Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
02-21-2012, 06:37 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
02-21-2012, 11:11 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-21-2012, 11:11 PM by rsol.)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Quote:I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too.

what can you read into that sentence?
02-21-2012, 11:43 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." CASE CLOSED.

David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and did not photograph one because there was no plane.

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED
. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME
. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower
..."

[Image: wtcnoplanepic.jpg]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=25
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
02-22-2012, 01:42 AM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what really would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.

[Image: two-flight-paths_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
[Image: wtctwopaths.jpg]
[Image: wtcbbcdivebomb.jpg]
[Image: fake-bird-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
02-22-2012, 01:54 AM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
I think 7forever ate a lot of lead paint chips when he was a baby.
02-26-2012, 12:20 AM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
We all know now that fake 175 rose in altitude in its final seconds of fake approach, thanks, to some keen eye.

[Image: LUISALONSOtrajectories.gif]
[Image: jack_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
03-03-2012, 06:58 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.

[Image: wtcbogeyeditpic.jpg]
[Image: bogey-edit_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVijMv5t8&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=157&feature=plpp_video
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
03-04-2012, 07:29 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
All folks who filmed the bogey felt obligated and/or afraid for their lives before turning over their footage to law enforcement. If it was a bird or something else, why edit at that moment and we already have 4 broadcasts with the object in it where media lunatics call it the plane once they realize it was the only thing in their respective footage. I would not be surprised if these foia releases left out the owners names.

The most important thing about this angle, is the northeast view, which would have shown the orb circle the south tower, literally. We have techmac's cgi with no right wing for proof of someone cropping out that same NE view and impossible turn.

[Image: no-right-wing_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
03-16-2012, 05:45 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Whomever Cloud turned his footage over to, added a black blob. Clifton, did not hear nor see a plane. It would have been coming from his left. Clifton, debunks all video fakery shown on 911. Advance to 2:00 for his real-time account. He says it over and over and over and over. He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. The blob cannot be seen south of where it magically appeared. He was about a mile east of the towers and slightly north.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."

[Image: clifton-blob_h_GIFSoupcom-1.gif]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY30&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=139&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
03-27-2012, 04:08 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
yankee451;229805 Wrote:I don't get all that out of the thread, but I have made a fool out of myself with these videos before. Does that make me a truthling?

So are you saying the media which broadcast cartoon planes are to be trusted when they claim this is real? Was it a plane then?

What do you believe it was?

It wasn't a plane. The media initially either didn't see it, pretended not to see it, or mistook it for a chopper and ultimately were forced to call it 'the plane'. It casts its own shadow confirming it was real and not an artifact. It was a remotely controlled object which apparently was some type of ignition device for the bombs planted inside the south tower.

[Image: wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif]
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
04-02-2012, 11:13 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Flight 93 was spotted on April 10, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport by a UA employee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QAh0rBrew&feature=related
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- James Fetzer
04-09-2012, 06:03 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-09-2012, 06:37 AM by Negentropic.)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
(02-14-2012, 04:13 AM)Sovereignman Wrote: I am definitely not buying the no planes theory.

The only one I question is the pentagon hit. And the one in I think Virginia or Pennsylvania, that touched down in a field, because of the lack of aircraft parts.

But I have seen many different angles of the twin towers and all of them look like aircraft hitting them.

Really? What are you doing on this thread then? Showing everyone how lazy you are ? Did you even read the very first post and watch the video?

You have seen nothing but different versions of the same 45 FAKE videos, both live & so-called 'amateur,' each one analyzed and proven to be fake 100% conclusively. No others have turned up or will turn up. All the details on this same thread posted earlier for you to completely ignore at your leisure so that you can believe in fairy-tale #2 contructed for you by the controlled opposition gatekeepers.

What do you have to say to that, Mr. Ronny 'Bin Laden did it' Paul ?

Why don't you go back and at least consider some of the info presented on this thread instead of just making uninformed, self-satisfied comments digested for you by shills like Alex Jones ?

Let's see you find the original serial #'s of the black boxes of these so-called planes that are ALWAYS & AT ALL TIMES recorded before the plane takes off and have NEVER GONE MISSING in the history of post-black-box aviation before or since.

