Why Use Real Planes? [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

mynameis

20-11-2008, 01:57 PM

Exactly wrong...but you must understand where this guy comes from

The key to 911 was destroying the WTC
To accomplish this the weapon ( airplane) had to penetrate the building
The perpatrators were un-skilled pilots
,did not know how to navigate,
were unfamiliar with the Manhatten skys
on top of that
What if the passengers revolted
What if the pilots chickened out
What if they could not located the target
What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers?
(Towers were 207 feet wide )
What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside?

They had to make certain that the planes not only hit the towers but penetrate, so the raging fire myth could be brought forth as the reason the towers fell
This could not be done with certainty using real planes and real people
The technology was available to them to create a fake airplane that could carry out the needed tasks
This is why real planes were not used

1.) The perpatrators were un-skilled pilots

Fallacy one. They were trained on simulators and had military instruction from the United States.

2.) Navigation?

See #1 or look up Microsoft flight simulator and stop being a sloth.

3.) Passenger revolt does not work in their favor, but a passenger revolt could be quashed with planted weapons.

4.) Pilots chickening out?

You've trained to be a suicide bomber with your terrorist peers, how would this look to them if you were flying the plane to back out? Most likely they would go to back up man #2 and execute you with a gun or knife.

5.) Locate the target?

See #1.

6.) What if the planes missed the towers?

Their exercise or mission is to either hit the towers or cause terror. Even the military suggest the Jihadis got very lucky.

7.) What if the planes blew up out side the towers?

There would be no steel casing that bends inwards, which broke at each weld point. There would be no giant plane-shape holes representing this crash whereas the steel casing bends inwards.

8.) This could not be done with certainty using real planes and real people
The technology was available to them to create a fake airplane that could carry out the needed tasks?

Ugh....This is all conjecture and has no basis in logic, the use Occam's razor, or the Socratic method. The technology to make fake 3 dimensional planes appear to crowds of people projecting in the air at 100s of feet for miles does not exist. There would be no point when Able Danger and Vigilant Guardian military exercises provide all the opportunity along with the changes made to the protocols by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and whoever worked on Promis/P-tech.

qasrose

20-11-2008, 02:09 PM

The perpatrators were un-skilled pilots

Shows you that Banoyes does not do any research...

john white

20-11-2008, 02:10 PM

Why Use Real Planes?

Because they exist!

LOL

banoyes

20-11-2008, 02:49 PM

See qasroses signiture
Here is the whole thing ..
"I don't realy care about being right
I care about the truth of the matter'
Just a little insight into this guys character

qasrose

20-11-2008, 02:52 PM

See qasroses signiture
Here is the whole thing ..
"I don't realy care about being right
I care about the truth of the matter'
Just a little insight into this guys character

You don't really care, yet you argue like you do???

dangermouse

20-11-2008, 03:06 PM

http://www.revelationaudiovisual.com/Audio/Dean%20Warwick%2001.wma

hmmm ..

banoyes

20-11-2008, 03:33 PM

1.) The perpatrators were un-skilled pilots

Fallacy one. They were trained on simulators and had military instruction from the United States.

8 hi-jackers are still alive.. The story of military training is a deep cover...
from the Pentagon
http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/8-of-the-911-hijackers-still-alive/
2.) Navigation?

See #1 or look up Microsoft flight simulator and stop being a sloth.
meaningless .. didn't exist at time

3.) Passenger revolt does not work in their favor, but a passenger revolt could be quashed with planted weapons.
conjecture .. planted weapons??? yah not a thing to support this

4.) Pilots chickening out?

You've trained to be a suicide bomber with your terrorist peers, how would this look to them if you were flying the plane to back out? Most likely they would go to back up man #2 and execute you with a gun or knife.
Has never happened before or since

5.) Locate the target?

See #1.

yadi , yadi

6.) What if the planes missed the towers?

Their exercise or mission is to either hit the towers or cause terror. Even the military suggest the Jihadis got very lucky.
No It was absolutely neccessary the planes hit the Towers.. The destruction of the Towers was the whole idea of 911

7.) What if the planes blew up out side the towers?

There would be no steel casing that bends inwards, which broke at each weld point. There would be no giant plane-shape holes representing this crash whereas the steel casing bends inwards.
Does not relate
Holes made from preplanted charges
[/quote]
8.) This could not be done with certainty using real planes and real people
The technology was available to them to create a fake airplane that could carry out the needed tasks?

Ugh....This is all conjecture and has no basis in logic, the use Occam's razor, or the Socratic method. The technology to make fake 3 dimensional planes appear to crowds of people projecting in the air at 100s of feet for miles does not exist. There would be no point when Able Danger and Vigilant Guardian military exercises provide all the opportunity along with the changes made to the protocols by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and whoever worked on Promis/P-tech.
A bunch of words meaning nothing , a diversion from the reality
Able Danger and Vigilant Guardian have nothing to do with airplanes flying into buildings on 911
Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data. Sure ain't airplanes flying into buildings

None of the hijackers were good pilots. None had ever flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners. Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 2

It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html

Lets see ,,,19 Arabs in critical situations or CGI's inserted for the world to watch on TV
Occam’s Razor indeed

banoyes

20-11-2008, 03:35 PM

You don't really care, yet you argue like you do???
naw
just hilighting what kind of person you really are

keystone

20-11-2008, 03:37 PM

No It was absolutely neccessary the planes hit the Towers.Excellent.

The destruction of the Towers was the whole idea of 911and whether there were planes or no planes is really quite irrelevant. The towers were the subject of controlled demolition.

mynameis

20-11-2008, 04:11 PM

Microsoft flight simulator went back for twenty three years before 911. Your words are baseless.

There were other weapons found on 911 planted or not is the issue exists.

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event September 11, 2001: Weapons Found on Additional Planes: Inside Jobs?. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Later in the day, weapons are found planted on board three other US airplanes. A US official says of the hijackings: “These look like inside jobs.” Time magazine reports, “Sources tell Time that US officials are investigating whether the hijackers had accomplices deep inside the airports’ ‘secure’ areas.” [Time, 9/22/2001] Penetrating airport security does not appear to have been that difficult: Argenbright, the company in charge of security at all the airports used by the 9/11 hijackers, had virtually no security check on any of their employees, and even hired criminals and illegal immigrants. Security appears to have particularly abysmal at Boston’s Logan Airport, even after 9/11. [Boston Globe,

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101plantedweapons

Hi-jackers being alive may be attributed with stolen and forged documents.

If the object is to destroy the towers and not terror you sir or madame are not grounded in reality, hence civilization calls them terrorists because of their attacks to spread fear and terror. It's kind of like what you do with your candid statements that are not based in reality: "Stephen Hawking joins 911 truth."

The pilots had extensive military training and lived at or near airbases in the past and present. If you do not acknowledge the facts, nobody will agree with you unless they are insane or mistaken.

Able Danger and Vigilant Guardian are two military programs designed and run doing the Septemeber 11th events and have much to do with Norad, flight paths, and blips on radar for intercepts. You are showing how much you don't know repeating nonsense.

Does not relate
Holes made from preplanted charges

If this were logical and reasonable you must answer the following with proof such as evidence that is documented.

When were these charges placed?
How were they made?
How many charges were there?
What kind of charges make plane shaped holes?
What kind of proof is there for preplanted charges?
What kind of charge can bend steel inwards from width of the building unto smallest fraction of the width of the holes on the face of the WTC, and eject materials out the other side.

slartibartfast

20-11-2008, 04:14 PM

meaningless .. didn't exist at time

Absolute rubbish. Flight Sim 98 came out in 97 the original came out in 82.

No It was absolutely neccessary the planes hit the Towers.. The destruction of the Towers was the whole idea of 911

...

It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!

You are getting confused as to the probabilty of being able to do something after having done it and the probablity of being able to repeat it. That probably wasn't a desired flight path just what he managed to cobble together. Strangely enough, the pilots weren't interested in getting pilot's licenses or even being able to take of and land, just point in the right direction.

mynameis

20-11-2008, 04:39 PM

Absolute rubbish. Flight Sim 98 came out in 97 the original came out in 82.

You are getting confused as to the probabilty of being able to do something after having done it and the probablity of being able to repeat it. That probably wasn't a desired flight path just what he managed to cobble together. Strangely enough, the pilots weren't interested in getting pilot's licenses or even being able to take of and land, just point in the right direction.

Mr. Ignorant Strikes Again. /sarcasm. Well put slart.

Microsoft Flight Simulator 1980-2006 - YouTube

qasrose

20-11-2008, 04:56 PM

naw
just hilighting what kind of person you really are

And what type of person would that be

banoyes

20-11-2008, 05:01 PM

Microsoft flight simulator is a fuc*in game , just fuc*ing pittifull
"May have"
and reports from "offical" sources
yah
well you all can swelter under your pyramid of delusion
the information is there for the reader
and the specious arguements for the OCT just tells me that you will buy anything
There is not a shred of evidence supporting planes being used at any crash site on 911
nothing
except dupes who cannot see the picture
"Hey"
They just cr4ashed some planes into the WTC
Let's go fake a couple more."
The reason NORAD never left the ground was because ther was nothing to find
The reason no identified parts have ever been produced is because there are none
The reason videos have so many anomalies is because they are fake

The reason any would think an airplane can "enter" a building with no re-action from the building except for it opening up and allowing the entire airplane inside, with out so much as a single piece breaking off-is beyond me

Believe away
you are believers. there's no sense talking logic to believers
Have a planefull day

keystone

20-11-2008, 05:11 PM

Believe away
you are believers. there's no sense talking logic to believersFunny you should say that............

qasrose

20-11-2008, 05:12 PM

i_am

20-11-2008, 07:25 PM

Please stay ON TOPIC everyone. Enough with the personal stuff !!

banoyes

02-12-2008, 12:39 PM

Videos of planes with no wings
and one is supposed to believe the video is real
Planes flying completly inside building,no tearing,ripping,buckling,no wings sheared off,tail section slicing through steel and concrete
and the videos are real??
yah they are real... real fake..a bad special effect

slartibartfast

02-12-2008, 01:24 PM

banoyes

02-12-2008, 01:42 PM

2 Questions, 1) Are you a structural engineer, 2) Are you an Aircraft Engineer?

I am or rather was for 12 years a structural steel designer
I was for 5 years a tool and die maker for McDonnal Douglas Aircraft
I also was in the Naval Airforce for 4 years most time spent on Aircraft carriers
Now what
I don't need any of that to know an airplane cannot enter a building
It is impossible.
Airplanes smash,crash.and break to pieces I have witnessed a number of plane crashes The idea an airplane can enter a building is beyond reason

slartibartfast

02-12-2008, 02:12 PM

I am or rather was for 12 years a structural steel designer
I was for 5 years a tool and die maker for McDonnal Douglas Aircraft
I also was in the Naval Airforce for 4 years most time spent on Aircraft carriers
Now what
I don't need any of that to know an airplane cannot enter a building
It is impossible.
Airplanes smash,crash.and break to pieces I have witnessed a number of plane crashes The idea an airplane can enter a building is beyond reason

So how did the B25 that hit the Empire State building manage to get one of it's engines all the way through and have virtually no debris outside the building.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

banoyes

02-12-2008, 02:27 PM

So how did the B25 that hit the Empire State building manage to get one of it's engines all the way through and have virtually no debris outside the building.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml
Even though the site is an OCT site and doesn't give a true picture of the B25 event
it still says
"The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.
but then again you are a Freemason, which explains your
"virtually no debris outside the building."

captkarl

02-12-2008, 02:44 PM

two planes hit wtc 1 and wtc2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

end of story !!!!!!

slartibartfast

02-12-2008, 03:23 PM

Even though the site is an OCT site and doesn't give a true picture of the B25 event
it still says
"The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.
but then again you are a Freemason, which explains your
"virtually no debris outside the building."

Or even "The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted."

and this was a much smaller aircraft and a much stronger building.

See http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm it clarifies where the landing gear and engine went.

merlincove

02-12-2008, 03:48 PM

Banoyes, with respect, if there were no planes in New York on September 11th, why are there so many people, who were in New York on that day, convinced they saw two airliners hit the World Trade Centre?

There is video footage of people saying that the first plane was not a passenger plane, that it was military – because it had no windows or recognisable logo’s. Are these people who claim to have witnessed the attacks a part of the agenda, government agents placed at the scene of a crime to perpetrate the crime by shouting the official story to anyone who would listen?

I don’t believe that the technology exists to create the illusion / hologramatic effect of two planes arcing across the Manhattan skyline and ploughing into two of the worlds largest buildings. You can not make that happen, outside a deluded perspective of reality.

>>> The perpetrators were un-skilled pilots, did not know how to navigate, were unfamiliar with the Manhattan skies

on top of that
What if the passengers revolted

What if the pilots chickened out

What if they could not located the target

What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers?
(Towers were 207 feet wide)<<<

Whether the perpetrators were unskilled pilots or not is pretty much irrevilent. The hardest bit of flying a plane is getting it off the ground and getting it back down again safely. Their remit was not to take of or to land but to crash – you don’t need a pilots licence to crash a plane.

The World Trade Centre building were huge, in every sense of the world. You don’t have to be familiar with the Manhattan skyline to be able to find them. From a cockpit view the Twin Towers would have been there dominating the sky line – they had a long approach route, with the adjustments to altitude and trajectory all they had to do was point and die.

