Why they didn't use planes...

That is one of the worst analogies I've heard in awhile. First of all, the car hit a wall that was designed to PREVENT penetration, the WTC wasn't. Secondly the force of the impact was spread out over a large area, whereas the planes hit the building with a larger amount of force, in a smaller area. The smaller the area the more force is exerted.

There is no wall on any building, short of a nuclear reactor (and even that would probably not withstand planes that sized), that could have stopped those planes and caused them to hit and explode before they went into them.

Originally posted by D.Duck
Just tell me why you think a 767 can penetrate and be swallowed by a steel building and explode inside, not having one part of the 767 break apart on the south side when impact and fall down to the street on the south side.

I've told you time and time again. It doesn't matter what his answer is or mine is, you will never waiver from your disinfo.

The only way the 767 would have fallen to the ground is if the WTC's walls were solid concrete several feet thick. In the real world, the 767 easily broke the connectors on the outter steel columns being that the plane was travelling at 500mph and weighs 300,000 pounds and all. Something that large and that heavy will not stop on a dime.

You also keep forgetting over and over the B-25 bomber that penetrated the steel/limestone structure of the Empire State building. Yes the plane only made it half-way in, but it was also travelling at only around 150-180mph. If it were travelling at 500mph, it would have definitely made it all the way in with ease. And the B-25 is a much smaller, much lighter and much slower plane.

Originally posted by D.Duck
Do you remember the race car driver Greg Moore hitting the wall at 180 MPH and died. That thing exploded on impact

Not even a comparable scenario since the car doesn't weigh 300,000 pounds, wasn't travelling at 500mph and hit a concrete wall as opposed to a steel structure where the connectors broke. Concrete walls don't have connectors that can easily break.

Hitting a concrete wall and hitting a steel mesh are two totally different things and aren't even in the same ball park as comparable.

Originally posted by D.Duck
Why do you think an aluminum wing filled with many thousands of gallon of fuel would penetrate a steel building and explode inside?

Because once again, the wings broke the connectors that connected the steel columns. The wings did not slice the columns in half.

Originally posted by D.Duck
The only thing that would do that is the CGI 767 that you guys showed us on TV.

The only thing in the real world that would do that is a real 767. Don't blame him for your lack of understanding of simple physics.

Originally posted by D.Duck
Shame on you for showing the whole world a fake 767 on TV.

Shame on you for showing the whole world how people that don't comprehend simple physics can resort to making things up and peddle disinformation because of that lack of understanding.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

In the following video, after the second plane hits, you can hear the plane parts slamming into buildings and landing on the street. For a brief second, you can see the plane parts falling through the air and landing on the ground.

Holograms

Here's the kicker, the video even shows someone that got killed from a plane part that landed on top of him.

It was all staged. He's not really dead and the plane part was made out of ultralight foam

Now unless you think someone killed this person in broad daylight in front of dozens of people and then threw the plane part on top of that person, your disinfo ends here:

www.livevideo.com...

Jet engine that hit a street sign:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0dd99e287f0d.jpg[/atsimg]

That has always been there. It's a modern art sculpture created by an artist named murray who even left his name tag behind so you can see who created it

Plane part embedded into a car:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b31c22b7891.jpg[/atsimg]

This is the new plane-car from volvo. Man they have strange car designs. Well you know how those foreign car companies are

For your "theory" you would have to have a massive ground crew and people on top of buildings throwing these plane parts onto the ground.

The entire population of the city was in on it

Especially a crew to move that several hundred pound jet engine part while busting up the street sign.

Explained above

Not to mention the crew to beat the hell out of that car and then embed a plane part into the car.

It came from the factory like that

Not to mention another person or so to kill somebody in broad daylight in front of dozens of people and then throw a plane part on top of that dead person to make it look like he got killed by the plane part, as shown in the video above.

He was a hired stunt man. I believe his name was Colt Seavers (vague Fallguy reference).

NPT holds no water against the real, physical evidence.

