No plane ...with proof

Originally posted by titorite
I see columns going both inward , outward and sideways.

I see no columns going outward. Please point them out for everyone. The only things I see going outward are pieces of aluminum cladding that were on top of the columns.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Aluminum cladding then. My mistake about the thing pointing outward and sideways.

Now as I have said before we disagree about this subject but we are still on the same side so I hope that you will keep that in mind.

I would ask you to explain to me why in some shots of the south tower impact the plane flies high above the sky line and then impacts and why in other news shots the plane flies so low it actually goes in between buildings.

As I said though, the camera position is not a viable argument because we can keep track of the plane by its relation to the buildings.

That you tube link had a high long shot showing the plane doing a dive into the building well above the NY sky line while another shot in that same you tube link had a nice close up shot of the plane going in between buildings..

It beared repeating. How is that possible?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by titorite
I see columns going both inward , outward and sideways.

I see no columns going outward. Please point them out for everyone.
[edit on 18-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

No Real Boeing Planes aka flight 11&175 hit the towers.

So I don't see what your column argument proves or disproves about NRPT.





[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That still doesn't explain the dozens of pictures and videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and home videos from private citizens that all corroborate each other.

typical tactic of a disinfo artist to make such an outright absurd and unproveable claim. If there's even one contradictory report and witness or video thats contradictory, you're being disingenuous... and MOST here who've done a real objective investigation, know there is.

_BoneZ_
Then there's the countless thousands of people that were on the streets watching the towers and saw the planes with their own eyes.

who are contradicted by other people on the streets who didn't see what you're insinuating they all did.

_BoneZ_
Then there's the actual damage to the towers where large chunks of building are pushed. Something very large and very heavy hit those buildings. Sort of like a 300,000 pound jetliner perhaps.

there's plenty of evidence in that image to contradict your claim.

the symmetry alone supports the argument against your assertion. but if anything hit the wtc, it was a missle in conjuction with pre-placed charges. and the true NRPT far better explains the damage than your deteriorating RPT.

_BoneZ_
The witness testimony, video and photographic evidence and the physical damage to the buildings all say a plane hit.

but unfortunately for you, there's plenty of facts and tons of evidence proving otherwise.

_BoneZ_There were never any "pods".

of course there weren't. they were cgi anomalies

_BoneZ_
Further, the above video shows 43 different angles of the second plane.

actually the above video shows 43 angles and examples of various fakery and deception perpetrated on 9/11.

_BoneZ_
That's 43 different videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and private citizens' home videos.

whose videos all contain evidence and proof of tampering and/or fakery.

_BoneZ_
Add the witness testimony and the physical damage and you have undeniable, undebunkable proof of planes, period.

add the contradictory witness testimony and inconsistent physical damage and your assertion is moot

_BoneZ_
There are minor flaws in every single video every created.

but there major ones in these as well that show tons of evidence of fakery.

_BoneZ_
As far as CGI slips, well, that's someone's unprovable opinion.

its not someones opinion when there's video evidence of newtonian laws being violated that day over and over and physical impossibilities occurring over and over.

its not someones opinion when you have a bridge walking around a static shot of the wtc.

_BoneZ_
It's already been thoroughly looked at, debated, debunked, labeld disinfo and the 9/11 truth movement has moved on a couple years ago.

says you.

_BoneZ_
The 9/11 truth movement is distancing itself from NPT by banning the discussion of NPT and publicly denouncing it.

even if that were true, it doesn't remotely debunk NRPT. Those who are banning the discussion of NPT and denouncing it are doing so because they're either shills and disinfo agents covering up the hoax and doing damage control, haven't done enough research and properly examined the evidence, or are in denial.

_BoneZ_
There's no proof, no hard evidence, nothing tangible that would remotely prove NPT. All NPT is is theory, conjecture, opinion and deception.

Before you can claim that about NrPT, you have to prove your RPT which to this day has never been done.

there is no proof hard evidence, nothing tangible that would remotely prove RPT. its nothing more than theory, conjecture, opinion and deception.

2nd part follows.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The planes didn't "melt" into the buildings.

yes it did.

_BoneZ_
The 300,000 pound plane travelling around 500mph

which was not possible ASL to maintain whatsoever.

_BoneZ_
slammed into the outer columns breaking the connectors that connected the columns. Virtually none of the outer steel columns were severed or failed. Only the connectors connecting the steel columns failed. If the outer columns had been continuous from top to bottom, you would've seen a different scenario.

your opinion isn't proof of anything.

_BoneZ_
That's called live tv. How many video errors did they have on American Idol this year. So very many. Why? Because it's live tv. That's what happens on live tv. Nobody is perfect.

comparing the footage of 9/11 and whats being debated to american idol is at best laughable.

_BoneZ_
I debunked the nose in/nose out years ago. And even though it's been thoroughly debunked, to still peddle it is blatant disinfo. The nose out wasn't a real nose because there's no exit hole:
The nose wasn't a CGI nose because it's not the same shape or size:

whats blatant disinfo, is to claim you've remotely debunked the nose in/nose out issue.
But Each of your "arguments" have all been answered and addressed throughout various threads by various posters as anyone
can find by doing a search.

_BoneZ_
When the no-plane supporters post videos like in the OP and profess them as "PROOF" when it's not, is disinfo.

when planers supporters post videos that profess them as PROOF when its not, is disinfo.

_BoneZ_
When the no-planers keep peddling the nose in/nose out when I debunked it years ago and still debunked it again in this thread, is disinfo.

when planers peddle what you have about the nose in/nose out argument being debunked, its disinfo.

_BoneZ_
I was just banned at a no-planer forum a couple days ago just because of my name.

yet you hypocritcally imply that the NRPT is invalid because some ban and distance themselves from it.

and you wonder why more and more who do real research, are distancing themselves from you.

_BoneZ_
My name is revered in the no-planer community.

and many revere(d) george bush, donald rumsfield, dick cheney, hitler, and osama bin laden in their circles.

so whats your point?

_BoneZ_
They know I debunk everything they peddle

nothing more than your opinion.

_BoneZ_
and when they have nothing left they attack and get banned.

a behaviour and M/O you're also guilty of.

P K B

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ As I've stated earlier, the no-plane theories have been thoroughly looked at by me and several others, debunked and we moved on a couple years ago. There's absolutely nothing to them, not in the slightest, not even a residue.

says you.

the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
At this point, I'm making sure that when a no-planer makes a thread, that every point get's debunked with fact so that nobody falls into the BS that is no-plane theories.

that you're using facts, is nothing more than your opinion.

In fact I see little more than use of conjecture and opinion in your so-called debunkings.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yes, I've heard this time and time again. All photos and videos are fake. All the private citizens must have invested into some high-tech computer systems just before 9/11 so they could put out phoney plane videos with their VHS recorders.

all one has to do is examine the analysis done in any of these docs and various others that exist, and most will see not only the absurdity of your logic, but also overwhelming evidence debunking your various assertions and nonsense how there is no valid evidence contradicting what you claim.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You and every other no-planer are truly dispicable to implicate all of these innocent people as conspirators in 9/11.

you and every other planer are truly dispicable to defend and not question these forgeries and suspects.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ You can post your opinions all you like, but you clearly have no understanding of camera angles or distances or depth of field or any knowledge of photography or videography and that's why you can't understand what you're seeing and make things up to explain them in a way that you think you understand. Understand?

here's another set of segments from SC that debunk your arguments.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As I continue to say, I've already thoroughly looked at NPT and since there's nothing there to accept, I don't think I'll be accepting it anytime soon.

some might call such resistance, a result of doing very little real research.

or that you might be a shill

Judging from your various postings and arrogance you exhibit here, I just call it ignorance and denial.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That leaves us with the "holographic planes" theory.
No matter which theory you pick, the no-planers to this day have still not been able to tell us how these massive chunks of building got pushed inward: The no-planers keep dodging the question and won't answer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d2e38bfc13e.jpg[/atsimg]

Simple... the missle/drone.

So you were saying?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
They also won't answer how all of the private citizens faked their own home videos, which is just sickening to even think about the no-planers implicating innocent private citizens as conspirators.

