A simple challenge to "no-planers"

[SDuderstadt]

The links below will take you to the eyewitness testimony of many survivors of the 9/11 attacks on WTC 1 & 2. As I'm sure you'll notice, many of them say that they smelled burning jet fuel and/or were burned by it. So, here's my question. If what you claim is true, why do so many witnesses directly contradict your claim? Isn't it time to admit the "no-planes" wing of the "truth movement" has been exposed as a fraud.

I'm dying to hear how you guys will try to wiggle out of this one. Good luck.


http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3...
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3...
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3...



PLEASE GO TO GREYL'S RESPONSE FOR WORKING LINKS

[greyl]

1. I think you meant to say this:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts91-60
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Cfloo2
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Clobb

[SDuderstadt]

2. Thanks, Greyl.....

I'm not sure what happened when I tried to paste the links.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. You probably just copied the truncated text of the links

The DU software turns them into links as well, but they won't work.

You've got to highlight each link individually, right-click, and choose Copy Link Location. Then you've got the full URL in your clipboard.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Thanks, Bolo!

I predict the "no-planers" will fall oddly silent on this one.

[IScreamSundays]

5. I don't think there is any doubt there were planes in Manhattan...

The pentagon is, however, a different story.

[hack89]

6. You mean besides the plane size hole, aircraft debris and hundreds of eyewitness. ? nt

[Bucky]

86. Apparently you've never heard of the Pentagon's notorious secret "FADIH" project

Fake Airplane Debris Instant Holograms has been on the Project Bluebook Blackbooks ever since they faked the moon landing in '68 and then hypnotized everyone into thinking it happened in '69 instead. How can you be so gullible?! You're probably one of those deluded fools who still think there was ever a country called "Vietnam" that we were funneling billions of dollars into in the 60s. Dude, why do you think they had to kill James Dean? His entire movie oeuvre is one long deeply coded exposé on the whole Area 51, Human-to-Vegetable transmogrification project!

[SDuderstadt]

87. Bullshit, dude...

James Dean NEVER died...that's what "they" WANT you to think...the "Porsche" he wrecked was actually a hologram beta prototype...it seems too many kids were "rebelling without a cause", so he's now living in Palmdale, CA and grows tomatoes which he sells at the farmer's market under an assumed name. I don't know why you're trying to spread disinfo, dude, but you do Cheney proud.

We're onto you and Bushco. Be afraid...be very afraid.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Fucking unbelievable...

what more evidence do you need to see?

[twhite1]

8. "what more evidence do you need to see?"

None.


The videos shown on national TV (and widely available all over the Net) show images of planes that are clearly not real.

It IS true that real planes were seen flying in the NYC area on that particular morning, but none of them crashed there. If they
had, they would be in the videos which are said (by some) to have been captured live "as it happened".

[SDuderstadt]

9. You obviously did not read the eyewitness accounts...

and your "no-planes" bullshit is an affront to the victims and their families. How do explain the multiple accounts of witnesses who smelled or encountered jet fuel or, worse, were badly burned by it?

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing liberalism and the Democratic Party, in general, and DU, in particular, with your goofy bullshit. I'm done.

[twhite1]

10. One of the problems with your position is

that the videos do not show real planes crashing into the WTC, so either your witnesses are mistaken or else the videos have been
doctored to include fake planes.

Maybe you believe that jet fuel was stored somewhere in the upper floors of the WTC and it spilled down after the explosions
which rocked the buildings and ultimately caused them to collapse. That might be what you're thinking, but if it is, that
still doesn't explain the obvious fact that the planes seen in the videos aren't real planes.

I don't know HOW you rationalize it, but it's your problem, not mine.

[SDuderstadt]

11. The problem with your position is that it's...

goofy CT bullshit that doesn't require a response. Only a CT could utter something as stupid as claiming someone who was badly burned by burning jet fuel is "mistaken".

What part of "I'm done" confuses you?

[twhite1]

12. That still doesn't solve the problem

They may have been "badly burned by burning jet fuel", but the fact is that the videos do not show real planes.

That still leaves open the possibility which I posted - i.e., maybe there was some jet fuel stored on one or more of the upper floors
and it was ignited by the detonation of explosions which were set off to bring/"pull" the buildings down. Unfortunately, even that
explanation doesn't solve the problem of videos which do not show real planes crashing into the WTC.

That's quite a challenge for you to try and explain, isn't it?

[SDuderstadt]

13. Only to people with delusions like you...

I mean, really, you think a possible answer could be jet fuel was already stored in the WTC???

Done.

[twhite1]

14. I don't have any delusions and I certainly don't believe yours

I KNOW that neither you nor anyone else can reconcile the problem you face in trying to maintain what simply is
an impossibility.

