Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


Okay here and for everyone else. Lets bump up the quality "slighty" for our purpose shall we? A better version, although not HIGH QUALITY,

latimes.image2.trb.com...

KTLA had this one.


Do you see birds now? I think it is pretty obvious. Anyone else see "birds?"

EDIT: VIDEO IS IN QUICKTIME FORMAT

[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]

Thank you. I can use that video.

Birds or delta-winged aircraft. Let's let those who are qualified examine it. I will include the results with sources in my thread on the subject.

In the meantime. This is a no-plane thread as you pointed out. Let us not derail it.

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


Agreed, to let this thread get back to its topic, start you thread on those objects as being "delta-wing fighter jets"

Listen, I believe no plane hit the pentagon.

However.

Planes DID fly into the WTC, you cannot deny the lives lost on those planes and the witnesses from the ground.

Is that your objection?

That is not what I'm hoping to prove. My intent is to establish media complicity.
Insofar as this particular video is concerned I do believe they are jets...but!!!
I have no agenda.
Once the correct timing and the minimum distance possible is determined, if the minimum possible speed it is within the possible range of a bird I will abandon that particular video no matter how it 'appears' to me. It will not have been proved. I will concede 'it could have been birds". If it turns out minimum speed was in excess of 200 mph, I will not.

If that is all that is bothering you don't worry about it. I don't care how much I think they look like jets, it is their speed that counts to me. Was it possible for birds? Let's let the experts determine that.

So I will get back to work on doctored videos

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


And here is the problem. Depth perception is deceptive amongst other things I have noted.

For example:

www.cybercollege.com...

Changes in the Apparent Speed of Objects

In addition to affecting the apparent distance between objects, changes in camera-to-subject distance and changes in lens focal length influence the apparent speed of objects moving toward or away from the camera.

Moving away from the subject matter and using a long focal length lens (or a zoom lens used at its maximum focal length), slows down the apparent speed of objects moving toward or away from the camera.

Filmmakers often use this technique to good effect. For instance, in The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman runs down a street toward a church to try to stop a wedding. The camera with a very long focal length lens conveys what he's feeling: although he's running as fast as he can, it seems as if he's hardly moving. Both he and the audience fear he won't make it to the church on time to save the girl he loves, thus, increasing the dramatic tension in the story.

Conversely, moving close to the subject matter with a wide-angle lens increases (exaggerates) the apparent speed of objects moving toward or away from the camera.

You can easily visualize why. If you were standing on a distant hilltop watching someone run around a track or, perhaps, traffic on a distant roadway, they would seem to be hardly moving. It would be like watching with a long focal length lens. But stand right next to the track or roadway (using your visual wide-angle perspective), the person or traffic would seem to whiz by.

Let me ask you, do you know the "FOV" that was used? The type of Lense? Did you know the camera was not on something stationary? Did you know that this would affect the speed?



There is as mentioned by myself, depth perception issues:

www.videomaker.com...

Together, these two traits of wide-angle perspective exaggerate apparent depth


* Objects at different distances from the camera appear to shrink in size much faster than they do in the real world.
* The distance between these objects seems much greater than normal.


In the actual world where the shot is taped, she covers a certain distance to reach the front person, regardless of the lens used. But in the wide-angle shot the distance traveled appears four times as great as in the telephoto shot. Since she covers the distance in the same time in both shots, the wide-angle lens makes her seem to be moving four times as fast.

That is why wide-angle lenses are routinely used for chase and fight scenes--and why directors try to stage the action in depth. By increasing apparent distance, they make movement appear more dynamic and exciting.

If you look at the objects themselves, they are "birds."

I believe it was you who criticized me for not allowing those knowledgeable in this field to do these types of determinations. Are you saying you are expert enough now to know that experts cannot determine the speed of these objects to within, say 300 mph? The preliminary reports I'm getting back now put these things at over 500 mph. Once I post their evidence will you claim the professionals in this field cannot estimate their speed to within 300 mph? As that would still put them over 200 mph which would eliminate birds no matter what they look like.
But, hey maybe they are birds. Maybe the test will show they are only doing 40, end of problem. Let's wait till they finish their work why don't we.

