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

[dafydd]

Oh I see, the CGI that takes a team of techs months to fashion on prerecorded video.

Mikey's, proving his knowledge set since 2001

I presume that the team of techs who worked this miracle in one morning on the 911 fakes are now swimming with the fishes. Did you see the bit where Mikeys explained how all the private videos were confiscated? I must have missed it. Could you post it again please Mikeys?

 

[jaydeehess]

I just watched "The Hobbit" and the CGI is quite obvious.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hollywood blockbusters are not faked live. The Hollywood film industry has a good grasp on realty, that's why it is so profitable. I missed the bit where you explained how it was done. How do you get around the fact that the technology did not exist at the time? Who was hired? Are you going to post some answers or are you going to continue with your meaningless rants?

I think I know the answer to that one too.

 

[jaydeehess]

This morning I made an elf deposit a gift at the base of a Christmas tree. Neither the Lil elf or the tree exist. Took me 20 minutes, but then the cartoon character isn't all that real looking.

 

[dafydd]

Or from the depths of Hollywood. Sorry for misspelled. Can you link to a live video that you call uncompressed footage of 911.

You shouldn't be apologizing for the misspellings. You can't help that. You should be apologizing for insulting the memories of the victims and accusing people of mass murder without a shred of proof.

 

[Mikeys]

What is this about multiple floor pans anyway. WTC1 had one floor significantly affected, unsurprising given the plane was close to level flight. WTC2 OTOH was hit not only be a plane in a hard bank but one that was descending, and thus on a trajectory that would have different parts of the plane hitting different floors.

Fetzer may be the smartest guy in the room on occasion, as long as the short bus delivered everyone else to the site.

it would have multiple floors affected since its fuselage main body is roughly 6 or 7 meters ballpark. With the wings, and penetrating diagonally, it would have to cut through 6 or 7 floors. Fiction. See what I mean. Nobody told them it's bunk, just told them to make a movie.

 

[dafydd]

it would have multiple floors affected since its fuselage main body is roughly 6 or 7 meters ballpark. With the wings, and penetrating diagonally, it would have to cut through 6 or 7 floors. Fiction. See what I mean. Nobody told them it's bunk, just told them to make a movie.

No doubt you are an engineer and can post the maths to back that up?

 

[Mikeys]

Hollywood blockbusters are not faked live. The Hollywood film industry has a good grasp on realty, that's why it is so profitable. I missed the bit where you explained how it was done. How do you get around the fact that the technology did not exist at the time? Who was hired? Are you going to post some answers or are you going to continue with your meaningless rants?

NO, it doesn't. It's not mandatory. Fiction comes first and reality is compromised when in the way, just like 911.

Who was hired?

Who cares?

 

[dafydd]

NO, it doesn't. It's not mandatory. Fiction comes first and reality is compromised when in the way, just like 911.

What? I don't speak twoofer, can you say it again in English please? How was it faked with technology that did not exist at the time? You people never answer questions, why is that? One would think that you have no answers. How is your full theory coming along?

 

[dafydd]

Who cares?

Those whom you would seek to convince that the planes were fakes, who else? Who was hired?

 

[Mikeys]

What? I don't speak twoofer, can you say it again in English please? How was it faked with technology that did not exist at the time? You people never answer questions, why is that? One would think that you have no answers. How is your full theory coming along?

I told you it was made like a catastrophic movie of the day and you insist tech didn't exist. What is so special about the movie itself that was not in use in Hollywood? Just made a movie bud

 

[dafydd]

I told you it was made like a catastrophic movie of the day and you insist tech didn't exist. What is so special about the movie itself that was not in use in Hollywood? Just made a movie bud

Is that really the best you can do? Another evidence-free rant? The technology did not exist exist back then and that's a fact. How did 'they' confiscate all the private videos? Why haven't any of the people who owned the private videos come forward to complain? Did the evil guv'ment have them all shot? What happened to the passengers? Don't tell me, you haven't got a clue. Not very convincing if you want me to disbelieve the official story. Now about that full theory of yours. Any news?

 

[Robrob]

I told you it was made like a catastrophic movie of the day and you insist tech didn't exist. What is so special about the movie itself that was not in use in Hollywood? Just made a movie bud

1) Please elaborate further on your opinion; that a video of a catastrophe resembles other videos of catastrophes.

2) Please elaborate on your opinion special effects technology not existent today was not only existent in 2001 but was also able to manufacture effects on the fly in real time.

3) By not possible, we are generally describing your claim multiple videos of planes hitting the WTC shot from different angles by multiple eyewitnesses were somehow faked.

4) Not to mention, the other thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the same thing.

 

[jaydeehess]

it would have multiple floors affected since its fuselage main body is roughly 6 or 7 meters ballpark. With the wings, and penetrating diagonally, it would have to cut through 6 or 7 floors. Fiction. See what I mean. Nobody told them it's bunk, just told them to make a movie.

No, because it weighed 100 tons and was going 500 mph. But physics t'aint your strong suit. Is it?

 

[Craig4]

I told you it was made like a catastrophic movie of the day and you insist tech didn't exist. What is so special about the movie itself that was not in use in Hollywood? Just made a movie bud

I don't get this. Why have CGI when real planes crashed into the buildings? What is the point of having real and fake planes?

 

[jaydeehess]

Mikeys believes that an incrediblely complex and massively complicated fakery is somehow a better approach than actually flying planes into buildings.

 

[Robrob]

it would have multiple floors affected since its fuselage main body is roughly 6 or 7 meters ballpark. With the wings, and penetrating diagonally, it would have to cut through 6 or 7 floors. Fiction. See what I mean. Nobody told them it's bunk, just told them to make a movie.

They did cut across the floors. Haven't you been keeping up?

 

[Dash80]

Even Dr Fetzer admitted that no plane can penetrate multiple floor sections. He is the smartest clown in town. Defending media fakery while keeping real planes is so yesterday.

Uncle Fetzer is a raving lunatic so what he thinks is irrelevant.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Professionally they are called birdwatchers. The problem is there were more birdwatchers than birds that morning in New York. Many of them appear to have worked or were hired by media outlets or so the official story goes.

Sorry to pluck a post from several days ago, but I'm curious. Who are called "birdwatchers" and which profession calls them that?

Since you said you didn't watch the events on the day, let's rewind a little for your benefit: On a bright, clear morning, one of the tallest buildings in the world, visible from many miles around in one of the most densely populated places on earth, had reportedly been struck by a plane and was on fire.

Millions upon millions worldwide were watching the events unfold on TV, but let's ignore them for now, because hundreds of thousands at least had a direct view of the building from where they were, and many, many thousands - some nearby and others up to several miles away - were watching the event directly, with their own two eyes, when (as you appear not to believe) another plane appeared and flew right into the neighbouring building. Many people were independently photographing the event and dozens subsequently put their footage online. All the people who saw it know that's what happened. Where is the legion of 9/11 eyewitnesses saying otherwise? Where is "Eyewitnesses for 9/11 troof"?

How crazy would you have to be to think that you could get away with declaring that what all of those people saw was not what happened?

YouTube is not the repository of world history. You're old enough to know that YouTube didn't actually exist in 2001, right?

 

[Mikeys]

Millions upon millions worldwide were watching the events unfold on TV, but let's ignore them for now, because hundreds of thousands at least had a direct view of the building from where they were, and many, many thousands - some nearby and others up to several miles away - were watching the event directly

Give me ten names of these hundreds upon thousands. I will look them up and check credibility. If you tell me they prefer to stay nameless I will respect their anonymity, but hey, no cookies.