I think that you should just admit it and move on. Fake planes and burning jet fuel just don't match up, do they?

[SDuderstadt]

16. Only for you, dude...

I hope you keep pratling on so people can see how stupid "no-planes" bullshit is. What a hoot.

[twhite1]

19. Here's another reason why that scenario is problematic

Is it your position that the people who were close enough to the WTC on 9/11 to observe what happened - saw something different
than what people saw on TV?

Approximately how many people would you say were close enough to observe the WTC on that morning?

[SDuderstadt]

20. No, that's YOUR problem, dude...

unless, of course, you can explain how live witnesses could have seen a "fake" plane.

What a hoot!

[twhite1]

21. I've asked you politely to answer two simple questions

1 - did the eyewitnesses see something different than what people saw on TV?

2 - approximately how many eyewitnesses observed the WTC on the morning of 9/11?


Is there some particular reason why you don't want to answer those? They're very straightforward questions that should be easy
for you to answer, and given how much confidence you appear to have in your beliefs, I'd think you would be happy to
answer any and all reasonable questions about what you say happened that day.

May we have your substantive answers now?

[SDuderstadt]

22. Quid pro quo....

this is just you refusing to answer very simple questions I have posed. I'll answer your questions (which pose no problem whatsoever for the "official story", despite your tortured attempt to pretend they do) if you will be so kind as to answer the question I already posed and one other. Deal?

The answer to number 1 is that I am not aware of a live witness who saw something "different" than TV viewers. I am certain that some live witnesses may have missed the plane ramming into the tower, but I'd challenge you to find a single such person who claims no plane struck the tower.

The answer to number 2 is I don't know but, at a minimum, it had to be hundreds, if not thousands. So, now you get to answer my questions, both of which are fatal to your goofy CT bullshit.

1. How could the live witnesses have seen a fake plane? In your tortured rationales so far, you start with your conclusion ("no-planes") then try to reason backwards, simply inventing even more implausible explanations when you're backed into a logical corner. The funniest one is when you claim that victims who were badly burned by burning jet fuel were either "mistaken" or were burned by jet fuel that had been stored ahead of time in the towers. I'm certain a number of people are still snickering at that one.

2. My second question is if, as you claim, no actual planes struck the towers, why hasn't s single witness come forward with a video (cellphone, digital camera, camcorder, etc.) that shows the either tower exploding without being struck by a plane?

That should shut you up for a while or, at the very least, expose you for the fraudulent claims you are advancing. And, as they say on radio talk shows, "I'll take my answer off the air", content to let you further marginalize the "truth movement" with your bullshit CT nonsense. Bye, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

40. I think by now that nearly everyone has noticed...

that you cannot answer two rather simple questions that render your goofy "no-planes" bullshit a non-starter.

Your fraud has been exposed. Isn't it time to apologize all around and quit embarrassing liberalism and the Democratic Party, in general, and DU, in particular, with your absurd and unsupportable claims? The GOP wears ignorance so much better than we Democrats do. Why give them competition in that respect?

[Flatulo]

44. I'll take a swag at this...

> 1 - did the eyewitnesses see something different than what people saw on TV?

That would depend on their relative position and elevations.

> 2 - approximately how many eyewitnesses observed the WTC on the morning of 9/11?

Let's make an educated guess... Manhattan has a daytime population of around 1.5 million. It may be more than this due to cummuters coming in. If we assume that as few as 10% were up and about at 9:00AM on 9/11/2001, that would be 150,000 souls awake at the time that Flight 11 slammed into WTC 1.

In the time interval between Flight 11 and Flight 175, millions of people around the country were alerted to the fact that something terrible had happend at WTC1. Anyone that had a TV on knew almost immediately, and then they called their friends or relatives to spread the horrible news (and watch it on TV). I know that my company had the TV sets on in the cafeteria within minutes of the first crash.

Since the WTC towers were the largest objects for nearly a thousand miles in any direction, it is reasonable to assume that most of those 150,000 souls in Manhattan could see smoke bellowing from the North tower,. If we further assume that only 10% of those 150,000 souls would be curious enough to actually go outside or go to a window to see one of the world's largest structures burning quite horrifically (and I'm being very conservative here - I believe it was most surely more than that. This was an absolutely unprecedented event), then we have 15,000 people staring at WTC1 as it burned.

Now, depending on one's position, it was possible to see Flight 175 come in from the SW to slam into WTC2. Since this view could conceivably be obstructed from three sides, let's say that only 1/4 of the people looking up happened to be looking up when 175 hit. If you reduce that by 50% for people who were scratching their balls or picking their asses, that still leaves nearly 2,000 people who may have actually seen the impact.