Originally posted by LightWonder
CGI planes is a far out conspiracy, i wouldnt buy into it for the sake of the truth movement please. Although while reviewing the website when he talks about the news crew filming pot holes then conveniently seeing the planes hit the towers is a little iffy, i got the same feeling when i first saw that clip. It was staged, don't get me wrong.. just CGI planes, and false-tapes are toooooo far out there for LOGIC, TPTB wouldn't make a mistake like that when they could fly the real planes into the buildings.

jmo

it's a lot easier to fake videos than it is to fly planes into a building. Less margin for error with videos too.

I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "CGI". There appears to be a bit of false dichotomy going around on these forums.

What happened on 9-11 was carried out in the same fashion as a magic trick is. Watch some magic performances and what happened on 9-11 should become clear to you.

[edit on 10/26/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


What I am saying is that the claim or suggestion that they are "birds" fly's (no pun) in the face of *ALL* available evidence.

You can make a glass of cynaide look like lemonade, but there has to be more then just appearances.

What is the corroborating evidence? That can't be ignored.

reply to post by JPhish



Right but one of the best mentalists around, Derrin Brown found out that his tricks were less successful on the "street" of New York. Chriss Angel would let you know if there was a "trick."
You ever see someone try and pull a fast one at Yankee Stadium?

IF indeed, you start to suggest such a thing, then you must understand the slippery slope that you have engaged on.

With that logic, one could start arguing that 9/11 was "fake" that none of it really happened etc and etc.

There were planes.

No military in the world is going to plan an operation where all it would take is one single camera filming to expose their actions.

The military can't tell where everyone in New York City is filming, neither can they dominate all amateur footage. If they had that power, then why on earth is anyone allowed to talk of the matter?

IF people staring at the Towers only saw an explosion, then on the news they saw planes, there would be a riot---much, much larger then that of Rodney King.






[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish

 

Right but one of the best mentalists around, Derrin Brown found out that his tricks were less successful on the "street" of New York.

As opposed to where? England?

Chriss Angel would let you know if there was a "trick."

why do you say that?

You ever see someone try and pull a fast one at Yankee Stadium?

What do you mean?

IF indeed, you start to suggest such a thing, then you must understand the slippery slope that you have engaged on.

not really, 9-11 was carried out the same way a magic trick is. If you are a magician or are knowledgeable on the subject you should instantly know what I mean.

With that logic, one could start arguing that 9/11 was "fake" that none of it really happened etc and etc.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I said that 9-11 was carried out in the same manner a magic trick is.

There were planes.

I never said there weren’t.

No military in the world is going to plan an operation where all it would take is one single camera filming to expose their actions.

tell that to the TR3B’s flying around all over the place.

The military can't tell where everyone in New York City is filming, neither can they dominate all amateur footage.

why would you need to? You’re getting overwhelmed by the intent of the trick and missing the sleight of hand.

If they had that power, then why on earth is anyone allowed to talk of the matter?

watch some magic videos . . . I’m not going to spell it out for you, until you at least try.

IF people staring at the Towers only saw an explosion, then on the news they saw planes, there would be a riot---much, much larger then that of Rodney King.

not at all . . . many people claimed to have only saw/heard an explosion. Some of them were news reporters. So you obviously haven’t done your homework.

reply to post by JPhish


The point about Derrin brown, is that you can't fool all of the people all of the time especially with magic tricks, especially those who are "street-wise."

On Chriss Angel. He is a master illusionist who is well aware of tv-fakery, if there was so much of a 'hint' that something like that happened, I am sure he could detect the "bull." Derrin Brown would be another one.

If not them, then surely Industrial Light and Magic!

Yankee Stadium?