But I’m still basing these concepts on the shape of the official story – still basing them on the ‘facts’ that the planes were hijacked by terrorists. They could have been remote controlled drones, there is more than enough evidence within the public arena to point toward that possibility. No pilots, no problematic eventuality.

But don’t forget, these terrorists had been planning this for a long time, they were going to execute a carefully orchestrated plan in the name of Allah, a plan that would see all their ‘sins’ wiped clean, a plan that once complete would see them exalted beyond all others into the house of Allah and their families futures blessed with a financial pay off that would leave them financially secure – they would not have wanted to back out given the perceived rewards.

You also spoke about the pentagon flight and that the terrorists were dumber than dumb. So what? There was no plane at the pentagon, that much is painfully obvious – maybe the guys just didn’t make the cut and plan b was put into action?

When we look at a revolt by the passengers, I think that anyone in their right mind who was aboard a hijacked airliner and who was physically capable of at least attempting to overthrow the hijackers would attempt to do just that. But you can not get into a cockpit if that cockpit is barricaded / barred etc. And a lunatic hijacker – don’t forget that these guys are intending to die as martyrs, they would not come across as behaving sanely - running amok with a gun or a knife would no doubt be constructive toward creating a ‘don’t fuck with this guy’ kinda mentality amongst passengers. But what if there were no passengers?

I have seen a film purporting to say that flight 93 (the one that got shot down / crashed at shanksville) landed in Cleveland. The Cleveland airport was closed just before 10.00 am and everyone was evacuated. A plane made an emergency landing there at 10.15 and approx 200 passengers were disembarked and processed through a controlled environment – and bar a few phone calls to loved ones they were never seen or heard of again. Just suppose that ALL the passengers on all four flights were moved in secret to one place. Loose ends? Where are these loose ends?

>>> What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside?<<<

Moving at 400 mph would mean that at least a portion of the plane would enter the building. Remote control planes would have been strengthened enough for them to have been able to penetrate fully?

>>> The technology was available to them to create a fake airplane that could carry out the needed tasks
This is why real planes were not used <<<

What technology is there that can morph two planes onto the Manhattan skyline, track them along a planned trajectory into two buildings – and coincide their impact with the explosion of hidden bombs within those buildings? These planes were viewed by hundreds of people. Has every piece of photographic evidence and video footage been carefully orchestrated to pertain to that story?

At best, and this is an extremely long shot, the planes were not planes at all but were cruise missiles, or similar, fitted with some technological hologram equipment that generated the image of a plane around it. I do not believe that, I’m just searching around a little, and nor do I believe that the technology to do that is apparent just yet. But that concept bridges both angles of the story, although it doesn’t answer why there was a plane shaped hole, I don’t think that holograms leave holes – and if it turns out to be true, you heard it here first hehe >>> humour btw <<<

Given all the evidence and eye witness report I cannot see how a ‘no plane’ concept bares any weight within the conspiracy – it is pushing the boat a little bit too far to suggest that all the video and photographic evidence has been faked, along with all the eye witness reports.

banoyes

02-12-2008, 04:28 PM

banoyes

02-12-2008, 04:31 PM

Or even "The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted."

and this was a much smaller aircraft and a much stronger building.

See http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm it clarifies where the landing gear and engine went.
The world trade centers towers were the strongest buildings ever built
an engine is not a nose cone
You just can't help yourself

slartibartfast

02-12-2008, 04:45 PM

The world trade centers towers were the strongest buildings ever built

Evidence?

whiteshadow

02-12-2008, 05:14 PM

Come on guys,

Accept that the 2 sides of this debate are never going to come to an agreement on whether there were planes or no planes.

What does it matter?
911 was absolutely an inside job, and we are living with its diabolical aftermath every day.

If the Planes / No Planes argument is proved one way or the other, big deal!

Divide and conquer.

kingmonkey

02-12-2008, 05:18 PM

Why use real planes?

Because you can't hijack pretend ones.

banoyes

02-12-2008, 06:22 PM

Evidence?
you know your Freemasonry just drips all over everything
evidence??
how about this
"and this was a much smaller aircraft and a much stronger building."\
Evidence?
Piss off you are a total diso , waste of time, in evey post you make
the end ...expect nothing more from me ...Mason

merlincove

02-12-2008, 06:24 PM

There were not hundreds of eyewitness
there are as many say ,no plane,small plane.missile
after that
you show that you have done little research
so you ain't really interested
kinda pretend you are

Firstly I think that besides dodging some of the main points of my post your reply is based solely on your assumptions of me and how much I am or am not interested in this and was quite disrespectful. If I were not interested then I wouldn’t have posted a reply, I have better things to do with my day than waste time on a pointless pursuit that holds little or no interest for me.

I would point your attention to the following:

You mentioned that the pilots of flight 77 had been described as dumber than dumb by their respective peers. It is clear to anyone with a half a brain that there was no plane involved in the pentagon crash – and if there was a plane then it was one of considerable size difference to a 757. What hit the pentagon was either a cruise missile or a very small plane – IT MOST DEFINITELY WASN’T A 757 AS THE OFFICIAL STORY TELLS.
You build your argument on the fact that the ‘pilots’ were not judged as showing no competence to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon – if there was no plane used at the pentagon (and I would welcome you to offer any evidence other than the official lie to prove that there was a plane involved here) then it is totally irrelevant whether the pilots were capable or not.

The pilots didn’t have to be competent in anything other than aiming an already mobile plane into two towers that would have been extremely obvious to them.

The crumpled-inwards effect of the Tower structures following the impact is solely evident of an impact and is greatly apposed to the concept of pre-lain explosive devices to outline a plane shape. Explosive devices would echo a semblance of outward trajectory; the metal structure would be bent outwards if they had been subjected to preplaced explosive devices in order to mock a plane impact.

Eyes witnesses saying that they had seen a plane / planes fly into the twin towers.

Video footage.

Photographic footage.

Every piece of evidence to say / show that planes were used is wrong?

Disprove my earlier point that a remote controlled drone plane, mocked up to look like the individual planes used at the WTC complex could not have been strengthened to a degree capable of impacting the Twin Towers.

How heavy is a plane? At an impact speed of 400mph that plane would weigh how much?

Yes, breaching the Twin Towers was key to the entire agenda of bringing the towers down, that is obvious.

Creating an illusion of planes is far harder than using planes. You would need to fool all the people on the ground that they were seeing a plane arc across the Manhattan sky line.

Seeing Forest Gump speaking to Kennedy, or seeing a girl run through some war-torn village on a blue screen is not the same technology that could morph two airliners into the Manhattan skies, viewed by many people on the ground.

How many people have come forward to say ‘that never happened, the footage I saw on the TV news when I got home was not the same as what I saw in Manhattan’?

My earlier response was geared as my own views toward you first posts. You have come up with no evidence to substantiate your views and you have put forward nothing when debating the views of others.

You say;
after that
you show that you have done little research
so you ain't really interested
kinda pretend you are.

And that is meant to pass as a response; it is a poor response at very best. The inability to accept anyone else’s points shows that you are interested solely with your own concept of what happened on 911 and are totally unwilling to accept any apposing constructive debate.

If you’d like to debate, construct an intelligent response to my earlier post and the points that I raised. If you don’t want to, then that is fine.

I am not saying that my view is the right one, or that yours is wrong. Evidence says that yours is wrong, pure and simple. What I am doing is constructing a legible view of the concepts of 911, looking at all the evidence that carries a degree of proof and understanding. The facts that you have put forward (video footage of someone else’s facts, admittedly) hold neither evidence nor understanding as founding concepts of their claims. I think that mine do.

I haven’t got all the answers; I do not try to make people believe that I have. I am open to all sides of this discussion, where facts and evidence can be collated to shape any theory. All you have given is a short video, and short quips, no facts, no discussion, no answers to questions raised. You say I pretend to be interested? So how interested are you? Interested enough to continue peddling someone else video or interested enough to put forward your own conceptional thoughts into this subject?

We will see.

I am very interested in this, because it aids me to get a clearer picture in my mind how the NWO work. I do not just look at one video and view it as the truth, I watch many video’s and read many ar5ticles and see the many facts, carefully filtering them – not simply because they do not fit into my own belief, but to whether they hold any semblance of truth that will add to the larger picture. And in a way debate like this then aids me to see another aspect, but I can only see that aspect if I am given responsible replies that don’t work on assumptions.

Respect to you Banoyes :)

graflok

02-12-2008, 06:28 PM

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

OR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKdbV-ecuo

merlincove

02-12-2008, 06:36 PM

you know your Freemasonry just drips all over everything
evidence??
how about this
"and this was a much smaller aircraft and a much stronger building."\
Evidence?
Piss off you are a total diso , waste of time, in evey post you make
the end ...expect nothing more from me ...Mason

your response to slarti is a typical of you when responding to someone elses opinion. There is no need for that kind of message, the use of dissrespectfull language shows your tollerance to others and their views when they do not marry with your own.

C'mon banoyes, argue the point inteligently or do not argue at all.

And why is slarti a freemason? That is like saying anyone who dissagrees with Islamic fundamentilist views are anti semetic's!

banoyes

02-12-2008, 06:37 PM

Firstly I think that besides dodging some of the main points of my post your reply is based solely on your assumptions of me and how much I am or am not interested in this and was quite disrespectful. If I were not interested then I wouldn’t have posted a reply, I have better things to do with my day than waste time on a pointless pursuit that holds little or no interest for me.

I would point your attention to the following:

You mentioned that the pilots of flight 77 had been described as dumber than dumb by their respective peers. It is clear to anyone with a half a brain that there was no plane involved in the pentagon crash – and if there was a plane then it was one of considerable size difference to a 757. What hit the pentagon was either a cruise missile or a very small plane – IT MOST DEFINITELY WASN’T A 757 AS THE OFFICIAL STORY TELLS.
You build your argument on the fact that the ‘pilots’ were not judged as showing no competence to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon – if there was no plane used at the pentagon (and I would welcome you to offer any evidence other than the official lie to prove that there was a plane involved here) then it is totally irrelevant whether the pilots were capable or not.

The pilots didn’t have to be competent in anything other than aiming an already mobile plane into two towers that would have been extremely obvious to them.

The crumpled-inwards effect of the Tower structures following the impact is solely evident of an impact and is greatly apposed to the concept of pre-lain explosive devices to outline a plane shape. Explosive devices would echo a semblance of outward trajectory; the metal structure would be bent outwards if they had been subjected to preplaced explosive devices in order to mock a plane impact.

Eyes witnesses saying that they had seen a plane / planes fly into the twin towers.

Video footage.

Photographic footage.

Every piece of evidence to say / show that planes were used is wrong?

Disprove my earlier point that a remote controlled drone plane, mocked up to look like the individual planes used at the WTC complex could not have been strengthened to a degree capable of impacting the Twin Towers.

How heavy is a plane? At an impact speed of 400mph that plane would weigh how much?

Yes, breaching the Twin Towers was key to the entire agenda of bringing the towers down, that is obvious.

Creating an illusion of planes is far harder than using planes. You would need to fool all the people on the ground that they were seeing a plane arc across the Manhattan sky line.

Seeing Forest Gump speaking to Kennedy, or seeing a girl run through some war-torn village on a blue screen is not the same technology that could morph two airliners into the Manhattan skies, viewed by many people on the ground.

How many people have come forward to say ‘that never happened, the footage I saw on the TV news when I got home was not the same as what I saw in Manhattan’?

My earlier response was geared as my own views toward you first posts. You have come up with no evidence to substantiate your views and you have put forward nothing when debating the views of others.

You say;
after that
you show that you have done little research
so you ain't really interested
kinda pretend you are.

And that is meant to pass as a response; it is a poor response at very best. The inability to accept anyone else’s points shows that you are interested solely with your own concept of what happened on 911 and are totally unwilling to accept any apposing constructive debate.

If you’d like to debate, construct an intelligent response to my earlier post and the points that I raised. If you don’t want to, then that is fine.

I am not saying that my view is the right one, or that yours is wrong. Evidence says that yours is wrong, pure and simple. What I am doing is constructing a legible view of the concepts of 911, looking at all the evidence that carries a degree of proof and understanding. The facts that you have put forward (video footage of someone else’s facts, admittedly) hold neither evidence nor understanding as founding concepts of their claims. I think that mine do.

I haven’t got all the answers; I do not try to make people believe that I have. I am open to all sides of this discussion, where facts and evidence can be collated to shape any theory. All you have given is a short video, and short quips, no facts, no discussion, no answers to questions raised. You say I pretend to be interested? So how interested are you? Interested enough to continue peddling someone else video or interested enough to put forward your own conceptional thoughts into this subject?

We will see.

I am very interested in this, because it aids me to get a clearer picture in my mind how the NWO work. I do not just look at one video and view it as the truth, I watch many video’s and read many ar5ticles and see the many facts, carefully filtering them – not simply because they do not fit into my own belief, but to whether they hold any semblance of truth that will add to the larger picture. And in a way debate like this then aids me to see another aspect, but I can only see that aspect if I am given responsible replies that don’t work on assumptions.

