Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

[fitzgibbon]

It's still a simple operation. Very precisely timed (including amateur footage and near-real-time manipulation of live television feeds), so a lot of careful planning but the event itself was simple without the need for real planes.

ORLY?

And this pronouncement comes from your deep experience in television production and broadcasting? Pray tell.

I have already posted a lot about the no plane theory. I feel like I'm just repeating myself, so I give up on this now.

Quel surprise!

Fitz

 

[Mikeys]

So every single video, amateur, network, etc that showed a plane hitting the building was "altered"?

Nothing wrong with a plane in amateur videos. Planes were expected to be there. They were shown by amateurs.They were as real as the amateurs were real. As for the crowd who witnessed the events. You need causal loud mouthed personnel to do shouting from street level. They have a woman shouting she would swear it was not an American airliner and so on, likewise display with the purpose to make the planes appear real. Crowd is blind. I believe the second plane was real but wouldn't gamble here.

 

[NoahFence]

Nothing wrong with a plane in amateur videos. Planes were expected to be there. They were shown by amateurs.They were as real as the amateurs were real. As for the crowd who witnessed the events. You need causal loud mouthed personnel to do shouting from street level. They have a woman shouting she would swear it was not an American airliner and so on, likewise display with the purpose to make the planes appear real. Crowd is blind. I believe the second plane was real but wouldn't gamble here.

So you believe the 2nd plane was real, but the first plane wasn't. I assume you believe that the other two crashes that day were planes, right up to the part where I typed that. But now, because I just typed that, you'll come up with a "theory" to explain how you now don't believe what you already said you believed, Clayton Moore style.

Sound about right? Or do you actually believe there were 3 planes, just not the one?

 

[Mikeys]

So you believe the 2nd plane was real, but the first plane wasn't. I assume you believe that the other two crashes that day were planes, right up to the part where I typed that. But now, because I just typed that, you'll come up with a "theory" to explain how you now don't believe what you already said you believed, Clayton Moore style.

Sound about right? Or do you actually believe there were 3 planes, just not the one?

Just one. WTC was the show, after the first crash. The rest is noise.

 

[NoahFence]

So then you believe that the aircraft wreckage was planted at the Pentagon. Kewl...


How? Your answer should include realistic time frames that would change a clean pristine lawn into a war zone within say, 5 minutes, in full view of commuters.

Thanks!

 

[Mikeys]

So then you believe that the aircraft wreckage was planted at the Pentagon. Kewl...


How? Your answer should include realistic time frames that would change a clean pristine lawn into a war zone within say, 5 minutes, in full view of commuters.

Thanks!

I won't even bother with the Pentagon and the other planes. You want to distract me with trivia. Nice try.

 

[NoahFence]

I won't even bother with the Pentagon and the other planes. You want to distract me with trivia. Nice try.

So in other words, you have no clue whatsoever about what you're talking about. After 11 years, you can't formulate anything that even accidentally resembles a coherent theory.

Well done!

Troll.

 

[twinstead]

I won't even bother with the Pentagon and the other planes. You want to distract me with trivia. Nice try.

Actual physical evidence of something you say didn't happen isn't trivia.

 

[beachnut]

Planes were expected to be there.

Aircraft are prohibited to be where the planes were on 911. Planes are not allowed to be at 700 feet in NYC. It would be very unusual. A breach of FAA rules.

They were as real as the amateurs were real.

The videos are real, verified by RADAR.

As for the crowd who witnessed the events.

They saw the planes with their eyes. How does your CGI work in people's eyes; is your fantasy failing to cover all aspects of your lies and fantasy?

You need causal loud mouthed personnel to do shouting from street level.

?

They have a woman shouting she would swear it was not an American airliner and so on,

Good eyes. Why can't 911 truth figure out 911?

likewise display with the purpose to make the planes appear real.

Your fantasy and paranoia is showing.

Crowd is blind.

Another lie.

I believe the second plane was real but wouldn't gamble here.

RADAR confirms both planes. 11 years to figure out 911, 911 truth failed. The record for figuring out 911 and taking action is minutes; 11 years, what is your excuse for spreading nonsense?

... , I was in a comma for 10 years.

A comma? ,

I won't even bother with the Pentagon and the other planes. You want to distract me with trivia. Nice try.

I understand why.

Mikeys... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. ...

Your posts, a reflection of this fact. You are, quite unfamiliar with 911.

 

[000063]

So where did all the information come from that enabled foreign intelligence agencies to warn the US that a terrorist attack was imminent?

It's called "doing their jobs". The US was aware there was some sort of attack incoming as well.

The plane scenario was seeded into the "plot."

As I said before if explosives brought down the buildings then there could be no room for error. AND the "planes" couldn't be depended upon to hit the towers.

For the record, nor could anything else, not with the precision required.

As in how could you plant explosives to take down both towers with possibility of a loose canon military pilot intercepting flight 11 or 175?

Many of the 9/11 quirks validate the no plane scenario.