I have seen some close calls and some pretty shady Ump calls, the people of New York is a motley crew and Yankee Stadium is a good example.

In simple terms, the people are not gullible.

On Magicians. You speak of having knowledge of the subject. So where is the list of magicians and illusionists who have bought into such a theory?

David Copperfield? Chriss Angel? Derrin Brown? Cryill from Japan?

You said the following:

I don't believe they used just "real planes"

then you said

I never said there weren’t.

By saying the Planes aren't "real" you are saying there wasn't Planes.

tell that to the TR3B’s flying around all over the place.

You have any proof that is going to tell where all the amateur footage is? Or do you only have conjecture?

Moreover, how would they know the instant someone decides to pick up a camera and upload or save the images, so that they are online before they get a chance to "take the footage??"

IF the Military is that powerful, why are you allowed to talk?

why would you need to? You’re getting overwhelmed by the intent of the trick and missing the sleight of hand.

No, I am not. The point is this. The Military could easily be exposed, by ONE CAMERA. No-one is going to pull and operation like that.

You do realize that it is possible that the Russians or other nations might have been "monitoring" the events as well? It just isn't the people of New York. That is too high a risk.

watch some magic videos . . . I’m not going to spell it out for you, until you at least try.

What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, I don't see any major names supporting such a theory. In fact, I am sure if you went and contacted Derrin Brown he would think that such a theory is crazy. I am sure Chriss Angel would say the same thing.

Also, this isn't just a Video.

There is eyewitness testimony from people inside the buildings.
There is eyewitness testimony from EMP
There ie eyewitness testimony from people on the ground and beyond.

That is strongly corroborated eyewitness testimony.

not at all . . . many people claimed to have only saw/heard an explosion. Some of them were news reporters. So you obviously haven’t done your homework.

No you didn't do your homework on eyewitness testimony. It is well known that people differ on certain things and it is perfectly obvious why some people might "miss" the plane if they are looking at the wrong angle.

But the MAJORITY TESTIMONY BY FAR speaks volumes.

Not only that, but if the People of New York saw with their eyes something different, there would be a Riot bigger then Rodney King.






[edit on 27-10-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by JPhish


Any theory you have or hold to, must be able to stand up under its own skepticism lest it die a self-refuting death.

Let me illustrate:

YOu have implied "fake planes"

You have discounted "corroborated testimony"

You have discounted "video evidence"

Now, logically what are you left with to know 9/11 was a real event? Using the same method, one can argue the whole thing was an illusion! If the whole thing was an illusion, then 9/11 never really happened!

This is literally self-refuting.



[edit on 27-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish

 

The point about Derrin brown, is that you can't fool all of the people all of the time especially with magic tricks, especially those who are "street-wise."

Street wise? Too funny . . .

Being “street smart” has nothing to do with being able to see through a magic trick. Being or even believing you are street smart can actually be a disadvantage when it comes to magic. Especially when dealing with an adept magician who plays to your proclivities.

On Chriss Angel. He is a master illusionist who is well aware of tv-fakery, if there was so much of a 'hint' that something like that happened, I am sure he could detect the "bull." Derrin Brown would be another one.

Sorry but no star is going to come out and say any of that stuff because then they’ll get blacklisted and slandered by the media and will have trouble finding work. Look at the celebrities who have been vocal about 9-11 for proof. Your claim is completely specious and what I just said has evidence.

Yankee Stadium?

I have seen some close calls and some pretty shady Ump calls, the people of New York is a motley crew and Yankee Stadium is a good example.

In simple terms, the people are not gullible.

As an amateur magician who has pulled off NLP tricks such as Derrin Browns when there is only a .003 percent chance of success randomly . . . I can assure you that people are VERY gullible AND suggestible.

On Magicians. You speak of having knowledge of the subject. So where is the list of magicians and illusionists who have bought into such a theory?

David Copperfield? Chriss Angel? Derrin Brown? Cryill from Japan?