Respect to you Banoyes :)
I don't want anything
dig it
a lot of words..meaning nothing
you have researched nothing
They were CGI inserts ,the plane cannot fly 500mph at that altitude and a whole lot of other stuff
like the fucken hi-jackers are still alive
and for the last time
there were VERY FEW eyewitness, and many of them had media connections or were paid shills (the baseball cap guy )
so ,I have no more to say , the information is on this site and on the web
I have no more patience for anyone who thinks airplanes can enter buildings

banoyes

02-12-2008, 06:42 PM

your response to slarti is a typical of you when responding to someone elses opinion. There is no need for that kind of message, the use of dissrespectfull language shows your tollerance to others and their views when they do not marry with your own.

C'mon banoyes, argue the point inteligently or do not argue at all.

And why is slarti a freemason? That is like saying anyone who dissagrees with Islamic fundamentilist views are anti semetic's!
Because Freemasons are liars and he is a mason
disrespectfull??
Spewing BS is disrespectfull
and so is your attempt to modify my manners to proven liars

merlincove

02-12-2008, 06:45 PM

I don't want anything
dig it
a lot of words..meaning nothing
you have researched nothing
They were CGI inserts ,the plane cannot fly 500mph at that altitude and a whole lot of other stuff
like the fucken hi-jackers are still alive
and for the last time
there were VERY FEW eyewitness, and many of them had media connections or were paid shills (the baseball cap guy )
so ,I have no more to say , the information is on this site and on the web
I have no more patience for anyone who thinks airplanes can enter buildings

ok dude, live in that delusive mind set. TPTB love guys like you, spreading missinformation, living with eyes wide shut.

the hijackers are still alive becuase the guys on the plane stole their identities. They probably even sold the id's to al queda who distributed themn to the guys on the front line. That much is obvious. Some guy dies someplace back in Taliban land, his passport goes off to some other guy who assumes his identity.

i have researched a lot. Easiest way to get out of an arguement / debate, don't acknowledge the other persons stance, say their understanding is limited - you are a perfect example of that. Head in the sand to anyone elses opinion.

The plane wasn't doing 500mph - it was perhaps doing something like 200 in all actuality :cool:

you don't wanna talk, that is fine dude.

merlincove

02-12-2008, 06:49 PM

Because Freemasons are liars and he is a mason
disrespectfull??
Spewing BS is disrespectfull
and so is your attempt to modify my manners to proven liars

and that totally makes no sense.

banoyes

02-12-2008, 06:50 PM

The plane wasn't doing 500mph - it was perhaps doing something like 200 in all actuality :cool:

you don't wanna talk, that is fine dude.
540+MPH OFFICAL RECORD
some reseacher you are
more like an OCT shill

merlincove

02-12-2008, 06:51 PM

540+MPH OFFICAL RECORD
some reseacher you are
more like an OCT shill

There you go with the insults again, lol

your post = the official story, i thought you were apposed to the OS? Anyone see the speedo?

We also have seismic activity registered within the manhattan area when the planes struck. Holograms wouldn't register a seismic wave - could that wave have been motioned by the sheer weight of a plane moving at speed and its collission with, say, a building?

mynameis

02-12-2008, 07:06 PM

They were CGI inserts ,the plane cannot fly 500mph at that altitude and a whole lot of other stuff
like the fucken hi-jackers are still alive
and for the last time
there were VERY FEW eyewitness, and many of them had media connections or were paid shills (the baseball cap guy )
so ,I have no more to say , the information is on this site and on the web
I have no more patience for anyone who thinks airplanes can enter buildings

There are planes you just do not accept this or the hundreds of eyewitness statements who state this on the record, which shows you for what you are.

Only those people who were without a vantage, who are unable to see this close up, or furthest away, or from the opposite angle are unable to see the plane. There is even available video and still photographic evidence. Even the helicopter pilots saw this happen. What does this tell you? It tells me that I think you think everyone is involved or responsible and no theory is too sound for you, which is the most paranoid illogical version of disinformation as I have ever heard.

Paid shills were probably planted, but this does not make it no planes.

And the plane's speed is verifiable at any altitude. They flew close to 500 or just over mph according to radar. Is there any verifiable proof to assert the planes cannot travel over 500 mph by any Boeing aviation expert, other than Lear whose connections to government contracts are questionable?

shabun

02-12-2008, 07:07 PM

I think Banoyes may be an agent cos he spouts lots of wierd stuff about holograms and buildings made of jelly. Either that or he is not well cos he seems to post gobbledegook.

mynameis

02-12-2008, 07:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKdbV-ecuo

OR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKdbV-ecuo

And you realize this is 1.) At night not daylight 2.) Uses a projection screen 3.) not hundreds of feet in the air.

merlincove

02-12-2008, 07:19 PM

And in all honesty it looked poor. The flying elephant was too jaggedy and the rest just looked like what it was, a play with light against soilid backdrops.

The fish in the pavement was pretty cool though :D

Using a solid backdrop for these emphasises the solidity of the image. You'd need to be able to develop the technique and replace a solid backdrop with sky and make whatever you impossed against the sky look whole to pass off a plane.

There is a video from tokyo of a monster looming up out of the river, the lack of a solid background gives it a very obvious see through quality.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YHDT8cfY6jA

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 07:21 PM

911 was an inside job

mynameis

02-12-2008, 07:58 PM

Can't everyone stick to the topic?

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:03 PM

911 was an inside job,and no one can prove that it was not:p

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:09 PM

911 was an inside job,and no one can prove that it was not:p

can we stop using giant fonts and colors like a troll and stick to the topic? Only the oct is a ct btw, ttfn.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:14 PM

can we stop using giant fonts and colors like a troll and stick to the topic? Only the oct is a ct btw, ttfn.

get lost

Justice For 9/11 (2/2) - YouTube

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:20 PM

Fuck you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQyb159mdfs

Well that's truly Shakespearean, but your sweet words will not win points with me.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:22 PM

Well that's truly Shakespearean, but your sweet words will not win points with me.

Like i say again,GET LOST

911 was an inside job

I do not want to win anything with you pal.

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:24 PM

Like i say again,FUCK YOU.

911 was an inside job

I do not want to win anything with you pal.

Hoh hum. It appears someone has fried some deeper recess of their mind.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:26 PM

Hoh hum. It appears someone has fried some deeper recess of their mind.

I notice how you always want the final say.its the likes of people like you who fry my mind,you fry it with constant BS.

You are like a fungi that keeps growing

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice - YouTube

9/11 SCHOLARS USE UNPATRIOTIC SCIENCE TO PROVE INSIDE JOB - YouTube

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:31 PM

I notice how you always want the final say.its the likes of people like you who fry my mind,you fry it with constant BS.

You are like a fungi that keeps growing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jts9zo4oY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9rgRULQsU

It must be intelligent space fungi like Lovecraft would say. I suppose that if you feel that remarks based in facts are BS, then your opinion is noted. A final word, which does not stick to the topic like yourself, is a useless attempt at passing blame off on someone else. You are clearly straying from sticking to the topic.

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:35 PM

The plane wasn't doing 500mph - it was perhaps doing something like 200 in all actuality :cool:

you don't wanna talk, that is fine dude.

Here is how you figure out how fast a 767 can go
The answer is: 493 knots = 567.334 267 876 mile/hour (mph) official max cruising speed

This is normally considered at high altitude. The velocity never to be exceeded (Vne) is typically at least 50 knots higher than Vmo, (see notes below) but few documented numbers are available. Vne at low altitude would normally be lower than at high altitude. Vne relates to the structural capabilities of the aircraft.

Here is how you figure out how fast a 767 can go at 700 ft (basically sea level)
We see that the "speed limit" is much lower at sea level than at 30k. 403 mph at sea level, and 581 mph at 30000 ft. But now the rubber to the road question is, how much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? To exceed Vmo/Mmo is not catastrophic. Boeing notes higher speeds can be authorized. To quote the Boeing Flight Ops review: "At speed in excess of Vmo/Mmo ... normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured." What they are saying is that an airplane can be taken somewhat beyond Vmo/Mmo by a skilled pilot. We would expect a safety factor of at least 10%, probably more like 20% or 30%, before structural damage may result.

How much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? Pilots For 9/11 Truth asked that question over a year ago, and still do not have an answer. It is fairly well established that Vmo is about 400 mph at sea level, but no solid numbers for Vne have been documented. While this question is still in the hopper, the assumption by Pilots For 9/11 Truth has been that all of the alleged manuvers of the airplanes on 9/11 were within the scope of a skilled pilot and the Boeing aircraft.

The "flight 175 Impossible speed" Thrust-Drag Argument has been mentioned on the internet.

The argument is basically this: thrust must increase 134-fold to maintain the same 542 mph it had at 35,000' altitude down at 1,000' altitude. I believe this is defintely wrong. First, the quantity given for air density in this "thrust/drag argument " is incorrect: The air density quoted is for 35000 meters, or 114829 ft, not 35000 ft. At 114829 ft, not only would you not be able to breathe, but you would also explode, so it looks like someone got meters and feet mixed up in thier calculations.

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/flight_175_impossible_speed.htm

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:38 PM

It must be intelligent space fungi like Lovecraft would say. I suppose that if you feel that remarks based in facts are BS, then your opinion is noted. A final word, which does not stick to the topic like yourself, is a useless attempt at passing blame off on someone else. You are clearly straying from sticking to the topic.

It would be helpful to understand where the hell you are coming from and what your purpose is,apart from your debunking of everyone who does not agree with what you say:confused:
Maybe you have forgotten what the topic is.911 was an inside job

mynameis

02-12-2008, 08:43 PM

It would be helpful to understand where the hell you are coming from and what your purpose is,apart from your debunking of everyone who does not agree with what you say:confused:
Maybe you have forgotten what the topic is.911 was an inside job

Telling someone what's wrong with their post is not debunking, it's telling them there is something wrong with their information. By stopping the spread of misinformed points of view and using facts, this stops the spread of misinformation. Reposting misinformation allows those who are responsible more time that could be devoted for more research into other areas for things not thought.

banoyes

02-12-2008, 08:49 PM

I think Banoyes may be an agent cos he spouts lots of wierd stuff about holograms and buildings made of jelly. Either that or he is not well cos he seems to post gobbledegook.
I have never said a word about holograms,except that they were NOT used
and this makes you a liar
many things are gobbledegook to the limited

limelady

02-12-2008, 08:56 PM

Please stick to the thread topic without the swearing and insults folks.

Also, can we give the large red font a miss please? Other members find it very spam-like and disruptive, and it really isn't necessary to use it repeatedly in this manner.

Thankyou.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 08:59 PM

Telling someone what's wrong with their post is not debunking, it's telling them there is something wrong with their information. By stopping the spread of misinformed points of view and using facts, this stops the spread of misinformation. Reposting misinformation allows those who are responsible more time that could be devoted for more research into other areas for things not thought.

But what are you trying to prove?where do you get all your so called credible info from,why is your info more credible than any one else's,we are all trying to get to the truth,but some of us do it differently,it doe s not mean we are right or wrong,we are all learning on the journey,none of us are perfect,we just want the true facts of why this world is being manipulated,and why the manipulators do not show themselves,but i think we are aware why they do not show themselves,because they are EVIL bastards.
and the truth of what is going on would blow a lot of peoples minds apart,because it is so evil and inconceivable even to imagine,and these are the type of beings we are dealing with,Pure Evil.
It is time for action all the talk in the world is not gonna bring the perpetrators to justice,it helps but now people need to start taking some action and demand answers,
they have managed it in thailand,they have thrown out the government,through the correct protest,there is nothing greater than people power,and that goes to prove it.

mynameis

02-12-2008, 09:03 PM

But what are you trying to prove?where do you get all your so called credible info from,why is your info more credible than any one else's,we are all trying to get to the truth,but some of us do it differently,it doe s not mean we are right or wrong,we are all learning on the journey,none of us are perfect,we just want the true facts of why this world is being manipulated,and why the manipulators do not show themselves,but i think we are aware why they do not show themselves,because they are EVIL bastards.
and the truth of what is going on would blow a lot of peoples minds apart,because it is so evil and inconceivable even to imagine,and these are the type of beings we are dealing with,Pure Evil.
It is time for action all the talk in the world is not gonna bring the perpetrators to justice,it helps but now people need to start taking some action and demand answers,
they have managed it in thailand,they have thrown out the government,through the correct protest,there is nothing greater than people power,and that goes to prove it.

Well usually it goes like this; to have credible information, it is sourced and presented as accurate from sources, whereas other not credible information ranges from having no accurate sources of information to not being at all accurate. Inconsistencies devalue the information and the presenter as a person who is never accurate or reliable with information.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 09:10 PM

Well usually it goes like this; to have credible information, it is sourced and presented as accurate from sources, whereas other not credible information ranges from having no accurate sources of information to not being at all accurate. Inconsistencies devalue the information and the presenter as a person who is never accurate or reliable with information.

But still you do not really know if its credible.you are just sat behind a computer sourcing the info,just like everyone on this forum,well nearly everyone,i think Scholars for Truth is pretty credible,you can see them,hear them,and they are pretty expert in their line of work,but according to some,they are all wrong,HHmmm let me think about that one?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

David Icke tears apart 9-11 part 1 - YouTube

By the way the big red letters are there just to remind folk of what the real issues are,so we do not lose sight of the real crime,in between the bickering parts.