I believe the number is much, much larger than this, but I'm trying to give you the largest benefit of the doubt here.

So, you are telling me that every single last one of these witnessed is confused, mistaken or hysterical? Is this what you are really saying? I don't even know what the hell could be confusing about a jumbo jet hitting a building. Seems pretty fucking un-confusing to me. Now, if you were to tell me that a 90 year old white woman couldn't pick a black teenager being accused of robbing a 7-11 out of a police lineup, I'd say 'sure'. But an airplane hitting a skyscraper is not in the least bit subtle.

[chaddyt]

26. I'm curious...

What image/video specialist (and no, Spooked and Killclown aren't in that category) have analyzed the videos of the planes hitting the towers and determined them to be "clearly not real."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. there was NO large jumbo jet at Pentagon

[SDuderstadt]

17. Tell that to the 100+ direct witnesses...

it's so funny to watch CT's grasping at straws.

[twhite1]

23. There are probably more than 100+ people right here at DU

who had a much closer look at the Pentagon via national TV, photos, and other videos than the witnesses you are (presumably) referring to...and when you include the entire universe of people who have seen all of the above, there must be millions of people -
and none of them saw a plane crash at the Pentagon or into the WTC.

Many, if not most of the witness accounts shown on the media and whose stories were published in the press, are directly or indirectly connected to the media, the military, or some other governmental agency or department (Federal, State, or local). Few of them have
ever had their story challenged or questioned. ALL of them, including those whose honesty and sincerity are above reproach, recounted
their story of events that occurred suddenly and the impressions they conveyed were of things that lasted only momentarily for most
of the witnesses...many of them were in a heightened state of hysteria. Hardly the impressions of people who had much time to observe, react, absorb, reflect upon, and recount with a high decree of accuracy.

Contrast the above witnesses with the huge number of people who have seen multiple videos, have read many, many accounts of the events, and have had the luxury of time to think about it and put it all into a context.

Millions of people know that the planes shown crashing into the WTC are fake. It's impossible to see a real plane melt into a building. Only a fake plane image can do that. Millions of witnesses saw exactly that on 9/11 and during the eight years since then.

Millions of people know that no airliner crashed at the Pentagon. They know what they saw on TV and in the media and on the Net, and
what they saw was NOT an airliner crash nor an aftermath that would indicate one had crashed.

I'll place my confidence with the millions. You can have your 100+.

[Make7]

24. The following only brings one thing to mind:

twhite1 wrote:

There are probably more than 100+ people right here at DU who had a much closer look at the Pentagon via national TV, photos, and other videos than the witnesses you are (presumably) referring to...and when you include the entire universe of people who have seen all of the above, there must be millions of people - and none of them saw a plane crash at the Pentagon or into the WTC.

That made me think of this:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA
 

[AZCat]

35. Very appropriate! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

25. Like I hinted at before, all this is worth it if only for you...

broadcasting your CT nonsense to as many people as possible so they can see how stupid it is.

It's beyond stupid to discount the testimony of the 100+ direct witnesses. I'm done, dude. No more of your affronts to both reason and the victims and their families.

What I can't quite figure out at this point is why the "mainstream" truthers don't do more to mitigate your inanity.

[twhite1]

27. The millions or the 100+ ---

"It's beyond stupid to discount the testimony of the 100+ direct witnesses."

There's strength in numbers and it's beyond the realm of common sense to discount millions of witnesses...ALL Of whom YOU said
saw the exact same thing as those 100+ folks you are desperately hanging on to.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Blah, blah, blah....

Keep parading your ignorance, dude.

[twhite1]

29. Your position is untenable & by your responses, you know it.

I'm satisfied that I've shown the fatal weakness of two of your most crucial claims about 9/11.

1. That no real airplanes crashed in NYC or at the Pentagon on 9/11.

2. That millions of people have seen the faked footage upon which rests the very foundation of the government's version of 9/11.


Thanks for helping raise awareness about the importance of witness accounts to events such as those of 9/11.

[chaddyt]

30. So what did my boss see?

... when she was staring at the towers from 120 Broadway after the 1st plane had hit? She says it was a plane, but apparently you know better.

Please enlighten me.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Well, your boss obviously....

works for the media, the Bush administration or the Pentagon.

I assume the sarcasm thingy is not even remotely needed here. BTW, this poster might quite possibly be the most reason-resistant member of DU I have ever encountered. He/she also really hates being asked questions, too.

[chaddyt]

33. Hmm....

Who knew that home owners and small business insurance was a cover for government/media black ops.

Should've never left that place....