Denouncing that no prominent magicians have been outspoken on the subject is a negative proof appeal to authority.

You said the following.
“I don't believe they used just "real planes"

then you said

“I never said there weren’t.”

By saying the Planes aren't "real" you are saying there wasn't Planes.

Where did I say there weren’t real planes? You need to read more carefully.

You have any proof that is going to tell where all the amateur footage is? Or do you only have conjecture?

I have no footage of TR3B’s but I’d actually prefer if we don’t get into discussion over anti-gravitational vehicles.

Moreover, how would they know the instant someone decides to pick up a camera and upload or save the images, so that they are online before they get a chance to "take the footage??"

Only an idiot would upload great footage or pictures.

IF the Military is that powerful, why are you allowed to talk?

Talk about what?

No, I am not. The point is this. The Military could easily be exposed, by ONE CAMERA. No-one is going to pull and operation like that.

One camera taking a picture of what?

You do realize that it is possible that the Russians or other nations might have been "monitoring" the events as well? It just isn't the people of New York. That is too high a risk.

Considering Russia and the U.S. are feigned enemies and have been for a very long time? Not really.

What does that have to do with anything?

Misdirection.

Like I said, I don't see any major names supporting such a theory. In fact, I am sure if you went and contacted Derrin Brown he would think that such a theory is crazy. I am sure Chriss Angel would say the same thing.

appeal to authority (1) & an appeal to consequences (2)

Also, this isn't just a Video.

There is eyewitness testimony from people inside the buildings.
There is eyewitness testimony from EMP
There ie eyewitness testimony from people on the ground and beyond.

That is strongly corroborated eyewitness testimony.

There are loads of video evidence and eyewitness accounts that Criss Angel walks on water and floats on air. It doesn’t mean that he really did.

No you didn't do your homework on eyewitness testimony. It is well known that people differ on certain things-

STOP right there, you said that if people claimed to have experienced something other than what others saw on TV there would be riots. There weren’t riots and you just admitted that people are in disagreement over what happened.

-and it is perfectly obvious why some people might "miss" the plane if they are looking at the wrong angle.

Miss a 757 in Manhattan flying at 500 mph at an altitude of less than 1000 feet? You could miss seeing it, but do you realize how loud that would be?

But the MAJORITY TESTIMONY BY FAR speaks volumes.

appeal to the majority(3) your logic is failing.

Not only that, but if the People of New York saw with their eyes something different, there would be a Riot bigger then Rodney King.

Most people didn’t see a damned thing, so no.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish

 

Any theory you have or hold to, must be able to stand up under its own skepticism lest it die a self-refuting death.

Ha, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; I don’t claim to know exactly what happened that day but I know what didn’t happen. I also believe to know the manner in which it happened.

Let me illustrate:

YOu have implied "fake planes"

No I haven’t

You have discounted "corroborated testimony"

I have not discounted corroborated testimony because corroborated insinuates the testimonies represent the truth.

I discount the testimonies of a large audience of people who were duped by a magic trick.

You have discounted "video evidence"

What video evidence have I discounted???

Now, logically what are you left with to know 9/11 was a real event?

Of course, 9-11 is a day, it happened, but what happened on that day is disputable.

Using the same method, one can argue the whole thing was an illusion! If the whole thing was an illusion, then 9/11 never really happened! This is literally self-refuting.

Straw man (4) you are being illogical and completely misrepresenting what I am saying.

You falsely assume that merely because you can partake on a “slippery slope” that it must be invalid.

It is entirely possible that the events on 9-11 did not happen at all and were an illusion. Basic epistemology tells us this. At a certain point the only thing I can be sure of is that I exist.

For the sake of this debate we both agree that we exist, and that there is a reality in which the event “9-11” happened. There is no need to digress any further down my VALID “slippery slop”.

reply to post by JPhish


First of all with "Appeal to Authority" arguments:

en.wikipedia.org...

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

I am not claiming that anyone is infaliable, but, I am offering sound reasonable reasons to conclude something. That is not an appeal to authority. Often, we try and find experts in a field to see what their opinion is. A crash site investigator on crash sites etc.

What I am offering is a sound reason to reject any suggestion that any "magic trick" or "lllusion" occured on 9/11, the sort that involve *no planes* and or *cgi*

It is merely suggesting *Good reasons* for supposing something.


There is also the case where we know of *real* people who happened to be on the flights.

As an amateur magician who has pulled off NLP tricks such as Derrin Browns when there is only a .003 percent chance of success randomly . . . I can assure you that people are VERY gullible AND suggestible.

That is not the same thing. This is in the middle of New York City in broad daylight with loads of amateur's documenting the event on camera/video/visual's and with their own eyes.

So take your theory(edit:if you not your theory the idea of) to www.themagiccafe.com...

Post it under the forum's where NPL Proffesional Experts chat, and tell me the number of those experts who will agree with you and the possibility that 9/11 was an illusion or magic trick.

Where did I say there weren’t real planes? You need to read more carefully.

You said the following:

“I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "cgi"

now you say...

Where did I say there weren’t real planes? You need to read more carefully.

-- all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p

Either the Planes were *REAL* or they *WEREN'T*

I can't say for example that "I don't believe you are just a real person" then afirm your personhood.

Perhaps, you would like to clarify what position you are holding?

There are loads of video evidence and eyewitness accounts that Criss Angel walks on water and floats on air. It doesn’t mean that he really did.

Under very controlled conditions. Not with amateur camera people allowed to film from any angle.

STOP right there, you said that if people claimed to have experienced something other than what others saw on TV there would be riots. There weren’t riots and you just admitted that people are in disagreement over what happened.

No. Your misrepresenting what I am saying. For example, many years ago I was a witness to a car accident near the free-way I lived near. 3 people, including myself missed seeing the car leave the free-way and crash through the guard rail, but we witnessed the explosion. 6 or 7 others approx, witnessed the whole event.

There is nothing inconsistent with our reporting and the events. It is obvious, that we just happened to have missed the car at that moment go through the rail while others had a better angle to watch the whole thing.

So people, who saw the explosions are not protesting that there were NO PLANES. There is no mass of people doing such.

YOUR also misrepresenting my point on eyewitness testimony and what is corroborated evidence.

This further refutes anything you are also saying(if that is your position).

If the MEDIA is in on this *MAGIC TRICK* then please explain why they would allow "COUNTER TESTIMONY?"

ITs obvious, that no one was hiding what people reported or saw.

It is obvious that the majority of EMP and WTC workers with the lay person on the ground saw the planes crash into the buildings.

Miss a 757 in Manhattan flying at 500 mph at an altitude of less than 1000 feet? You could miss seeing it, but do you realize how loud that would be?

You could be on the wrong angle for a visual, or just coming out of a building, there are many skyscrapers in New York City as well, if your close enough they will obstruct your view. That really is no surprise.

appeal to the majority(3) your logic is failing.

Incorrect. When one builds a circumstantial case, they rely on eyewitness testimony that is corroborated. That is what our Court System does on a daily basis.

That is what a historian does when accessing historical documents for explanatory scope and power.

Ha, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; I don’t claim to know exactly what happened that day but I know what didn’t happen. I also believe to know the manner in which it happened.

One can't be agnostic on Reality.


I said you implied fake planes to which you respond

No I haven’t

Then explain your statement:

“I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "cgi"

I have not discounted corroborated testimony because corroborated insinuates the testimonies represent the truth. I discount the testimonies of a large audience of people who were duped by a magic trick.

Self-refuting as I have already shown. One could sit there an argue that 9/11 didn't happen by rejecting "testimony" and "video". One could argue 9/11 itself was a *magic trick!*

This type of skeptical approach refutes itself.

What video evidence have I discounted???

So then you admit the amateur video was real and caught real planes on video?

Of course, 9-11 is a day, it happened, but what happened on that day is disputable.

Of course??

No, using your logic, you can't say what you just said.

You think that large amounts of people were duped by a magic trick, that the video testimony was not real.

Now unless you do believe the visuals are real, then you can argue differently.

But one can't be agnostic on the reality of the planes.

For the sake of this debate we both agree that we exist, and that there is a reality in which the event “9-11” happened. There is no need to digress any further down my VALID “slippery slop”.

No I don't admit to this. One of the key weaknesses in arguing the way your arguing(if that is your argument) is that the skeptical approach and method falls under its own weight and doesn't allow for *reaosnable* conclusions.

Inference to the *best* explanation that is not ad'hoc is what it is about.

if you can explain your position.













[edit on 27-10-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


State your conclusions clearly.

Do you believe there was a real UA175 and a real AA-11? Did they crash into the buildings?

Do you believe real/solid/planes crashed into the buildings?

What is it that you are agnostic on and what is it that you believe?

Do you believe they used CGI and for what purpose?


EDIT: I would like clairification in case I misrepresent anything you believe and perhaps your argument is not guilty of falling under its own weight. If you do accept eyewitness testimony on the day and video evidence then you are not far from a reasonable conclusion, its just that you have not clarified your statements.
thnks.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by talisman]

nwodeath, are you hoping to bring down the "nwo" with your revelation that some of the videos were doctored?

I'll agree that some of the videos are compromised, but not all.

You can pick and choose which ones to show your point, but you'll not convince most who have done research into 911.

If you think about it, "fake" videos is what has hindered the "truth" movement for a year or more.

I'll not fight you on your beliefs, as we're all entitled to our point of view.

Just trying to understand what you're doing here going over this material again. Are you looking for answers or telling them to us?

[edit on 10/27/2009 by infinityoreilly]

reply to post by infinityoreilly


I am promoting what I feel to be the truth. If there is a bigger, more relevant truth, then maybe someone will post it here.

I don't think we can bring down the NWO, but maybe we can transform it with knowledge among the masses.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish

 

I am not claiming that anyone is infaliable, but, I am offering sound reasonable reasons to conclude something. That is not an appeal to authority. Often, we try and find experts in a field to see what their opinion is. A crash site investigator on crash sites etc.

I disagree, people can be bought and people can be wrong. LOGIC is never wrong. I do not need prominent magicians to agree with me for what I am saying to be correct. You are insinuating I do.

What I am offering is a sound reason to reject any suggestion that any "magic trick" or "lllusion" occured on 9/11, the sort that involve *no planes* and or *cgi*

It is merely suggesting *Good reasons* for supposing something.

how about, a 757 doesn’t fit into the hole created at the pentagon?
How about, plane crashes leave wreckage? (shanksville)
How about steel skyscrapers don’t collapse from fires?

Reflect on those for starters.

There is also the case where we know of *real* people who happened to be on the flights.

there is no proof those people were ever on those flights, in fact, there is more proof that they weren’t.

That is not the same thing. This is in the middle of New York City in broad daylight with loads of amateur's documenting the event on camera/video/visual's and with their own eyes.

there weren’t loads of people documenting anything; people were running away, not trying to catch a glimpse of Armageddon.

Nearly all of the footage shot on 9-11 was shot by PROFFESSIONALS. I don’t know where you are getting this “amateur footage” bs.

So take your theory(edit:if you not your theory the idea of) to www.themagiccafe.com...

If you figured out who killed JFK would you really tell anyone? I’m not telling anyone how I think they pulled off 9-11, because I feel like living for a few more years. I’m telling you how to figure it out and the mindset you need to employ.

Post it under the forum's where NPL Proffesional Experts chat, and tell me the number of those experts who will agree with you and the possibility that 9/11 was an illusion or magic trick.

Why does anyone need to agree with me??

This is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/MAJORTY.