Its a pity we cannot moderate the elites;)

btw, mynamis nothing in the fuck you (changed it to get lost)statement,i get really pissed easy these days,i am pretty pissed at the state of things,like i say i apologize,i will save statements like that for the scummy elites.

mynameis

02-12-2008, 09:14 PM

But still you do not really know if its credible.you are just sat behind a computer sourcing the info,just like everyone on this forum,well nearly everyone,i think Scholars for Truth is pretty credible,you can see them,hear them,and they are pretty expert in their line of work,but according to some,they are all wrong,HHmmm let me think about that one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx5IKBFW1B8

Remember, consistency is the golden rule of information. I'm not saying everything is accurate, but if something doesn't sound right and espouses something, which is not a fact... Such as magnometer date for September 11, 2001, as Wood did, then I cannot view her information as credible. When others like Simon Shack and Webfairy are caught tampering with the raw footage on taken from September 11th, their view of information is not credible. When Nico Haupt is being Nico Haupt, who is mislead by those types, I cannot take them seriously either.

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 09:18 PM

Remember, consistency is the golden rule of information. I'm not saying everything is accurate, but if something doesn't sound right and espouses something, which is not a fact... Such as magnometer date for September 11, 2001, as Wood did, then I cannot view her information as credible. When others like Simon Shack and Webfairy are caught tampering with the raw footage on taken from September 11th, their view of information is not credible. When Nico Haupt is being Nico Haupt, who is mislead by those types, I cannot take them seriously either.

Well if people are tampering with footage,they are no better than the scumbags who run the show,IMHO:(
one thing is for sure the 3 buildings were tampered with to fall in such a manner.
and Aaron russo is pretty credible also.

David The Devil Rockefeller Wants Us All DEAD - YouTube

merlincove

02-12-2008, 11:25 PM

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/flight_175_impossible_speed.htm

i have seen various thesis on the speed of the planes, some given by aparent experts, others from first hand experience on site (manhattan) and others still with no credible point of refereance. Saying 200mph was a vague attempt at saying that imo those planes were not travelling at 500mph.

it is very difficult to tell when you look at footage, because you have no distance ratios or points of referance other than a plane and a building - albeit a stationary building :rolleyes:

911 was an inside job and i think that we will all agree on that, B's personal insults to all and sundry who counter his arguement with facts don't help us to arrange a shape to the picture. We know it was an inside job, the squirrels in central park know it was an inside job :D

Limelady, yes it would be nice to conclude a civilised discussion between all the personal jibes, although beyond that a good deal of perfectly acceptable points have been raised and yet remain with no respose.

qasrose

02-12-2008, 11:48 PM

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 11:57 PM

Ever heard of the term flutter?on this posted vid about 7 mins in it will explain this effect and show evidence of this effect,interesting video,

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk

lightgiver

02-12-2008, 11:59 PM

Actually the topic is "Why use Real Planes".

And yes please stay on topic

Thought you had enough:confused:
and i am on topic:p
watch the vid i have just posted.:)

qasrose

03-12-2008, 12:02 AM

Because Freemasons are liars and he is a mason
disrespectfull??
Spewing BS is disrespectfull
and so is your attempt to modify my manners to proven liars

ha ha LOL....

Saying Freemasons are liars, LOL.. Classic come back. as usual.

You can not call anyone a liar man, you have lied many times
before now and sent out dis information....

It would be impossible to insert CGI Planes through
a LIVE broadcast feed. Why do you believe so deeply
that no planes existed on 9/11. So we have a plane
going at 500 mph smashing straight inside a building
and almost coming out the other side... How is that hard to believe??

strt

03-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Asking you guys to calm down would be too much, right?

Please?

qasrose

03-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Thought you had enough:confused:
and i am on topic:p
watch the vid i have just posted.:)

Well I decided, too come back, and as for the vid NO THANKS

qasrose

03-12-2008, 12:06 AM

Asking you guys to calm down would be too much, right?

Please?

erm, I am calm. look at my post?. It's a general question

banoyes

03-12-2008, 12:08 AM

ha ha LOL....

Freemasons are liars, LOL.. Classic come back. as usual.

You can not call anyone a liar man, you have lied many times
before now and sent out dis information....

It would be impossible to insert CGI Planes through
a LIVE broadcast feed. Why do you believe so deeply
that no planes existed on 9/11. So we have a plane
going at 500 mph smashing straight inside a building
and almost coming out the other side... How is that hard to believe??
Kind of a disgrace you using David Icke as an avatar
as David recomends watching "September Clues" as a way to wake up to the reality of 911
but, it's understandable , given your deceptive nature

lightgiver

03-12-2008, 12:08 AM

Well I decided, too come back, and as for the vid NO THANKS

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44290

Flight 175 reconstruction of final 4 mins 40 secs. - YouTube

Yeah we have all had enough BS to last us all several lifetimes,good to see you back though:)even though it was only for a day.

qasrose

03-12-2008, 12:09 AM

Kind of a disgrace you using David Icke as an avatar
as David recomends watching "September Clues" as a way to wake up to the reality of 911
but, it's understandable , given your deceptive nature

lol,

qasrose

03-12-2008, 12:10 AM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44290

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :confused:

merlincove

03-12-2008, 01:12 AM

Ever heard of the term flutter?on this posted vid about 7 mins in it will explain this effect and show evidence of this effect,interesting video,

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk

cool vid lightgiver - the voice did my head in a bit mind. So either the footage is fake, or the official report is fake? Hmm, rock and a hard place :cool:

lightgiver

03-12-2008, 01:47 AM

cool vid lightgiver - the voice did my head in a bit mind. So either the footage is fake, or the official report is fake? Hmm, rock and a hard place :cool:

Yes the voice is a bit annoying,i think the video was done by pilots for truth:)
It is a computer simulation in accordance with the official flightpath of 175.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15492

V speeds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages/prod/fs9/744.html

qasrose

03-12-2008, 01:57 AM

I watched that video man, interesting stuff

Yes the voice is a bit annoying,i think the video was done by pilots for truth:)
It is a computer simulation in accordance with the official flightpath of 175.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15492

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages/prod/fs9/744.html

mynameis

03-12-2008, 02:13 AM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44290

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk

Yeah we have all had enough BS to last us all several lifetimes,good to see you back though:)even though it was only for a day.

Why does Boeing say that the maximum speed is of a 767 is 460-470 knots, yet this guy says 360?

To make matters worse, this seems like a program designed for 747 specs.

After the great success of PMDG's 737 The Next Generation series, the latest production of PMDG 747-400 Queen of the Skies is destined to
become every airliner enthusiast's favorite Flight Simulator aircraft.

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages/prod/fs9/744.html

killtown

03-12-2008, 07:12 AM

1. It would be impossible to insert CGI Planes through a LIVE broadcast feed.

2. Why do you believe so deeply that no planes existed on 9/11.

3. So we have a plane going at 500 mph smashing straight inside a building and almost coming out the other side... How is that hard to believe??
1. Quite the contrary. We were told BEFORE 9/11 that is was possible to alter "LIVE" broadcasts:

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000
independent.co.uk

"None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html)."

----------------------

Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000

By Ivan Amato
technologyreview.com

"In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.
~
“What used to take an hour [per video frame], now can be done in a sixtieth of a second (http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=35).” This dramatic speed-up means that manipulation can be done in real time, on the fly, as a camera records or broadcasts."

2. Cause logic dictates that no planes were used on the WTC. The perps needed the appearance of planes penetrating through the WTC and what better way to guarantee penetration into a large/strong steel/concrete skyscrapers than planes made of pixels?

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html)

3. Read the part I bolded again.

mynameis

03-12-2008, 08:39 AM

1. Quite the contrary. We were told BEFORE 9/11 that is was possible to alter "LIVE" broadcasts:

2. Cause logic dictates that no planes were used on the WTC. The perps needed the appearance of planes penetrating through the WTC and what better way to guarantee penetration into a large/strong steel/concrete skyscrapers than planes made of pixels?

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html)

3. Read the part I bolded again.

Concrete is only in floors, which has nothing to do with the columns. And if there's no planes, why do they use a reverse demolition sequence knowing that they wanted to make people think there were planes if there is no planes? You logic is illogical Deadcity.

dave52

03-12-2008, 09:32 AM

And if there's no planes, why do they use a reverse demolition sequence knowing that they wanted to make people think there were planes if there is no planes?

This old chestnut again. The second event happened lower down in the tower. This could've been done on purpose to back up the "impact and fire causes collapses" story.

mynameis

03-12-2008, 02:36 PM

This old chestnut again. The second event happened lower down in the tower. This could've been done on purpose to back up the "impact and fire causes collapses" story.

I see your mind still has small thoughts about how logical thinking works. Put 2 and 2 together for once. Why would they need fires and make the collapses work backward from planes and make the kind of error which is noticeable, Dave. You fail to see dave that impacts being lower doesn't make it anymore logical dave if there's no planes, if there's a demolition order.

merlincove

03-12-2008, 04:36 PM

I see your mind still has small thoughts about how logical thinking works. Put 2 and 2 together for once. Why would they need fires and make the collapses work backward from planes and make the kind of error which is noticeable, Dave. You fail to see dave that impacts being lower doesn't make it anymore logical dave if there's no planes, if there's a demolition order.

mynameis, can you please explain your last post - i've read it a few times and whatever point you are making isn't getting in - think i have brain freeze today, sorry buddy.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44290

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk

Yeah we have all had enough BS to last us all several lifetimes,good to see you back though:)even though it was only for a day.

Back to the video again lightgiver - according to ntsb this is fake this is fake this is fake.

At 9.05 in the vid, there is a long view of the wtc as the second plane comes in. I've not noticed this before but there is a guy standing in the foreground, just in front of the camera with the wtc far off. This guy is watching and there is absolutely no reaction to the second plane impact from him.

So this vid aludes to the concept the live feed has been tampered with, and according to ntsb flight 175 decended at much steeper angle.

Well firstly i'd question whether a plane could be pulled out of the sky like that, with such a steep decent as the ntsb report claims. With such a steep decent the liklihood of the plane hitting the tower and disintegrating on impact, and in effect sliding down the tower face in bits is more than likely?

But again we still aren't getting any stories from the people on the ground saying that what they saw in new york was not what they saw on the tv. And this guy at 9.05, he'd be as shocked to see a plane dropping out the sky in a steep dive as he would seeing the plane in the feed?

So we have ntsb report saying that there was a plane and this is what it did. And noplaners say that is wrong. And it certainly sounds wrong.

Then there is the vid footage which everyone (apart from ntsb) says is right -but noplaners say is wrong.

I would expect the ntsb report to back up the official story, in all eventualities. i'm surprised then that it says all the footage is wrong.

so where's all that leave us?

Missinformation is at play here - contradiction leading to division, divide and conquer, because when we are arguing amongst ourselves we take our eye off the ball.

lightgiver

03-12-2008, 05:22 PM

mynameis, can you please explain your last post - i've read it a few times and whatever point you are making isn't getting in - think i have brain freeze today, sorry buddy.

Back to the video again lightgiver - according to ntsb this is fake this is fake this is fake.

At 9.05 in the vid, there is a long view of the wtc as the second plane comes in. I've not noticed this before but there is a guy standing in the foreground, just in front of the camera with the wtc far off. This guy is watching and there is absolutely no reaction to the second plane impact from him.

So this vid aludes to the concept the live feed has been tampered with, and according to ntsb flight 175 decended at much steeper angle.

Well firstly i'd question whether a plane could be pulled out of the sky like that, with such a steep decent as the ntsb report claims. With such a steep decent the liklihood of the plane hitting the tower and disintegrating on impact, and in effect sliding down the tower face in bits is more than likely?

But again we still aren't getting any stories from the people on the ground saying that what they saw in new york was not what they saw on the tv. And this guy at 9.05, he'd be as shocked to see a plane dropping out the sky in a steep dive as he would seeing the plane in the feed?

So we have ntsb report saying that there was a plane and this is what it did. And noplaners say that is wrong. And it certainly sounds wrong.

Then there is the vid footage which everyone (apart from ntsb) says is right -but noplaners say is wrong.

I would expect the ntsb report to back up the official story, in all eventualities. i'm surprised then that it says all the footage is wrong.

so where's all that leave us?

Missinformation is at play here - contradiction leading to division, divide and conquer, because when we are arguing amongst ourselves we take our eye off the ball.

Did you see the flutter on the planes?around 7.00mins into vid,the ntsb would say its fake,just like them,FAKE.
The ntsb are liars who work for the government,they have been caught out many times.
But keep repeating the lie,and it will sink in to the masses,typical propaganda.
I do not know the true facts,thats why i am here to try and find the truth.

merlincove

03-12-2008, 05:57 PM

Did you see the flutter on the planes?around 7.00mins into vid,the ntsb would say its fake,just like them,FAKE.
The ntsb are liars who work for the government,they have been caught out many times.
But keep repeating the lie,and it will sink in to the masses,typical propaganda.
I do not know the true facts,thats why i am here to try and find the truth.

dito :D

just been having a look at

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

>>>To resolve their bewilderment, they (planers) had to create some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as suggesting that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate, saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades, and some even suggest that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials, such as being lined with Depleted Uranium, or even, get this, fitted with explosive charges to help open the walls of the Towers.<<<

hmmm, all these aspects are possable, although i don't see any arguement to suggest they are impossable. the way this is worded is also key to the noplane agenda, to ridicule one aspect of thinking in favour of another.

You were right with your post 911 was an inside job.

Though perhaps the huge font was a little ott, lol

It is a good pointer that we kinda lead ourselves away from the truth of it, seperate our cause when all the time that one statement is the truth that we are not seeing :cool:

What we are looking at is the execution of an agenda.

If these planes missed their targets, if they crumpled up on the tower face, if for some reason they failed to penetrate the structure - there would have been a plan b.

and of course i am guessing, but in the event of none penatrative impacts, they still needed to complete the demolission. When 'bin laden' attacked the wtc previously using a truck in the basement - this could have been a plan b for 911, the failure of planes to penetrate + no collapse, which is a big flaw in the plan. Execute base line explossions, as part of the attacks to bring the towers down. scissor attack, planes at the top, explossions at the bottom, all eventualities taken care of.

They wanted the towers down and they would stop at nothing for that agenda to prevail. With an eventuality of a plane failing, 'the terrorists' had other attacks - that we obviously didn't see because they didn't need the plan b.

mynameis

03-12-2008, 06:28 PM

dito :D

just been having a look at

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

>>>To resolve their bewilderment, they (planers) had to create some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as suggesting that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate, saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades, and some even suggest that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials, such as being lined with Depleted Uranium, or even, get this, fitted with explosive charges to help open the walls of the Towers.<<<

hmmm, all these aspects are possable, although i don't see any arguement to suggest they are impossable. the way this is worded is also key to the noplane agenda, to ridicule one aspect of thinking in favour of another.

You were right with your post 911 was an inside job.

Though perhaps the huge font was a little ott, lol

It is a good pointer that we kinda lead ourselves away from the truth of it, seperate our cause when all the time that one statement is the truth that we are not seeing :cool:

What we are looking at is the execution of an agenda.

If these planes missed their targets, if they crumpled up on the tower face, if for some reason they failed to penetrate the structure - there would have been a plan b.

and of course i am guessing, but in the event of none penatrative impacts, they still needed to complete the demolission. When 'bin laden' attacked the wtc previously using a truck in the basement - this could have been a plan b for 911, the failure of planes to penetrate + no collapse, which is a big flaw in the plan. Execute base line explossions, as part of the attacks to bring the towers down. scissor attack, planes at the top, explossions at the bottom, all eventualities taken care of.

They wanted the towers down and they would stop at nothing for that agenda to prevail. With an eventuality of a plane failing, 'the terrorists' had other attacks - that we obviously didn't see because they didn't need the plan b.

So where are the passengers? Where is the depleted uranium? Why does the steel bend inwards? Why does the plane shaped hole fit, well you guessed it a plane? Calling a plane hit impact hole, not a plane hit, while still calling it disguised as plane is well the stupidest thing I have ever heard mentioned about 9/11 next to beams form outer space. About your other question...read the thread comments prior.

lightgiver

03-12-2008, 07:35 PM

Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights 'Strangely Silent' About Irregularities and Inconsistencies Of Official Government Story:

http://www.rense.com/general68/doomed.htm

http://www.rense.com/general69/strange.htm

Aug 24,Flight 93 memorial.no passenger families attended?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

merlincove

03-12-2008, 07:51 PM

This no plane thing just confuses things.

but whether there was a plane or not, we still being screwed over by the man with a plan.

Yeah, a plane shaped hole is a lot easier to make with a plane. i don't for one moment believe that there were any passengers on either plane that hit the world trade centre. Any passnegers that were on there were already under sedation at best and probably dead.

Wasn't there some talk of a stewardess found outside wtc with her hands tied etc?

But then is there any aspect of this story at all that we can put our faith in? When we see the official report tell us a different story to video footage, and when we see video footage clearly faked? In what aspect of this story can we see any semblance of truth. It is now being shrouded in more lies and more deception.

There were no bodies found at shanksville, where flight 93 allegedly crashed. When these things come down there are always bodies on site - but not in shanksville.

Anyone in those planes that hit the world trade centre would have been incinerated into nothing within the ensuing fireball. So why do we find bodies at other crash sites and not within the 911 framework?

A) Because within the wtc attacks there were no passengers – those poor people, if they ever existed at all – were spirited away and probably done away with once their ‘job’ was done.

B) They were exposed to a greater explosive catalyst than exists within other plane accidents where bodies are found. Such intensive explosions at wtc (kerosene / napalm / missiles, whatever) don’t exist within other plane crash sites because the destructive element is not part of regular plane fuel.

WTC framework bent inwards & plane shaped holes point unmistakingly toward an impacting force.

But why then do we get the contradicting evidence put forward by the ntsb and the video footage that has missing frames / dodgy sound.

And absolutely none of it fits together to form a conclusive, coherent picture. There are too many holes in both stories.

I will say again, there is a lot of evidence to support both sides of the discussion. But why we divide ourselves they are winning.

We’re a football team here who have been told by the manager to play defensive, and we’ve been told by the coach to play an attack. And half the team play defensive game while the other half play attack – we’re gonna lose the game because we’re all running around in circles trying to figure out what we should be doing.

Did they, the Zionists who planned this chess game, see this eventuality? Did they orchestrate all the discrepancies within the 911 conspiracy framework? Does it fit into their game plan? Because lets face it the sheeple accept that 911 leaves them with unanswered questions, but when they ask us for our opinion and we say, well actually there were no planes – what is their reaction going to be? And the agenda wins, the Zionist over mind wins, because we are seen as nutters and ALL our points of view become scrutinised with ridicule on that sole basis.

A lot of the video footage is questionable. As is the official report.

So where does that leave us?

Something hit the world trade centre towers on September 11th. This much is evidenced through the crippled framework of the towers. But that argument stems from the video footage that we have been given, and if the rest of it was faked then those bent frame struts bending inwards could have been faked to?

The video footage is dodgy, there are missing frames (this can be seen in both the impacts as filmed by the French dudes) as well as in other footage. The planes appear jerky and ill defined.

No plane at the pentagon. No plane at flight 93 crash site.

NTSB report is dodgy also.

Can we assume that the people of New York were all hypnotised in some way into believing they saw a plane? I don’t think so, although mass hysteria undoubtedly helped.

So did they see what they thought was a plane?

Well a cruise missile is very different from a passenger plane.

I’m still not convinced that there were no planes in the New York attacks.

The only thing that can make a plane shaped impacting hole into the sides of those buildings is an impacting plane or several – two or three – cruise missiles. And cruise missiles could have done it, they are capable of flying in close formation and capable of creating a plane shaped hole. But people didn't see a formation of cruise missiles - at least i have not read or seen anything suggesting that they did.

In all eventualities the easiest way to create the image of a plane flying into wtc is to actually fly a plane into the wtc. Ignore the pilots inability, use a remote controlled drone filled with explosives to tie up loose ends. Fit a plane with the same guidance system inherent within the cruise missile – edit in suitable plane afterwards.

Everything else is misdirection.

mynameis

03-12-2008, 09:46 PM

I will say again, there is a lot of evidence to support both sides of the discussion. But why we divide ourselves they are winning.

The only ones dividing us are the ones who won't stick with the facts as they are known.

goldman

04-12-2008, 04:07 AM

Guys & Girls, I think we can all agree on at least one thing:

It's was a bloody scientific miracle, pulled off not once but five times in a couple of hours.

killtown

04-12-2008, 05:28 AM

1) Concrete is only in floors, which has nothing to do with the columns.

2) And if there's no planes, why do they use a reverse demolition sequence knowing that they wanted to make people think there were planes if there is no planes?

3) You logic is illogical Deadcity.
1) You are right, horizontal concrete floors offer no resistance. Only vertical steel columns do.

2) How else where they going to blow up the WTC without the towers knocking over neighbor skyscrapers?

3) Lot's of things are to simple minds.

secondsun

05-12-2008, 05:34 AM

Why Use Real Planes?

...simple! because it was easier than trying to fake two!

killtown

05-12-2008, 07:21 PM

...simple! because it was easier than trying to fake two!
Using real planes was easier to 1) hit TWO narrow target flying 480mph & 590mph respectively without the plane's wings extending beyond the sides of the buildings, and 2) guarantee penetration so the perps can sell their collapse theory?

secondsun

06-12-2008, 06:47 AM

hit TWO narrow target flying 480mph & 590mph respectively without the plane's wings extending beyond the sides of the buildings

...do `they` or do `they` not have the technology to fire projectiles through the letter boxes of doors to Radar rooms these days!?

guarantee penetration so the perps can sell their collapse theory?

...what the hell do you NPT mob expect a aluminium projectile, weighing a few hundred tonnes or more, to do when it slams into a stationary steel framed building filled with air, at about 500 mph!?!?!?... slide down the side?

killtown

06-12-2008, 07:59 AM

1) ...do `they` or do `they` not have the technology to fire projectiles through the letter boxes of doors to Radar rooms these days!?

2) ...what the hell do you NPT mob

3) expect a aluminium projectile, weighing a few hundred tonnes or more,

4) to do when it slams into a stationary steel framed building filled with air, at about 500 mph!?!?!?... slide down the side?
1) are those projectiles large 100 ton airliners, or small missiles?

2) "NPT mob" http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/2005_eyes_rolling_back.gif

3) Max take-off weight for Boeing 767-300 = List of airliners by Maximum Takeoff Weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4) No.

secondsun

07-12-2008, 07:17 AM

1) are those projectiles large 100 ton airliners, or small missiles?

...you did`nt answer the question!...do `they` have the tech` to fire projectiles through the letter boxes of doors to radar rooms?... yes or no?

...you can roll your eyes all you like!

3) Max take-off weight for Boeing 767-300 = 156.49 tons

4) No.

...so you agree a plane weighing 156.49 tonnes, at 500mph or so, would`nt slide down the side of a building on impact!... so what would your logic suggest would happen to it it if it did?....thats a steel framed building thats 98% full of air by the way!

christophera

07-12-2008, 06:44 PM

...so you agree a plane weighing 156.49 tonnes, at 500mph or so, would`nt slide down the side of a building on impact!... so what would your logic suggest would happen to it it if it did?....thats a steel framed building thats 98% full of air by the way!

That is a critical fact. Also, the building face is 61% air (after the glass breaks)!

Alumnium traveling at 750 FPS will be sheared by the tempered steel columns, but that will continue until all of the aluminum is past the column. Until that point the entire 156.49 tons at 750 FPS is bearing on the impact local. This bends the perimeter columns past the breaking point whereupon they shear off.

Images of the tower show exactly this at the plane entry points.

killtown

09-12-2008, 02:26 AM

1) ...you did`nt answer the question!...do `they` have the tech` to fire projectiles through the letter boxes of doors to radar rooms?... yes or no?

2) ...so you agree a plane weighing 156.49 tonnes, at 500mph or so, would`nt slide down the side of a building on impact!...

3) thats a steel framed building thats 98% full of air by the way!
1) I asked you to clarify it so it's not and apple/oranges question.

2) Not all of it. Some of it though would stay on the outside. Wouldn't you agree?

3) What percentage is a 767 full of air?

killtown

09-12-2008, 02:28 AM

Images of the tower show exactly this at the plane entry points.
1) Do the images on the videos show this?

2) On the videos, do you see the plane slowing, crumpling, or any parts of it sheer/break off?

3) On the videos, do you see any of the steel columns bending/breaking?

banoyes

13-12-2008, 05:18 PM

That is a critical fact. Also, the building face ( Guess he means whole build,)is 61% air (after the glass breaks)!

A submarine is 77% air... so what
no factor

Alumnium traveling at 750 FPS will be sheared by the tempered steel columns, but that will continue until all of the aluminum is past the column. Until that point the entire 156.49 tons at 750 FPS is bearing on the impact local. This bends the perimeter columns past the breaking point whereupon they shear off.
What!!! "Alumnium traveling at 750 FPS will be sheared"
where is the shearing?
You say the alumnium gets "sheared"
Then this sheared aluminum shears through steel.
Ya ..that makes sense

Images of the tower show exactly this at the plane entry points.
Sure they do,must have missed the aluminum shearing
say post a pic of the aluminum shearing

lightgiver

13-12-2008, 06:46 PM

...do `they` or do `they` not have the technology to fire projectiles through the letter boxes of doors to Radar rooms these days!?

...what the hell do you NPT mob expect a aluminium projectile, weighing a few hundred tonnes or more, to do when it slams into a stationary steel framed building filled with air, at about 500 mph!?!?!?... slide down the side?

Well if all this tonnage of aircraft smashed into peices,then i am father christmas,any crime you preserve evidence of the crime,remember lockerbie when a plane was blown out of the sky,they collected the aircraft parts and have kept the pieces still unto this day,so where the hell are all the 911 aircraft pieces??????????????? There is none?
because they got rid of it all,the evidence that is,to cover up their lies and deceit.

mynameis

17-12-2008, 03:18 PM

A submarine is 77% air... so what
no factor

What!!! "Alumnium traveling at 750 FPS will be sheared"
where is the shearing?
You say the alumnium gets "sheared"
Then this sheared aluminum shears through steel.
Ya ..that makes sense

Sure they do,must have missed the aluminum shearing
say post a pic of the aluminum shearing

A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

So which impacts more water or aluminum traveling at the same velocity? This does not calculate kinetic energies into account.

kamakazi

17-12-2008, 03:44 PM

^"A plane does not fly into a building as if into a cloud." - a noplaner - LOL.
no... it doesnt... whats funny about that?

why are ppl still bothering arguing with these trolls?

no planes. end of story. move on...

mynameis

17-12-2008, 04:31 PM

banoyes

20-12-2008, 05:14 AM

No evidence for no planer claims. end of story. move on...:D /agreed.
This is exactly backwards (small wonder from a freemason devotee)
There is not one bit of evidence planes were used anywhere.

and the only thing plane people have are videos proven fake
and a small number of eyewittness,whos' stories conflict.
The whole thing was a grand illusion

masonfree party

20-12-2008, 09:55 AM

Shows you that Banoyes does not do any research...

eh gasrose...do you live in Liverpool? and if so did you set up that fake 911 truth group?

keystone

20-12-2008, 10:07 AM

(small wonder from a freemason devotee)
I've come to the opinion that you are either just a nasty person or you are somewhat away with the fairies. Trouble is I can't quite decide which. :D

masonfree party

20-12-2008, 11:07 AM

I've come to the opinion that you are either just a nasty person or you are somewhat away with the fairies. Trouble is I can't quite decide which. :D

or maybe he knows what the real 911 truth is but the swine on here don't appreciate it

keystone

20-12-2008, 11:10 AM

or maybe he knows what the real 911 truth is but the swine on here don't appreciate itMaybe he does. But maybe if he was less insulting in almost every post he makes then people might take notice of the message he's trying to impart.

toty1994

20-12-2008, 03:45 PM

From what I've read on this forum, when anyone brings up the question 'what about the witnesses?' it is often met with 'they saw it on tv' or even 'what witnesses?'

Assuming there were at least several thousand people on the ground looking up as the second plane hit (is this in dispute?), I just do not understand the rationale behind such answers. If there really were no planes then surely countless witnesses would have flooded the media (of all kinds) to express their confusion and incredulity once they'd got to see the 'fake' tv footage? I think it possible a small number may have been duped if the theory were true but thousands?? It's one of many points re 'no planes' that makes absolutely no sense to me.

banoyes

20-12-2008, 06:44 PM

secondsun

21-12-2008, 05:57 AM

`why use real planes`... cos` `They` had too!!... so all are tiny little brains were conditioned to accept the two following incidents where there was`nt real planes!!!... its f#ckin` simple!

toty1994

21-12-2008, 10:48 AM

It is not in dispute... there were very FEW 'eyewitness"
Your claim of "thousands" is baseless

I'm not talking particularly of the people interviewed on tv about what they had just seen. That there is not so much eyewitness footage isn't surprising given the world's media was focussed on the scene for all to 'see' (which I think makes sense whatever one believes of the media's role).

No, I mean the people that did not give statements to the media but nonetheless were witness to the event - of which there must have been thousands. Is it in dispute that there were thousands of pairs of eyes looking up at the towers as the second plane hit? If so, how - and why would they not be looking? New York has a huge population and is one of the major tourist destinations in the world, were the streets deserted that morning?

So again, if there were no planes I still don't understand the total lack of outrage from witnesses once they'd viewed these 'cartoon' planes on tv. It would utterly contradict what they saw - were they all so weak-minded?

white horse

21-12-2008, 11:24 AM

1.) The perpatrators were un-skilled pilots

Fallacy one. They were trained on simulators and had military instruction from the United States.

...and were apparantly awful pilots who totally flunked; one of the instructors said of one of them that he was the worst pilot he ever saw.

2.) Navigation?

See #1 or look up Microsoft flight simulator and stop being a sloth.

Even using a sim at full speed is pretty hard, and you haven't got physics buffeting the plane at it's design thresholds.

Also you will not find any pilot anywhere on the planet that will agree that someone with less than a year's training could execute that manouevre into the Pentagon. Not only that, the 'experts' are very doubtful that the plane could actually physically make that turn at full speed.

3.) Passenger revolt does not work in their favor, but a passenger revolt could be quashed with planted weapons.

Planted weapons? How? Some Saudis are gonna 'plant' some weapons onto US planes with the highest security in the world. How did they accomplish this without inside help then???

5.) Locate the target?

See #1.

Still hard to hit at full speed.

8.) This could not be done with certainty using real planes and real people
The technology was available to them to create a fake airplane that could carry out the needed tasks?

Ugh....This is all conjecture and has no basis in logic, the use Occam's razor, or the Socratic method. The technology to make fake 3 dimensional planes appear to crowds of people projecting in the air at 100s of feet for miles does not exist. There would be no point when Able Danger and Vigilant Guardian military exercises provide all the opportunity along with the changes made to the protocols by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and whoever worked on Promis/P-tech.

Ok, show me the 'eye witnesses' from street level who either saw or heard a plane. The only ones who say they saw a plane are media insiders.

All the civilian witnesses talk about the tower/s exploding. You ever been in a city with a low flying plane going over? Every one looks up. It's very loud.

No one saw or heard a plane with their own eyes or ears.

There were no planes.

There were no holographic projections either. They just relied on the repetition of video evidence for everyone to convince themselves about the planes. They know we are slaves to the Tube ane will believe what it tells us.

The 'live' video shots were fed from a pool with a few seconds delay.

Study it.

I was a sceptic. I laughed at people like me.

I have spent the last two years investigating and studying video footage. I see no real planes.

I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE OF HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES HITTING THE WTC.

white horse

21-12-2008, 11:32 AM

So again, if there were no planes I still don't understand the total lack of outrage from witnesses once they'd viewed these 'cartoon' planes on tv. It would utterly contradict what they saw - were they all so weak-minded?

There isn't a total lack of outrage, there is a total media blackout.

The truth movement in the US is growing.

People have been trying to get heard for years; people have been saying 'I'm not a crazy commie, but I did not see a plane'.

There are firemen who will swear to their dying days they heard multiple explosions just before the collapse.

There were people in the basement who died when the first plane hit.

Why arent these peole on TV daily?? Cos the media is in on it.

If you speak SPanish you might find this stuff easier; in teh States when these people talk to the media they are heavily cesnored. But many of these people are Hispanics, and the Hispanic media is running with it.

look up Wiliam Rodriguez. He has travelled the worl dfo ryears recounting his evidence of 911. He was a master key holder for the WTC. He worked in that building for 20 years. He was the last man (and only one) to be pulled out alive. He has talked about it ever since. He lost friends who were 4 levels down in the basement. They died in an explosion.

Why does America not even know this guys name?

Media blackout.

A trustable eyewitness who reports explosions in the sub basements 7 seconds before the first strike. He was excluded from the officila report.

Blackout.

merlincove

21-12-2008, 12:49 PM

I'm not talking particularly of the people interviewed on tv about what they had just seen. That there is not so much eyewitness footage isn't surprising given the world's media was focussed on the scene for all to 'see' (which I think makes sense whatever one believes of the media's role).

No, I mean the people that did not give statements to the media but nonetheless were witness to the event - of which there must have been thousands. Is it in dispute that there were thousands of pairs of eyes looking up at the towers as the second plane hit? If so, how - and why would they not be looking? New York has a huge population and is one of the major tourist destinations in the world, were the streets deserted that morning?

So again, if there were no planes I still don't understand the total lack of outrage from witnesses once they'd viewed these 'cartoon' planes on tv. It would utterly contradict what they saw - were they all so weak-minded?

I raised this exact point toty, and the thing is that when you introduce a question that the no-planers can’t fully answer you receive BS answers like the one you got.

They talk about the pilots being unskilled. It doesn’t mater how skilled they were or were not, if the planes were remote controlled you don’t even need a pilot.

They say that the pilots are still alive. And again that is Bull Shit. They may still be alive, but identities can be stolen so easily. And again if the planes are remote controlled then there are no pilots.

There were secondary explosions; I think any advocate of 911 was an inside job knows this. You can see them on some of the video’s. the towers were bought down in a controlled demolition. This doesn’t prove no planes.

Thousands of people were watching the smoke pour out of tower on when the second plane hit.

When the first plane hit people were saying that it was a military aircraft with no windows. A military aircraft is still a plane.

But at the end of the day, pouring reason onto this phenomena isn’t going to persuade the no planers that there were planes, or vice versa.

The whole concept is misdirection.

It doesn’t matter any more.

But why we are arguing we are in effect breaking ranks, we are dividing ourselves, and with such a division no one who is still plugged into the official story BS will take us seriously.

We were all lied to by the machine that is driven new world order. I don’t think it matter how we understand or dissect that lie, just that we understand that we were lied to.

We can argue planes or no planes for eternity, and why we are arguing then we are losing sight of the game. In 30 years 911 will be just like Roswell, shrouded in so many conspiracies it will be difficult and near impossible to see the underlying structure of lies.

We can keep on bickering and calling each other names and not answering powerful points such as the ones raised. And all the time we are doing that NWO’s divide and conquer tactic continues to work.

In attempting to understand how the conspiracy works we are digging ourselves deeper into the machine of control until we become controlled by it. Just what NWO wants. We may be fighting to get out of it, but all the while we divide our efforts we are playing into their game.

merlincove

21-12-2008, 12:56 PM

It is not in dispute... there were very FEW 'eyewitness"
Your claim of "thousands" is baseless

Banoyes, nice to have you back with us :cool:

i would hope now that we can have a sensible discussion, and that other certain members stop goading you into a confrontation... :rolleyes:

If we can have a sensible discussion, and i'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can, please answer without abuse or misdirection the following five questions.

1) Is it possible that the pilots are still alive because their identities were stolen by the perpetrators?

2) Is it possible that, if planes were used, they were remote controlled?

3) With a remote controlled plane how easy would the twin towers have been able to be hit, in your opinion?

4) Were the Manhattan streets filled with onlookers when the second plane hit and if so is it possible that they saw a plane hit the second tower?

And finally, with remote control planes does it matter how skilled the apparent pilots were?

banoyes

21-12-2008, 02:20 PM

No, I mean the people that did not give statements to the media but nonetheless were witness to the event - of which there must have been thousands. Is it in dispute that there were thousands of pairs of eyes looking up at the towers as the second plane hit? If so, how - and why would they not be looking? New York has a huge population and is one of the major tourist destinations in the world, were the streets deserted that morning?

So again, if there were no planes I still don't understand the total lack of outrage from witnesses once they'd viewed these 'cartoon' planes on tv. It would utterly contradict what they saw - were they all so weak-minded?

You are making stuff up "witness to the event - of which there must have been thousands."
Wasn't thousands, was very few as explained
why do you keep insisting "witness there must have been thousands."?

plane people... direct you to the imaginary thousands and fake video
take a look at the evidence,there is none for any airplane at any location
not a single piece

banoyes

21-12-2008, 02:45 PM

Banoyes, nice to have you back with us :cool:

i would hope now that we can have a sensible discussion, and that other certain members stop goading you into a confrontation... :rolleyes:
If we can have a sensible discussion, and i'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can, please answer without abuse or misdirection the following five questions.
You already abuse me here.

1) Is it possible that the pilots are still alive because their identities were stolen by the perpetrators?
Is it possible there were never any pilots??

2) Is it possible that, if planes were used, they were remote controlled?

3) With a remote controlled plane how easy would the twin towers have been able to be hit, in your opinion?

Introduces more complexity,why do it if the perpetrators stole identities

4) Were the Manhattan streets filled with onlookers when the second plane hit and if so is it possible that they saw a plane hit the second tower?

And finally, with remote control planes does it matter how skilled the apparent pilots were?
Back to the "onlookers", none agree about anything
does that give you a clue
look
there is no help for you
you believe an aluminum airplane can enter a steel building without breaking to pieces and explode AFTER it is completely inside.
so it doesn't matter if you want to think remote planes
no plane can do that
ps
I do agree with your overall picture
I am active in spreading the truth here where I live
I do not get into "planes/no planes"
It is far more complex then that
to keep it simple
I hand out "The Big Picture"

merlincove

21-12-2008, 06:08 PM

You already abuse me here, you sanctimonious prat

hm, so much for a civilised conversation :rolleyes:

but yeah, the point is we were lied to and the gravity of 911 is much more intense than either you or i believe it to be, there is a lot more going on here.

Joe public in the street who see's the news and sees the story and sees the report. Tell him there were no planes and he labels you a nutter.

and it is difficult to get outside that, isn't it?

Is no planes a missinformation exersize?

You see the nwo have guys who sit around and think stuff up, all day. And these guys are good at what they do, because they can inject so many different angles and future probabilies into the whole arena. They can see that by sliding in a no plane theory, or enough 'evidenc' to point to one, will wrong foot us and keep us guessing. I am sure that thgis very conversation, or at least a proto-similar one was on the table way back before 911 happened.

God chess players have a milklion chess games in their head, before they even get to the table they have a retort planned for any given attack, and the nwo are decent chess players. They employ people to think this shit up, to cover their backs.

Spreading the big picture. So long as we keep our ocus on the fact that there is a picture, and don't get so wrapped up in it that it turns into a roswell. Cool.

And Banoyes, actually is is good to have you back. We can't have a game of football with only half a team. I'm sorry to metaphor all the time, it just sits easy in my head.

i don't know, is it wrong just to ignore the things we don't all agree on. Do we really need to hammer a point, plane or no plane till someone concedes?

Was jesus the son of god or a prophet, it's the same thing as planes no planes and we can fight between ourselves forever in that vain.

i still think those planes went into those buildings. Maybe that is niave or wrong, and maybe it is right. I don't care, its what i believe :cool:

No planers believe otherwise and that is :cool: to.

And i am pretty sure there would have been 1000 if not more people standing around in manhattan on that day, watching the first tower smoke. And therefore there is 1000 if not more people who saw something fly into those buildings.