[SDuderstadt]

34. I have honestly never seen more absurd arguments put forth than...

those from twhite. He/she is like an automaton programmed with "9/11 was an inside job" crackpottery. It's truly funny to watch.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Why don't you see if anyone here....

agrees with your goofy CT bullshit, dude? Outside of a handful, I don't think so. It would be even worse if you asked the question in GD. Why do you think that is?

Thanks for helping spread the message that "no-planes" bullshit is, well, bullshit.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

81. I noticed you can't refute the eyewitness accounts....

nice try at changing the subject, though.

[Flatulo]

36. There's a flaw in your argument...

You claim that millions of people saw phony videos, and by implication, they know that they are phony videos. However, other than a very small number of internet advocates who believe the videos are fake, millions of people believe they saw exactly what they did in fact see; flight 175 hitting WTC2.

Your argument is that anyone who saw the video was obviously not 'fooled', so their numbers should be weighed more heavily than those who were eyewitnesses. This argument is ridiculous.

By the way, we have a friend in lower Manhatten who saw 175 crash into WTC2 with her own eyes. I assure you that this was not an image of any subtlety, nor was she confused or brainwashed by media coverage into believing she saw something she did not see. If you were to confront her with your silly theory she'd suggest you quickly obtain medical attention.

[twhite1]

37. Millions of people DID see faked plane crashes.

A large percentage of those people didn't realize at the time that the planes were fake planes. SOME people did, and the word started
getting around. Now, thanks to the Net, people all over the world know about the faked videos.

The quality of the fake planes is so poor that most people today immediately recognize that the videos were faked. On 9/11, many people only saw the videos very briefly and at that time they had no reason to be skeptical of what was being shown and what they were being told.

Whenever you point out to people the simple fact that it's impossible for a plane to melt into a building, they can see for themselves
that we were all lied to about what happened on 9/11.

Have you posted about your friend before? If so, would you pls. give a link. I'm curious about a few things that you said
about her.

I'm confident that if 1,000 people were shown videos today of the plane crashes and if it was pointed out to them that real planes
can't melt into buildings and they were then asked if it looked to them like what they saw was a real plane or a fake plane crashing
into the WTC, a big majority of the 1,000 people would agree with me and feel sympathy for your friend - even if they were too
polite to say so out loud.

[Flatulo]

39. Sorry, I do not share my friend's info with anonymous people on the internet.

> Millions of people DID see faked plane crashes.

No, they did not.

Your logic is flawed. You assume that because you do not understand the mechanics of an airplane hitting a building at 500 MPH that it is impossible, and you work your argument backwards from there.

Quantum machanics also seems to be impossible to the average non-physicist, and if you explained it to 1,000 people, probably 999 of them would laugh at you. Yet it is quite real.

> Now, thanks to the Net, people all over the world know about the faked videos.

No, people all over the world would think that your beliefs are insane. You need to spend more time in the real world and GET OFF THE FUCKING WEB for a while.

[twhite1]

42. Not what I asked. YOU volunteered that your friend

witnessed a plane crash at the WTC. I merely asked you if you've ever posted anything about that incident, here at DU. Because,
as I said, if you have, I'd like a link to your post so I can read it.

Now, will you please provide a link. Thanks.

[Flatulo]

46. I'm sure I have mentioned it before. You can find it as easily as I can, so feel free. nt

[SDuderstadt]

43. No, you're conflating the actual planes that millions of people saw...

crash with your bizarre belief they could not have been real and trying to tell millions of people they didn't see what they saw. If your goofy bullshit claims were true, the "no-planes" contingent of the "truth movement" would dominate and mainstream "truthers" would not accuse "no-planers" of being "disnfo agents".

To sum up, you're not wanted in the "truth movement" and skeptics can smell your bullshit from faraway and similarly shun you. Where do you have left to go?

[Flatulo]

38. And you know this how...?

> Millions of people know that the planes shown crashing into the WTC are fake.

Other than a few internet cranks, I have never met anyone who believed this.

Have you shared this information with a qualified/licensed therapist? Would you ever? If not, why? If so, what was his/her reaction?

[twhite1]

41. The public isn't stupid. Just as they know that the WC lied

and covered up the truth about the JFK assassination, they're also smart enough to know that planes can't melt into buildings.
Like most other people, I too was fooled by what I saw on TV back in 2001, but once it was pointed out to me that the videos
showed fake plane crashes and I was able to see the videos on the Net (has MSM ever shown them again since 2001?), it was
obvious that the planes and the crashes are fake. Everyone I've ever pointed this out to has agreed.

You say that you have never met anyone who believed it. I'm sure you are honest and sincere. Maybe the reason why
no one that you've met believes the videos are fake has something to do with the people you hang out with and know. Could THAT be why?

