Conclusive evidence for no planes

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok Falleous, Snowy, John White and co - I challenge you to debunk this - see link below

NO WAFFLING PLEASE


http://youtube.com/watch?v=6VbDLbVbDeI

[marky 54]

the last question was left unanswered so it proves nothing and isnt conclusive. it debunks itself really no need to even try or it was poor editing.

correct me if im wrong but was that a plane in the footage?

[Fallious]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Fallious]

Welcome to critics corner.

*lolling at you from the credible theory forums*

Your movie isn't news, but your ultimate failure to infiltrate this forum with your BS theory certainly is.

[marky 54]

[John White]

All NPT threads in general chat until the new section is ready please

(thread moved from News: TWSU3, how is it "news" that your challenging Fallious etc to debunk a film off YouTube again)

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Yep you cannot debunk it ------you failed

[Snowygrouch]

de-bunking requires the existence of "BUNK" to start with.

NPT has no evidence that even comes close to being even as good as "bunk".

"Bunk3 n, informal, dated: Nonsense"

"Bunkum (also buncomb) n, informal, dated: Nonsense"

Your argument is hereby de-bunked as it does not even qualify as nonsense.

[thought criminal]

[Snowygrouch]

Yawn.....

[Patrick Brown]

Am I the only person that is sick to death of this sewer dweller? All this member does is constantly post dis-info and sh*t on good threads and turn them into slagging matches. This member is responsible for distorting and damaging this forum and should be warned that if they don't make an effort to be more respectful in their postings they will be removed. I'd just ban the member as he is obviously a liar and a disinfomationist.

[Fallious]

[John White]

Does 42 minutes count as long enough to allow for a fair return of debunking the bunkiness?

Also, does the claim of failure to debunk in this case count as defacto admission of succesfull debunking on other occasions?

Otherwise, would it not be better to go "NPT IS INVINCIBLE!!!" and run around the room imitating a holographic plane?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Patrick Brown]

[Fallious]

[Patrick Brown]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[thought criminal]

[Snowygrouch]

Yawn....

[Patrick Brown]

Goodnight... Yawn

[Fallious]

.. Oh.. I mean, yawn...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Snowygrouch]

*Huge Yawn*

Zzzz.........

*Snore*

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

AS I THOUGHT FROM YOU SNOWY -----100% PROOF WAFFLE

[marky 54]

what the....

this is getting crazy, they post stuff that proves nothing or has faults, you ask them questions and get ignored. they start 10 threads a day on beams/NPT and expect us all to agree with them on their say so.

show some evidence for god sakes you want people to taken seriously yet for months we have had clips linked that prove nothing. you cannot argue your case without insults and do not explain why what we say is wrong you just ignore us and make a little remark that means nothing.

grow up! show some evidence and debate it. not show a clip of a plane that isnt a plane while grasping hold of the flimsiest thing in it and then personnally slandering everyone who disagrees. your losing you credibility if you had any left after months of this nonsense.

you avoid debate because its the only way to keep your fantasy alive.

no planes has got to your heads, its now about proving us wrong RATHER THAN SHOWING EVIDENCE AND DEBATING IT SO WE CAN SEE WHAT YOU MEAN! we point out faults with the theory you ignore them and then repost more nonsense saying the same stuff that got bobbed on in the other threads. address our issues for god sake point by point.

IT ISNT ABOUT BEING BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE OR BEATING ANYONE ELSE! so debate and stop avoiding the problems we see and explain with NPT and address them.

your arguements are getting childish, im sure im gonna hear this excuse soon "NPT is true because my daddy is better than yours so there" to explain away everyones questions so you can avoid them.

[marky 54]

at the end of the film the guy says he accounted for drag on the plane, and it matched the flight path. he then says he thought he'd proved himself wrong.

he then says that he was left to wonder if the drag played a part in why the plane wasnt in view and then the video cuts of.

do we know the answer? was it drag on the plane that caused it? if not proof please of some sort of calculation at least, otherwise it debunked itself proving it must of been drag.

ignore my question if you like but it will prove how NPT'ers just avoid everything we ask and then will post a differant video in 2 months saying the same thing and so the cycle starts again.

[John White]

Well, TWSU3 has ignored my question as to whether the challenge to debunk this film is a defacto admission that others have been succesfully debunked

The dodged drag question is obviously also there

Rather obviously, the guys assesement of where the plane should be relies on the assumption that the approach was at a fixed altitude exactly horizontal to the ground at a constant speed over several miles. Was it? evidence for that please: or the plane is NEVER going to be where he is predicting it "should" be

Once again, where is the original footage and not a low res knock off?

And theres a plane on this film

Other than that, this film is perfect evidance, well done everyone (yes, I'm being mildly sarcastic)

Why can't NPT theorists anticipate these drawbacks before posting this stuff?

[Thermate]