It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.
Well check this out.
The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:
Originally posted by ATH911
(Clip from Pilot's new WTC DVD showing a simulated 767 breaking up in mid-air. They show this clip over and over throughout their video.)
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.
Titanium is expensive and requires special facilities to fabricate it. To do such a job would be easy to trace as there are only a very few facilities
able to do such a job - so why has nobody ratted them out ?
Oh I get it its a sooper sekrit black arts clandestine hush hush program?
Also why would anybody need to load such a plane with flammable liquids
when a normal aircraft is ALREADY FULL OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS!
No wonder people ridicule truthers as kooks......
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by nwodeath
but the truth is,
There were NO Planes on 9-11
Too bad for you and the rest of the few cult members of the no-planer disinfo camp, the truth will never come out because there is no truth to your claims. And you will never prove otherwise because there is no proof.
I've said it before, I will debate any no-planer in the debate forum, and win.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I've already won the last time a no-planer challenged me to a debate.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The reason why I won is because you have no evidence to convince others of your claims.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Well check this out.
The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:
Yeah, that's called poor video compression and frame-rate sync issues. Maybe to the gullible lay person, you could get them to believe the no-plane disinfo, but you're not fooling the rest of us.
[edit on 18-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by nwodeath
The reason for this is because the video you are watching is Computer generated imagery or CGI for short.
Care to show us some kind of professional analysis that gives you that conclusion, or do you expect gullible people to just take your word for it?
Unless you've obtained an original copy of the video and had it professionally analyzed for CGI fakery, then you can't tell people that it is CGI because that would be disinfo.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Too bad for you and the rest of the few cult members of the no-planer disinfo camp, the truth will never come out because there is no truth to your claims. And you will never prove otherwise because there is no proof.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by star in a jar
I read somewhere that these jets were reinforced with titanium wings and/or overall reinforced structure that was able to handle the extra structural flying stress therefore ultimately being able to slice through the buildings and that the second plane was LOADED with flammable liquids to create the explosive effect that was so useful for propaganda.
Well check this out.
The wing disappears right before the 'plane' strikes the building:
Yes but when you watched it live on the news it didn't happen, and its not like that on the archives.
Originally posted by Orion7911
oh yeah, a drone/missle or NO PLANE!
Originally posted by Orion7911
too bad for you, its a fact you've never won any such debate.
thankfully we have the ATS search feature and archive to prove it.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by nwodeath
but the truth is,
There were NO Planes on 9-11
Too bad for you and the rest of the few cult members of the no-planer disinfo camp, the truth will never come out because there is no truth to your claims. And you will never prove otherwise because there is no proof.
I've said it before, I will debate any no-planer in the debate forum, and win. I've already won the last time a no-planer challenged me to a debate. The reason why I won is because you have no evidence to convince others of your claims.
So do yourself a favor and take your no-plane disinfo back to the place whence you came because it will just be debunked and pushed down into the dungeon like the rest of the no-plane threads.
Originally posted by Nonchalant
Its not a case of proving there were no planes. Its a case of proving there were, after all its your claim there WERE
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.
Originally posted by ATH911
BoneZ, do you agree with PFT that the second plane had to be a super duper modified plane if it was a real plane that hit?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by ATH911
BoneZ, do you agree with PFT that the second plane had to be a super duper modified plane if it was a real plane that hit?
Nope. Regular, every-day, standard, unmodified 767's hit the towers.
Originally posted by ATH911
So is PFT peddling disinfo with their new video?
(and didn't you used to think it was a super duper modified plane not too long ago???)
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Nonchalant
Its not a case of proving there were no planes. Its a case of proving there were, after all its your claim there WERE
I school no-planers all the time with facts of planes, I'll school you on a legal term.
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.
Since there is a proper presumption that planes hit the WTC, then it's up to the no-planers to prove the opposite.
Sorry, but just because you don't have any evidence to support your disinfo, doesn't mean you can shift the burden of proof off onto somebody else. It doesn't work that way. Show some scientific or professional analysis of the original videos you've obtained, proving they were fake once and for all, or you're just peddling disinfo and nothing more.