[Flatulo]

45. Maybe the reason why ...

> Maybe the reason why no one that you've met believes the videos are fake has something
> to do with the people you hang out with and know. Could THAT be why?

Dude, I'm a professional mechanical engineer. I hang out with highly educated types. And if any of my friends started telling nme that no planes hit the WTC, I would drag them, kicking and screaming if necessary, to a qualified therapist. If they refused to go, I would inform their families that they are having very serious delusions.

[Flatulo]

47. Which of these things is not like the other?

> covered up the truth about the JFK assassination, they're also smart enough to know that planes can't melt into buildings

I really don't see what one has to do with the other.

The JFK assassination may involve deep politics (but I don't think so).

The WTC crashes were physical events with just mountains of eyewitnesses and physical evidence left behind.

Just because you do not understand or believe the evidence, and just because you think thousands of eyewitnesses were 'confused' don't make it so.

[SDuderstadt]

48. If the WC "lied" and "covered up" the truth about the...

JFK assassination, why did later investigations (the HSCA for example) confirm their findings? You can live in your little world of delusions, but rational people are not buying your bizarre claims, dude.

Your inability to answer basic questions is simply more evidence that you have little reasoning capacity and only parrot what you read in absurd conspiracy theory bullshit.

[twhite1]

49. HSCA found reason to believe there was a conspiracy.

The Warren Commission only found a lone nut.

The latest BIG news about the conspiracy to remove JFK from office is...ready? The Zapruder film was altered. Some things
in Spookland never change. Sources do, but many of the methods only evolve. In 1963, FILM of the event was altered (at a secret
CIA/Kodak facility in Rochester, New York). In 2001, VIDEO of the 9/11 events was altered. WHERE? That's not generally known
as of yet. By WHOM? Take a wild guess.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Dude...the HSCA found that Oswald shot at JFK...

three times and hit him twice, killing him with the last shot. Their conclusion that JFK was killed "probably" as a result of a conspiracy, was upon the basis of audio evidence which, when later analyzed under the auspices of the NAS, was found not to be contemporaneous with the assassination.

As far as your goofy claim that the Zapruder film was "altered". it assumes the Zapruder film was the only one and totally ignores the fact tbat actual film experts conclusively showed it had not been altered, your goofy, anonymous "Hollywood film experts", notwithstanding.

Again, I ask. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it? I sincerely implore you to quit "re-bunking" roundly debunked and discredited CT nonsense and embarrassing liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU in the process.

BTW, don't you find it odd that not a single one of your fellow "truthers" are coming t your aid? Hint: you're embarrassing them too.

[twhite1]

52. Name those "actual film experts". Link please.

This is the same old Lone Nutter theorizing that we've had more than enough of over the last four decades. It gets us nowhere because the problems with the evidence it cites are so obvious. Have any of them won an Academy Award?

Your state of knowledge about the case is in bad need of updating. Research has moved way beyond where you appear to be coming from.

[SDuderstadt]

53. "Have any of them won an Academy Award?"

What the fuck kind of stupid-ass question is that? What difference would it make? Last I checked, the Academy does not have a category for "film analysis". Moreover, like most JFK assassination conspiracy buffs, you have literally no knowledge of how the WC or the HSCA went about its work. How in the world do you think you can critique them if you don't even have the slightest idea how they were conducted? Have you ever even read the Warren Commission Report or the conclusions of the HSCA? If you had, you would know the answers to the monumentally stupid questions you ask.

I'm going to guess you're equally unfamiliar with the work of the ARRB, therefore you're probably totally ignorant that the ARRB turned to one of the world's foremost experts on the Bell and Howell camera Zapruder used, Roland Zavada. You can read his report here:

http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm

Start there. BTW, I thought you did not want to go head-to-head with me on the JFK assassination.

[twhite1]

54. Zavada's claim has been proven to be in error.

Rollie Zavada's analysis was from about 15 years ago (approximately)

Here's a little bit about where we are with regards to proof that the Z film was altered:

"as Doug Horne explains on page 1352, he made preliminary contact by email with Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood, who had decades of experience dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. Through her, he arranged to have a 6k (6,000 pixels per frame) version of the Zapruder film viewed by Ned Price, an accomplished film restoration specialist with 24 years experience restoring films from 1919 to the present, Paul Rutan, Jr., the President and CEO of a Hollywood film restoration company, and an independent film editor with about three decades of practical experience, whom he does not name. As Doug reports on page 1361, when they viewed frames 313 through 323, Price, who is the head of a restoration at a major Hollywood film studio, said, "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." And Rutan observed, "We are not looking at opticals: we are looking at artwork", meaning that they were looking at effects that were actually painted onto the original film frames. This is a simple and obvious proof involving direct perception.

