Conclusive evidence for no planes

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[John White]

I count several constructive points in my post: and zero in yours TWSU3: just what I expect from you mate. I wish I did'nt, but thats up to you

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

What a poor response

[marky 54]

your failure to debate our points and act like a child isnt convincing anyone no planes is true.

your losing people to convince and i join them, your wasting our time and i suspect this is delibrate and what your game really is.

no planes is ignored by me from now on ive lost the will to try and give you a chance to counter the points i find that goes against your theory.

YOU FAILED TO CONVINCE ME!

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

If Flight UA175 really hit the WTC then explain why it was still registered with the FAA as in service for a further 4 years

Check it out for yourself on the website below

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/serial_inquiry.asp


THE N NUMBER IS N612UA

[wickywoowoo]

[conspiracy analyst]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[wickywoowoo]

I honestly don't know, CGI projections flying into WTC isn't the most vital part of 9/11 that I read up on.

You are a believer in it, yet you've offered nothing based in reality or of relevance to convince anyone except calling everything that is based in reality and has been proven to be real as "fake" because it isn't a CGI manipulation.

Tell me, was the movie Titanic a documentary to you or was it a movie?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

You see the problem you have is that if real planes were used - then the most risk free option would be to use the official conspiracy planes (using substitute planes would only complicate things further and add to the risk)

So if the official planes were used there would be nothing to hide, they would be able to show plane parts and serial numbers etc - they have not because they have something to hide?

[wickywoowoo]

Indeed you are correct, any substitution of planes can be seen as an unnecessary increase in risk but that would be countered by it would allow for increased "remote control" of said plane due to the hijackers not being too skilled themselves.

Your point about parts though is less than stable, I am not read up on all the stuff they found in the rubble so they may have found parts of the plane and they may not but if, well whatever you believe brought the towers down, be it CD or Beam Weapon, whatever did it, it did a good job in taking that building down so if it did that to the building, I imagine the plane, a plane which you claim is too weak to even make it into the building to begin with, would have been pretty much sorted out also.

I am not arguing for or against your beam weapon theory to be honest, I am not sold on ANY explanation for what happened on 9/11, all I believe is that the official story doesn't really work for me and from what proof I've been shown so far, the beam weapon/no planes thing is in the same area, it just lacks substance to me.

If I read any proof that strikes a chord with me, I'll be glad to change my mind and say "hey, there is something to this" but just now, it just seems to be the result of a stagnate period of 9/11 research, it's like whoever thought of it went "no one's discovered anything lately, the movement is dying.... I know, star wars beam weapons did it - that'll get people talking".

It has.