No Planes Theories on 9/11

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

You see, infecting kids with HIV is not jibbering.

Please tell me how they said it was an enormous success when the quotes I've shown are to the contrary?

I never said it was shot down, also.

I believe united 93 crashed when the passengers on board seized control and the hijackers lost control.

What do you think happened?

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe united 93 crashed when the passengers on board seized control and the hijackers lost control.

What do you think happened?

The same, I just have my suspicions. Which I've shown. I admit that your evidence on flight 93 is much better as there are more witnesses and it goes into more detail, but the videos and links I've shown suggest something different.

That's all, I hope the passengers did take it down.

I can't be more honest than that, can I?

Di0genes

Superlativeman wrote: »

The same, I just have my suspicions. Which I've shown. I admit that your evidence on flight 93 is much better as there are more witnesses and it goes into more detail, but the videos and links I've shown suggest something different.

That's all, I hope the passengers did take it down.

I can't be more honest than that, can I?

1,000s of people from dozens of agencies combed the wreckage for months. Many were volunteer firefighters, Many were members of the red cross. For any conspiracy theory about 93 to be true it would implicate these people.

There are also the airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers. Do you think these were faked.

As to the news report, there were news reports on the day that claimed a bomb had gone off at the capital building. Can we admit that news reports on the day were sketchy and filled with misinformation?

bonkey

Superlativeman wrote: »

As I said, when they release the video, I'll accept it.

This seems to assume there is a video which could be released.

Sounds suspiciously like "pictures or it didn't happen", except in this case there's no pictures of the alternate version either, but somehow that's not an issue.

Di0genes

bonkey wrote: »

This seems to assume there is a video which could be released.

Sounds suspiciously like "pictures or it didn't happen", except in this case there's no pictures of the alternate version either, but somehow that's not an issue.

Combined with the dozens of eyewitness who saw a 737, including pilots and tower officials, the fact that the damage to the lightposts matches that of a wingspan of a 737 and could not have been caused by a smaller plane.

The lawn of the pentagon was littered with both casualties and airplane parts, and within minutes hundreds of military, federal and local law enforcement, hundreds of emergency works, including again volunteer firefighters were on the scene.

Are we to believe that a plane other than a 737, or indeed a missile, flew so low overhead that it clipped lamposts, crashed into the pentagon, and then somehow the wreckage and corpses of the passengers were placed on the lawn of the Pentagon, in such a way as to not arouse the suspicion of all these rescue workers? And this all happened in broad daylight next to a eight lane highway in the middle of rush hour?

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

1,000s of people from dozens of agencies combed the wreckage for months. Many were volunteer firefighters, Many were members of the red cross. For any conspiracy theory about 93 to be true it would implicate these people.

There are also the airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers. Do you think these were faked.

As to the news report, there were news reports on the day that claimed a bomb had gone off at the capital building. Can we admit that news reports on the day were sketchy and filled with misinformation?

Of course they make mistakes, but people contradicted the official story by quite clearly saying they saw no wreckage or bodies or plane parts when they were there.

There are also the airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers. Do you think these were faked.

No. But the history of America over the last century and the lies of the 9/11 commission leave me with doubts.

OK, a plane the story of flight 93 is correct. Irrelevant

Where did they say the 9/11 commission was an enormous success? And what about the links I gave you with regards to the commissioner's

Superlativeman

bonkey wrote: »

This seems to assume there is a video which could be released.

Sounds suspiciously like "pictures or it didn't happen", except in this case there's no pictures of the alternate version either, but somehow that's not an issue.

The F.B.I has refused 85 freedom of information requests to release the Pentagon footage: http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/04/pentagon-911-conspiracy-more-evidence.html

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Superlativeman

Di0genes wrote: »

Combined with the dozens of eyewitness who saw a 737, including pilots and tower officials, the fact that the damage to the lightposts matches that of a wingspan of a 737 and could not have been caused by a smaller plane.

The lawn of the pentagon was littered with both casualties and airplane parts, and within minutes hundreds of military, federal and local law enforcement, hundreds of emergency works, including again volunteer firefighters were on the scene.

Are we to believe that a plane other than a 737, or indeed a missile, flew so low overhead that it clipped lamposts, crashed into the pentagon, and then somehow the wreckage and corpses of the passengers were placed on the lawn of the Pentagon, in such a way as to not arouse the suspicion of all these rescue workers? And this all happened in broad daylight next to a eight lane highway in the middle of rush hour?

The lawn of the pentagon was littered with both casualties and airplane parts,

Nonsense, and they cleared up the evidence as quick as possible.

flew so low overhead that it clipped lamposts

And yet the wings stayed perfectly intact.

And this all happened in broad daylight next to a eight lane highway in the middle of rush hour?

Release the footage and debunk it. It's very simple.

Divorce Referendum

Superlativeman wrote: »

The F.B.I has refused 85 freedom of information requests to release the Pentagon footage: http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/04/pentagon-911-conspiracy-more-evidence.html

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

All of them are good videos?