What they discovered was that the massive blow-out to the back of the head (which you can see for yourself in frame 374) had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They therefore agreed with Roderick Ryan, who told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), the same thing, which you can read for yourself on pages 159 and 160. Ryan, by the way, received the Academy Award for his important contributions to special-effects cinematography in 2000. While Doug says this is not yet "scientific proof" of alteration, he was mistaken in saying that. Observation, measurement, and experiment are fundamental to scientific inquiries. By creating a 6k version of the film and inviting experts to observe it, he was conducting an experiment with trained observers and soliciting their professional judgment. By comparing those frames with frame 374, for example, the deception is apparent based upon comparisons of the frames themselves. And the experiment has been replicated, where now at least eight Hollywood experts concur."

[SDuderstadt]

55. Sorry....

one book does not prove your claim. Above and beyond that, it defies logic that anyone who had the ability to pull off the conspiracy would do something as easily detectable as painting on the actual frames. More importantly, if you were going to pull off the conspiracy, why would you do it in such a way that would require you to, somehow, identify everyone who shot film that day, somehow get control of their film, somehow alter it then get it back to wherever it was without anyone noticing? Even more importantly, the medical evidence is entirely consistent with the Zapruder film.

I don't care how many "Hollywood experts" you get. It's also notable that these "eight Hollywood experts" are conveneintly not named. You really need to take some critical thinking classes and study the concept of "convergence of evidence" before you just buy whatever CT's are peddling.

Ny the way, you also put several paragraphs in quotation marks, but never provide the link to where you got that material. What are you hiding? The source?

[twhite1]

56. No need to feel sorry.

I can tell that you are simply ignorant (and I don't mean that in the sarcastic manner that you are so accustomed to relying on whenever substance eludes or disfavors your position). How can I tell? Simple.

Only a lightweight would say something like you did
here: "it defies logic that anyone who had the ability to pull off the conspiracy would do something as easily detectable as painting on the actual frames. More importantly, if you were going to pull off the conspiracy, why would you do it in such a way that would require you to, somehow, identify everyone who shot film that day, somehow get control of their film, somehow alter it then get it back to wherever it was without anyone noticing? Even more importantly, the medical evidence is entirely consistent with the Zapruder film."

In your haste to post more heat (never any light), you either overlooked or intentionally pretended not to notice the names given in
my comment. But that's okay. For a nanosecond, I thought you might be up to the task of defending your favorite Lone Nutter Theory (at least until your current favorite - Osama - came along), but sure as rain, you fell down and you're still all wet.

The state of JFK assassination research is advancing rapidly these days. Have some ketchup.

[SDuderstadt]

57. And why would only a lightweight say that?

And, as to your post, are you really claiming you named all the "Hollywood experts"? And, interestingly enough, Horne doesn't talk about 8 "Hollywood experts", he talks about 7. Even more interestingly, Horne says nothing definitive can be known until tests are conducted using the same make and model of Bell and Howell camera as Zapruder used, so it is clear that either you or whoever wrote what you included in your post (which we don't know, because you provided no link) are misrepresenting what Horne has concluded. More quote mining...typical CT tactic.

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

BTW, how in the world could Osama bin Laden be considered to be a "lone nutter"? Have you witnessed anyone here accuse him of pulling off any attacks all on his own? Furthermore, other than Doug Horne, whoever you cited only names 3 people. So. who are the other 4 or 5 and why is that omitted?

[Flatulo]

50. You forgot to answer my question...

Have you ever shared your 'no plane' theory with a licensed therapist?

I'm not trying to be funny here. I want to gauge the depth of your commitment to this idea.

Are you certain enough to tell a qualified mental health professional? If, as you say, millions of people can see the 'truth' as you can, there would surely be nothing at all to be ashamed or afraid of in sharing this with a professional...?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. You should pick up "Firefight" by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman

Full title: "Firefight: Inside The Battle To Save The Pentagon on 9/11"

There most certainly was a large jumbo jet at the Pentagon. Flight 77 flew into the building. Some debris landed outside in the explosion, but most of it went into the building. People, actual people, cleaned it up.

More immediate evidence:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=816414

[Ter]

84. A plane or a undoctored video

And not just a hole.

BTW, I certainly believe planes hit the WTC towers, but absolutely not the Pentagon.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

there are 100+ direct eyewitnesses who saw the fucking plane hit the Pentagon. To me, that trumps your personal incredulity.

[spooked911]

58. This hardly kills the idea of no-planes

For one, tanks of jet fuel could have been planted in the towers along with the explosives used to mimic the plane crashes. So that's the simplest explanation.

