Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, oz93666 said:

 

Man ... You are funny Comedy Time ... A real laugh a minute ....

 

In our last exchange you asked about time travel and I gave you plenty of links to back up the reality of time travel , overwhelming evidence the US government were doing primitive work on this many decades ago ... have you followed those links??? ... I didn't think so .

 

That's not the way forward , you do have to make some sort of effort yourself  ... 

 

So I'm not going to try to convince you there were no planes , it's all been gone over before . 

 

Your time travel links were total shite, I read them. I'm glad you won't try to convince me of no planes, your pitiful attempts at Apollo showed what you are incapable of. My effort involves logic, reason, physics and I guffaw with derision at you suggesting it is me who has to make "some effort".

 

Explain why you totally ignored this. And all the other no planers posting their daft "evidence"? This is the consequence of your collective claim and it is ludicrous.....

 

 

No need to dispose of the real planes or passengers, sod about making dozens of films and faaaake plane sounds. No need to have teams of people sprinkling parts all around New York and Washington or burning the bodies, mangling them up and dropping body parts and DNA everywhere. No need for bullshit "crisis" actors or management teams to oversee all this. No cash to change hands for silence, no paper trails, recordings or farting around planning and coordinating. No chance of it messing up with eagle-eyed "truthers" noticing "things". No need to set any magic and IMPOSSIBLE inwards column pulling blasts on all buildings, or to deploy people to place all the impossible charges. No need to dump all that plane fuel at the explosion site or pieces of random non-plane wreckage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Or perhaps Plan ..."Was there a plan?"   This forum is going to the dogs ...FE  , no Space ... Cristian's everywhere ... perhaps many members are 10 or 12 years old ...or drunk.

Carlin too, kind of.     https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-carlin-comedy-routine-shelved-after-9-11-be-broadcast-a7227226.html

With almost 100% certainty we can say there were no plane impacts .... Just from the supposed speeds of the planes ... the government gave these speeds , and they can be confirmed by video evidence  .

Posted Images

5 hours ago, oz93666 said:

Sh*t !!! Unbelievable !! Have a look at that video @Comedy Time and explain  ...the video is only 2 mins long ....

 

 

Yeah, saw that one debunked a long time back. Those buildings are in FRONT of the target path. There was a video explaining it with street maps etc. 

 

5 hours ago, oz93666 said:

The error in the CGI (computer generated Imagery) is so gross it had to be intentionally put there 

 

There is no error only with the ignorant "research" that goes into these daft videos.

 

5 hours ago, oz93666 said:

Just like some of the Apollo material

 

Nope. Come on over to the only thread and debate like an honest person. I find it hilarious that you believe in Nazis and flying saucers on the Moon.

 

5 hours ago, oz93666 said:

They have such contempt for the public ,  believe we' re so stupid that they put that out , confident there will be no comeback .It's a joke to them , proves how well the mind control works .

 

How odd.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Yeah, saw that one debunked a long time back. Those buildings are in FRONT of the target path. There was a video explaining it with street maps etc.

 

 

Quiet ridiculous anyone can see the building is behind ... if you have evidence lets see the street maps   and the rest of it .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oz93666 said:

 

Quiet ridiculous anyone can see the building is behind ... if you have evidence lets see the street maps   and the rest of it .

 

You aren't the spokesperson for "anybody" and the building is in front. I'll see if I can find it, but I can't remember how I stumbled on it the last time. If I can't I don't care. I don't tell lies, especially if YOU went off to verify this yourself you could prove it so.

 

The salient question is, if I prove the building is in front, will you be brave enough to concede? Or will you do what you have always done in Apollo threads and run off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that they used military planes controlled remotely to create the drama and spectacle and the building was packed with explosives.

 

I am open minded to there being no planes though as I understand and have seen what can be done with deep fake although I am not convinced they did that with 911.

Edited by Reet Hard
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oz93666 said:

 

Quiet ridiculous anyone can see the building is behind ... if you have evidence lets see the street maps   and the rest of it .

 

Does "anyone" agree with oz???

 

I can't find the debunk video....but when you actually use the proper damn video it all looks just a little bit different!

 

 

 

LMAO.. .soooooo obvious it is in front. Holographic planes my arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Comedy Time said:

 

Does "anyone" agree with oz???

 

I can't find the debunk video....but when you actually use the proper damn video it all looks just a little bit different!

 

LMAO.. .soooooo obvious it is in front. Holographic planes my arse.

 

lol ... you've lost the plot CT 

 

Look five post above where I answer your post where YOU say ... "Those buildings are in FRONT of the target path"

 

You have just posted a video PROVING  those buildings are Behind the plane 

 

Could not make that up!!! It shows you are not paying attention , just like a made dog you run everywhere attacking everything , you have lost all credibility 

 

And if you read my post on the previous page , you will see  I was citing this as an example of CGI NOT Holograms ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

lol ... you've lost the plot CT 

 

No, really I haven't. There seems to be a lot of confusion from people not being able to read properly.

 

1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

Look five post above where I answer your post where YOU say ... "Those buildings are in FRONT of the target path"

 

Yes. That's exactly what I said. The buildings are in the foreground of the shot, the WTC1/2 distant and the plane approaches between the two.

 

1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

You have just posted a video PROVING  those buildings are Behind the plane 

 

R U BLIND? The video shows the buildings clear as day in front of the shot, with the plane passing behind shown as it banks slightly. If you are seriously still claiming that building is beyond the WTC1 you need to get your eyes tested. I knew there was no way to ever get you to concede one of your constant balls-ups.