Once you start making certain assumptions and ignoring things, yes. Such as the fact that people hadn't even figured out there was an attack by the time both towers were hit. The military does not put "loose cannons" on jets if they can help it.

The pilots who couldn't fly a small plan.

Yes, they could, just not well.

Entering the 4 cockpits without the pilot's doing a mayday.

The pilots' priority was not dying. They had seconds to realize what was happening, defend themselves, and Mayday.

The Pentagon "plane's" outrageously difficult maneuvers.

What was so outrageous?

The missing black boxes.

When exposed to damage far outside their design limits?

No meaningful military response.

By the time they got the jets in the air, it was all over.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

You just linked to a site that thinks fighters fly out of La Guardia.

 

[Mikeys]

The videos are real, verified by RADAR

.
Pity I don't do radars.Oh well.

They saw the planes with their eyes. How does your CGI work in people's eyes; is your fantasy failing to cover all aspects of your lies and fantasy?

They, who are they? Let me guess, amateurs!

Good eyes. Why can't 911 truth figure out 911?

She cried; "it was not a commercial airliner." Was she the first truther?

 

[000063]

...

Unreal. Explosives required a foolproof false flag diversion. Physical planes would have had many areas open to possible failure.

So they used experimental holograms or missiles instead, which would require modification, which would be unreliable, which could easily fail at a critical moment, which somehow managed to fool ATC. Are you listening to yourself?

I can always tell when I'm spot on by the high volume of nonsensical replies.

I thought you said "I can always tell when I'm nonsensically high by the volume of spot on replies".

There were planes AND passengers dude. A fact you can't avoid or hand-wave away.

Oh, just watch him.

Nothing wrong with a plane in amateur videos. Planes were expected to be there. They were shown by amateurs.They were as real as the amateurs were real.

Yes, because tourists with cameras don't exist in New York, and certainly wouldn't be near the Towers.

As for the crowd who witnessed the events. You need causal loud mouthed personnel to do shouting from street level. They have a woman shouting she would swear it was not an American airliner and so on, likewise display with the purpose to make the planes appear real. Crowd is blind. I believe the second plane was real but wouldn't gamble here.

Thousands of people saw the planes. Yelling folks isn't going to change that. They may be fuzzy on the details, but they're corroborated by other evidence, such as the videos, and physical evidence, and...

I won't even bother with the Pentagon and the other planes. You want to distract me with trivia. Nice try.

You're not saying you actually have an answer, I note.

 

[Mikeys]

Yes, because tourists with cameras don't exist in New York, and certainly wouldn't be near the Towers.

They couldn't have filmed a plane if there was no plane. Assuming there was no plane. If they filmed it, they could not be tourists.

 

[carlitos]

They couldn't have filmed a plane if there was no plane. Assuming there was no plane. If they filmed it, they could not be tourists.

You're up for an award with this one. Tautology, non-sequitur, bald assertion...

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Carlitos beat me to the nom, but it has me full-throated support.

 

[beachnut]

.
Pity I don't do radars.Oh well.
They, who are they? Let me guess, amateurs!

She cried; "it was not a commercial airliner." Was she the first truther?

Source? Do you pick the people who were wrong on purpose? How would here comment refute RADAR? How could she know? She had never seen an airliner going that fast, that low, over the city. It would be the first time. Where was she?

Study aircraft accident investigation, it gives insight into eye witnesses. You are using your eye witness wrong. And you made no conclusion. What is your conclusions. Quote mining usually supports some claim, in your case, you cherry-pick and quote mine just and make no rational claim.

Oops, you said

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. ...

You have no clue how far she was from the plane, or what? Where was she?

Too bad you don't understand RADAR tracked 11 and 175 from takeoff to impact. Are you supporting the no plane claims, or doing satire? Ironic you say this -

... I am quite unfamiliar with 911. ...

It does explain your source free statements. Typical 911 truth, no evidence, cherry-picked quotes with no source, no math, no physics, no understanding of ATC and RADAR. The list goes on.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Aircraft are prohibited to be where the planes were on 911. Planes are not allowed to be at 700 feet in NYC. It would be very unusual. A breach of FAA rules.

Really? So there was no consequence to breaching that rule?

3 or 4 times in the space of a couple of hours?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trivia? all those murders?

 

[Mikeys]

Source? Do you pick the people who were wrong on purpose? How could she know? She had never seen an airliner going that fast, that low, over the city. It would be the first time. Where was she?

I picked her saying that to show how confusion was made. She was one of many eyewitnesses shouting that day. She might have seen a plane if there was one. If it was a military plane, she might have been right on the button. No plane scenario requires her seeing things that were not there, and seeing them somewhat differently than others did imagine to see them. I believe the conspirators used the actual confusion that followed and made it part of the script.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Really? So there was no consequence to breaching that rule?

3 or 4 times in the space of a couple of hours?

When you are about to deliberately crash and kill yourself do you think you will be worried about breaking a few rules?