I've answered and addressed it beginning right here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by rich23
Another claim is that no-one, not even an experienced pilot, could have flown those planes at that speed with that accuracy. John Lear is even swearing an affidavit to that effect in a court case

When I read that affidavit, I could not believe what I was seeing coming from someone so closely related to aviation. After reading it, I came to the conclusion that John Lear had either mentally lost it or other possibilities that went through my mind, but to say the things he said in that affidavit and to be a professional pilot is the epitome of an oxymoron. Being a professional pilot and saying the things he did in that affidavit are so contradictive, I was just blown away at such things coming from a man of his stature.

as if you're a pilot, qualified or an authority to judge him.

which I have yet to see any line by line debunking showing where what he said was false, innaccurate or nonsensical.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I am a little aggressive when it comes to things like the no-plane theory. In my years of debunking them I've had my name, address and phone number posted to a Youtube video with libelous claims, I've been threatened numerous times, had people call my number. This is what the no-planers do when they get debunked. They have no sense of professionalism at all.

and I've heard of similar tactics or attacks having been used by PLANERS.

funny your double standards and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_ When someone posts a video with chopped-up video clips to make Fox News say things they never did and then proclaim it as "proof", that again is disinfo. I've caught several of the no-planers in direct lies on this very forum when they proclaimed some of their "facts" as proof and that is disinfo. Am I abrasive when it comes to no-planers? Absolutely. It only takes a few minutes of going through their threads on this forum at how many of their posts have been deleted or edited or had themselves banned because they have no professionalism, no respect, no regard for forum rules and will not treat anyone with the dignity they deserve. I apologize for my abrasiveness towards no-planers and their "theories", but they will not show you any respe

there's bad apples on both sides... but to dismiss all aspects of a side as BS or judge its entirety due to various falsehoods that might surface or be exposed, is plain silly, closed-minded, and shows lack of objectivity.



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Orion7911]

reply to post by dino1989


You claim to prove a negative, GG.

Originally posted by titorite
Now as I have said before we disagree about this subject but we are still on the same side so I hope that you will keep that in mind.

The 9/11 truth movement does not see no-planers or the no-plane theory at the WTC, as being on the same side as us. I hope that you will keep that in mind.

Originally posted by titorite
I would ask you to explain to me why in some shots of the south tower impact the plane flies high above the sky line and then impacts and why in other news shots the plane flies so low it actually goes in between buildings.

You already answered your own question. As has been said ad nauseum, it has to do with differing camera angles and heights.

Originally posted by titorite
As I said though, the camera position is not a viable argument

I'm sorry you don't understand camera angles. I can't teach you about camera angles, but you can teach yourself. All you have to do is Google "camera angles" or "camera angle illusions". Then you can read up for days about how camera angles make you see things differently or make your mind interpret something that's not correct.

Here's an example. Check out the first camera angle illusion in this link:
opticalillusiongames.com...

If you look carefully, the boy is very close to the camera while the woman is far away. This illusion is done with a certain camera angle. When you learn about camera angles, then you may be able to look at what you just said and understand how camera angles work.

It's just like if I put you in the space shuttle right now and said "fly it". You wouldn't have the slightest clue how. But if you learned how, then you would be able to fly it. Same concept with camera angles or anything else in the world that you don't know. Taking some time to learn camera angles and learn a little about photography and videography, would help you to see what is truly going on in the 9/11 videos.

So please, instead of just saying "camera angles isn't the answer", I suggest taking some time off and doing a little learning on camera angles.

Originally posted by Orion7911
So I don't see what your column argument proves or disproves about NRPT.

It doesn't matter how many letters you put together, something very large and very heavy hit those towers, period.

Originally posted by Orion7911
typical tactic of a disinfo artist to make such an outright absurd and unproveable claim

Everything I say is backed up with proof. You can't debunk 43 angles of the second plane hitting. These angles are from mainstream media, independent journalists and home videos:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Orion7911
who are contradicted by other people on the streets who didn't see what you're insinuating they all did.

Every single person who said they didn't see the plane was not in a position to see it. All you've done is take their quotes out of context to support the no-plane disinfo, which is a disnfo artist tactic.

Originally posted by Orion7911
the symmetry alone supports the argument against your assertion. but if anything hit the wtc, it was a missle in conjuction with pre-placed charges.

