Demolition truck next to wtc,Disprove No-Planes Theory also!

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

Originally posted by Soloist
I think this video plus all other evidence proves without a shadow of a doubt that planes crashed into the buildings. Take a look at the whole picture, use "critical thinking".

All the videos violate Newton's Laws of Motion. Get a grip on your "critical thinking". Or better yet, get some in the first place. Your comments are silly.

Oh I would love to talk about how they violate Newton's Laws of Motion, would you be so kind to expand on that? And also, I would like to know how my comments of comparing the sounds of a 4 engine 747 to a 2 engine 767 in a city not being the same are "silly". Please expand on that also. I mean you did say that is how the jet was "supposed" to sound.

I would prefer more of a "critical thinking" conversation instead of just being called "silly" please, thank you.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn



Were you there???? You probably weren't. All the people that were there though must be just ignorant in your eyes because they saw planes right?? You are sooo smart because you throw out Newtons Law of motion, yet you sit there and try to tell the hundreds of thousands of people that were there and lived it, they didn't see what they think they saw and lived through. You create this fantasy world in your head and live it through the internet. You obviously need to get out and experience more of the dangerous and unspeakable parts of the world. Maybe that woud bring you back to reality. You have been away too long my friend. Go to New York and do your research at ground zero. Talk to the people that were there. Talk to the people that survived. Talk to the people that witnessed it. Stop doing your research on ATS and other propoganda sites on the internet.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Congrats you just disprove the hologram plane theory, since you hear and see the debris on the ground. And he was right in the path of flying debris.

So you see debris. Is it from a plane, a 767 in fact?

Do you have any official reports stating the debris is from a 767?

Originally posted by bull12scr
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

 

Were you there???? You probably weren't. All the people that were there though must be just ignorant in your eyes because they saw planes right?? You are sooo smart because you throw out Newtons Law of motion, yet you sit there and try to tell the hundreds of thousands of people that were there and lived it, they didn't see what they think they saw and lived through. You create this fantasy world in your head and live it through the internet. You obviously need to get out and experience more of the dangerous and unspeakable parts of the world. Maybe that woud bring you back to reality. You have been away too long my friend. Go to New York and do your research at ground zero. Talk to the people that were there. Talk to the people that survived. Talk to the people that witnessed it. Stop doing your research on ATS and other propoganda sites on the internet.

And what about the people who reported NO plane, but just an explosion? What about the people who reported missiles? It appears your intent is to dismiss those accounts in favor of your predetermined conclusion. That's called Pathological Science, by the way!

Also, there's no evidence that hundreds of thousands of NYer's saw planes hitting the towers. Why do you make stuff up?

reply to post by ULTIMA1



LMAO

The people that report seeing no planes were asleep and only awakened by the sound of chaos or weren't on the right side of the building complex. The people that reported seeing missiles were the attention seeking posers such as yourself who let thier imaginations and internet clouded fantasy worlds get intertwined with reality. Whats worse are the people who believe all of this. The people that are so desperate for some kind of meaning in thier life that they cling to this kind of internet propoganda and try to have so called intelligent convesations about it.

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh I would love to talk about how they violate Newton's Laws of Motion, would you be so kind to expand on that? And also, I would like to know how my comments of comparing the sounds of a 4 engine 747 to a 2 engine 767 in a city not being the same are "silly". Please expand on that also. I mean you did say that is how the jet was "supposed" to sound.

I would prefer more of a "critical thinking" conversation instead of just being called "silly" please, thank you.

I'd appreciate an intelligent discussion as well.


Newton's Third Law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The steel girders and concrete slabs would have exerted the same force on the aluminum tube airplane as the plane exerted on the steel/concrete.

A real plane would have crashed against the building, not glide into it, plastic nosecone to tail, as if the building wasn't even there.

This is high school level physics.

But because of brainwashing via special effect movies/TV shows and video games, people are unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality. (This is not accidental, it's by design.)

I dont know about you but I have seen instances where things as small as straw has pierced brick walls due to high wind velocity. Things that you wouldn't think could pierce something can do so with the right velocity and tragectory. So you are telling me that what should have happened to the plane is that it should have smashed into the side of the building and then fell to the ground with out piercing the building? Is this your arguement. Please tell me what should have happened IF a plane had hit.

Originally posted by bull12scr
I dont know about you but I have seen instances where things as small as straw has pierced brick walls due to high wind velocity. Things that you wouldn't think could pierce something can do so with the right velocity and tragectory. So you are telling me that what should have happened to the plane is that it should have smashed into the side of the building and then fell to the ground with out piercing the building? Is this your arguement. Please tell me what should have happened IF a plane had hit.

A straw is not going to pierce brick walls at any speed. But at a high enough velocity it could get stuck between the sand pieces. There's an article on Dr Wood's site that addresses the velocity issue: drjudywood.com...

The outer steel perimeter columns and concrete floor slabs of the WTC might have been broken, and parts of the plane might have gone inside (especially the engines). But still, the aluminum plane would have been damaged more than the building. A real plane would encounter resistance and crumple when hitting the building, not glide into it like a bad special effect.

Soooo many experts seem to be just wasting there time posting thier findings here on ATS when they should be in Virginia investigating the site, or in New York investigating ground zero. Then they could go public and prove to the world what really happened. How thier government has deceived all of us. Whats that you say, you have no time to do that. You can't take time out of your lives to do such a thing. You are afraid for your life because surely the government would kill you before they would let you go public with your findings. Well I am glad that you could be so courageous for our sake and for your family. For the good of the American people you wouldn't be willing to make that sacrafice. Such cowards are made of just words.

