WFG-
But it's not where it first appears, it's where we can first see it from the view point we have, it rose as it grew, so by the time we see it, from behind the other tower, it has already risen somewhat. _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject:
Witchfinder General wrote:
Im not talking about high the fireball rose, I talking about where it first appeared. This was too high in relation to the entry point of the alleged plane.
Can you explain more clearly what you mean WG?
The strike occurred between floors 78 - 83, a 74 ft high zone, continued across those floors with the bulk of the leading debris exiting between floors 81-83 0.4 secs later.
What are you not seeing here? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Okay then, you supplied a 'faked' video. We cannot be held responsible for your shortcomings. We are merely debating the content.
The best advice I can offer you;
Make sure you actually watch the videos you post before you post them. This way you will avoid headings like 'second hit footage showing no plane', when in fact it clearly does.
Also, make sure your PC's speakers are on and listen to the accompanying soundtrack. This way, awkward moments will be avoided when you raise points that are clearly inconsistent with what is actually said.
Not attempting to be nasty, just a friendly word or two.
Without beating around the bush are you agreeing with me that the fireball was too high in relation to the entry point.
No, I am not agreeing. I am saying that if you believe the fireball is too high, then it must be a doctored video. My earlier image clearly shows that given our viewpoint, everything lines up nicely, so I believe you are alone on this one.
I conclude you are arguing that the video is fraudulent in some way, hence we cannot proceed as I have no doubt your position will remain intractable.
This is now a somewhat pointless thread, but at least we are actually here.
Im not talking about high the fireball rose, I talking about where it first appeared. This was too high in relation to the entry point of the alleged plane.
thats not suprising when one tower blocks out some of the view.
how do we know we are seeing where the fireball exited rather than the fireball accumilating and rising a second or so after exiting?
plane hits building, causes explosion, explosion exits, explosion rises up the side of the building accumilating and massing into a big fire ball, fireball continues to rise and disperse into smoke, smoke dies down leaving the towers burning inside.
which part of the process are we seeing and how are we meant to tell when there is a 110 story skyscrapper blocking a portion of the view, exiting fireball or rising fireball?
however scaring people into to believing your theory is a tatic someone like bill o'reilly(fred) would use.
it is of my opinon that you could be an agent wasting our time for all i know, so who are you to tell people what they should think and then threaten them for not seeing your evidence.
have you ever thought that your evidence is weak and thats why people dont see it rather than everyone having to be agents not to see it?
you no planers seem to of lost common sense and logic and i believe it has truely sent you all paranoid or something. if i dont see evidence for something then ill be honest and express my freedom of speech untill it is illegal or i have no choice, which is what your trying to achieve.
the jist of what your saying is that if we dont agree with your evidence then we are shill's / agents and the public will get us, there by making people change their stance even if they dont agree with you through fear of being labeled a shill.
Post a film claiming to prove TV Fakery, then refuse flat-out to answer any of the valid questions pointing towards the fact that it does no such thing.
Time for stage three: Where everyone questioning the original assertation gets accused of being agents, being the same person, and "muddying the waters of truth"...
Here's your cue WFG...
i think fred has already started it.
you are free to agree or disagree with me, i believe in freedom and truth.
"Then I heard this terrible roar, just over my right shoulder. The plane was so close I could read the BOEING 767 painted under the cockpit window. Then all of a sudden, the pilot cut the engines. That's what no one talks about. He just glided in for the last couple hundred yards. There was this weird, horrible silence right before that plane hit."
The video shows a rotating shot (from a helicopter given the speed) and you come to the conclusion that it's the GROUND that's rotating?! Wow...just...wow. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
It is clearly you who is in denial. I and others have provided comprehensive evidence that your claims were absolute nonsense.
Your claims above have been shown to be false in every regard.
There is a plane.
There is plane noise.
And eyewitnesses say they saw a plane.
Your continued pretense that you and others have provided evidence of No Planes is frankly ridiculous.
I can only conclude that your purpose here is nefarious. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Last edited by Craig W on Wed May 16, 2007 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
It is clearly you who is in denial. I and others have provided comprehensive evidence that your claims were absolute nonsense.
Your claims above have been shown to be false in every regard.
There is a plane.
There is plane noise.
And eyewitnesses say they saw a plane.
Your continued pretense that you and others have provided evidence of No Planes is frankly ridiculous.
I can only conclude that your purpose here is nefarious.
Shouting in bright colours does not constitute an argument.
Where have you proved that WG is wrong?
Do you accept that 9/11 was a deception in any way?
Why should they have been unable to deceive people with fake cartoons?
Do you know anyone who saw either plane actually hit the towers?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Shouting in bright colours does not constitute an argument.
True that
Quote:
Where have you proved that WG is wrong?
Well, taking away the coloured font, CraigW did say...
Quote:
There is a plane.
There is plane noise.
And eyewitnesses say they saw a plane.
not a bad list for starters
Quote:
Do you accept that 9/11 was a deception in any way?
Oh yes
Quote:
Why should they have been unable to deceive people with fake cartoons?
Its the connect between the two statements here that need to be questioned: why should it be needed to fool people with faked images? When agenda pushers have controls of the means to make it happen for real, why need fakes? Why take the risk?
Quote:
Do you know anyone who saw either plane actually hit the towers?
