Di0genes wrote: » That's not editing it's vision mixing and simple graphics overlay over simple static shots. There's a world of difference.
Di0genes wrote: » The theory isn't sustained by any facts, and even if it was true, 17 seconds isn't enough time to composite a plane into shot.
Di0genes wrote: » And exactly how and when were the plane parts planted? Do you think people would have noticed someone bringing a car with a chunk of landing gear stuck into it's engine while this was all happening.
Di0genes wrote: » So, again, your argument is that there were no planes, no one of the the 8 million people in new york looked up while either of the planes crashed, or if they did, they saw a small plane, and just forgot about it, or didn't worry about it. Then a team of what ninjas? Planted dozens of pieces of airplane wreckage around the WTC complex, and to top it off they planeted evidence that Saudis not Iraqis carried. Congratulations. You've implicated tens of thousands of people in the most complex and brilliant fraud ever, and implied they're also morons.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Regarding finding plane parts at all sites.. It is fairly obvious if you want to make it look like a plane crashed at a particular area, YOU PLANT SOME PARTS !!! kinda like a cop setting someone up on a drug charge, they must plant the drugs first lmfao - it's not rocket science
TalkieWalkie wrote: » They could feck it out of a helicopter, there were many in the skies that day.
alastair wrote: » Yeah - you plant bits of planes YES, items belonging to the passengers YES, and bits of their bodies DID YOU FIND THEIR DODY PARTS ?, all transported from Boston IUNNO, and distributed in downtown NYC 45 minutes later YES. And you con hundreds of people into believing they saw an actual plane hit the building ABSOLUTELY. What's not plausible!? NOTHING
King Mob wrote: » So ignoring the fact your arguments are profoundly ridiculous, I'm morbidly curious what you think caused the explosions.
alastair wrote: » The helicopters that made it down from Boston in 45 minutes? And no-one noticed dropping anything? Those ones?
TalkieWalkie wrote: » DID YOU FIND THEIR DODY PARTS ?
A total of 293 intact bodies were found, and recovery workers unearthed hundreds of parts each day. As time went on, the remains found were smaller and smaller - fragments of flesh, pieces of bone. The identification process moved quickly to microscopes and computers as forensic specialists used DNA, and several laboratories across the nation joined the undertaking.
DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Thats a silly question. Here is a better one. If there were no planes, what caused the impact damage to the building ? Answer : I have no idea.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Several news reporters sighted planes circling the buildings.
alastair wrote: » http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html
TalkieWalkie wrote: » lol, Im guessing government employees did the DNA testing :rolleyes:
alastair wrote: » And your super-fast helicopters with their load from Boston - did any singe witness of the thousands there mention the lowering of debris onto the WTC site and surroundings?
King Mob wrote: » Well considering the video you posted showed planes crashing maybe you should start there? And any photos of these planes dropping the wreckage? Any eyewitness reports? Anything other that your insistence to explain an increasingly stupid theory?
TalkieWalkie wrote: » increasingly stupid theory?
alastair wrote: » They're all in on it it tell you! Them and their invisible helicopters and visible fake planes.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Are you annoyed Mob ? What's with all the harsh words ? Take a deep breath and try calm down :rolleyes:increasingly stupid theory?your arguments are profoundly ridiculous
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Don't really understand this so I'll wing it. When there is a large explosion in a large building, you'll be running, not examining a small barely/not visible propeller plane, probably behind/over a large cloud of smoke.
alastair wrote: » Actually - you're right - it's been consistently stupid from start to finish - and there's no doubt it's finished. :rolleyes:
alastair wrote: » That'd be the small propeller plane that carried truckloads of aircraft debris (including jet engines), as well as the body parts, and personal artifacts, and made it down from Boston in 45 minutes - that one? The one that no camera managed to capture despite the blanket coverage of the area?
TalkieWalkie wrote: » ummm, they were supposed to be quoted. It's good to know the type of debate that keeps you interested, the self confessed "stupid" type lol
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Is this how you usually finish a debate ? Or did you finish then restart ?
alastair wrote: » It's the clowns at the circus that I enjoy the most.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Okay, so you enjoy stupid debates and clowns at circuses, that's... uh nice.
alastair wrote: » Debate? Your 'theory' is a busted flush, and has been since you posted the first video. All that's left is the slow, slow, acknowledgment of the fact on your part - the car crash appeal is most engaging though.
TalkieWalkie wrote: » Hmmm, is it not a debate if one side think anothers theory is "stupid" ? Yup, it's still a debate.
alastair wrote: » Nope. A debate requires deliberation from both sides - something that's notable by it's absence in your 'theory'.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
