This is what I remember

reply to post by _BoneZ_

See, what I did was posted an actual video of the second plane. The people behind the camera even acknowledged that it was a plane.

What you did, was (as usual) type a bunch of meaningless text onto your screen without showing any proof of your claims.

Man, aren't you an attitude waiting to happen. As usual, I provided evidence to back up my claims, and as usual you get bitchy and start flinging sh!te.

No, what I posted was an example that I couldn't cut and paste, a link.

Please check this link and just look at the three examples I listed above. Enter the site, and then click the "Amateur Imagery" link under the FAQ on the right side. www.septemberclues.info...

September Clueless is years old, debunked disinformation. Everything is thoroughly debunked in my thread here:

When does your belligerence end? What makes good disinfo? Lots of truth sprinkled with just the right lies. Here's another link if you don't like the above. What's with you guys and your "guilt by association" complexes anyway. Where do you get off thinking you've got all the answers and your sources are beyond reproach?

1.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Yankee451

The reason I am so certain your alleged sister didn't see a jet, and that FDNY343 was lying when he claimed he saw a jet is because the damage indicates two missiles from opposite sides, NOT a jet. Regardless of what you say your sister said, or what the TV showed, the DAMAGE SAYS OTHERWISE.

Yep, you keep telling yourself that. You realize that my sister and FDNY343 were not, by any stretch of the imagination, not the only witnesses. The damage is consistent with a plane impact. The witnesses confirm that, privately taken video confirms that. Sorry, try some other angle, this, like your missiles, isn't going to fly.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Check out my thread that the OP's theories somewhat mirror.

A thread that makes an outrageous claim, and then leaves everybody wanting a SOURCE.

My bad, i guess if some website or news network didnt say it, it then didnt happen? Think a little bit about what you are saying.

I shake my head as I watch people run around stupid theories that will get them no where. 911 happened before the planes hit the towers, focus on that.

Originally posted by hooper


Yep, you keep telling yourself that. You realize that my sister and FDNY343 were not, by any stretch of the imagination, not the only witnesses. The damage is consistent with a plane impact. The witnesses confirm that, privately taken video confirms that. Sorry, try some other angle, this, like your missiles, isn't going to fly.

My sister's best friend's nephew died there too, but that doesn't mean there were any planes involved.

If anyone is claiming they were there, they should be able to rattle off a dozen details about it without needing a week, like FDNY343, to give us a single detail and they wouldn't spend two weeks arguing false "KE trumps all" theories if they witnessed first-hand what I claim is a lie. I find it pretty morbid and creepy to be making claims that aren't true, don't you?

The available evidence shows damage that is entirely inconsistent with the damage we are shown in the NIST report. Do you deny this?

reply to post by Yankee451

My sister's best friend's nephew died there too, but that doesn't mean there were any planes involved.

Not following your logic, but thats no suprise.

If anyone is claiming they were there, they should be able to rattle off a dozen details about it without needing a week, like FDNY343, to give us a single detail and they wouldn't spend two weeks arguing "false KE trumps all" theories if they witnessed first-hand what I claim is a lie.

How so? Just because you're a witness doesn't mean you're perfect observer. Besides, what the use of giving you any details? You are too invested in your religion, your faith compels you to deny anything that may contradict your delusion. Please explain ALL the witnesses.

I find it pretty morbid and creepy to be making claims that aren't true, don't you?

Yes, I find what you are doing verrrrry creepy as a matter of fact.

The available evidence shows damage that is entirely inconsistent with the damage we are shown in the NIST report. Do you deny this?

The evidence is consistent with the NIST report. Sorry.

reply to post by hooper

The evidence is consistent with the NIST report. Sorry.

Be specific.

Since you can't prove your other claims, I'll ignore the side show of the rest of your post.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper

 

The evidence is consistent with the NIST report. Sorry.

Be specific.

Since you can't prove your other claims, I'll ignore the side show of the rest of your post.

The NIST report says planes hit the building, this is confirmed by numerous eyewitnesses, photographic and video evidence. You are simply ignoring the eyewitness and dismissing the video evidence. You don't get to do that - well, you are more than welcome to do that but you end up looking silly.

Originally posted by hooper


The NIST report says planes hit the building, this is confirmed by numerous eyewitnesses, photographic and video evidence. You are simply ignoring the eyewitness and dismissing the video evidence. You don't get to do that - well, you are more than welcome to do that but you end up looking silly.

i am using the same eyewitness and video evidence as they are.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/466f1e00ff9d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7f373e43c22.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c7d0c157d46.jpg[/atsimg]

How did the jet slice the corner?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89b67bec8328.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Yankee451

How did the jet slice the corner?

I look at the photos you posted and ask this: What are we looking at and what do you think this proves?

That doesn't look like a slice to my eyes but maybe your eyes differ. It looks like paneling or something pushed out which I would imagine might happen because there was an explosion in the interior.

HDTV and HD news cameras were not commonplace in 2001 so all the footage is broadcast-quality SD video sometimes sourced from VHS and almost always compressed digitally. No planers like to take this footage and circle areas and anomalies and say "this is CONCLUSIVE proof that ___________ ". September Clues even did that by saying that a wing disappeared before the 2nd plane impacted the building completely ignoring the fact that it was compression macroblocks that caused the disappearance.

KickAndScreamin has an excellent post on page 4 that might be a little tl;dr but I suggest reading it. The Mossad agents posing as art students and a moving company with the white vans. That's real scary stuff thats actually factual and what we should be concerned about instead of dismissing thousands of eyewitness testimony along with photographic and video evidence which is most certainly conclusive proof that planes hit WTC. That just makes people think Truthers are crazy. Think about it - Youtube Truthers like to discredit eyewitness interviews when the person might make one mistake. That's exactly what people do to Truthers with valid points when they make a mistake, but when they start saying that no planes were involved in 9/11 they don't even need to bother dismissing you because you look insane. That nose-out is certainly interesting though. Just makes me wish there was HD video of it instead of a dozen pixels so we could see what we were looking at.

reply to post by vault13er

I look at the photos you posted and ask this: What are we looking at and what do you think this proves?

The photos make clear what we're looking at. What the damage shows is that the NIST report ignored major damage to the east side of the building, and that the damage to the corner was not near any of the explosions, and that the direction of the damage to the columns on the left side of the north face gash is in a left-to-right direction.

Stop evading and answer one of my questions now. How does the available evidence fit the OS?

HDTV and HD news cameras were not commonplace in 2001 so all the footage is broadcast-quality SD video sometimes sourced from VHS and almost always compressed digitally. No planers like to take this footage and circle areas and anomalies and say "this is CONCLUSIVE proof that ___________ ". September Clues even did that by saying that a wing disappeared before the 2nd plane impacted the building completely ignoring the fact that it was compression macroblocks that caused the disappearance.

I'm using the same evidence the government and NIST used to provide the excuse to invade a few countries. Why is that not good enough for you?

The rest of your post involved lumping all "truthers" together as being of one mind or another. Boy, that drivel gets old. Do you see double? How many fingers am I holding up?

I speak for myself.

Any truther who doesn't know the "truth movement" was started and directed by the perpetrators isn't a real truther.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Any truther who doesn't know the "truth movement" was started and directed by the perpetrators isn't a real truther.

Must feel good to be so callous and careless towards the victims and their families. See, the victims' families started the truth movement. That in and of itself proves that not only are you ill-researched, but ill-informed as well.

Your quote above must be one of the new pieces of disinformation coming from the disinfo artists that created the no-plane disinformation.

I'd suggest that you stop typing before you dig your hole so deep that you can't get out.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Yankee451
Any truther who doesn't know the "truth movement" was started and directed by the perpetrators isn't a real truther.

Must feel good to be so callous and careless towards the victims and their families. See, the victims' families started the truth movement. That in and of itself proves that not only are you ill-researched, but ill-informed as well.

Your quote above must be one of the new pieces of disinformation coming from the disinfo artists that created the no-plane disinformation.

I'd suggest that you stop typing before you dig your hole so deep that you can't get out.

Which victims you talking about? The ones on the planes or the ones in the buildings? Do you know?

How is trying to find justice for the murdered victims considered "callous"? If your family member was killed by our government wouldn't it be pretty callous to use their deaths as justification to kill a few hundred thousand people?

Who's the disinfo artist here? The one who uses real evidence you can see with your own two eyes, or the one who claims to be a truther but pulls the fake moral outrage card? Counter my arguments with some substance big guy, or go home.

reply to post by Yankee451


You should go back and re-read my post. You callously said that the 9/11 truth movement was started by the perps. That would mean you are calling the victims' families the perps of 9/11 because the victims' families started the 9/11 truth movement. Get informed.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You do know about leading the opposition don't you? If the government, media and military would pull such a scam they'd make sure their cover story was planned well in advance.

So everyone in the truth movement should be suspect, and real truthers know that. No one is beyond reproach, and even the disinfo agents provide proof as part of their cover. They can then discredit their proof when they are later exposed as operatives. This is not news. You know this stuff, right?

What does this have to do with the evidence? Is this another distraction?