Plane shaped holes, some impactor, bent metal leaning inwards. All says plane to me.

And that is what it says to 60 billion people who are all plugged into the official story. And it is those minds that we are trying to tap into, to allow them to see the big picture.

Is it possible there were never any pilots??

Yes absolutely. i don't believe there were any pilots - and those schmucks who the nwo say were the pilots had les chance of succesfully piloting a car to an airport than fly those planes into the towers. let alone the pentagon.

Introduces more complexity,why do it if the perpetrators stole identities

Because having stolen ID's fits in with the lies we are told, it is more acceptable to joe public that this is the case than there were no pilots, because an RC plane is totally out of their belief structure, so they need pilots, and to have pilots there is a need for schmuks to turn up at the training schools and they will need ID's? 'these guys couldn't fly, they could hardly take off or land, but they managed to hit the towers' - guy at the training school told our reporter today! What is more gauling, that lie or the fact that we are ment to swallow it?

Peace

banoyes

21-12-2008, 07:14 PM

You already abuse me here, you sanctimonious prat

hm, so much for a civilised conversation :rolleyes:
You already abuse me here, you sanctimonious prat

but yeah, the point is we were lied to and the gravity of 911 is much more intense than either you or i believe it to be, there is a lot more going on here.

Joe public in the street who see's the news and sees the story and sees the report. Tell him there were no planes and he labels you a nutter.
i still think those planes went into those buildings. Maybe that is niave or wrong, and maybe it is right. I don't care, its what i believe :cool:

I see your point, it's what other people think that makes it true.
so
I will now believe aluminum airplanes, with composite nose cones can fly right through a steel building, they will not break to pieces and will explode AFTER it is total inside the building.
naw... I can't believe that no matter how many tell me so
[/QUOTE]

No planers believe otherwise and that is :cool: to.

And i am pretty sure there would have been 1000 if not more people standing around in manhattan on that day, watching the first tower smoke. And therefore there is 1000 if not more people who saw something fly into those buildings.
not supported by evidence
belief is a weakness

Plane shaped holes, some impactor, bent metal leaning inwards. All says plane to me.

And that is what it says to 60 billion people who are all plugged into the official story. And it is those minds that we are trying to tap into, to allow them to see the big picture.

Is it possible there were never any pilots??

Yes absolutely. i don't believe there were any pilots - and those schmucks who the nwo say were the pilots had les chance of succesfully piloting a car to an airport than fly those planes into the towers. let alone the pentagon.

Introduces more complexity,why do it if the perpetrators stole identities

Because having stolen ID's fits in with the lies we are told, it is more acceptable to joe public that this is the case than there were no pilots, because an RC plane is totally out of their belief structure, so they need pilots, and to have pilots there is a need for schmuks to turn up at the training schools and they will need ID's? 'these guys couldn't fly, they could hardly take off or land, but they managed to hit the towers' - guy at the training school told our reporter today! What is more gauling, that lie or the fact that we are ment to swallow it?
You presume a RC airplane would be easier to fly into the building...It is a difficult target at any level,so no one could assure it would be hit
and why are there live shots with no airplane present
and why are there shots of the airplane with different approach paths
To believe in airplanes you have to dismiss evidence

Peace
You still don't get it and it is simple , just leave your mind open
watch flight 175 enter the S Tower
no slowing down,no breakage, even the fragile tail section goes right through the steel and concrete... impossible.. all there is to it
PS
"The Big Picture" is a video
it's on Google

merlincove

21-12-2008, 07:53 PM

"The Big Picture" is a video
it's on Google

i will watch it again, i think i still have it on my laptop, which is cool as i can watch it at work without the need for internet.

Thing is there is so much to see and so much to take in, one docu and then another it all gets a bit too heavy. Maybe i dismissed something because of that. i will re-evaluate it, and when i see it again i'll no doubt recal what it was i felt didn't fit.

I see your point, it's what other people think that makes it true. so...

yes and no, it is really how aware you are as a person, whether you are willing to bury your head in the sand as so many people who are still plugged into the official story of 'Bin Laden did it' are only too keen to do. It is the sheep mentality thing, we all know it. And it is a scarry concept to be that one sheep left in a field, because the sheep believes in wolves.

So it is comfortable in the pack.

...so
I will now believe aluminum airplanes, with composite nose cones can fly right through a steel building, they will not break to pieces and will explode AFTER it is total inside the building.
naw... I can't believe that no matter how many tell me so

If it were an RC plane then it wouldn't be made of aluminium?

The deadline is that i believe this and you believe that.

The whole story is filled with inadequate explinations, the report says that a plane cmae down at a steep angle, descending (and i am paraphrasing here because i can't remember) ha;lf the height of the tower in the last few seconds, while the video shows it coming in at a steady altitude. Stinks.

flight 93 and the pentagon, no plane - absolutely no arguement there.

But people saw planes at the WTC. Or people saw something that was flying.

We are so far down the line now, all these years on, without a solid uniform collection of original footage i dont think we can accept anything we see as eviodence now as i feel that tampering with colour saturation and all the rest to 'make' it show whatever aspect you are pushing can and has been used. Remember the shots from a few year ago where they were saying the planes did not explode like a normal plane? The colour, apparently, was more akin to napalm explossions, and there were shots of napalm bonds and burning planes that had come down on runways as comparrisons.

Are we seeing the original footage now days?

And i say that not with a closed minded perspective ;)

white horse

21-12-2008, 11:15 PM

"The Big Picture" is a video
it's on Google

But people saw planes at the WTC. Or people saw something that was flying.

This is a really important points, and maybe a new thread needs to be launch to collate all 'eyewitness' reports. I wanna see as many of these as possible because this is key to NPT.

Line up the witnesses who saw or heard a plane.

New York City. A plane. A big plane. Anyone? And another. Anyone?

Where are the thousands who saw/heard the second plane.

Nowhere.

I came across NPT a year ago and since then have looked and looked at it, with an open mind. My logical brain did not see any real passenger aircraft flying across the manhattan skyline.

My emotional brain thought - people must have seen that. How can this be?

To this day I have found not one credible 'eyewitness' who can ID a Boing passenger plane crashing into either WTC. After the first tower strike there are initial eye witness news reports saying a small plane, one says 'like a cesnar' or a missile. People also mention a drone or whistle.

The second hit. I can find nothing. No one 'who was there and not involved with the media' mentions sight or sound of a plane.

That does not say there was not plane, that says that I have yet to find any evidence of a plane. The most recorded event in history in one of the greatest cities in the most advanced nation on Earth.

The first guy to report at the Pentagon said that there was no evidence of a plane, there was no debris, there was a round hole (the roof had not collapsed). Absolutly no wreckage bigger than your hand. Where were the wings and tail?

You will not find an honest living airline pilot alive today who will tell you that a flunky with less than a year's training could execute that turn into the Pentagon, and neither could a pilot with 25 years experience for that matter, at that speed at those stresses the plane would tear itself apart.

Where's the plane wreckage in that field huh?

4 airliners.

No Wreckage.

I don't have to go any further.

Somebody, show me a plane.

gribz

22-12-2008, 06:42 AM

Where's the plane wreckage in that field huh?

4 airliners.

No Wreckage.

I don't have to go any further.

Somebody, show me a plane.

Exactly - someone please show us planes and we can shut up. 4 crashes and the media had pre-knowledge of 3 of them yet there is no close up what so ever of anyone of them proving it was normal planes. Yet plenty evidence suggests otherwise.

There will be some people out there, whether its New York or Arlington that really saw what happened!!

It was impossile for flight 175 to fly at 1000ft at the speed given in the 'offcial' report...!

1 task that would have been difficult itself would be for the hijackers to FIND New york from the position they took over the planes and then simply line up a perfect crash!!..without being intercepted?!!!

The official version is laughable

qasrose

22-12-2008, 08:06 AM

You still don't get it and it is simple , just leave your mind open
watch flight 175 enter the S Tower
no slowing down,no breakage, even the fragile tail section goes right through the steel and concrete... impossible..

Now before anyone says, I'm not
coming here to argue or insult anyone.

Can you answer the fact that flight
175 is crashing into the S Tower at 500mph.

It's not just going to say
"Oh wait to make this look real
I'll pull on my breaks and just hit the outside tower."

And you expect the plane to slow down, and break.. :D:D:D???
This isn't the movies. It's hard to accept it I know.

But Planes really did hit the towers that day.

Their are loads of images, video that proof it did happen.

Can you show me those videos
that you claim have the airplane with different approach path. ??

As it's just not possible for that to happen.

masonfree party

22-12-2008, 08:18 AM

Now before anyone says, I'm not
coming here to argue or insult anyone.

Can you answer the fact that flight
175 is crashing into the S Tower at 500mph.

It's not just going to say
"Oh wait to make this look real
I'll pull on my breaks and just hit the outside tower."

And you expect the plane to slow down, and break.. :D:D:D???
This isn't the movies. It's hard to accept it I know.

But Planes really did hit the towers that day.

Their are loads of images, video that proof it did happen.

Can you show me those videos
that you claim have the airplane with different approach path. ??

As it's just not possible for that to happen.

another 'it must be true because i saw it on TV' victim

merlincove

22-12-2008, 10:22 AM

another 'it must be true because i saw it on TV' victim

No, just someone looking for the truth.

And it is getting harder and harder to find.

One banner. "911 was an inside job."

We are all entitled to our opinions.

gribz

22-12-2008, 10:24 AM

Has anyone actually been up a building similar to the WTC?? Or even the towers themselves before 2001??

Ive been up quite a few high rise buildings including the twin towers in Kuala Lumpur which are pretty much the same height as the WTC were....and when you get so close to them and see the size of the structures you realise that NO WAY a couple of planes could waste them into dust! Yes they would do a lot of damage to the paintwork - no doubts - or maybe chop a few floors off - but absolute no way would they strip them to dust!!

masonfree party

22-12-2008, 11:18 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY&feature=related

That 60 storey steel central core corner section'spire' turned to dust as far as I can see, it would have had a more tree falling action wheeling over 90 degrees if it had remained solid. There was very little rubble for two 500K ton steel and concrete buildings falling to earth, the seismic records don't square with 2X500Ktons hitting the ground, far from it and the 'bathtub was unharmed, what explosives could have affected these factors?Did they audit the steel salvaged?..no..because there was fuck all left to salvage

white horse

22-12-2008, 07:57 PM

Now before anyone says, I'm not
coming here to argue or insult anyone.

Can you answer the fact that flight
175 is crashing into the S Tower at 500mph.

It's not just going to say
"Oh wait to make this look real
I'll pull on my breaks and just hit the outside tower."

And you expect the plane to slow down, and break.. :D:D:D???
This isn't the movies. It's hard to accept it I know.

But Planes really did hit the towers that day.

Their are loads of images, video that proof it did happen.

Can you show me those videos
that you claim have the airplane with different approach path. ??

As it's just not possible for that to happen.

Hey there - you are echoing my opinion from 2 years agor. Since then I have watched and watched video footage of these 'planes.'

I'll dig out some vids for you to watch...

abrilliantone

22-12-2008, 10:59 PM

This is a really important points, and maybe a new thread needs to be launch to collate all 'eyewitness' reports. I wanna see as many of these as possible because this is key to NPT.

Line up the witnesses who saw or heard a plane.

New York City. A plane. A big plane. Anyone? And another. Anyone?

Where are the thousands who saw/heard the second plane.

Nowhere.

I came across NPT a year ago and since then have looked and looked at it, with an open mind. My logical brain did not see any real passenger aircraft flying across the manhattan skyline.

My emotional brain thought - people must have seen that. How can this be?

To this day I have found not one credible 'eyewitness' who can ID a Boing passenger plane crashing into either WTC. After the first tower strike there are initial eye witness news reports saying a small plane, one says 'like a cesnar' or a missile. People also mention a drone or whistle.

The second hit. I can find nothing. No one 'who was there and not involved with the media' mentions sight or sound of a plane.

That does not say there was not plane, that says that I have yet to find any evidence of a plane. The most recorded event in history in one of the greatest cities in the most advanced nation on Earth.

The first guy to report at the Pentagon said that there was no evidence of a plane, there was no debris, there was a round hole (the roof had not collapsed). Absolutly no wreckage bigger than your hand. Where were the wings and tail?

You will not find an honest living airline pilot alive today who will tell you that a flunky with less than a year's training could execute that turn into the Pentagon, and neither could a pilot with 25 years experience for that matter, at that speed at those stresses the plane would tear itself apart.

Where's the plane wreckage in that field huh?

4 airliners.

No Wreckage.

I don't have to go any further.

Somebody, show me a plane.

World Trade Center

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/images/one_px.gifhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/images/worldtrade2_skyscraper.jpg (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/worldtrade2_skyscraper.html)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/images/one_px.gif

Vital Statistics:
Location: New York, New York, USA
Completion Date: 1972 (Tower One), 1973 (Tower Two)
Cost: $400 million
Height: 1,368 feet (Tower One), 1,362 feet (Tower Two)
Stories: 110
Materials: Steel
Facing Materials: Aluminum, steel
Engineer(s): Skilling, Helle, Christiansen & Robertson

Constructed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the early 1970s, the World Trade Center towers were, for their time, the best known examples of tube buildings. Tube buildings are strengthened by closely spaced columns and beams in the outer walls. The closely spaced columns and beams in each tower form a steel tube that, together with an internal core, withstand the tremendous wind loads that affect buildings this tall.

