your signature.

“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Click to expand...
The steel was corroded in fire. You can't do research, you fail as you troll pushing debunked junk from meth-induces web sites, dumber than no-planes.

Why can't 911 truth read and comprehend?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Fire does explain the damage.
You failed to research your own signature past the PhD wanting to get grant money to study steel. You are gullible.
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800C.
Click to expand...
Means no thermite, no explosives, no luck for your fantasy.
You correctly figured out no-planes are nonsense; but you can't cure yourself of insane claims of explosives. Goes to show, debunking no-planes takes no skill, even 911 truth paranoid conspiracy theorist can do it.
No one heard your explosives, lots of people saw planes.

You blew your claims up when you say the buildings turned to dust in midair. That is dumber than no-planes. No-planes are insanity, your claims are just dumb.
skyscrapers turning to dust in midair
Click to expand...
Really?
Then you lie, or make up a statement you must of plagiarized from some idiotic web site.
it pulverized most of the concrete
Click to expand...
Can't you do math? most? 51 percent? 99 percent? Got some numbers based on some rational research? No. Bet you have ceiling tiles with thermite, the most insane claim I have heard. No-planes are false on face value, so are explosives.
 
Last edited:
So here's what I've learnt from 7forever...

  • ...when video shows a plane its fake
  • ...when video shows a "blob" (due to lo res artefacts) then it means a "blob" hit the WTC
  • ... when someone says they saw a plane, they are lying
  • ... when someone says they didnt see a plane at all, it means they actually saw a drone plane (but actually it wasnt a plane it was a "blob")
 
Last edited:
7forever said:
It would have crashed into the north tower.:D 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.
Click to expand...

Yet another 9/11 conspiracy theorist with absolutely no understanding of geometry and perspective.

Here's a clue. The plane was not flying directly west to east.
 
Reactor drone said:
Yet another 9/11 conspiracy theorist with absolutely no understanding of geometry and perspective.

Here's a clue. The plane was not flying directly west to east.
Click to expand...

I, understand so clearly that you won't explain how a blob coming from west could be coming south, behind the towers, because it was right of towers from the north, not south.;)
 
Edx said:
So here's what I've learnt from 7forever...

  • ...when video shows a plane its fake
  • ...when video shows a "blob" (due to lo res artefacts) then it means a "blob" hit the WTC
  • ... when someone says they saw a plane, they are lying
  • ... when someone says they didnt see a plane at all, it means they actually saw a drone plane (but actually it wasnt a plane it was a "blob")
Click to expand...

So here's what you've learned from reality...

...when video shows a fake plane its fake
...when video shows a "blob" then it means a "blob" circled and hit the WTC
... when someone says they saw a plane, they didn't see one because three live broadcasts showed a blob coming from west.
... when someone says they didnt see a plane at all, it means they actually didn't see the boeing that was never there.
 
Edx said:
The only difference is they believe in CGI planes and sometimes space beams.
Click to expand...

I believe my eyes and witness testimony that confirms something circled the towers in the final seconds before explosion. That was a drone.
 
7forever said:
So here's what you've learned from reality...

...when video shows a fake plane its fake
...when video shows a "blob" then it means a "blob" circled and hit the WTC
... when someone says they saw a plane, they didn't see one because three live broadcasts showed a blob coming from west.
Click to expand...


Wait... I thought we were just making fun of you, you are ACTUALLY saying you believe that a "BLOB" hit the WTC? Like literally... a "BLOB" flew into the WTC? Would it look like a flying saucer, or is it more like the B Movie blob?

:eek::eek:

... when someone says they didnt see a plane at all, it means they actually didn't see the boeing that was never there.
Click to expand...

If they didnt see a plane and according to you this means there was no boeing, then why doesnt that mean there was no "blob" either? If they could miss the blob, why couldnt they miss the boeing?
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that anything from the west or southwest could be 175 because it had to be south to north in its final seconds of approach and according to nist, it was south for 15 or 20 minutes. You can't prove the supposed weapon used, was used, therefore, the supposed evidence of wreckage is moot, until you can prove a real boeing impacted t2, and even you could, then you'd have to debunk the irrefutable proof of the weird drone coming from west.
 
Edx said:
Wait... I thought we were just making fun of you, you are ACTUALLY saying you believe that a "BLOB" hit the WTC? Like literally... a "BLOB" flew into the WTC? Does this look like a flying saucer, or is it more like the B Movie blob?

:eek::eek:



If they didnt see a plane and this means there was no boeing, then why doesnt that mean there was no "blob" either? If they could miss the blob, why couldnt they miss the boeing?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that a small drone circled the building and ignited the hollwood explosion that left little damage, correct. The blob was missed at first by some and called a chopper by at least broadcast, but eventually the loonies called it a plane. That proves it was the real cause of tower 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom