No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Take the Truther parade back to DC where it belongs, planes hit the towers in NYC. End of story.

No-planers (no planes at the WTC peddlers) are not truthers. Just so that we're clear.

reply to post by warisover

. PS: also note that on some of the "fake" videos that show the "plane" hitting the tower, it comes straight in horizontally, and in other videos the plane seems to "dive bomb" into the building almost vertically.

It's really not that hard to figure out.

So explain this



Or this



Or these







If you can come up with an explanation of how these aircraft parts
showed up on crowded Manhattan streets in broad daylight ....


You have a career in Las Vegas as a magician......

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I meant to actually put "truther" in quotes there.... it's a misnomer in all applications IMO

Have you ever considered that they may have intentionally doctored videos of an event that actually did occur. Wouldn't that just be a boulder on the path to the truth.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by warisover

 

So explain this

Hi dman, please do some research into those "staged plane debris" they are not from any of the American Airlines.

Originally posted by warisover
To answer your question just look at the first video in the OP.

Everything in the OP is debunked in my thread that I've linked to a couple times already.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by warisover

 

I was there that day and saw the 2nd plane (yes, plane) hit with my own 2 eyes as did hundreds of other people on the ground around me.

I'm sorry if I don't just take your word for it, but you'll have to back that up with some proof, gotta video you'd like to share?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
To answer your question just look at the first video in the OP.

Everything in the OP is debunked in my thread that I've linked to a couple times already.

Bonez, why do you think every network that showed the "plane" hit the tower had a different color sky? Why was there a bridge moving in the background in some? Can't you tell that was NOT live TV?

Originally posted by warisover
Bonez, why do you think every network that showed the "plane" hit the tower had a different color sky?

Every camera from a different manufacturer has different color and contrast levels. No two cameras from two manufacturers have the same color/contrast. That is a very simple, easily researched answer.

Originally posted by warisover
Why was there a bridge moving in the background in some?

The bridge wasn't moving. The helicopter was moving. This is a simple test you can try at home with your own video camera. Stand about 50-feet from a tree, zoom in a little, walk slowly around the tree and watch the tree barely move as the background flies by. It's simple videography and photography.

www.photography101.org...

There are gazillions of links on Google to learn you about photography and videography.


Furthermore, there is a debate forum here on ATS. Here's the one and only no-plane debate so far:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll let you read who won, but anytime you think you have enough evidence of no planes at the WTC, then you contact Semperfortis and he'll set up the debate.

Originally posted by warisover

I do not have you on ignore. To answer your question just look at the first video in the OP.

The video is a joke. The creator states asks how an aluminum plane can go through concrete. Well obviously he is an idiot. An aluminum plane weighing about what 500,000lbs going, lets say 300mph WILL go through concrete and steel...

Case in point. If you take an empty aluminum soda can and with your hand smash it against your skull (bone) the can will crush and NOT penetrate the harder bone. Now, take that same empty can and fire it hat your skull at about 80-100mph and tell me what happens,....I can promise you one thing...it WILL penetrate your skull....but by the video turds theory it should still just crush and fall to the floor....

There is home video of the planes crashing.


Where they the hijacked planes?

Where they manned?

those are different questions

How do you guys explain this



bonez, rcwj1975 ?

The no plane theory is only a hoax designed to shine a negative light on the truth movement and is baseless in it's claims. Aside from being just pure damn stupid!

We need to let this thread die and go away along with those who keep bringing this trash theory up again & again....Goodbye.

Originally posted by warisover
How do you guys explain this

bonez, rcwj1975 ?

WOW...really...are you seriously asking because you believe the bridge was moving?

Dude...my god...you DO realize that the cameras were moving as were the angles at which the scene was being shot...RIGHT?

Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really a missile camouflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This bizarre creation came from a website called "the web fairy," and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower was the size of a 767. The "no plane at the towers" campaign didn't fly, partially because the idea for the missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane at the North Tower is ridiculous and was of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly. The next version of "no plane" was a claim that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it. Variations on the "pod" is that it was a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood of nonsense, which is probably the purpose behind this propaganda.) The "pod" plane claims have not had substantial impact, since they are strange, based on fuzzy pictures and have been clearly refuted by the 9/11 truth movement - the pod is merely a carefully chosen photo of the normal "fairing" bulge between the wing and the fuselage.

Oil Empire

What next? Are we gonna endure the "no towers" theory? Or perhaps the "WTC towers didn't get knocked down, it was a hoax. They are now invisible!" theory? Or how about "no real people killed on 911, they too were holograms".

Originally posted by warisover
How do you guys explain this

I already explained it in my post above. Needless to say, look at the buildings closest to the camera at the bottom-left. They are also moving, because the helicopter is moving.

As I already said, if you think you have enough proof, set up a debate so I can crush NPT yet again.

Originally posted by mikelee
Or how about "no real people killed on 911, they too were holograms".

They do have that theory also, and it's peddled by the no-planers. It's called the "vicsim" hoax. Do a search for "vicsim" on this very forum.

really amazing group of vids here, even has some from people on top floors running down after the hits

www.history.co.uk...

click launch

Click here to learn more about this warning.