Well I debunked your failed speed claim, time to actually present some evidence. Almost 20 pages in.. still no evidence for your no planer claim. Come on now
Yes, all the videos are real. Not one, again, not one has been shown to be otherwise. Only idiots, like yourself, claim to know otherwise. - - - Updated - - - Yes it is, and you cannot prove otherwise. You lose.
The "no planes theory" is a story contrived by Zionist disinformation agents to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and divert attention away from the evidence which shows FOREKNOWLEDGE, OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE, and CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS of the WTC towers, 1,2,7.
I can totally dig the Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 this raises the question of airliners being used as weapons, if the plan was to have a commercial airliner strike the building, since there is no precedent for a big Boeing striking a wall and penetrating completely, how was this planned for? the airliner hit would have to be precision in that if the aircraft hit in the wrong place, it could damage the explosives that were placed in order to bring down the building. The only way to guarantee success of such a mission, would be to use a precision hit by guided missiles and then fake the story about the hijacked airliners. The alleged eye witnesses have ALL SORTS of stories to tell, some saw a "small plane" some saw a "military aircraft" & some saw no plane at all. total chaos! + the fact that the video record of the alleged "FLT175" is blatant FRAUD. only somebody intent on singing praises to a non-existent tailor, would point to that video and say its a picture of a real airliner crash. Not to mention the fact that in the case of Shanksville & the Pentagon, the "wreckage" & damage to the crash site is totally inconsistent with the crash of an airliner.
but will it accelerate to 186? Systems have finite limits and aircraft are no exception. Just for the sake of argument, what if the airliner achieved 590 mph in a dive, and since they are operating way outside of the design max speed, could an inexperienced in type, hijacker "pilot" control the aircraft at that speed and indeed manage to hit the intended target? The official story is based on a large number of unquantified what-ifs, if the aircraft could achieve a power-dive in such a manner as to propel it at 590 mph and under those conditions, IF the hijackers could control the aircraft, and IF the aircraft could strike the wall sufficiently near perpendicular to the wall such to insure penetration, and IF it had enough KE to not only actually penetrate but penetrate completely so as to effectively cause the aircraft to disappear ..... what? too many variables, "lucky shot" by terrorists? Ya, 9/11/2001 was a TERRORIST attack, but are we absolutely certain as to who the terrorists are?
Already debunked your ignorant claim. Now stop trying to pass the burden of proof like you have been the last 19 pages. Your thread clearly states you will be providing evidence of no planes. Well, present your evidence. It's been 19 pages so far and you have produced none. zip. nadda.
You haven't proved dick. I was an eyewitness to flight 175 crashing into the tower...along with the 10,000 others who were on the ground, in and around Ground Zero...not to mention, those in NJ who witness the same exact thing. There was no reason to fake a video to replace a real plane.
The burden of proof sits squarely where it always has, on the mainstream media, they were the ones who first asserted that the attack was the product of angry Arabs hijacking airliners and crashing into buildings ... where is the PROOF?
If you are sincere in this belief, then think of which is more important; HOW the crime was committed, or WHETHER a crime WAS committed. Do you not think it is more important to establish the facts of FOREKNOWLEDGE, COVER UP, and CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? Clearly a crime WAS committed. The question that remains is WHO did it. Secondary to that is HOW they did it. If it can be demonstrated that CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS were used to ensure the destruction of the buildings, that would greatly narrow the field of suspects and might or might not include the Arab patsies. One does not need to know all the details of a crime in order to determine whether a crime has been committed. One does not need to know ALL the details of a crime in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by particular suspects. This can be accomplished by a process of elimination and deduction. A preponderance of circumstantial evidence may be sufficiently weighty to do they job also provided it serves to exclude all other possibilities! The perps know this. That's why they want to introduce as many possible alternatives as possible in order to by pass the inevitable conclusions which must be drawn from the circumstantial evidence which IS available. They care not how far fetched these ideas may appear as long as they can serve to introduce doubt. Proving something "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to demonstrate a crime or convict a particular suspect does not require "proof" in a mathematical way. Most of the reasoning we do is not mathematical. This does not require that we be less certain of it. We often rely on degrees of certainty that our normal reasoning deems to be reliable. When you engage in endless debate with DeBunkers over non-essential details you divert time and attention away from the most salient facts concerning 9/11 which CAN be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, DeBunker disinformation agents will even LIE in the face of these facts. They have demonstrated that they will over and over again. But each time these facts reach the minds of those who are unfamiliar with them, but who think independently, these FACTS may become CONVICTIONS in the COURT of PUBLIC OPINION. THIS is what DeBunker disinformation agents are trying to circumvent. Regardless of HOW you may think the attacks were carried out, the fact remains that the majority of the public are not going to accept the "no planes theory", no matter how sincerely you may believe it. As such, they will tend to associate these ideas with the rest of the tripe which the DeBunkers and sensationalists have contrived and possibly dismiss that evidence which IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED as being similarly made up. While is is true that eye witness testimonies are often faulty and not completely reliable, the more witnesses there are to the same incident, the more correlation which can be made between their separate statements, and the more reliable the consensus of them is. In other words, the statements of TWO eye witnesses is better than one if they both essentially agree. If there are THREE witnesses all corroborating one anothers statements, then one may naturally accept them as even MORE certain. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, there were literally HUNDREDS, all witnessing to planes of some description, possibly unmarked or gray in color, who saw flashes of light and heard explosions which were independent of those of the impacts. At least one of those films which alleges "no planes" takes a statement of a witness saying something to the effect that "there was no plane" when a certain explosion took place. That could easily have been taken out of context and originally was intended to convey the idea that explosions were indeed happening "without a plane" ie independently and separate from any explosions associated with a plane. If that was what he intended to say then all that does is further confirm that there were many explosions occurring separate and distinct from the plane crashes. In all probability I would say that was exactly what he meant because we have the statements of hundreds of others to back that idea up. These kinds of stories were made up deliberately by people who either intended to mislead others or call attention to themselves. They serve only as distractions. HOWEVER, they could only discredit the 9/11 Truth movement in the minds of people who have been denied the facts by the main stream media and mislead by the internet Hasbara. Any rational person who IS aware of the truly damning evidence about 9/11 is going to view the existence of these hair brained stories on the net as further evidence of a concerted effort on the part of some to COVER UP the TRUTH about 9/11. DeBunkers have not PROVEN any one of the NIST theories. They have not proven WHO did WHAT nor HOW. Neither have they DISPROVEN FOREKNOWLEDGE, COVER UP, or CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. The ONLY thing which they have proven is that they willful LIARS. One this one point they have removed all doubt themselves. The evidence is clearly in the direction of CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. They can deny it all they want. The question I am putting to you is whether you wish to aid them?
This just highlights your non-existent critical thinking skills so, why would we believe you actually know anything about 9/11?
Then you have grossly misnamed your thread with a misleading title claiming to provide evidence that no planes were hijacked on 9/11. You are therefore admitting you have no evidence to present to back up the title of your thread. I wonder if it's against PF rules for a thread to have a deliberately misleading title..? Speaking of rules: http://www.politicalforum.com/rules.php It could be considered relevant to this topic. So n0spam, you claim as a historical fact that no planes were hijacked or crashed on 9/11. I challenge you to substantiate your claim (as your own thread titles says).
"Team-mates" have nothing to do with it. Read what I wrote. That should explain everything. I didn't write that much for no reason. There is a difference between "arguing" as in positing arguments to defend propositions, which is what "Truth seekers do", and "arguing" as in "fussing" in the sense of trying to berate or belittle someone else, which is what DeBunkers do.
That's a matter of opinion. The idea that 19 Arabs acted alone and three planes caused the total collapse of three steel framed skyscrapers in the manner of controlled demolitions is a myth. So is the "war on terror" and the idea "fair and balanced" news reporting by the mainstream media. And let's not forget the one that the Federal Reserve is a government entity.
"A Tale of Two Cities" took place in London, doesn't make it true or a historical account. Well, if you believe what's in the bible, then I undstand how you lack the critical thinking skill to not recongnize or acknowledge all the evidence (videos, IDs, family statements, their paper trail) that proves 19 Arab extremists, did in fact, hijack and crash planes into the WTC. I would agree with you 100%, no debate about it. Again, a 100% factual claim. So what?
To the conspirators: What about latent heat principles? I have kept my mind open but have not heard a single argument or seen a bit of evidence that is compelling to believe that 911 is a "government job". debunking; -Steel does not have to melt to become weakened. --A stationary object does not always project debris in the opposite direction from the direction in which it was struck or impaled. In the case of the towers, the structures were hollow. -The planes striking the buildings had kinetic energy. This means the amount of mass coupled with it's speed would demise any lesser structure in terms of kinetic energy. -There were over 4500 gallons of jet fuel aboard the planes that hit. Enough to fill a small size swimming pool. -Missles of such capabilities would have the capacity to deliver far more destruction than structural damage limited to just a few hundred sqare feet. The damage to the towers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania suburb area are not indicitive of technology that would be required to send such a device. The kicker....... -How did such planes take-off from airports without no report of being over index-weight????????? Are you trying to tell me that everyone involved with preparing these planes for take-off ingnored the index-wieght of the aircraft????/ Nobody has spoken of it since??? -You are contending that there were pilots on every one of these aircraft that were paid-off to pilot their planes into a structure and not one of their spouses are credible? Or the family? Or aquaintences? Or co-workers? Do you content that the government has that much of an elite force to pull off such a thing so perfectly? Not one witness coming forth in nearly 13 years? If you want your argument to be heard, you have to give me something more than rhetorical non-sense. I don't care about small obscure clips. I don't care about non-scientific evidence. I don't care about ideas or conglomerations. I am genuinely interested in anyone who has a credible peice of evidence or even anything close to believable.