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."
Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released

Di0genes

Firstly you're ignoring Shanksville. Again I ask are you satisfied that the plane crashed after passengers stormed the cockpit yes or no. I WILL NOT

Superlativeman wrote: »

Nonsense, and they cleared up the evidence as quick as possible.

Whats nonsense that the lawn was covered in air plane parts, and bodies, or that it was cleared up as quickly as possible.

I'm prepared to bombard you with photos, testimony and evidence of the detailed crime scene and victim identification, think, carefully about what what you think is nonsense.

And yet the wings stayed perfectly intact.

Do I think a airplane wing is going to survive a impact with the top of a lightpole where the wing is travelling at 500 per hour yes. I have photos of the damaged lightpoles maps of the damage,

And the wing didn't survive intact, it was sheared off when it hit the generator on the lawn of the pentagon.

Release the footage and debunk it. It's very simple.

What footage from which camera would satisfy you?

bonkey

Superlativeman wrote: »

The F.B.I has refused 85 freedom of information requests to release the Pentagon footage: http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/04/pentagon-911-conspiracy-more-evidence.html

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

Footage which it has subsequently released.

ETA : You'll notice that the page you link to speaks "as of May 2006".

Things have moved on in the past four and a half years. The footage was released. It showed what the FBI said it showed....which was more-or-less nothing.

Dude111

The F.B.I has refused 85 freedom of information requests to release the Pentagon footage:

Yes because they dont want us to see WHAT REALLY HAPPEND AT THE PENTAGON!

gizmo

Dude111 wrote: »

Yes because they dont want us to see WHAT REALLY HAPPEND AT THE PENTAGON!

So what did happen?

alastair

Superlativeman wrote: »

http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&biw=1212&bih=715&q=flight%2093%20&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Oh, 3 miles, wow, not suspicious at all. So when the plane crashed bits of it went into the air and traveled for 6, sorry 3 miles.......................

Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=8

meglome

Here it is from google maps.

meglome wrote: »

Again this is where the usual CT site trickery comes in. They say debris was found far away from the crash. Firstly the engine was found 300 yards away in the direction that plane was flying, and at 500mph that's not very far. Secondly the 'debris' they talk about is mostly paper. They talk about it being 6 miles to Indian lake, but that's by road, it's actually 1.5 miles as the crow flies. So yes I think that paper could be found 1.5 miles from a cash site in the direction of the wind.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Flight+93+National+Memorial,+Stoystown,+PA,+United+States&sll=40.047197,-78.889647&sspn=0.044416,0.073986&ie=UTF8&hq=Flight+93+National+Memorial&hnear=Flight+93+National+Memorial,+Stoystown,+Somerset,+Pennsylvania+15563&ll=40.046015,-78.897715&spn=0.044417,0.073986&z=14
Don't take my word for the distance, from the google maps link I make it just over 8000 feet to the lake from the memorial. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. So the CT sites are lying as usual.

Dude111

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DF153AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/09/cbs-prez-warned-about-fake-plane.html

meglome

Dude111 wrote: »

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DF153AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/09/cbs-prez-warned-about-fake-plane.html

Yes we've all seen a movie or three or TV news or sports programs.

My my out of context quotes. He's talking about displaying logo's or video animations for news and sports shows.

Published: January 13, 2000
New York Times

[Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News,] said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology -- which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows -- on news programs. The danger is "that it looks too real and therefore it's wrong or potentially wrong," he said. "I certainly agree it's potentially subject to abuse."

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

Dan Rather, the CBS News anchor, called the decision to superimpose a digitally created CBS logo to block out an NBC-sponsored sign in Times Square during CBS's news coverage of New Year's Eve celebrations ''a mistake'' that he regrets.

''There is no excuse for it,'' Mr. Rather said in a telephone interview today. ''I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.''

[snip]

He said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology -- which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows -- on news programs. The danger is ''that it looks too real and therefore it's wrong or potentially wrong,'' he said. ''I certainly agree it's potentially subject to abuse.''

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

''We're not sitting here rubbing our hands, saying how can we use this again,'' Mr. Heyward said. ''We are not in the deception business, We're in the reality business; we're in the accuracy business. To the extent that this technology interferes with that core belief we're not going to do it. We will absolutely take seriously the use of this tool.''

I can't imagine how anyone thinks the use of this basic technology somehow would allow thousands of people to be tricked in real life that they saw a plane. Of would allow multiple videos from different sources to be faked. It's an incredible leap from some basic logo imposition to holograms that don't exist.

Di0genes

Dude111 wrote: »

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DF153AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/09/cbs-prez-warned-about-fake-plane.html

I've worked in both CGI and news what you are suggesting is that the plane's were digitally inserted is just technically impossible and ignores the fact that all this occured in broad daylight in front of tens of thousands of witnesses.