plane believers top 20 points to support planes hitting the

[marky 54]

this thread is for people who believe planes hit the towers on 9/11, please dont post here if the believe npt.

please explain or give your reasons to support why you believe planes hit the towers.

no tv footage, photos, youtube ect ect to prove any points.

this is a start to debate the issues between the two sides without any of the nonesance that it has currently turned into. nobody has to take part, but would be great if you do.

the point is to get a list of facts that support this view of 9/11.

a npt thread has also been started in this same section for the same purpose.

[marky 54]

1. debris found in the street.

2. witnesses seeing planes including a surviver from the imapct area who had to dive under his desk when he saw it coming.

3. plane shaped impact holes with steel pushed inwards not outwards.

4. flight manifests.

5. planes look solid not holographic

6. plane shadows

7. plane noise

8. plane markings ie:logos ect identifying them as passenger airliners

thats a start if anyone can add to it please do.

[Mark Gobell]

marky - no Video, Photographic or TV remember ! LOL

It's hard isn't it !

[Fallious]

To humour you, Mark I hope this is positively resolved, but I think you'll be feeling very downhearted by the NPT reaction at the end of this.

- Physical (i.e with mathematical calculations to back it up) proof that even a plane wing would easily penetrate the WTC exo.

- Radar logs of flight paths

- Flight control recordings of aircraft being tracked and discussed.

- Just double checking you have the vast weight of witness testimony FOR seeing and hearing planes?

- All flight passengers missing.

[Mark Gobell]

Excellent stuff. Nice one.

[PaulStott]

[Mark Gobell]

Then we'll have to smack his ickle botty if he posts on this thread won't we.

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

Eye witnesses have to be included, provided the claim can be supported. Agreed ?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

does anyone know a good source for eyewitness statements for plane impacts at the towers?

ive had a search and only get links to other websites qouting people so is only say so on their part. anyone one know of a credible source that is reliable media ect?

i get alot mainly about the conflicting pentagon witnesses and the 9/11 witnesses website but cannot find any first hand credible sources that are not just qouting and could of got it wrong.

[Mark Gobell]

Come on people !

Post some evidence of why you think that planes were used on 9/11.

[telecasterisation]

Can someone give us a clue exactly what type of evidence fits the submission rule?

With the exception of official documents published directly into the public domain, then every single piece of 'evidence' we have, stems from a news source of some description and consequently is open to question.

This is known as 'hearsay' with regard to the spoken word, whilst 'read/write' refers to that which is on paper. Being British and unless you were there on the day, then everything we cite as being 'gospel' has to have come via a third party.

Therefore, there can be absolutely no submissions that meet the criteria, unless of course we accept that which originated in a newspaper or via radio (although how the latter differs from TV I don't know)?

[Mark Gobell]

As you are both an intermittent adherent and denier of photgraphic and videographic evidence maybe you could help with some rule suggestions yourself.

I'm pretty sure, although you may like to check on this, that the only exclusions expressed so far, that will not make it through to the grand jury are videos or pictures of the event itself and associated so called evidence.

All other TV / video sources are admissible, including human beings being interviewed on camera.

As this is a new idea, nobody really knows what possible exceptions could occur so don't be too suprised if you find some more.

Since you have already objected to human beings being interviewed on camera I thought it might be a funny hilarious thing to do to raise objections to Fallious's RADAR images, as these are strictly based on a Cathode Ray Tube too, but I thought better of it for fear of introducing a rather childish distraction.

Still, anything else you have doubts about, or if you have further difficulty making your mind up, feel free to ask, or dare I say it, suggest.

[Mark Gobell]

[marky 54]

the list so far:

1. plane debris in the street.

2. witnesses on the ground seeing a plane(could be any plane but even still, a plane is a plane) it may of been a military plane for example but a physical plane or witnesses who identified the plane(markings ect.)

3. survivor inside the towers seeing a plane and ducking under his desk.

4. plane shaped impact holes with steel pushed inwards.

5. flight manifests

6. mathematical calculations.

7. radar logs of flight paths

8. flight control recordings of aircraft being tracked and discussed.

9. all flight passengers missing.

if anyone can think of anymore reasons why all evidence points towards planes at the twin towers please add them, no tv, photo evidence.

npt'ers are doing the same the point is to get evidence from both sides that dosnt rely on video/photo evidence which always has a potential to be faked. when all points are gathered hopefully we will beable to debate eachothers points and hopefully have more constructive debates.(crosses fingers).

thanks to those who have added points already.

[jomper]

The partner of one of my friends and trusted ex-colleagues was in NYC on the day of the attacks. I rarely see him but the other day he showed up in the pub for a farewell drink for another ex-colleague, who's leaving the country. I took the opportunity to ask him about his impressions of the day, because I knew he'd actually gone to the site of the WTC to see what happening for himself.

One thing he said (without prompting from me) was that at one point he found himself standing close to one of the plane's jet engines.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[thought criminal]

The psychology used here is MASSIVE in the sense that 9/11 was 'history in the making'. Think about it, whoever was stood in the vicinity is going to say they 'saw' the plane, even if they didn't simply because you are going to look a bit daft if you say you were ther but 'didn't see it'. This was the kind of mass psychology they utilized that day and the reliance on this is HEAVY.

Come on, even I remember believing I had seen the second plane live when I had got in from work early in the afternoon. Of course, I hadn't, I just saw those repeats, how could we miss those repeats? Those repeats were played over and over to burn the fairytale the media was trying to feed us into the collective psyche. "Planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers, planes hit the towers..."

It was all part and parcel of the HYPNOTIC PACKAGE.

Sold!

Then a few years later some start to rub the sleep from their eyes and notice anomalies and discrepancies not just in the official story but in the fact that 'planes may not have actually hit the towers'. So, what happens then, the PTB use more psychology by calling NPT, 'disinformation', hence the number of new 'truth seekers' who very recently crash landed on to this website within hours of David Shayler speaking his mind on SKY News. Now, all I am asking is for you all to pull your socks up, use your intuition, sit quietly somwhere, go and observe those 'planes' on the best formats you have. Check them out on DVD and get your collective minds in gear. You are slowing things down, you are like hamsters in a wheel, using up tons of energy and getting no place. Do it.

[marky 54]

[Fallious]