I Beg Everyone, Please Emanine The 'no-planes' Theories

[stanteau]

This one even leaves a shadow on the smoke

[standvast]

Quote:If you can see the plane here why not here what is so drastically different about these angles to the point that one would cover the plane and not the other?

please man, these video's are of such horrible quality, pretending to analyse this is futile.
why don't you get the original far sharper version of the tracker and put those side by side..
if then you are still convinced there is no plane,.. we'll talk again.

Quote:As for shooting debris all over the place I think this video shows SOMETHING shooting through the towers almost a whole second after impact at a very high speed. If you can say that's nothing than I can't say anything to you.

i can't say it's nothing? i'm pretty sure it's something.
seriously, if not the right engine or another piece of debris , what are you implying this is ?
a stealth plane claoked as a boeing flying through the tower [unscathed] ??

Quote:This one even leaves a shadow on the smoke

"this" being beforementioned stealth craft,.??. only this time jetting by while the tower falls?
:huh:Has it ever occured to you that you may be clutching at thin straws ?

:smirk:

peace'

[stanteau]

Quote:Has it ever occured to you that you may be clutching at thin straws ?

I can say the same thing to you

:wink:

peace

[yyy]

The Mark 1 stealth Yankee Doodle pidgeon flies through the frame. Very suspicious. Any more blurry no resolution evidence?

[Bobert]

Since the footage is such low resolution why not call up the TV station that shot this footage with the High 5 logo and get a copy of the original stock footage of the plane hitting the towers then post a max resolution copy in Divx or Xvid or mpeg on the tracker? I'd actually like to see the original unedited footage myself, but in high quality.

[ephilution]

Quote:...If you actually believe that than I have little else to say to you other than I disagree, you should be able to see at least PART of the plane in this video but you don't, why? Are we talking about the same video? Because from this angle you can clearly see the plane and it's the same exact shot.

No it's not the "same exact shot" because the camera vantage points are different in the two pieces of footage. You can convince yourself of this fact by observing the difference in position of the two towers on the 2D image projection rendered by the footage.

Rephrased, the camera is more aligned with the two towers in the second shot. The latter footage offers thus a wider angle visibility than the former. Also the camera heights are different in both shots (the latter is placed lower than the former). This difference in camera angles makes it possible that while the plane is visible in the second footage the plane remains invisible in the first as visibility is obstructed by the particular position of the towers relative to the camera.

[TraxusIV]

Alright, Man. Please, for me, go read up on logical falicies. You are not understanding that you are not actually making arguments backed by anything. It is all mainly conjecture. Your implications and conclusions dont follow the "evidence" that you post. And, you complain about people not arguing your evidence, when that is exactly what I am doing.

Quote:So what's a better explanation? The plane hit was so convincing they didn't feel it needed to be shown again? It's ok to pick apart things like this on the JFK assassination or anything to do with Israel, but not 9/11? These are REAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE VIDEOS

This, along with its implications fall under like 5 different falicies. I am really not trying to be a dick here. But, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone here, youve got to shape up what you say, ESPECIALLY when you are coming from a place that most already have dismissed.

Quote:An amateur video like this?

That link doesnt work. But, id be more than happy to watch it. This is a good example of logic that follows. If you bring forth evidence of a video that shows no plane hitting, it does grant acknowledgment of the possibility of a discrepancy. And discrepancies in the video do bring the validity of the videotaped events into question. BUT!!! that does not account for the validity of anything but video, and it also does not credit your theories about no planes.

Quote:What is poor argument? Citing everything you say or calling an argument horseshit 5 times without explaining the evidence and calling people "retards"?

Alright, come on man. Seriously, this quote is exactly what I am talking about. This is nothing but strawman argument. You put retard in quotes when I never said the word retard once, and I never said the word horseshit once., let alone 5 times.

Now, logic problems dont mean you are wrong, they just mean your means of communication is. So, if I were to call "no planes" theory horseshit, just based on your lack of logic, I would be logically falacious. But, If I were to call you a retard, that does not necessarily mean that my statements would fall under ad hominem, which I assume you were implying. You see, I would be able to call you a retard all I want and not have it hinder the credibility of my reasoning as long as my reasoning did not rest upon you being retarded. In other words, one can attack another just as long as that one's arguments do not depend on the attack. But, lets remember, I did not call you a retard.

Anyways, please. Think through your words a bit more.

[OWN-the-NWO]

Quote:seems standvast just did what all of us were to lazy to do. thanks :smile:

we're not too lazy. Most of us have already seen it all before and don't really care to re-hash the same truths to those who care not to listen.

[JohnDoe1984]

This reminds me of the Anti-Christ Beetle thread. :biggrin:

Cyrus?..

[Skinski7]

[stanteau]

Like 99% of all conspiracy theories you have to believe it to believe it. My dad still says JFK's head movement has nothing to do with anything and Oswald shot him, and he has JFK in his video library. He still says there's no squibs coming out the WTC when they collapse. He still says the Pentagon got hit by a plane!

You either see it or you don't, but the fact that even 1 video source doesn't match the rest means that there was some sort of video manipulation used.

I see the nose going through the building, a feat that is physically impossible, you somehow see an engine (even though it matches the pixel test absolutely 100% perfectly), I see bright flashing orbs consistent with those in lots of chemtrail footages, giant super-fast birds and trails of cloaked SOMETHING heading towards the tower when the plane should be hitting, and you don't see any of this.

That's all.

I think I see these things, you think you don't.

It was fun though.

P.S. didn't mean to say you said retard or horseshit but someone did and I don't keep track of posters, I know that's bad