Another possibility is that these people were wrong-- that they were burned by something else and were manipulated into thinking it was jet fuel. The idea that large amounts of burning jet fuel splashed down hundreds of feet in elevator shafts and then went inside elevators has always been problematic anyway, given the layout of the elevators, and the amount of jet fuel that could conceivably go into a shaft.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Jesus, Spooked...

the "simplest" explanation would be that jets crashed into the towers, as witnessed contemporaneously by innumerable people. Do you honestly expect us to believe that, if your goofy bullshit were true, NO ONE would later say, "Hey, what was in those large tanks that were moved into the WTC prior to 9/11?". Indeed, you don't have a single witness who says anything of the sort, dude, but you do have a plethora of witnesses who saw the planes crash.

The very fact that you cannot explain how live witnesses could have seen (or heard, for that matter) "fake planes", combined with the fact that there is not a single video that shows the towers exploding WITHOUT planes crashing, is why there's only about 4 of you who parade your "no planes" delusions here. No rational person believes your goofy bullshit, dude. I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU with your inanity. It's truly astounding to me how you can advance such absurd nonsense with a straight face.

[igetalong]

60. Go get 'em, tiger. EOM

[spooked911]

64. the simplest explanation is not always the proper explanation

I don't give a shit if you "believe" this; what I know is that the evidence supports the idea of extreme fakery.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Yet, you can't explain how live witnesses could...

have seen "fake" planes and there's not a single video showing either tower exploding WITHOUT planes crashing into them, both of which render your goofy "no-planes" scenarios as nothing more than your delusions. Please quit embarrassing liberalism and the Democratic Party, in general, and DU, in particular, with your goofy bullshit.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Dude...parading your delusion around here IS...

an embarrassment. Your claims are totally absurd and defy Logic. The most embarrassing thing is you can't see why someone would reject your goofy bullshit on its face, dude. Tell me something, Spooked...since the "perps" could not possibly known in advance the various angles the attack could have been filmed, how could the videos have been pre-made?

Beyond that, when confronted by logical questions that would cause most people to re-evaluate their claim, you just sink deeper into your delusions. I mean, really, all the people with videos that show the towers exploding with no plane hitting them have been "coerced into not talking"?? Simple question: How did the "perps" identify all the people who possessed such video, if those people did not first come forward? And, do you really expect us to believe that they just happened to come forward to only people who were "in on it"?

Dude, your wild delusions are not only embarrassing, they are an absolute affront to the victims and their families. Please come back down to earth and quit accusing those of us who prefer to live in an evidence-based world of being "shill-like".

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Hey...why don't you step up and take a whack at...

defending the goofy "no-planes" bullshit, then you can be an object of derision just like Spooked.

Please try to answer any of the questions I posed. Are you up to it?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Nevermind...

I mistook you for a serious poster.

[Flatulo]

61. This is your simplest explanation?

Someone, completely undetected, planted explosives in the shape of the frontal view of an airplane along the outside of the outer perimeter columns, then blew the columns inward, while also arranging to have airplane debris planted in the streets without anyone noticing, and simultaneously ignited some thousands of gallons of jet fuel to burn, I don't know, some people in the lobby. And then they managed to arrange for the buildings to initiate a collapse precisely where the airplane shaped holes were blown in.

At the very same instant all this was happening, every single video feed from multiple networks was intercepted and had CGI images of airplanes substituted for empty space. And further, every single camera and camcorder in private hands was somehow accounted for, taken over, and then controlled in some way to also insert a CGI image of an airplane.

In addition to this, some number of people who claim to have seen flight 175 hit WTC2 are either lying, mistaken, brainwashed, traumatized, hysterical or just plain wrong.

In addition to the above, hundreds of people got onto airplanes that morning and simply never arrived at their destination. So somewhere 200+ civilians were disappeared without a trace.

This is your simplest explanation, then, yes?

[SDuderstadt]

62. In "SpookedWorld"...

that would suffice as the simplest explanation.

[spooked911]

63. I didn't say the complete operation was simple

but nice try to twist my words

[Flatulo]

65. Have I mis-characterized your interpretation of the events?

If I have, sorry... please clarify.

It seems to me that you are so completely fixated on the (apparent) impossibility of an airplane penetrating a steel and glass building that there is absolutely no scenario sufficiently bizarre or unlikely that you will not latch onto it in order to support your belief.

Airplane debris on the streets and surrounding rooftops? No problem - it was all planted.

Eyewitnesses? No problem - they're all just hysterical or confused.

DNA evidence? No problem - all planted.

Missing passengers and planes? No problem - the perps have disappeared them.

Dozens of videos and photos showing the crash of 175? No problem - they've all been faked.

Columns that blow inward? No problem - magic explosives planted on the outside of the most visible landmark for a thousand miles.

People in the lobby doused/burned with jet fuel? No problem - storage tanks magically planted.