If anything that video bolsters the "no plane theory". Theres no distinct screaming ROAR of a large 767 before impact, only a brief one second long noise before the explosion

Also stop lumping all no planers in with hologram people. There are people who belive Cruise Missles were used, and the media used CGI, doctored tapes that came out the days AFTER 9/11, staged wintnesses, media NLP, and slight brainwashing, by the gross repetition of the use of the word 'Terror'.

As alsready stated those trucks are on every other block of Manhatten because every other block construction is being done. Also demolition doesn't always, actually rarely uses explosives. They usually are called in to take down a few walls, or a small 3-4 story, and they do it the old fashioned way.

An amazing, and very hard to watch, piece of history.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


One of the things I appreciate most about this video recording of the events of that day is it gives just one vantage point's representation of how many actual witnesses think people like you deserve nothing but pity for obviously not getting help yet.

You didn't hear a plane? I did. I heard a large commercial plane at almost full throttle and low altitude followed by a sound that sounded a lot like a major impact and explosion. But then my ears seem to be attuned to reality.

You ask why so many people are fighting to hang on to planes impacting the building? It's because there's a large number of us out here that believe REALITY is worth fighting for. We're not ready to allow the ilk of you to supplant it with OCD-paranoia-fueled delusions just yet. We're the same people who think that valueless white noise like you spew detracts from the earnest work of others who are dedicated to filling the gaps and finding the unanswered questions of that day. The ones that won't waste their time pissing up the proverbial rope of denying the factual events of that day, but instead focus their energy on the areas for which we do not yet have the facts.

So you go ahead and don't hear the planes but instead see holograms or missiles or evil clowns riding trash trucks or whatever fanciful stuff keeps your chemically-inbalanced brain happy - the rest of us will continue to look at the important things.

If you've got any more questions for me, feel free to ask. I actually enjoy responding to them.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So you see debris. Is it from a plane, a 767 in fact?

You seem to be in disbelief. Is there any proof that this is NOT debris from a plane, a 767 in fact? I mean holograms don't leave aircraft parts debris, nor make sounds like a jet crashing into a building, and missiles certainly don't leave debris, they pretty much are destroyed from the force of the explosion.

This video and countless others, plus thousands of eyewitnesses, the plane debris found on the ground, the missing flights, crew and passengers and the many who died from the planes and debris, fires and collapses, all would point to the fact that yes, planes hit these buildings.

You cannot look at evidence like this with blinders on and say you just see debris. You have to consider the whole picture and it's context. I'm sorry to say that this was a real event, real people were there who saw, real plane parts rained from the sky onto the street, real people died.

I would take all of that into consideration before believing what someone on an internet forum has to say or some youtube video made by someone to counter ALL of that evidence, not just a part of it. Usually people of this nature have a political agenda and are showing you only what they want you to see to serve that purpose...the "evil" nazi government did it!!!! We must hang them all!!!

reply to post by Valhall



Awe another person who lives within the realms of reality. I appreciate well grounded people.

Originally posted by Nola213
Also stop lumping all no planers in with hologram people. There are people who belive Cruise Missles were used, and the media used CGI, doctored tapes that came out the days AFTER 9/11, staged wintnesses, media NLP, and slight brainwashing, by the gross repetition of the use of the word 'Terror'.

The reason I tend to lean toward hologram or hologram-like technology these days is because many people *did* report seeing a large commercial jet impact the towers. (Although very few reported hearing one.)

Originally posted by ValhallIf you've got any more questions for me, feel free to ask. I actually enjoy responding to them.

Careful what you wish for there, Valhall.

RIP to all of those who died, I don't know, that was an incoming something, but what troubles me more, a plane of that size in the middle of the city flying that low still would have been apparent audibly and distinguishable as a jet some seconds before impact what you hear is nothing like a jet, I am more convinced now that it was a missile not a plane, also if you look at building seven a few frames back there is something on the side of the building, it could just be a window washer scaffold though.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


You ask me where New Yorkers are supposed to go to be heard not realizing the theory YOU HOLD TO has this thing called the internet that allows it to be heard.

Try that morning or evening Radio Shows in New York, there is a good place to be heard.

You avoided the question though.

So how is it so many New Yorkers haven't said anything??

We should have seen large numbers of people complaining about this right after it happened.

If I was there watching the events with my eyes and I saw something contrary to what was told by the media I would raise my voice and get as many people to raise a stink as well.


Face it, the theory is done.

It makes no sense in terms of planning. No military is that stupid to come up with such a stupid plot. CGI while all of New York see's something different.

Then you have to factor in a good reason as to why there is NO CGI of the PENTAGON STRIKE?

Or why people from the NO PLANE movement keep talking about 'planted' plane parts yet forgetting the claim that the rest was CGI!!!

That makes no sense. How on earth can it make sense to talk about planted plane parts when they could have just CGI'd the whole thing!

The theory is done.







[edit on 3-10-2007 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman



Maybe John Lear, or someone could answer you. I'm tired of dong it. I doubt you're ever going to understand it.

CB_Brooklyn

John Lear believes holograms were used. No I don't believe that. But that theory takes into consideration the large amount of New Yorkers.
So refuting holograms has a different approach. Whereas the CGI theory ignores the large amount of New Yorkers.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
CB_Brooklyn

John Lear believes holograms were used. No I don't believe that. But that theory takes into consideration the large amount of New Yorkers.
So refuting holograms has a different approach. Whereas the CGI theory ignores the large amount of New Yorkers.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by talisman]

It's certainly possible both were used. CGI for TV and holograms (or something similar) in the streets.