Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[NoahFence]

The technology does not exist to project a hologram that appears solid
without a reflecting surface. And then there are those rather inconvienent flight records, radar tracks, family members of the victims, etc. Also, with the rather substantial number of eyewitnesses that saw the planes, and the wreckage found at the scene - how do you get to "fake plane"?

^^
That's how.

 

[LSSBB]

Exactly what happened. The tower elevators were rigged during 8 months of renovations.

The fake planes, THAT COULD NOT FAIL, were the cover story. That's why there were WAR GAMES on 9/11 and so many alleged FAILS by the US military and the US intelligence community.

Do you write action movies for Hollywood? Not a single thing you wrote has any backing in reality.

 

[dafydd]

They weren't created. They were fake!

You speak Twoofer!

 

[dafydd]

The technology does not exist to project a hologram that appears solid
without a reflecting surface.

Now, now. How dare you introduce reality into the truther fantasy world.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Maybe chrismohr will enlighten me as to how the pictured jet managed to enter the building without becoming visibly damaged and how the fuel laden wings did not explode immediately from the friction of the collision.

I'm not chrismohr, but I've been attempting to address this line of question in several posts to which you've responded quite cursorily if at all.

The airplane was traveling at ~590mph, or 865 feet per second. VHS frame rate is ~30fps, so the distance traveled between one frame and the next is about 28 feet. If the relevance of this is not clear to you, comment and we can discuss the phenomenon of momentum further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

And then please explain how, at 1:45 of the video, the nose of Flight 175 exits the tower INTACT. Can you explain that?

How can one of the weakest parts of a jet go through a steel enforced wall into the building and out through a steel enforced wall on the other side and remain UNDAMGED?

Addressed upthread. Still awaiting your response.

All attempts to answer are welcomed.

Really? Try responding to the ones you've gotten since posting this, then.

 

[Border Reiver]

Now, now. How dare you introduce reality into the truther fantasy world.

Sorry about that, momentary bout of sanity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

All attempts to answer are welcomed.

Really? Try responding to the ones you've gotten since posting this, then.

It's a good point. I must say, none of the answers so far appear to have been welcomed. Perhaps they weren't the desired answers.

 

[Clayton Moore]

How were these fake planes created?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9390960&postcount=3090

Also at 1:45 before the alleged plane even enters the tower it is hidden by the New York Good Day logo.

 

[NoahFence]

Also at 1:45 before the alleged plane even enters the tower it is hidden by the New York Good Day logo.

Jesus H Christ.

Are you saying your proof that it's fake is because it was switched in the split millisecond it was behind the logo of a TELEVISION REPORT?!?!?!?

PLEASE, please please, 1000 times - PLEASE tell me you're not saying that.

 

[Mudcat]

Jesus H Christ.

Are you saying your proof that it's fake is because it was switched in the split millisecond it was behind the logo of a TELEVISION REPORT?!?!?!?

PLEASE, please please, 1000 times - PLEASE tell me you're not saying that.

Nobody could be that fantastically stupid... Right? Right? Please say it ain't so!

 

[NoahFence]

Nobody could be that fantastically stupid... Right? Right? Please say it ain't so!

It would simply be confirmation of troll status.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Are you saying your proof that it's fake is because it was switched in the split millisecond it was behind the logo of a TELEVISION REPORT?!?!?!?

PLEASE, please please, 1000 times - PLEASE tell me you're not saying that.

Nice try.

It's a no plane theory. You know what you can do with your anti-Christian hate mongering.

 

[NoahFence]

Nice try.

It's a no plane theory. You know what you can do with your anti-Christian hate mongering.

That wasn't an answer. As if I expected anything else.


Are you saying the switch took place behind the logo?

YES or NO.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Nice try.

If the "NY Good Day" footage was the only clip that existed it might be noteworthy to discuss the logo placement or the drop-out glitch. But it is one of 30 clips of the same event, taken from 30 different angles and distances. The video compilation you linked upthread is nearly identical to one I've linked to you repeatedly.

 

[abaddon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

At 1:45 of the video the nose of Flight 175 exits the tower INTACT. Can you explain that?

Of course. It doesn't. Simple. You simply sucked that notion down from a troofer site.

Maybe chrismohr will enlighten me as to how the pictured jet managed to enter the building without becoming visibly damaged and how the fuel laden wings did not explode immediately from the friction of the collision.

It wasn't damaged until it impacted the building, after which, in the first frame, the damaged parts were already 28 feet inside the building. This is not rocket magic. The explosion of the fuel happened, just not in your expected "Die Hard 16: Make It Up Another Day" fictional Hollywood kind of way. Your chrismohr fixation is becoming amusing though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

And then please explain how, at 1:45 of the video, the nose of Flight 175 exits the tower INTACT. Can you explain that?

