Title: Get your planes here Source:
me URL Source:[None] Published:Sep 15, 2010 Author:me Post Date:2010-09-15 01:48:24 by RickyJ Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:2364 Comments:20
See the plane hit the big tall building. See it go boom! Too bad no planers can't see it. They are blind to planes and think video editing doesn't leave signs behind that any expert can easily see.
Thousands of people said they saw planes hit the buildings, 100s of videos recorded planes hitting the buildings, yet you think there was no planes. Most people would call that insane, I call it being a damn government stooge out to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
Thousands of people said they saw planes hit the buildings, 100s of videos recorded planes hitting the buildings, yet you think there was no planes. Most people would call that insane, I call it being a damn government stooge out to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
No no no, I am not asking for answers about the thousands of witnesses.
And some of the things my questions were about can only be seen on those videos if they are there. I am not a stooge. Of course for all I know ...let me just say that I do not think you are a stooge myself nor a shill, nor anything else like that.
All planes create wake vortex and when they crash it is really identifiable through the resulting explosion..
Could you point it out to anyone with some video?
And what of the backround and forground issues in all the different tapes? Why are their backround and forground issues? If a video as such an issue shouldn't it be dismissed as conclusive video evidence?
Other questions had to do with computer programming , basically how did the turn off the hard ware and soft ware safeties of the plane?
Thousands of people said they saw planes hit the buildings, 100s of videos recorded planes hitting the buildings, yet you think there was no planes. Most people would call that insane, I call it being a damn government stooge out to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
You need to start documenting your claims of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of videos. Repeating baseless claims over and over doesn't make them true and compromises your own credibility. Numerous sources have been provided here debunking many witnesses, all of which you seem to ignore. Which reported witnesses in this source -- posted by wudidiz, showing that a large majority of them neither saw or heard a plane -- do you want to list among your alleged thousands for debates and which do you want to deduct from a listing?
There were very few "live" network videos and less than 50 amateur videos. That does not even amount to 100, let alone 100s plural. I doubt you can find an amateur video that hasn't been debunked or stands as unquestionable, or think you should have to do more than claim 100s as if that's so and none have been disproven. Of the news clips running live at the 9:02 WTC 2 "impact" time, CBS showed no plane, just an explosion. Repeat: CBS showed no plane, just an explosion. FOX and CNN don't even seem to have their own video. For some odd reason, those major networks were evidently importing footage from their competitor, ABC, and FOX announced the 2nd plane impact when the footage showed no plane or an explosion. MSNBC showed only an orb approaching and twice no plane impact before airing footage that did, likely also imported from their competitor ABC. So, the only original network footage showing a plane image live at 9:02 is apparently from ABC, which hides WTC 2 from view behind WTC 1 before the alleged impact and explosion at WTC 2. Here are the sources for that analysis: