The "Nose in Nose out" is the strongest evidence that Flight 175 was NOT a CGI plane

[MrFliop]

The "Nose in Nose out" is the strongest evidence that Flight 175 was NOT a CGI plane

No planers claim that the "nose out" shot is the "smoking gun" that flight 175 was a CGI plane. But in fact it's the single strongest evidence that it was real. Since the nose-out was captured by every single camera in which that corner of the building was visible. If it was some video glitch, it wouldn't have happened on ALL the cameras. And it wasn't the nose of the plane, it was just a chunk of debris (or a collection of debris) that could have come from any part of the plane.

 

[cjnewson88]

True, Hardfire did a good no-planer episode which you can find on Youtube where they disproved the 'nose out' theory by projecting the path of the aircraft through the building based on its trajectory before it hit, which actually put the nose of the aircraft in a completely difference place.

Anyway, I'd save your sanity, no planers are a waste of time

edit: Hardfire episode below in 3 parts;

 

[Woody-]

Actually "the strongest evidence that Flight 175 was NOT a CGI plane" was the thousands of people that saw it from the streets of New York.

 

[George 152]

And the passengers and crew who were killed are pretty strong evidence that Flight 175 wasn't a CGI plane !

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, let's not pile on the new guy . Yeah, it's true that there are lots of pieces as well as entire lines of evidence disproving no-planers. But that's really the point of why that group of claims is so full of it: There are so many pieces and lines of evidence proving the existence and fate of the jets that it's crazy to think otherwise about the events. The contra claims in contrast are a mass of individual nitpicks that collectively do not add up to a conspiracy, or even a coherent narrative. Heck, I'd even bet some individual non-planer claims contradict each other. They sure do in other 9/11 CTs.

Sure, I could point at the debris as one line and the radar data as another that disprove the no-planes allegations. But really, after over a decade, it's time for the truthers to come up with a full narrative. Not just a mismash of loosely connected claims and anomalies. Newton never defined the laws of motion through anomalies, and Einstein never did it that way for relativity. After all these years, it's on them to provide basic narrative, supporting evidence, and defensible conclusions in a robust and comprehensive theory. Merely pointing out glitches in videos or anomalies in observations isn't enough. Not at this late date. Too much is known already.

 

[fitzgibbon]

No planers 'evidence' is the assertion of a bad mask. If TPTB were so skillful as to otherwise pull off every aspect of 9/11 to make it look like hijackers, why would they have a cameraman do a snap zoom just before impact that would run the risk of exposing their nefarious plot?

Fitz

 

[Clayton Moore]

True, Hardfire did a good no-planer episode which you can find on Youtube where they disproved the 'nose out' theory by projecting the path of the aircraft through the building based on its trajectory before it hit, which actually put the nose of the aircraft in a completely difference place.

Anyway, I'd save your sanity, no planers are a waste of time

edit: Hardfire episode below in 3 parts;

Thanks. Ace Baker kicked butt.

 

[Vermonter]

Wow. Steve Wright was incredibly patient and polite to Ace Baker. That said, Ace cleared didn't/doesn't know what he's talking about, as he kept stumbling over his words and trying to come up with some "Gotcha!". He didn't seem to get the idea that a plane colliding with a building might decelerate a tad before any debris or ejecta emerges from the other side.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wow. Steve Wright was incredibly patient and polite to Ace Baker. That said, Ace cleared didn't/doesn't know what he's talking about, as he kept stumbling over his words and trying to come up with some "Gotcha!". He didn't seem to get the idea that a plane colliding with a building might decelerate a tad before any debris or ejecta emerges from the other side.

Yeah sure. Besides the plane should have blown up into smithereens when the wings carrying the fuel struck the building.


So why didn't the TV guys rebroadcast the "live" video?

 

[Vermonter]

Yeah sure. Besides the plane should have blown up into smithereens when the wings carrying the fuel struck the building.


So why didn't the TV guys rebroadcast the "live" video?

Got any evidence that they didn't? Also, as mentioned, it's low-quality and there were plenty of other shots taken. It's been eleven years, surely there have been other videos that were not rebroadcast.

One thing to keep in mind, that I'm sure has been mentioned before, that the wings were not the first part of the aircraft that struck the building. The pressurized fuselage was the first thing that penetrated, then once it was already a good ways in, the wings struck.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Got any evidence that they didn't? Also, as mentioned, it's low-quality and there were plenty of other shots taken. It's been eleven years, surely there have been other videos that were not rebroadcast.

One thing to keep in mind, that I'm sure has been mentioned before, that the wings were not the first part of the aircraft that struck the building. The pressurized fuselage was the first thing that penetrated, then once it was already a good ways in, the wings struck.

You forget, Clayton (and most of the other no-planers) come from the cartoon school of physics. The planes should've bounced off because steel; or, as in this case, the planes should've exploded spectacularly the moment they were struck by anything stronger than a stiff breeze, because that's what they do in movies. Here's a hint to all truthers out there: movies are not reality.

 

[DGM]

You forget, Clayton (and most of the other no-planers) come from the cartoon school of physics. The planes should've bounced off because steel; or, as in this case, the planes should've exploded spectacularly the moment they were struck by anything stronger than a stiff breeze, because that's what they do in movies. Here's a hint to all truthers out there: movies are not reality.

Are you claiming the information in this important documentary is not correct?

 

[NoahFence]

You forget, Clayton (and most of the other no-planers) come from the cartoon school of physics. The planes should've bounced off because steel; or, as in this case, the planes should've exploded spectacularly the moment they were struck by anything stronger than a stiff breeze, because that's what they do in movies. Here's a hint to all truthers out there: movies are not reality.

Clayton's a new "no-planer"... he wanted to fit in with yankmee451.


All he needs is practice.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Clayton's a new "no-planer"... he wanted to fit in with yankmee451.


All he needs is practice.

And possibly a new avatar:

<SNIP>

Image removed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

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

 

[Justin39640]

Lmao!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Got any evidence that they didn't? Also, as mentioned, it's low-quality and there were plenty of other shots taken. It's been eleven years, surely there have been other videos that were not rebroadcast.

One thing to keep in mind, that I'm sure has been mentioned before, that the wings were not the first part of the aircraft that struck the building. The pressurized fuselage was the first thing that penetrated, then once it was already a good ways in, the wings struck.

Yet the the entire plane entered the tower without/before an explosion.

 

[DGM]

Yet the the entire plane entered the tower without/before an explosion.

Did it park inside and then explode?

Physics say there shouldn't have been an explosion on the outside of the building because everything flammable was still moving forward.

Explain how it works in your world?

 

[fess]

Yet the the entire plane entered the tower without/before an explosion.

Evidently you don’t know what LEL and UEL means.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Did it park inside and then explode?

Physics say there shouldn't have been an explosion on the outside of the building because everything flammable was still moving forward.

Explain how it works in your world?

More physics fabrications? Get over it.

 

[DGM]

More physics fabrications? Get over it.

Get over what?

How does it work in your world? What would explode outside the building?

Earth wants you to answer.