Certainly. It doesnt.

How can one of the weakest parts of a jet go through a steel enforced wall into the building and out through a steel enforced wall on the other side and remain UNDAMGED?

You made that up because it never happened. What's "UNDAMGED"?

All attempts to answer are welcomed.

Untrue. You will reject any and all answers out of hand in favour of whichever nutty theory you select at random today.

That's how the editing software misfired.

What editing software?

Yes.

And the plane should skew/tumble in some way after the initial contact. The first contacts with the VERY sturdy tower should redirect the body of the jet.

This isn't even wrong.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post






What does your response have to do with the OP or what I said in my post?

What do any of your responses have to do with the topic at hand?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_we.jpg[/qimg]

About that much.

Try harder. How much exactly? Looks like a collapse initiated by an aircraft impact to me.

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.

It's funny you're demanding I tell you how much energy would be required when you're also demanding no outside energy was needed to cause the massive destruction including pulverization into dust of the concrete floors.

And now you are trying to unpaint yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into.

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

Funny how you are unable to do that.

A column of air and fuel exits the tower before an explosion?

The alleged plane crashes into the tower and there is no explosion until after this instance of an exit in the video?

Also at 1:45 before the alleged plane even enters the tower it is hidden by the New York Good Day logo.

Funny thing, the plane has to impact before there is an explosion. Cartoon physics fails again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

Note how parts of the alleged plane keep disappearing before and AS itslides into/hits the tower.

Kinda like an extra 6 fps were interpolated by computer after the fact, no?

Thanks.

Another informative reply.

So you're saying the video was a fake or not a fake?

If fake who do you think faked it?

It matters not. There were no 200 fps cameras at the scene, those extra frames were interpolated.

No word from chrismohr.

Why should he respond to you?

Exactly what happened. The tower elevators were rigged during 8 months of renovations.

The fake planes, THAT COULD NOT FAIL, were the cover story. That's why there were WAR GAMES on 9/11 and so many alleged FAILS by the US military and the US intelligence community.

What if one of the planes missed through human error? Seems a high risk strategy, no?

Nice try.

It's a no plane theory. You know what you can do with your anti-Christian hate mongering.

Descent into religious bigotry noted. It's an off topic non-sequitur.

That wasn't an answer. As if I expected anything else.


Are you saying the switch took place behind the logo?

YES or NO.

Your answer will be yes and no.

 

[beachnut]

...
It's a no plane theory. ...

A stupid theory at that. RADAR proves that. Yes a theory of no plane, it is idiotic at best, and denial of evidence. An anti-science theory, based on woo. What does the theory do with the dead passengers?

Need not theory of what happened on 911, we have evidence, shows the planes with multiple sources of electromagnetic waves captured on eyes, film, video, RADAR, and the big hole in the WTC; ironically the shape of a plane, which impacted the WTC.

12 years of silly lies, the no plane theories are proof of failed education on an individual basis.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A stupid theory at that. RADAR proves that. Yes a theory of no plane, it is idiotic at best, and denial of evidence. An anti-science theory, based on woo.

Not only RADAR but consistent video footage from 30 different angles/distances. Many of the closer clips also show debris ejecta from the north ( downrange) side of the south tower. There are 2 very large pieces in particular, one with a spiral trail of smoke leading to the engine found at Church and Murray, another with flame and broken smoke trailing that leads to the top of WTC 5 (40 stories tall) where a nearly 100 square foot piece of fuselage was later found.

The "no planes" theory over-relies on one or two pieces of video footage and ignores all others.

The "no planes" theory has no explanation for large aircraft debris found on top of tall buildings or embedded in WTC perimeter columns.

The "no planes" theory does not account for random video shot by random people up to 5 miles away (my estimate from terrain matching of some clips), nor does it explain how TPTB would prevent about 5 million potential witnesses from grabbing a random tape of "friends" episodes and plonking the camera on the balcony.

"No planes" is, as you say, an idiotic denial of evidence. I might have been able to be convinced a number of years ago regarding a LIHOP theory, but this one is just daffy.

 

[Craig4]

Nice try.

It's a no plane theory. You know what you can do with your anti-Christian hate mongering.

Yes, you all now perfectly well that the only kind of hate mongering CM allows is of the anti Jewish variety.

 

[Mudcat]

You know what you can do with your anti-Christian hate mongering.

Wow what a marvelous non sequitur you have there, Clayton.

What is it supposed to mean, though?

 

[dafydd]

What is it supposed to mean, though?

That is anybody's guess.