Aside from withstanding enormous wind loads, the World Trade Center towers were also constructed to withstand settlement loads. Because the towers were built on six acres of landfill, the foundation of each tower had to extend more than 70 feet below ground level to rest on solid bedrock.

The two towers were unable to survive the effects of a direct hit by two hijacked commercial jetliners during terrorist attacks on the morning of September 11, 2001. Although they were in fact designed to withstand being struck by an airplane, the resultant fires weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the upper floors and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear. Shortly after the attack, both towers collapsed.

You can explore a comprehensive site on why the Twin Towers fell, including interviews with an engineer, a survivor, an interactive explanation of how metal behaves when heated, and much more, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/).

At the time of their completion in 1973, the World Trade Center towers were the two tallest buildings in the world. Two years later, the Sears Tower in Chicago seized the coveted title.

Here's how this skyscraper stacked up against the biggest skyscrapers in the world.
(height, in feet)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/images/skychart.gifWorld Trade Center
1,368' (Tower One)
1,362' (Tower Two)

Fast Facts:

One World Trade Center featured Windows on the World, an elegant restaurant with a magnificent view of New York City. Two World Trade Center featured two observation decks, both more than 1,300 feet above the city.
Each tower had 104 passenger elevators, 21,800 windows, and roughly an acre of rentable space on each floor.
From the observation deck on Two World Trade Center it was possible to see 45 miles in every direction.
Each tower swayed approximately three feet from true center in strong wind storms.
If all the glass used in the construction of both towers were melted into a ribbon of glass, 20 inches wide, it would run 65 miles long.
The twin towers were often called "Lego-blocks" by critics.
On Friday, February 26, 1993, at 12:18 p.m., a bomb exploded in the underground garage of One World Trade Center, creating a 22-foot-wide, five-story-deep crater. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 were injured. The towers were cleaned, repaired, and reopened in less than one month.

Now let us look at what I have just posted. Bear in mind that I copied it from a P.B.S. site. Which is basicly another 'propaganda network' for the Illuminati. Because they basicly 'parrot' the so-called official versons of things.

But the reason why I posted this. Is to show everyone the two parts I highlighted.

...Although they were in fact designed to withstand being struck by an airplane...

Here they admitted to us that they designed and built the towers. With the insight of, if a plane was to hit them.

They were designed to withstand being hit by a airplane.

But they would have us to belive (most of us anyway) that the very thing they were designed to withstand. Took out not one but both of the towers. (gotta love those odds)

In my opinon the owner of them needs to be demanding a refund and bring about a lawsuit for deception and false advertising. Against the engineers and builders of them.

On Friday, February 26, 1993, at 12:18 p.m., a bomb exploded in the underground garage of One World Trade Center, creating a 22-foot-wide, five-story-deep crater. Six people were killed and more than 1,000 were injured. The towers were cleaned, repaired, and reopened in less than one month.

Here they tell us that a explosion creating a 22-foot-wide, five-story-deep crater. Which took place in the underground garage of One World Trade Center. Which is basicly 'the foundation' of the tower.

Did not have enough of a impact to bring that tower down.

But they would have us to belive (most of us anyway) that a explosing at the foundation of one of them wasn't enough, to bring it down. Even though it took place at the foundation of the building. (what a sturdy building they built)

So a high-level explosion based at the foundation of one of them. Did so much as to take out five-stories of it and left it still standing and was up and back running within a month. Didn't have enough force to bring one of the towers down.

But that 'airplanes' brought both of them down even though they were built to withstand such a impact.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=8333&dateline=1229866489&type=profile

Oh yeah, i'd be demanding my money back.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

white horse

23-12-2008, 01:01 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WDR1gGHHsck

Some real planes;

0-15 - really bad light, really bad quality. Notice this is a silver plane like American Airlines. Notice how even in the bad light this glistens and shine and you can see colour.

27-32 - really bad light, really bad quality. Notice you can see the colours of the plane. It's white with a possible blue/dark logo on the tail. About the same distance as many 2nd tower hit videos.

59 - 1:06 Again, bad light, bad quality, about same distance. Again, you can see the colouration, you can see where teh sunlight glints.

1:33 - Oh look it's almost dark, and you can still see some colour.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ546BEps-M

16 - See how this baby lights up in the sunlight!

30 - 40 - A silver plane (Boeing 707) showing it's belly.

Again at 49

And now...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X_kmfzwc5Pw

2:23 - You kidding me right? They passed this off a few times on the day.

2:34 - And now you're yanking my chain right? You avvin a laff?

This wasn't shown on the day, but much later. Why fake this so terribly? Like I say, please show me a plane! :confused:

I will answer for a lot of stick and have to answer a lot of questions for standing up and saying "Yes I am a no-planer. And my name is irrelevant.

I've been a no-planer for nearly two years now. I remembered that first night very well. That's when I took a look into the rabbit hole just to see how far it went. It's real deep. Deep and dark it gives me the shivvers.

You can call me paranoid but you know what, the game's afoot!

But anyway yeah - I'm already convinced there's something really dodgy about that day. Real dodgy.

Go look for September Clues, videos by Social Service, search Foxed Out, 911 TV fakery/video fakery, look for your own version of the hits. Download them. Look at all aspects of them closely. The video footage of the second plane stirke is as dodgy as a three-wheeled caravan.

mynameis

23-12-2008, 01:56 AM

...and were apparantly awful pilots who totally flunked; one of the instructors said of one of them that he was the worst pilot he ever saw.

Even using a sim at full speed is pretty hard, and you haven't got physics buffeting the plane at it's design thresholds.

Also you will not find any pilot anywhere on the planet that will agree that someone with less than a year's training could execute that manouevre into the Pentagon. Not only that, the 'experts' are very doubtful that the plane could actually physically make that turn at full speed.

Planted weapons? How? Some Saudis are gonna 'plant' some weapons onto US planes with the highest security in the world. How did they accomplish this without inside help then???

Still hard to hit at full speed.

Ok, show me the 'eye witnesses' from street level who either saw or heard a plane. The only ones who say they saw a plane are media insiders.

All the civilian witnesses talk about the tower/s exploding. You ever been in a city with a low flying plane going over? Every one looks up. It's very loud.

No one saw or heard a plane with their own eyes or ears.

There were no planes.

There were no holographic projections either. They just relied on the repetition of video evidence for everyone to convince themselves about the planes. They know we are slaves to the Tube ane will believe what it tells us.

The 'live' video shots were fed from a pool with a few seconds delay.

Study it.

I was a sceptic. I laughed at people like me.

I have spent the last two years investigating and studying video footage. I see no real planes.

I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE OF HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANES HITTING THE WTC.

Yea if you dismiss the facts of evidence which you seem to throw out all logic and reason here. Way to go mr. research laziness.

banoyes

23-12-2008, 02:03 PM

Yea if you dismiss the facts of evidence which you seem to throw out all logic and reason here. Way to go mr. research laziness.
This is the best this fine fellow can do...poor thing,he is such a dolt

lottie

23-12-2008, 04:36 PM

Guys...dont resort to insults...you know where it leads! This is actually a decent 9/11 thread that hasnt been ruined...yet!

white horse

23-12-2008, 08:53 PM

Yea if you dismiss the facts of evidence which you seem to throw out all logic and reason here. Way to go mr. research laziness.

I've speant 4 years on and off researching 911.

I'm not going to lower myself to trading insults.

If you want a mature discusion about the evidence and the nature of evidence I would be more than happy.

But what are you accomplishing with that type of comment?

Discuss the topic on hand - this is a 'forum' for doing so, with an open mind.

But don't just spam my posts.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44301

merlincove

23-12-2008, 09:22 PM

White horse said: Also you will not find any pilot anywhere on the planet that will agree that someone with less than a year's training could execute that manouevre into the Pentagon. Not only that, the 'experts' are very doubtful that the plane could actually physically make that turn at full speed.

i think that we all agree that the pentagon crash did not involve a plane.

The 'evidence' is unmistakable. The same as flight 93, whatever ended up in that field was no plane, let alone a jet liner.

What is at question here, is what hit the twin towers.

I'm not 100% that what hit those buildings was a plane now.

Cheers, banoyes, :confused: lol

But i still cant get my head around the metal on the towers being bent inwardly. And neither can i get my head around how 2 planes can just melt into those buildings.

Ok,

1) plane shaped holes.
2) explosions on the outside!
3) inwardly bent metal 'struts'
4) explosive laden planes add to the destructive force within the towers.
5) i read at least one report of a stewardess being found outside the towers, still bound, and tied into her chair. Don't know how true that is, though am inclined to dissregard it along with the passport that managed to survive the enferno.

Stuff points toward a plane.

1) Aluminium v steel frames, hmm. Only one winner there. Even at 500mph.
2) was there any wreckage on the ground, because if there was a plane there should have been.
3) pre-planted explosive devises to make a plane shaped hole.
4) A plane full of explosives could very well set off the chain reaction / controled demolition devices that are evident in the video's that bought the towers down.
5) dodgy film footage, sound bites of what a 747 sounds like up close etc

lots of other stuff that points toward no planes.

So, where does this leave us?

Are we any closer to the truth with either argument?

And mynameis, it doesn't matter where the evidence comes from, as long as it is here. If it aint here we can not form an opinion on it.

One thing is for sure - they built those towers to fall.

If a plane were used i feel that we are looking at specifically designed machines. If these are planes then they are not planes that we see in the general arena.

So where am I at?

I am still in the plane camp.

Two planes hit the towers, what those planes were I feel, were RC planes specifically designed for the purpose of impacting and penetrating two steel framed buildings in order to create the illusion that would end in the towers falling due to damage.

Those planes were not passenger airliners; I feel they were military aircraft laden with high octane explosives, possibly even cruise missiles. I don’t believe that they were travelling at 500 mph, I believe and always have that they were travelling much slower, perhaps half that speed. A reinforced, Remote controlled or laser guided (aka cruise missile guidance) aircraft laden with explosive, coupled with planted explosive devises set internally within the steel structures (to weaken them) is what was covered up with the streamed video of passenger jet liners.

That is my opinion.

What followed was a series of remote or timed detonations set within the floors, walls and pillars of the towers to affect the controlled demolition we were all witness to.

They did this in Oklahoma, so it is well evidenced.

Feel free to tear my theory apart guys. Because the only way we can, and possibly will, get to the bottom of this is through trial and error, put forward a theory and see how it connects.

Peace.

merlincove

23-12-2008, 09:22 PM

I've speant 4 years on and off researching 911.

I'm not going to lower myself to trading insults.

If you want a mature discusion about the evidence and the nature of evidence I would be more than happy.

But what are you accomplishing with that type of comment?

Discuss the topic on hand - this is a 'forum' for doing so, with an open mind.

But don't just spam my posts.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44301

+ 1 :cool:

moonraven

24-12-2008, 11:44 PM

I've tried to read all the posts on this thread a number of times since it started. But the moment it descended into a trading of insults, you lost me. This morning, I've tried again to sift through it and all I can say is this...

If you're all really truth seekers, your mind should be open. The idea that there were no planes is bordering on insane...until you look at some of the compelling evidence that's around that could prove otherwise. Why do you insult people who are also on the search for truth? I really don't get it.

I started a thread not long ago asking for suggestions about which video would be best to post on my facebook. It's because of that thread that I was introduced to some incredibly fascinating information. Namely,

The September Clues series of videos on Youtube and this amazing woman:http://drjudywood.com/videos/hiroshima.html

The more information you sift through, the more possibilities open for you. I have to say that I can no longer say with certainty that there were planes that hit the Twin Towers. I wouldn't have thought that I was ignorant or stupid. I just think I'm open-minded.

dave52

25-12-2008, 01:02 PM

On the morning of 9/11, at least 2 of the "plane" stories seemingly didn't involve planes. I see no reason or evidence to suggest that the other 2 "plane" stories are any different.

Just because it's a long way out there doesn't make it false... Look around the rest of this website - an open mind is a beautiful thing.

mynameis

25-12-2008, 03:48 PM

Calling someone a lazy researcher and an easily fooled fool, is what it is. This to me is not an insult. I will not joust with morons over stuff we've already discussed because it's pointless at this point to resolve issues of belief. They won't explain away the witnesses and plane-shaped holes, nor will they try and show us any tech that projects what they believe is or isn't a plane, which invalidates that idea.

Next is the strange assertion that a beam from space can hit the planet and cause the kind of damage through the atmosphere. If it had been a plane or other, that kind of tech was not in the area, nor did it exist. This kind of observation of a helicopter or plane based weapon would have been seen before and during the collapse, yet those who are dumb want us to think that Wood's the idiot theory that a laser from space causes this and turns steel to dust. To make matters worse, all the no planer stuff like September Clues WTC footage has been tampered with from the original to make their case, which a researcher isn't supposed to do in proper investigation.

It is so obviously a psyop scheme that you can see it's dumb assessments with simple physics. In the no plane world physics doesn't exist and fairies are responsible. This is another reason why it's not believable.Then they send gang stalkers after you. If you've seen Killtown's secret archive, you would know this better. Anyone who seems to believe this is far and few between. Believe what you want, I will waste no more of my time on the deluded fantasies in full retort, I still back my thoughts up with provable facts and I've posted these. No planers = lack of facts and always will be. I have better things to invest my time with than dealing with intellectual midges.

banoyes

25-12-2008, 04:16 PM