Until you find a missile that is large enough and heavy enough to make that hole, and find a way to hide the explosives in the offices or outside for everyone to see, then you are the only one making an assertion.

Originally posted by Orion7911
and the true NRPT far better explains the damage than your deteriorating RPT.

Until you explain the above, your "true NRPT" only explains that you make false assertions with zero proof to back them up.

And "deteriorating" RPT? I'm sorry, but getting yourselves and your theories banned from everywhere only shows that NPT is the only thing deteriorating.

Originally posted by Orion7911
but unfortunately for you, there's plenty of facts and tons of evidence proving otherwise.

And that's all you can say without providing any of those facts and evidence that so many of us have been asking you to show us for so long now.

Originally posted by Orion7911
actually the above video shows 43 angles and examples of various fakery and deception perpetrated on 9/11.

The disinfo runs freely from this one! It is disinformation to say 43 videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and private citizens are all fake without the slightest bit of proof.

Originally posted by Orion7911
whose videos all contain evidence and proof of tampering and/or fakery.

And yet you haven't obtained an original video from any of the 43 witnesses to have them analyzed and checked for fakery, thus more disinfo coming from your keyboard. You're on a roll here!

Originally posted by Orion7911
but there major ones in these as well that show tons of evidence of fakery.

Tons of evidence? So much so that nobody can see it! You slay me!

Originally posted by Orion7911
its not someones opinion when you have a bridge walking around a static shot of the wtc.

Bridges don't walk. If you think they do, then you should probably go talk to somebody about that.

Originally posted by Orion7911
which was not possible ASL to maintain whatsoever.

Exactly. Can't be maintained. You're twisting the truth, which is of course, disinformation. The planes didn't fly level at sea level, but came down from a higher altitude seconds before impact. Which means you're correct, not possible.......but likely!

Originally posted by Orion7911
when planers supporters post videos that profess them as PROOF when its not, is disinfo.

You know, you do this over and over again. All you do is copy what has been said by someone, change a couple words, and then repost it. Not only does it not show any of the "tons" of NPT proof or evidence, it also shows your maturity and intelligence level.

Originally posted by Orion7911
when planers peddle what you have about the nose in/nose out argument being debunked, its disinfo.

Ooops, there it is again. My post copied, changed a couple words, reposted. You can't debunk or refute anything I've said, so you resort to childish tactics of copying what I say. Typical of the NPT cult.

Originally posted by Orion7911
the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

You keep saying like a broken record, yet not actually showing us any facts or evidence. What's likely is there is none, that's why you don't post it.

Originally posted by Orion7911
all one has to do is examine the analysis done in any of these docs and various others that exist, and most will see

Most will not see. Most have ran the hell away from NPT, the other way! And most have banned NPT from their forums. Most want to have nothing to do with your NPT. So what you just did is made yet another false claim.

Originally posted by Orion7911
Simple... the missle/drone. So you were saying?

Yep, find us a missile/drone that is as large as a jetliner, weighs as much as a jetliner, and travels as slow as a jetliner, then get back to us. You were saying?

Originally posted by Orion7911
as if you're a pilot, qualified or an authority to judge him.

I am a pilot, and anyone has the right to judge anyone else. It is still somewhat of a free country.

Originally posted by Orion7911
which I have yet to see any line by line debunking showing where what he said was false, innaccurate or nonsensical

And even if there were a line-by-line debunking, you would call it opinion, conjecture, false, disinformation, blah blah blah. It wouldn't really matter to you one way or another.


By the way, I know you are either D.Duck, Simon Shack/socialservice, or Killtown. See, everybody has their own writing style and I recognize yours. Since they all have been banned from here, once I find out who you are, bye bye!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't matter how many letters you put together, something very large and very heavy hit those towers, period.

And a missle/drone is the most likely explanation. So whats your point?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Everything I say is backed up with proof.

What proof? Oh, you mean that video of 43 angles of the alleged second plane hitting?

Posting a link to 43 angles of faked/tampered footage which is also from the same footage you claim can't be verified and proves nothing, is absurd.

Its even more absurd for you to use questionable/tainted evidence as a basis for your argument, let alone proof of it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can't debunk 43 angles of the second plane hitting.