What, like personally? How many people in manhatten that day do you personally know? But in terms of massive numbers of eyewitnesses, sure, loads of people. How do you know they are all lying?
Quote:
Have you an answer to my challenge?
Hardly challenging. Got a better one? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
It is clearly you who is in denial. I and others have provided comprehensive evidence that your claims were absolute nonsense.
Your claims above have been shown to be false in every regard.
There is a plane.
There is plane noise.
And eyewitnesses say they saw a plane.
Your continued pretense that you and others have provided evidence of No Planes is frankly ridiculous.
I can only conclude that your purpose here is nefarious.
Shouting in bright colours does not constitute an argument.
Where have you proved that WG is wrong?
Do you accept that 9/11 was a deception in any way?
Why should they have been unable to deceive people with fake cartoons?
Do you know anyone who saw either plane actually hit the towers?
Have you an answer to my challenge?
You are right about shouting and bright colours. If you have read the thread you will know that my arguments appear earlier on. I highlighted my post because these have been missed or ignored by WG.
One cannot prove anything by talking about pictures. But I and (others) have shown that the claims made by WG are demonstrably untrue.
Are you also claiming that there is no plane, no plane noise and no eye witness testimony of a plane? If so, I suggest you review the footage and read the earlier replies again. If you still claim any of these to be the case then I cannot help you.
Of course, 911 was a tremendous deception. Of that I am in no doubt.
That they might have deceived people with false planes doesn't mean that they did. Does it? They might have used aliens flying UFOs too. So what?
No. I don't know anyone who saw the planes? Do you know anyone who saw anyone faking the planes? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
the so called plane that allegedly is seen between the 2 buildings is nothing more than a blob that somebody has added
This is clearly pointless, but here we go again.
What exactly would you expect a plane to look like at that distance, speed and resolution?
What about the noise? Do you concede that there is clearly a noise, contradicting what you previously claimed?
And what about the witnesses? Do you concede that some of them said they saw the plane? One even said it looked like a "United".
If you wanted to insert a fake plane into that video why would you make it look like a "blob" (if that is what you think it looks like)? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
the so called plane that allegedly is seen between the 2 buildings is nothing more than a blob that somebody has added
And the audio? With the plane noise and the eyewitnesses? Are they fake too, or are they all government agents?
If so, where does this leave you? You thought that you had a piece of video supporting NPT here, but it turns out to be just as supportive of planes as every other piece of video that has emerged over the last 5 1/2 years. So, according to your logic, because it does not support your article of faith - NPT - it has to be a fake. That about sums up your position right? _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
the so called plane that allegedly is seen between the 2 buildings is nothing more than a blob that somebody has added
This is clearly pointless, but here we go again.
What exactly would you expect a plane to look like at that distance, speed and resolution?
What about the noise? Do you concede that there is clearly a noise, contradicting what you previously claimed?
And what about the witnesses? Do you concede that some of them said they saw the plane? One even said it looked like a "United".
If you wanted to insert a fake plane into that video why would you make it look like a "blob" (if that is what you think it looks like)?
It's the same old story, excuse after excuse poor video quality blah blah blah.
Don't you find it extraordinary that the quality of all the videos very conveniently becomes an excuse to allow blobs and blurs to be put forward as planes?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:15 am Post subject:
Quote:
Show me just one clear picture of a 911 plane
Happy to help
Any chance you might be starting to consider this "No Planes" business doesnt stand up as well as you thought? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
the so called plane that allegedly is seen between the 2 buildings is nothing more than a blob that somebody has added
This is clearly pointless, but here we go again.
What exactly would you expect a plane to look like at that distance, speed and resolution?
What about the noise? Do you concede that there is clearly a noise, contradicting what you previously claimed?
And what about the witnesses? Do you concede that some of them said they saw the plane? One even said it looked like a "United".
If you wanted to insert a fake plane into that video why would you make it look like a "blob" (if that is what you think it looks like)?
It's the same old story, excuse after excuse poor video quality blah blah blah.
Don't you find it extraordinary that the quality of all the videos very conveniently becomes an excuse to allow blobs and blurs to be put forward as planes?
Show me just one clear picture of a 911 plane
Nice evasion, WG!
You posted this video. Not me or anyone else.
You claimed it was evidence of no planes. Not me or anyone else.
Now your claims have been easily and comprehensively rebutted you ignore those rebuttals and instead shift the goalposts.
It really is quite transparent and pathetic.
Defend your original claims or shut up. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:27 am Post subject:
Witchfinder General wrote:
It's the same old story, excuse after excuse poor video quality blah blah blah.
Hey don't knock it - how many hours of mind-w*nking conspiracy enjoyment has it given you over the years?
Witchfinder General wrote:
Don't you find it extraordinary that the quality of all the videos very conveniently becomes an excuse to allow blobs and blurs to be put forward as planes?
Not really when you consider where the videos were shot from.
Witchfinder General wrote:
Show me just one clear picture of a 911 plane
You can find whatever is available just as easily as any of us.
Because I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference I'll leave it at that.
However I'll leave you with this.
You collect evidence and then construct a hypothesis that is supported by evidence.
The one thing that you most definitely DO NOT do, if you seriously want to find out about things - and it applies to anything in this world - is start with a 'theory' then seek to back it up with cherry-picked and therefore biased information.
That's how Bush science works, and you wouldn't want to be tainted, would you? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
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
