Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

It is quite rare thankfully, but two lucky French brothers managed it. And not long after the news caught another.

 

Here's analysis of what those lucky French Bro's captured that day..

 

https://fakeotube.com/video/48/september-clues---911-amateur-part2

 

No plane.

Your Still having a debate about something else with an imaginary person.

 

 

 

My point was and is planes put holes in building. Any other issue is you moving the goal posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jois said:

Your Still having a debate about something else with an imaginary person.

 

 

 

My point was and is planes put holes in building. Any other issue is you moving the goal posts

If real planes could have the required effect to knock down skyscrapers, why did they fake them?

 

Just don't go near those goalposts in an airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

It is quite rare thankfully, but two lucky French brothers managed it. And not long after the news caught another.

 

Here's analysis of what those lucky French Bro's captured that day..

 

https://fakeotube.com/video/48/september-clues---911-amateur-part2

 

No plane.

Two issues.

1) the guy doing the write over has no idea about motion, exsposives or material science

And unless you can post original footage we have no idea who photo edited that if any one

And as a free one it doesn't show any slicing

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mishy said:

If real planes could have the required effect to knock down skyscrapers, why did they fake them?

 

Just don't go near those goalposts in an airplane.

Not my point. Real planes can. That my point. I didn't say real planes did.

 

Though it does seem easier if somewhat more exspensive to use real planes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mishy said:

If real planes could have the required effect to knock down skyscrapers, why did they fake them?


the twin towers were built to withstand plane impacts
the planes were flown into the towers for the masses to see and then follow and believe the narrative
twin towers clearly taken down by explosives

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jois said:

Two issues.

1) the guy doing the write over has no idea about motion, exsposives or material science

And unless you can post original footage we have no idea who photo edited that if any one

And as a free one it doesn't show any slicing

 

It's on the original Naudet DVD. Probably still available on Amazon. I'm not buying it, you buy it and have a look. It's been discussed to death, years ago.

 

They or someone else added the plane. The news then used that exact same footage later on 911.

Edited by mishy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, legion said:

James Corbett - 911 SUSPECTS - THE DANCING ISRAELIS

clear evidence (10  minutes)

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BuEFjjZWMs5W/
 

 

Ok I've watched all 16 mins of it.

 

It's exactly the same as the last time I watched.

 

There's a guy doing a voice over telling me there is only one conclusion when there are many reasonable conclusions and what's in police and FBI reports with out showing the reports in whole or mostly not in part.

 

So what do you think it proves ?

Edited by jois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

It's on the original Naudet DVD. Probably still available on Amazon. I'm not buying it, you buy it and have a look. It's been discussed to death, years ago.

 

They or someone else added the plane. The news then used that exact same footage later on 911.

I'm not buying it.

The issue is the guy doing it is a buffoon and we have no evidence at all that the "fake footage " hasn't it self been faked.

 

And after all that I have no idea what you think it actual proves

 

And I've still not said I believe the attack was real. So your still debating with an imaginary friend

Edited by jois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jois said:

So what do you think it proves ?


l think it proves mossads guilt - either by collaborating with CIA  -
or by just having prior knowledge and not warning the us of a and any other country - publicly (obviously this at the very least)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, legion said:


l think it proves mossads guilt - either by collaborating with CIA  -
or by just having prior knowledge and not warning the us of a and any other country - publicly (obviously this at the very least)

I'm not sure it does that. Not to any reasonable standard. If he actually showed reports rather than paraphrasing them it may be more persuasive.

 

I'm a cynic people lie and exaggerate and selectively tell the truth.

 

I have no more faith in a random bloke telling me what to think than the government

 

I do think it's quite feasable that mosad knew and kept quite. It's also feasable that the American at least some of them knew and did nothing.

 

That guys opinion hasnt convinced me any more , either way. Give me the evidence not your opinion of what it means

Edited by jois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jois said:

I'm not buying it.

The issue is the guy doing it is a buffoon and we have no evidence at all that the "fake footage " hasn't it self been faked.

 

And after all that I have no idea what you think it actual proves

 

And I've still not said I believe the attack was real. So your still debating with an imaginary friend

 

Here's a youtube link for the official Naudet documentary. The footage is exactly the the same. The 'buffoon' as you put it is just pointing out that there is no plane crashing.