I can if they don't show the same plane, have consistent features, or contain evidence of fakery and physical impossibilities like violating newtons law.

whether or not there's different angles is irrelevant and proves or disproves nothing.

each case/video is different and has to be examined separately... to say 43 angles and cases are the same and/or use that as a basis for proof of planes when the footage contains so many questions and anomalies,
is illogical, beyond ludicrous and is hardly objective or anything remotely following an academic investigation. You can't have it both ways.

If just one of those videos contains fakery, inconsistencies, anomalies or physical impossibilities, the entire "story" and footage is suspect and cannot be used as reliable proof or empirical evidence of anything.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Every single person who said they didn't see the plane was not in a position to see it.

and the proof you have to support this claim is...?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All you've done is take their quotes out of context to support the no-plane disinfo, which is a disnfo artist tactic.

again, you have proof to support that claim? or just your OPINION?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Until you find a missile that is large enough and heavy enough to make that hole, and find a way to hide the explosives in the offices or outside for everyone to see, then you are the only one making an assertion.

until you prove real planes are responsible, there's plenty of drones/missles/uavs out there along with evidence of pre-placed charges (like the demolition charges which brought down the towers) that far better explain the damage and whats NOT seen.

and thats why the NRPT is here to stay and continues to grow... if there wasn't strong evidence to support it, not only would only a handful be supporting it, but planers could easily debunk it.

you can claim all you want that you have, or assert that its total bunk supposedly because its not been officially embraced in the way you're talking about. That its debunked is merely your OPINION. FACTS and EVIDENCE exist that prove otherwise.

I suggest you get used to it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Until you explain the above, your "true NRPT" only explains that you make false assertions with zero proof to back them up.

please prove i've made any false assertions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And "deteriorating" RPT?

I'm sorry, but getting yourselves and your theories banned from everywhere only shows that NPT is the only thing deteriorating.

I can find many many sites and places all over the net including this forum where NRPT isn't banned.

But the only ones banning discussion of NRPT are either those who can't comprehend it, haven't investigated it properly or deep enough, or are in denial because they don't want to accept they've been that badly deceived by their government.

Part 2 follows...

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And that's all you can say without providing any of those facts and evidence that so many of us have been asking you to show us for so long now.

funny, thats just what i was gonna say about you.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The disinfo runs freely from this one! It is disinformation to say 43 videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and private citizens are all fake without the slightest bit of proof.

It is disinformation to say 43 videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and private citizens are ALL not
fake without the slightest bit of proof.

we can play this rhetorical game as long as you want... in fact from all i've seen, you've been playing it longer than
anyone here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And yet you haven't obtained an original video from any of the 43 witnesses to have them analyzed and checked for fakery,

have you?

or Iow, I don't need to since objectively speaking, the burden of proof that their videos do not contain fakery, isn't on me and other "no-planers".

Those posting these videos, and those like you who including the government, have claimed these videos are
proof that real planes hit the towers. Yet most, if not all of these so-called amateur videos contain evidence of tampering and/or fakery etc which you planers have never been able to explain or give concrete PROOF they haven't been.

but then also its a known fact that many of these witnesses videos were confiscated by the government before they were released and for some reason contain evidence of tampering such as EDITS and missing frames etc... one such example of the FADE TO BLACK comes to mind. Now you can assert you've debunked that all you want. However anyone doing a search here will find plenty of counter-evidence and arguments against yours.

so we're back to square one... show me proof of real planes. JUST ONE VERIFIABLE UN-TAMPERED VIDEO that clearly shows a real plane hitting the wtc without any anomalies and physical impossibilities or violations of newtonian laws.

It was a perfectly CLEAR SUNNY DAY in manhattan and there were plenty of HI-TECH MEDIA CAMERAS recording the event.

So it should be very easy to produce a clear shot of JUST ONE of the aforementioned VIRGIN type-footage.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Tons of evidence? So much so that nobody can see it!

You slay me!

That nobody can see it, is nothing more than your OPINION.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Bridges don't walk. If you think they do, then you should probably go talk to somebody about that.

you know exactly what i'm talking about and what i mean mr bonez.

but nice dodge anyway.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Exactly. Can't be maintained. You're twisting the truth, which is of course, disinformation. The planes didn't fly level at sea level, but came down from a higher altitude seconds before impact. Which means you're correct, not possible...but likely!