The amount of people who may disagree/agree with me and their credentials, have absolutely nothing to do with me being right/wrong.

Stop bringing it up, it is a fallacious way of thinking.

You said the following:

“I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "cgi"

now you say...

Where did I say there weren’t real planes? You need to read more carefully.

-- all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p

Either the Planes were *REAL* or they *WEREN'T*

False dichotomy. (4)

I can't say for example that "I don't believe you are just a real person" then afirm your personhood.

You need to read more carefully, that’s all I’m going to say; it should be very obvious where you are in error.

Perhaps, you would like to clarify what position you are holding?

I’m purposely being ambiguous for my own reasons. You don’t know what position I am holding which is why I find it humorous that you are so sure that I am wrong.

Under very controlled conditions. Not with amateur camera people allowed to film from any angle.

WHAT AMATUER CAMERA PEOPLE??? Also, last I checked, 9-11 was under controlled conditions.

No. Your misrepresenting what I am saying. For example, many years ago I was a witness to a car accident near the free-way I lived near. 3 people, including myself missed seeing the car leave the free-way and crash through the guard rail, but we witnessed the explosion. 6 or 7 others approx, witnessed the whole event.

This is very different; your situation happened by chance, I’m talking about a ruse that has intent.

There is nothing inconsistent with our reporting and the events. It is obvious, that we just happened to have missed the car at that moment go through the rail while others had a better angle to watch the whole thing.

That’s some weak inductive reasoning . . .

People miss things during situations
Therefore:
People missed the planes on 9-11

People missing the planes on 9-11 is like you missing the car drive away after your accident.

this is a false analogy; sorry . . . the two events are not even comparable.

So people, who saw the explosions are not protesting that there were NO PLANES.

many of them are, what you just said is a blatant lie.

There is no mass of people doing such.

yes there are, again, a blatant lie.

YOUR also misrepresenting my point on eyewitness testimony and what is corroborated evidence.

Really? Explain why I should listen to the testimonies of planted individuals in the audience and the actual dupes themselves?

This further refutes anything you are also saying(if that is your position).

if what is my position???

If the MEDIA is in on this *MAGIC TRICK* then please explain why they would allow "COUNTER TESTIMONY?"

what counter testimony are you speaking of? Regardless of the testimonies you are speaking of, the answer should be obvious.

ITs obvious, that no one was hiding what people reported or saw.

That’s a blatant lie.

It is obvious that the majority of EMP and WTC workers with the lay person on the ground saw the planes crash into the buildings.

Dude if you live in New York (LIKE I DO) you either have a skewed view of the reality which is the average New Yorker, or you are blatantly lying about this.

I have not met one person who claims that they saw the first plane impact the first tower.

My cousin worked in WTC 2

I have a friend who was working on the verrazano bridge that day,

as well as family that was working in the high rise buildings adjacent to the towers.

NONE of them saw the plane impact and they said that NO ONE they were working with or talked afterwards saw it either.

My friend Nick said that his wife claimed to have seen the plane hit the tower, but we both agree that based on where she says she was when the tower was hit; she must be lying because she had no view of the tower.

You could be on the wrong angle for a visual, or just coming out of a building, there are many skyscrapers in New York City as well, if your close enough they will obstruct your view. That really is no surprise.

you just agreed with me, but didn’t answer the question of why no one heard a 757 flying at lower than 1000 feet at 500 mph.

Incorrect. When one builds a circumstantial case, they rely on eyewitness testimony that is corroborated. That is what our Court System does on a daily basis.

Eye witness testimony is utterly useless. You can look at numerous tests that have been done. Eye witness testimony should not be used in courts at all anymore.

www.wired.com...

eye witness testimony

It’s useless unless you have a bunch of people who are completely untainted and all corroborate the same story. The moment the reporters asks “did you see the plane hit the tower?” the witness is tainted. 99% of the eye witness testimony on 9-11 is and was tainted and would not be admissible in court.


[edit on 10/27/2009 by JPhish]