So this exercise in "tongue and cheek" actually does have a purpose. No matte how much evidence you present and how logical your argument is, AND IT IS BOTH, they will use absurd, pointless deflective points to avoid the truth of your statements. You can't win even though you've won and proven you've won. I feel for you and thus give you a big star !

reply to post by jfj123


When I started reading your post, I was like WTH? Then as it got more ridiculous, I finally caught the sarcasm.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jfj123

 

When I started reading your post, I was like WTH? Then as it got more ridiculous, I finally caught the sarcasm.

Sorry I picked your post to make a point against supposed truthers but your post was so well done, it gave me a perfect opportunity to make my point.

Sarcasm can be fun but sarcasm with a point can be a learning tool For those who wish to learn

Thanks for being a good sport

There was one part in the OPs article i loved:

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable

Wow... planes arent designed to hit 30m wide objects... guess we are really lucky every time they hit the landing strip?

to
D.Duck

Can you penetrate water? It is softer than you are right?

If you can, then please jump into water, flat with outsteched arms from 5m. When you have done that try to meditate on this:

E=m*v

Originally posted by debunky
There was one part in the OPs article i loved:

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable

Wow... planes arent designed to hit 30m wide objects... guess we are really lucky every time they hit the landing strip?

to
D.Duck

Can you penetrate water? It is softer than you are right?

If you can, then please jump into water, flat with outsteched arms from 5m. When you have done that try to meditate on this:

E=m*v

haha, try to hit the landstip with a 767 at 550MPH.

D.Duck

Originally posted by Berzerked
Ive never once questioned the FACT that the US Govt, under Israels control, sacrificed thousands of lives to crash AIR PLANES into the WTC and a MISSILE into the Pentagon, since the plane that was supposed to hit it was re-hijacked by the passengers and the Military was ordered to shoot it down.
Anyone that believes that the nice, perfectly round "punchout" hole in the Pentagon was made by a plane, is seriously mistaken.

Is it not impossible that the wings came off when the aircraft slammed into the ground, they're not exactly designed to hit the ground at over 500 miles an hour, they do kinda fall apart when the crash. Look at the wreckage of ANY airplane crash, they don't look like planes anymore. As a member of CIVIL AIR PATROL, I have found crash sites while trying to locate the wreck and/or survivors, and that was a Cessna that went only slightly over 100 mph. I dont think a 32000 pound aircraft at 500 is going to survive the experiance intact.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Techsnow

 

If you notice in the picture below from the video you provided at 0759 on the counter....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e3d3242ad84a02cb.jpg[/atsimg]

Does not look like a plane to me, and about the size of a missile.

If you check the video and stop it on 2:31 you get a picture of a mini plane with very small wings, best described as a missile.

I think they used a missile and covered it up with graphics, but unfortunately didn't do a very good job. Cause you can see right through the facade boys, if your not wearing sheeps clothing....
[edit on 5-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

exactly what i pointed out in the thread i began here called the DRONE CLIP!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think You'll definitely enjoy that thread. More need to see this clip!

THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT A COMMERICAL JET and to me, only MORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of Inside Job and "NO PLANES"

its a DRONE/missle

EOS

Compared to the size of the building, that was an airliner, you cant just say, "it looks small on the video, so it wans't a plane" this is not irrefutable proof


[edit on 8-3-2009 by KILLER_077]

I think it is an inside job. That being said

I SAW THE SECOND PLANE HIT.

there is my proof and your proof that it was a plane of some sorts, maybe not an airliner, but a plane that sure looks like it.

I was down in the financial district and saw the second tower get hit.

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
I think it is an inside job. That being said

I SAW THE SECOND PLANE HIT.

there is my proof and your proof that it was a plane of some sorts, maybe not an airliner, but a plane that sure looks like it.

I was down in the financial district and saw the second tower get hit.

yea,yea sure you did , I have i friend that saw a bus hit the tower.

The plane we saw on live TV and amateurs videos was a CGI 767 not a real 767.

D.Duck

[edit on 8-3-2009 by D.Duck]

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
I SAW THE SECOND PLANE HIT.

It doesn't matter to the disinfo artists how many thousands of people watched the plane hit. They always make something up out of thin air to try to make you uncredible.

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
The plane we saw on live TV and amateurs videos was a CGI 767 not a real 767.

He didn't see the plane on tv. He saw the REAL plane with his own eyes while standing outside. But the peddling of disinfo from you continues...

reply to post by D.Duck


lol i love how 99% of you people on this thread live miles away. Yet you can confirm that no plane hit! Your blinded by you ignorance. I will not say it was a 747, but it was a plane or missile. I heard the jets, i saw the hit, i felt the heat, i watched the chunks of cement fall 3 feet from me. I bet that Not you, nor anyone who has posted in this thread, would even know one thing about NYC, or even where to find it if you were here. Its like someone watching a soccer game from home on there TV and saying that ball didn't go into the net!
And the person sitting there at the game knows the instant they scored.


If it makes you feel better to fit your conspiracy then say that, but don't you tell me that i didn't see/feel/hear what i saw/felt/heard. And sure as hell understand that i can get 100 other people who live down there that can tell you the exact same story. It is still a very touchy subject for us because we all seem to have felt the people die when the planes hit. We all felt it in our gut.

But hey! keep watching your TV and run you computer programs! i am so sure that is much better evidence.

Get real

DDamnit

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
reply to post by D.Duck

 

lol i love how 99% of you people on this thread live miles away. Yet you can confirm that no plane hit! Your blinded by you ignorance. I will not say it was a 747, but it was a plane or missile. I heard the jets, i saw the hit, i felt the heat, i watched the chunks of cement fall 3 feet from me. I bet that Not you, nor anyone who has posted in this thread, would even know one thing about NYC, or even where to find it if you were here. Its like someone watching a soccer game from home on there TV and saying that ball didn't go into the net!
And the person sitting there at the game knows the instant they scored.


If it makes you feel better to fit your conspiracy then say that, but don't you tell me that i didn't see/feel/hear what i saw/felt/heard. And sure as hell understand that i can get 100 other people who live down there that can tell you the exact same story. It is still a very touchy subject for us because we all seem to have felt the people die when the planes hit. We all felt it in our gut.

But hey! keep watching your TV and run you computer programs! i am so sure that is much better evidence.

Get real

DDamnit

Well sure, you could have seen a missile but it depends on what street you were. So what street were you on?

D.Duck

reply to post by D.Duck


barclay then church. i know you will have to check that on a map, so just put ground zero its the northern and eastern streets.

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
reply to post by D.Duck

 

barclay then church. i know you will have to check that on a map, so just put ground zero its the northern and eastern streets.

Did you stay there all time, even when south tower came down?

D.Duck

Originally posted by D.Duck
Well sure, you could have seen a missile

Unless it was a 300,000 pound missile that was heavy enough to make the building sway, and only had jet fuel instead of an actual warhead, then you may have an argument.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
Well sure, you could have seen a missile

Unless it was a 300,000 pound missile that was heavy enough to make the building sway, and only had jet fuel instead of an actual warhead, then you may have an argument.

Well BoneZ,

If you can prove the videos are real, then you have an argument.

D.Duck

Originally posted by D.Duck
If you can prove the videos are real, then you have an argument.

That's all you can say because I debunk you at every single turn. You have nothing left.

Besides, we all know the videos are real. YOU are making the claim they are not, so YOU have to prove YOUR claim. I've already proven over and over that all your claims hold no water. But you can keep trying.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
If you can prove the videos are real, then you have an argument.

That's all you can say because I debunk you at every single turn. You have nothing left.

Besides, we all know the videos are real. YOU are making the claim they are not, so YOU have to prove YOUR claim. I've already proven over and over that all your claims hold no water. But you can keep trying.

BoneZ,

Hahaha, more and more people are looking at the videos more critically than 2 years ago and are finding out the videos are fake.

There are still some disinfo guys left, working like crazy saying the videos are real.


D.Duck



[edit on 9-3-2009 by D.Duck]