I could go on for hours. Spooked, you are truly a unique individual. About the only thing missing from your narrative is black holes and space aliens... but I'm a patient man.

[sgsmith]

67. Nukes

Ya forgot the nukes!
Micro nukes. The kind that don't give off the signatures of normal nukes.

And I seem to recall chicken wire building "models" and gasoline proved that the WTC towers couldn't have collapsed.

[Flatulo]

68. Yeah, I forgot the nukes. My bad.

Spooked keeps me young!

[spooked911]

70. yeah, the nuclear destruction of the WTC

is freaking hilarious-- as is denying the evidence.

What a life.

But what can you expect from someone named "Flatulo"?

[Flatulo]

71. That's really funny Spooked... I'll stake my credibility here against

yours any day of the week.

You do know that you are something of a curiosity here, don't you?

As I've suggested before to other no-planers, have you ever discussed your theory with a mental health professional? What do you think the outcome of that discussion would be, and why?

[AZCat]

79. Except your evidence isn't evident.

You have made some claims that seem to be supported largely by your conclusions, not by actual evidence. What do you expect us to do, when confronted with such poorly supported arguments?

[spooked911]

69. As I said, it wasn't a simple operation

"the (apparent) impossibility of an airplane penetrating a steel and glass building that there is absolutely no scenario sufficiently bizarre or unlikely that you will not latch onto it in order to support your belief."

Well, that is a fairly important issue-- and no one can explain the official story here because clearly the official story is impossible. What does glass have to do with this? It's the thick steel columns that were key.

But it's not like the whole idea of 9/11 being an inside job and a massive psy-op rests on that one thing. There is so much that shows it was an inside job and a massive psy-op.

"Columns that blow inward?" It's also probable that floors were blown coincident with the hole, which would pull columns inward.

There was nothing magic about any of this. The "plane impact" floors underwent extensive renovation prior to 9/11, which is when they set up the explosives and planted the fuel that produced the pyrotechnics.

Arguing that the operation was too complex is not much of an argument against, especially given the power and motivation of the perps.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Dude...

do you have any evidence at at that the impact floors were "extensively renovated" prior to 9/11?? If you don't, quit embarrassing yourself by just making shit up, dude.

The more you try to explain your goofy "no-planes" bullshit, the more you make yourself an object of derision here. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't clearly see why your claims are aburd on their face. It's truly comical.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Kick for duphase...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

83. Kick

[f11killerbeing]

88. Aha

Well

[Realityhack]

89. I smell Pizza n/t

[Boojatta]

90. Kick

[HillmanHunter]

91. Jim Fetzer who started this mess is the JFK communities weakest link.

I mean even Alex Jones of all people avoids the guy.

Fetzer has a messiah complex and has no discernment what so ever.

As for the Zap alterations. Who knows? Bob Groden thinks its utterly bunk. All I know is that I'm sure as hell not gonna take anything that Fetzer says seriously. He's got a truly awful track record anything good he's ever done just gets destroyed by bunk.
I mean anybody who associates and advocates with Greg Hallet my god.

Using Fetzer for your argument gives the game to anybody opposed 9/11 Truth.

Theres waaaaaayyyy better sources out there.

[SDuderstadt]

92. I'll be blunt...

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.

[HillmanHunter]

93. check the link

Jim Fetzer had a mass falling out with Alex Jones over this. It makes for some funny as heck reading. Fetzer it seems was the first to back the idea. Its a funny to see Jones actually getting something right for a change.

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/disinfo.html

This is how the whole no plan nonsense began.

[SDuderstadt]

94. I'm sure Spooked (Spooked911)....

thinks the "no-planes" buillshit is his own idea, except he sincerely believes this nonsense.

[HillmanHunter]

95. He seems like a nice enough guy.

Why so harsh lol. But yeah. I mean if Alex Jones can make someone look
foolish then you have a whole heap of problems. I just don't get this
goddamn no planes B.S It really is the most idiotic thing I have come
across in all my meanderings.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Spooked is a "nice enough guy"....

however, nice and wrong is still wrong. More importantly, his "no-planes" bullshit is patently offensive to anyone who lost a loved one that day and deeply embarrassing to DU. I'd offer to trade him to Free Republic, but I cannot think of anyone we'd want from there.

If you really want to have some fun, venture by Spooked's website and peruse the video in which the author claims the right wing represents "pure freedom" and fascism/Nazism is leftwing. I hope that Spooked does not believe that bullshit.

[HillmanHunter]

97. Oh man. Im a 9/11 agnostic but 'groannnn'

Oh no not one of the guys who thinks the Rockefellers are socialists crowd again.
Thats as bad as no planes hitting the building.