How can anyone still believe this junk about aluminium wings piercing welded steel columns? Good God.
Stick to what you know Andrew, which it seems is very little.
Pretty much par for the course if not a necessary qualification on probably the most uninformed "researchers" group on the planet if not the galaxy. How weird is that?
Your fallacy has been exposed and gone over many, many, many times.
Yet it obviously did not have any impact either on your 'common sense', or willingness to learn.
Chek, you silly billy, link us to some spec about the magical flying potential of remote controlled planes. _________________ Steven Elvis Jones leads the way
There are many videos of the events of that day that do NOT show jerky cartoon planes teetering into towers and slicing through them without a wing shearing off. Bob and Bri for example, who filmed everything EXCEPT the plane impacts. I have included one on my video that is definitely not fake and there is no plane on that.
It's interesting you should mention the Bob and Bri video, because even though they don't capture the impact of Flight 175 (the video resumes play with the fireball after an intermission in filming) the comments made by the woman filming and whoever is next to her clearly indicate that they saw a plane, although for some reason they identify it as 'a military plane'. Kind of undermines the NPT doesn't it? Also it's worth mentioning that the film-maker hears tell that the first impact was indeed a plane, and that's before Flight 175 impacts.
The fact that the film fails to capture the impact is not itself suspicious - there are numerous lapses in filming between the footage of the hole in the North Tower, the impact of Flight 175 and the collapses.
The one thing that is interesting about the Bob and Bri film is the flashes of light accompanied by pops that occur well below the impact hole in the North Tower.
It proves that Bri saw a plane but not that it hit the building. That was hidden from her by the North Tower. She saw the flypast.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject:
911 a past gone mad wrote:
Chek, you silly billy, link us to some spec about the magical flying potential of remote controlled planes.
911APGM, why not follow your own advice on another thread and get off your arse, step away from the computer and stop spamming 911 sites with your lo-rent drivel?
Go make up a story about how no planes were used and give us all a good laugh. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It proves that Bri saw a plane but not that it hit the building. That was hidden from her by the North Tower. She saw the flypast.
I really don't get how you can interpret that as a 'fly past' seeing as the plane came in from the South West and Bri was filming from the North I would be so bold as to say there was no freaking way that she wouldn't have witnessed the plane flying past, along with several thousand other people, unless you're suggesting that Flight 175 was in fact equipped with a Klingon Cloaking Device (KCD). _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Chek, you silly billy, link us to some spec about the magical flying potential of remote controlled planes.
911APGM, why not follow your own advice on another thread and get off your arse, step away from the computer and stop spamming 911 sites with your lo-rent drivel?
Go make up a story about how no planes were used and give us all a good laugh.
Why don't you get a job and spam some irish site with your 'ALL VIDEO CAMERAS ARE nonsense' lies? I know you want me to leave but I won't. I will not allow the likes of you to cripple this site with your ego driven 'remote control plane' fantasies. _________________ Steven Elvis Jones leads the way
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject:
911 a past gone mad wrote:
chek wrote:
911 a past gone mad wrote:
Chek, you silly billy, link us to some spec about the magical flying potential of remote controlled planes.
911APGM, why not follow your own advice on another thread and get off your arse, step away from the computer and stop spamming 911 sites with your lo-rent drivel?
Go make up a story about how no planes were used and give us all a good laugh.
Why don't you get a job and spam some irish site with your 'ALL VIDEO CAMERAS ARE nonsense' lies? I know you want me to leave but I won't. I will not allow the likes of you to cripple this site with your ego driven 'remote control plane' fantasies.
Y'know PAT/TC/911, I'd never recommend Prozac to anyone.
But have you considered using Prozac? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Chek, you silly billy, link us to some spec about the magical flying potential of remote controlled planes.
911APGM, why not follow your own advice on another thread and get off your arse, step away from the computer and stop spamming 911 sites with your lo-rent drivel?
Go make up a story about how no planes were used and give us all a good laugh.
Why don't you get a job and spam some irish site with your 'ALL VIDEO CAMERAS ARE nonsense' lies? I know you want me to leave but I won't. I will not allow the likes of you to cripple this site with your ego driven 'remote control plane' fantasies.
Y'know PAT/TC/911, I'd never recommend Prozac to anyone.
But have you considered using Prozac?
Typical, Chek is pushing The George Bush ran Eli Lily firm now. Do you get a commission? _________________ Steven Elvis Jones leads the way
If you had any balls you would kick off the following trouble makers
MICPSI
EMPTBEE
CHEK
FALLIOUS
STEFAN
JOHN WHITE
Of course I'm sure you won't because you will say you have no evidence, but it's clear to me these people have an agenda which is to muddy the water and stop visitors to this site getting at the real truth.
So Ian do us all a favour and despatch them to room 101
There are many videos of the events of that day that do NOT show jerky cartoon planes teetering into towers and slicing through them without a wing shearing off. Bob and Bri for example, who filmed everything EXCEPT the plane impacts. I have included one on my video that is definitely not fake and there is no plane on that.
It's interesting you should mention the Bob and Bri video, because even though they don't capture the impact of Flight 175 (the video resumes play with the fireball after an intermission in filming) the comments made by the woman filming and whoever is next to her clearly indicate that they saw a plane, although for some reason they identify it as 'a military plane'. Kind of undermines the NPT doesn't it? Also it's worth mentioning that the film-maker hears tell that the first impact was indeed a plane, and that's before Flight 175 impacts.
The fact that the film fails to capture the impact is not itself suspicious - there are numerous lapses in filming between the footage of the hole in the North Tower, the impact of Flight 175 and the collapses.
The one thing that is interesting about the Bob and Bri film is the flashes of light accompanied by pops that occur well below the impact hole in the North Tower.
It proves that Bri saw a plane but not that it hit the building. That was hidden from her by the North Tower. She saw the flypast.
With regard to Andrew's linked picture, Thom says:
Quote:
After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I didn't see the plane and assumed a bomb or something had gone off. Other people behind me on land had a wider view and said they saw the second plane approach from far away, figuring it was a rescue plane of some kind. The second image shows the puff of the second impact, with arcing debris on the left side.
At no point does Thom say his photograph shows a plane flying away from the towers: it looks to me like Andrew has us squinting at scratches on the film...
Regarding that supposed fly-by picture, judging by the relative sizes of the plane and the Twin Towers, the plane is either, very, very small (perhaps an unmanned drone) or is a long, long distance beyond the Twin Towers.
The size of the plane is only perhaps 50% longer than the pieces of debris falling to the left of the towers. These debris are almost certainly pieces of aluminium cladding which were of no great length (I'm guessing 20ft?).
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would have been fooled into thinking that that plane had hit the building. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
im just getting bored and confused with all this stuff now, no one who supports no planes,tv fakery can make up their mind what it is their suggesting.
there were no planes they were inserted in to the film.
it was a hologram not a plane.
it was a missle with a cloak of a plane.
there was a plane but it didnt hit the towers it was a fly by.
everything is fake and not real, not the plane, not the buildings, nor lamposts, nor trees etc, and all sound is fake to.
all the footage is real but look at the u.f.o's(birds). (why add u.f.o's into supposedly faked footage) make up your minds are these u.f.o's real or faked?.
these plus more all get claimed by no planers sometimes one person claims all to be true at once, its crazy, and ive stopped listening.
"One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is."
-- E. Martin Schotz, "History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy"
Maybe this is just a symptom of a society gone nuts? I mean it seems difficult for some people to navigate between believing everything they are told by the MSM and believing everything is a lie and nothing is knowable, which seems to sum up the NPTer position where "none of this makes any sense" is the only consistently held opinion. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
With regard to Andrew's linked picture, Thom says:
Quote:
After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I didn't see the plane and assumed a bomb or something had gone off. Other people behind me on land had a wider view and said they saw the second plane approach from far away, figuring it was a rescue plane of some kind. The second image shows the puff of the second impact, with arcing debris on the left side.
At no point does Thom say his photograph shows a plane flying away from the towers: it looks to me like Andrew has us squinting at scratches on the film...
this photograph could be one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence we have. It is clearly not debris. It is clearly not a scratch. It is clearly a plane and it is flying away from the WTC.
As for the exact time of the photo, it , must be at least five seconds since the fireball erupted as all that remains is the smoke trail of the arching debris. In five seconds at 550mph a plane travels half a mile
No, of course not. There are many videos of the events of that day that do NOT show jerky cartoon planes teetering into towers and slicing through them without a wing shearing off. Bob and Bri for example, who filmed everything EXCEPT the plane impacts. I have included one on my video that is definitely not fake and there is no plane on that.
I am a bit lost here. Are you saying the video included in your post is genuine? It contains a plane.
All Youtube video of fast moving objects will be jerky due to the nature of compression.
this photograph could be one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence we have. It is clearly not debris. It is clearly not a scratch. It is clearly a plane and it is flying away from the WTC.
As for the exact time of the photo, it , must be at least five seconds since the fireball erupted as all that remains is the smoke trail of the arching debris. In five seconds at 550mph a plane travels half a mile
550÷60÷20=0.4583
You are in denial. Get a magnifying glass.
It could be a plane. And that is what I first thought. So let's say that it is a plane. What next?
As I stated earlier, to my eyes this plane appears to be either very, very small (compare it with the debris I referred to earlier), or much, much further away than the Twin Towers. Would you agree, Andrew? If so, which do you think? Personally I suspect it is the latter.
As for it "flying away from the WTC", I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If it is as I suspect, much further away than the Twin Towers then it would appear not to be flying away from them so much as flying past them at quite some distance. Flying away suggests that at some previous time it was very close to the Twin Towers. But assuming that it hasn't changed its course, its attitude suggests it was not that close in the first place.
Now, it could have been involved in some way. It could have been the "control centre" of the real perps. Or it could have been monitoring the situation in some way.
Of course, all of this is mere speculation and proves nothing.
I would agree that it if the image is genuine it is very likely a plane. But to me it looks like a plane simply flying past the WTC at quite some distance. And I am not sure where this gets us.
Do we know whether at this time any planes could have been legitimately in this location? When were all planes ordered to land and could this be in breach of that order? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
No, of course not. There are many videos of the events of that day that do NOT show jerky cartoon planes teetering into towers and slicing through them without a wing shearing off. Bob and Bri for example, who filmed everything EXCEPT the plane impacts. I have included one on my video that is definitely not fake and there is no plane on that.
I am a bit lost here. Are you saying the video included in your post is genuine? It contains a plane.
All Youtube video of fast moving objects will be jerky due to the nature of compression.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject:
Andrew, you are aware of the direction that the strikes came in from for each building, I do trust - which sort of fully explains why you can't see a plane in the second section of your video.
I'm intrigued how such basic data gets past such fanatically dedicated "researchers".
Btw, the Mirage fighters in your other video with the rockets are doing less than 400 knts, or 70% of the WTC speed. Not sure if I saw a UFO lurking in the background though. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
There weren't any planes coming in from any direction Chek, but you wouldn't know that because you still think what you see on Television is somehow real.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
make up your minds are these u.f.o's real or faked?.