Just the fact that there's footage showing a perfectly level approach destroys your argument.

And just the fact that you fail to mention that footage exists, is disinfo.

Whatsmore, I have yet to see any line by line challenge to the validity of john lear and other pilots and engineers testimonies regarding this alleged DIVE and speed.

So again, you can claim all you want that john and others who say it was not possible, are wrong... but the fact still remains that evidence and such testimony from professionals exists that it wasn't.

part 3 follows...

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]

final Pt. 3

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You know, you do this over and over again. All you do is copy what has been said by someone, change a couple words, and then repost it. Not only does it not show any of the "tons" of NPT proof or evidence, it also shows your maturity and intelligence level.

I haven't done anything you haven't done before.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ooops, there it is again. My post copied, changed a couple words, reposted. You can't debunk or refute anything I've said, so you resort to childish tactics of copying what I say. Typical of the NPT cult.

The fact I was able to refute what you said with your own words, speaks volumes about my intelligence level and the lack of substance in your arguments.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You keep saying like a broken record, yet not actually showing us any facts or evidence. What's likely is there is none, that's why you don't post it.

funny, i was just about to say that again about *you*.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Most will not see. Most have ran the hell away from NPT, the other way!

thats merely your O P I N I O N bonez. So please tell everyone how that disproves NRPT?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And most have banned NPT from their forums. Most want to have nothing to do with your NPT.

even if what you say were true, how does that invalidate, disprove or debunk NRPT?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So what you just did is made yet another false claim.

claiming i'm making a false claim when you haven't proven i have, is itself, a false claim.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yep, find us a missile/drone that is as large as a jetliner, weighs as much as a jetliner, and travels as slow as a jetliner, then get back to us. You were saying?

since you and the rest of the planers have no proof a jetliner hit the wtc, why do i need to find a missle/drone that meets those specs?

Oh and by the way, your alleged jet is said to have been travelling at a speed faster than some drones can.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I am a pilot, and anyone has the right to judge anyone else. It is still somewhat of a free country.

you're a pilot qualified to judge him? are you claiming to have more experience and knowledge than Mr Lear?

really? Tell everyone about your qualifications. can't wait to hear this.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And even if there were a line-by-line debunking, you would call it opinion, conjecture, false, disinformation, blah blah blah. It wouldn't really matter to you one way or another.

how do you know? To this day I nor anyone else has ever seen any such counter-argument from you or anyone.

evasion noted though.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
By the way, I know you are either D.Duck, Simon Shack/socialservice, or Killtown. See, everybody has their own writing style and I recognize yours. Since they all have been banned from here, once I find out who you are, bye bye!

awwe U got me bonez, I cannot tell a lie... its yours truly Simon Shacks brother Killtown... D Ducks my nephew.

Rofl. I'm flattered though. Really I am. But I'm not quite sure why you're so interested about who I am or what nerve I've hit to cause you to threaten me.

in any case, I find your remark quite interesting and borderline disturbing tbh. In fact I think many members new and old here should be very concerned about what your comment is suggesting about not only your M/O, but this site.

Any Moderators want to comment?

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by Orion7911
the burden of proof that their videos do not contain fakery, isn't on me and other "no-planers".

Burden of Proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof. A certain amount of philosophical jockeying consists in trying to shift the burden of proof.

There is a proper presumption that planes hit the towers. Since you are seeking to prove it's opposite (no planes hit the towers), you and the no-planers bear the burden of proof.

Now, unless and until you obtain orignal footage and have it professionally analyzed for fakery, you''re peddling disinfo, opinions, conjecture, hearsay, with zero proof or evidence, period.

Take an example from CIT and get off your asphault and go out and gather some real evidence. Not one single intelligent person will show you the time of day until you do the above.

Originally posted by Orion7911
are you claiming to have more experience and knowledge than Mr Lear?

I don't see anywhere in any of my posts that alluded to the above. I merely said I was a pilot.

Originally posted by Orion7911
Really I am. But I'm not quite sure why you're so interested about who I am or what nerve I've hit to cause you to threaten me.

It wasn't a threat. I was merely stating that if I find out you are a sock of someone banned, then it will be properly reported and you'll go bye bye, as in banned yet again. Got it now?

[edit on 24-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Burden of Proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof. A certain amount of philosophical jockeying consists in trying to shift the burden of proof.

There is a proper presumption that planes hit the towers. Since you are seeking to prove it's opposite (no planes hit the towers), you and the no-planers bear the burden of proof.

Actually I find fault with your statement _BoneZ_, The burden of proof IS on you because it is the proper presumption of the OP that their are no planes. WITH PROOF. That is the statement of this thread. If this were a different 911 thread and a no planer showed up then the burden of proof WOULD be on them... but this is a no planer thread so it is on those with counter arguments to provide proof to the contrary.

And again the best argument I can currently give is those wings.

_BoneZ_ I would ask you to consider the wings of all the planes.

The wings that went into the WTC buildings blew up on impact.

The wings that went into the pentagon fold in for some magical reason and blew up not on impact but after they folded in and the cabin punched through into the inside...only then did those magical wings explode.

Then we have the Shanksville wings that did not blow up but buried themselves into the ground to make a perfect imprint of the plane.

They wings behaved differently three times. Consider that magical wing behavior and share what your think the reason is for those wings behaving differently from event to event.





[edit on 24-6-2009 by titorite]

Originally posted by titorite
Actually I find fault with your statement _BoneZ_, The burden of proof IS on you because it is the proper presumption of the OP that their are no planes.

It is the proper presumption on this planet, in this galaxy, in this universe, that planes hit the towers. If the OP wants to claim the opposite, the burden of proof rests on him and no-planers. The definition doesn't get any more clear than this.

As far as the wings, I really could care less about the wings. There are far greater things that prove 9/11 was an inside job besides some wings.

Originally posted by dino1989
why isint the plane visible in these videos
go in to 22 sec in the video, you'll see what i mean


www.youtube.com...
and this video
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 25-5-2009 by dino1989]

It's so obvious these videos were cut/pasted together using multiple broadcasts.

The OTHER major flaw with the no plane theory is that the people who believe this theory just dismiss or totally ignore the first hand eyewitness reports of people on the ground and in the buildings who actually saw the planes. No video tape but actually saw the planes with their own eyes.

Originally posted by WhatTheoryThe OTHER major flaw with the no plane theory is that the people who believe this theory just dismiss or totally ignore the first hand eyewitness reports of people on the ground and in the buildings who actually saw the planes. No video tape but actually saw the planes with their own eyes.

Actually the real flaw and misconception comes from those who think NRPT doesn't include the existence of a drone or missle and who also ignore that to people on the ground, such objects would have appeared to look like planes. These planers who ridicule the no-planers who point that out, also refuse to consider, do real research on the irrefutable evidence that docs like SC have presented or even offer a line by line counter-argument against the evidence they've presented.

Talk about major flaws.........................

Originally posted by Orion7911
Actually the real flaw and misconception comes from those who think NRPT doesn't include the existence of a drone or missle and who also ignore that to people on the ground, such objects would have appeared to look like planes.

Yeah, if you are five years old.
To any normal human, it would be easy to distinguish between a drone or missile, which are relatively small, and a huge commercial airliner. This is especially the case for the people who saw the planes up close due to them being in the upper portions of the World Trade Centers.

Talk about major flaws

I already talked about how your theory is a major flaw.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

As far as the wings, I really could care less about the wings. There are far greater things that prove 9/11 was an inside job besides some wings.

Really? Don't get hubris on us. Fox News witness

Here we got the man saying to the people what happened and as an eye witness we can all put faith in his words...especially since he represents Fox News.

And in Shanksville we still have the matter of that perfect imprint. There the planes wings buried themselves into the ground rather than just exploding....

Sure we agree it is an inside job. That is a given and in truth I see no reason to divide ourselves over it. I think they used explosives and that the real witnesses looked up and saw explosions.. then when the TV showed us planes those that saw explosions just went with the assumption that planes were responsible.

No planes or drones or whatever, my beef with the event is not in the semantics it is with the event.

I should hope that we all focus more demanding justice rather then arguing with each other about how it went down.