 

1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

Could not make that up!!! It shows you are not paying attention , just like a made dog you run everywhere attacking everything , you have lost all credibility 

 

Wow, so much noise from you and denial of the absolutely in your face obvious. So you insult me calling me a "made dog" accuse me of "attacking everything" when I am debating people in good faith and then you have the absolute audacity to assess my credibility based on your absolute wilful blindness?

 

You are the one who believes in Nazi flying saucers on the Moon/ time travel and so, so much more rabugento1.gifkindly don't use the word credibility in any future sentence!

 

1 hour ago, oz93666 said:

And if you read my post on the previous page , you will see  I was citing this as an example of CGI NOT Holograms ! 

 

I read where you goaded me in with a video titled "100-proof-holographic-plane-91101"  - so you don't even believe the video presented.

 

 

OWNED.....

 

oztheblind.jpg

 

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 5:17 AM, Comedy Time said:

 

Does "anyone" agree with oz???

 

I can't find the debunk video....but when you actually use the proper damn video it all looks just a little bit different!

 

 

 

LMAO.. .soooooo obvious it is in front. Holographic planes my arse.

 

 

No it fucking dosint! at 2.54min it goes under the building

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:

 

 

No it fucking dosint! at 2.54min it goes under the building

 

Such vociferous and contrite rebuttal. The video actually finishes at 2.55min  1 second later and ooooh a little on the wrong side..   so 2 things occurred to me. Did you actually watch it with a semblance of neutrality and would you like some help with working out the difference between nearfield and distance?

 

Sheesh dude...I really thought the screenshot with the actual building IN FRONT of the big tower would have sealed the deal?

 

How the crap can you fail to see this????

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mishy said:

Those people who think that one of these...

 

floppy.jpg.bc511d1a219d4275c7f6f0c38e4157df.jpg

 

Can fly into/through this structure

And show zero collision physics aren't worth listening to.

 

https://911planeshoax.com/

 

 

 

The plane in picture 1 was landing. Show anything....I mean anything approaching "collision physics"....because you and the no planes crew have zero understanding of it and are noise specialists extraordinaire.

 

Mathematical analysis if you please....

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Such vociferous and contrite rebuttal. The video actually finishes at 2.55min  1 second later and ooooh a little on the wrong side..   so 2 things occurred to me. Did you actually watch it with a semblance of neutrality and would you like some help with working out the difference between nearfield and distance?

 

Sheesh dude...I really thought the screenshot with the actual building IN FRONT of the big tower would have sealed the deal?

 

How the crap can you fail to see this????

 

sorry made a mistake! it was 35 seconds into the video

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:

sorry made a mistake! it was 35 seconds into the video

 

Please clarify what you are saying here. I am saying the BUILDING is in front of the plane and you appear to be saying the plane was behind the building. BOTH were in front of the WTC building, hence my screenshot and why @oz93666 has done his customary disappearing act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Reet Hard is correct.


There were planes to create the drama to get the sheeple to accept and even demand a solution.

 

The planes were military and were controlled remotely.

 

The planes did not collapse the buildings.

 

The idea that people with limited flight training had the skill and experience to fly commercial airliners at 500mph plus through one of the most crowed city scapes in the world and hit their target has no credibility.

Edited by Enforcement
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Enforcement said:

I think Reet Hard is correct.

 

Haha. Welcome back again.

 

11 hours ago, Enforcement said:

There were planes to create the drama to get the sheeple to accept and even demand a solution.

 

No, they used passenger planes.

 

11 hours ago, Enforcement said:

The planes were military and were controlled remotely.

 

No, they were passenger planes.

 

11 hours ago, Enforcement said:

The planes did not collapse the buildings.

 

They had a good go at it. The fires weakened the supports and from the video footage both buildings gave way at the exact point of impact. Fancy that huh?

 

11 hours ago, Enforcement said:

The idea that people with limited flight training had the skill and experience to fly commercial airliners at 500mph plus through one of the most crowed city scapes in the world and hit their target has no credibility.

 

They didn't need to "fly" them. They needed to point them at a big target and crash them. New York is amazingly crowded. Luckily they didn't fly through it, they dived into it and were always above the tallest buildings.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, singhz312 said:

Sorry this one ^

 

Nope. How about this NOT DELETED easily found one ....WITH the no planer comparison?

 

 

 

The second video shows what appears to be a flat approach because it is looking from a direction that has the plane coming towards the camera.

 

039a3b442f8b8241eebee3937e2b7ca9.gif

 

 

The plane is diving but appears level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

They didn't need to "fly" them. They needed to point them at a big target and crash them.

 

That wasn't the case for the plane that reportedly struct the Pentagon, which flew a 330 degree descending spiral.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enforcement said:

The planes were military and remote controlled.

 

If you say so.

 

Now we need:

  • A team to dispose of the planes and the bodies
  • A team to burn and mangle the bodies to sprinkle DNA all over the area, or a team to fake the analyses.
  • We still need a team to place tiny body parts everywhere.
  • A team to drive around dropping bits of plane around the area, including a massive plane engine in full view of spectators!
  • A team to do this at the Pentagon with cameras on helicopters and emergency services arriving any time soon.
  • A team to control the military aircraft. Paper trails to be destroyed accounting for the aircraft.
  • ALL paper trails paying any personnel to be deleted and financial reimbursements hidden.
2 hours ago, Enforcement said:

Continued support of the official narrative comes from a position of both conformation bias and cognitive dissonance and is beyond ridiculous.

 

It's confirmation bias and it most certainly works both ways. Cognitive dissonance is really not what you think it is!

 

You people have about a dozen or more weirdo variants of this crazy unfeasible operation. Why don't YOU argue with the no planers! I argue about specific things relating to it. I don't support the official theory, I just don't support the explanations for alternatives. So far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...