 

So with proof that no plane crashed. It would be a fair assumption to say there were no hijackers, no Islamic bogeymen and just a load of lies.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iw-1bOQNIA

 

Go to the 19:51 mark.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Here's a youtube link for the official Naudet documentary. The footage is exactly the the same. The 'buffoon' as you put it is just pointing out that there is no plane crashing.

 

So with proof that no plane crashed. It would be a fair assumption to say there were no hijackers, no Islamic bogeymen and just a load of lies.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iw-1bOQNIA

 

Go to the 19:51 mark.

 

 

It's not the same. Check it yourself. I can't blow it up huge or stop motion it. But as soon as the smoke clears to see. Theres a wing shaped hole in the building. May be I'm missing a single frame. May be they added one.

 

Watch it in real time and it's fairly convincing. I'm more suspicious of how a " professional " camera man could take such bad pictures

 

To be clear I havnt and I'm not saying it's real. Just it doesn't agree with his analysis and his other points about the nature of the explosions being wrong are complely bogus. If he can't get those right I'm even less likely to credit him with either honesty or integrity

Edited by jois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jois said:

It's not the same. Check it yourself. I can't blow it up huge or stop motion it. But as soon as the smoke clears to see. Theres a wing shaped hole in the building. May be I'm missing a single frame. May be they added one.

 

Watch it in real time and it's fairly convincing. I'm more suspicious of how a " professional " camera man could take such bad pictures

 

To be clear I havnt and I'm not saying it's real. Just it doesn't agree with his analysis and his other points about the nature of the explosions being wrong are complely bogus. If he can't get those right I'm even less likely to credit him with either honesty or integrity

It's exactly the same footage. No wing scar at the moment of impact. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, peter said:

I saw the debris of the so called plane  to me there wasn't enough and no I didn't see any landing gear from that type of aircraft or wheels for that matter and from memory they said a few parts were from the outside engine casings but no internals of the motors

 

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Wheel Investigation

 

pentagon 911 plane wreckage - Google Search

 

16 hours ago, peter said:

and as far as kinetic energy goes a bullet is going many times faster that a passenger aircraft and even they don't disintegrate into nothing , the video looks good but you're comparing apples with oranges 

 

They don't carry anywhere even close to the same kinetic energy. Apples and oranges is ok, the plane has much more energy.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, peter said:

so you don't think steel would damage the wing and alter its flying characteristics, fine then but I would have thought the lower you got the relevance of the wings lift and flying  capabilities would become more critical if you wish to hit a precise target,because the lower you get the more factors come into play and the more precise you need to be ,lucky they could fly sophisticated passenger jets ,they just couldn't handle a Cessna 

 

They were only 3 seconds flying time from the target. As for the Cessna bit, he didn't really need to fly it, he needed to put it in a powered descent and crash it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mishy said:

297439564_5295733740505113_2739232147865369308_n.jpg.15708d65c62e9d35a7075b3c5ed56632.jpg

 

 

This is the stock response to the fallen lampost. This is an airport light, considerably higher, far thicker and needing to be more reinforced and a salient factor, the aircraft has just landed so the wings were not still significantly loaded with fuel.

Qatar Airways Cargo Boeing 777 hits light pole at Chicago O'Hare airport - Aviation24.be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, legion said:

the twin towers were built to withstand plane impacts
the planes were flown into the towers for the masses to see and then follow and believe the narrative

 

PolitiFact | 9/11 conspiracy theories misconstrue how World Trade Center buildings collapsed

Were the buildings designed to withstand a plane crash?

Yes, but that plan did not account for crashes that caused fires. Structural engineer Leslie Robertson designed the World Trade Center complex, which was completed in 1973, to withstand the impact of an airplane. In his calculations, he used a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft in service at the time, but smaller and lighter than the Boeing 767 models that struck the towers in 2001. When the planes hit the twin towers, the buildings remained standing for some time, allowing thousands of people to escape. However, Robertson’s calculations did not account for the possibility of collisions leading to fires, which are what led to the buildings collapsing.

 

2 hours ago, legion said:

twin towers clearly taken down by explosives

 

Every time I ask this, I never receive a satisfactory answer. The towers both give way at points close to where the bowing clearly occurs. How in any way can explosives withstand the crash and ensuing fires without going off?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishy said:

It's exactly the same footage. No wing scar at the moment of impact. 

 

 

 

It's really not.use unbiased eye s. ẞyou cant see the building for smoke at the moment of impact. Obviously. When the smoke clears there is a wing mark.

 

 

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...