When you're done joogling away to come up empty, let's see a single plane part out of millions from each plane at the 4 crash sites matched to the plane it came from and independently verified to have been matched. Where is it ?

Let's see you find the death certificates of more than 249 people who died that day of the CNN list of dead. You can't ? Then what possible justification do you have for believing the mainstream media and alternative media fairy tale of planes and for continuing to hug planes ?

The Easter Bunny awaits you

[Image: Easter-Bunny-.jpg]


Quote: eyeland wrote:
Amazing. Tell me. Were these people involved in amatuer dramatics in your opinion? Or just wannabe actors? They couldn't have been established actors could they? Someone would have recognised them wouldn't they? If they had been well established actors.

So, they must have either been involved in amatuer dramatics or just wannabe actors. Maybe they were frustrated failed actors that were prepared to take a vast one off payment for their one and only acting job ever.


That's beside the point. It makes no difference how they were compensated or even if they were not compensated but extorted and blackmailed to do it. Bottom line is they did it and they were recorded looking extremely suspicious and even ridiculous doing it & aired over a fully controlled mainstream mass media to later be exposed by a few inquiring people like Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Judy Wood and James Fetzer .

Quote: eyeland wrote:
How much do you think they received as a payment for the only acting job they would ever do? They surely would have had to sign a contract with the big evil 9/11 faker perps to only ever act once in their entire careers to safeguard against them being found out in their roles and fake plane eyewitnesses. It must have been a big tempting lump sum.


What do you mean a 'big tempting lump sum' ? Stop projecting on others your own morality and what you would or wouldn't do, the price you would charge for being one of millions of comformist ass-kissers on the 'winning team' of a cabal of Jew NWO banksters. Or maybe you think that you could not be bought off ? Fine, then you're a person with integrity. Unfortunately world events have proven over and over again that integrity is one of the rarest character traits in the world. People have murdered people for much less, for a fix of heroin or a few dollars for santaclausesakes ! If you think that enormously powerful people with trillions of dollars will not murder hundreds of thousands of people to consolidate their power, much less 249 on 9/11 (see Simon Shack / Salem News posts above for the actual facts regarding the 'victims') , you would not only be one of the most naive people on the planet but have no explanation whatsoever except the same old tired and cowardly rationalizations for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistian, Libya, just to name a few. There is NOTHING special about Americans except that they and the British are the main useful idiots, the trained attack dogs of the international Judaic cabal. That's where the power is concentrated and has been for the past 200 years.

Read "Under The Sign of the Scorpion" by Juri Luna

http://www.conspirazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/lina-sign-scorpion.pdf


if you want the fascinating and documented details of how this was accomplished.

Suffice it to say that the mostly gentile and much more numerous freemasons are controlled by them, hence, Adolf Hitler's banning of freemasonry in the Reich.


Quote: eyeland wrote:
So then, if all the eyewitnesses that said they saw a plane are actors, then how many actors were out on the street that day? Have you counted up how many "eyewitnesses" there are altogether?


First of all, I'm so sick and tired of repeating for the ten-thousandth time here and on other sites and you tube, the very simple concept that any 8 year old should grasp, but which, apparently, grown adults with university lobotomies who actually make a living in professions outside of burger-flipping have a hard time grasping:

Eyewitness testimony, no matter how many the number of 'eyewitnesses,' NEVER AND IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE proves any event without HARD EVIDENCE. Not in any proper court of law purporting to stand up for justice and inalienable individual rights as those of the Western nations supposedly do (Note: video, photos or audio of an event are NOT hard evidence if they have been FAKED and CERTAINLY NOT hard evidence if NOTHING ELSE is discovered or turns up to corroborate them, such as an actual, physical murder weapon, dead victims, etc.)

Eyewitnesses can lead the investigator to the scene of an event, at which point , if it is a criminal event YOU GATHER THE HARD EVIDENCE of the event: bodies, murder weapon, missing funds, broken safe lock, blood, hair, skin, sperm, etc.

IF YOU SEARCH FOR AND DO NOT DISCOVER THE HARD EVIDENCE at the scene, you can do one of two things:

1- You can disregard the statement of the eyewitnesses as mistaken or born of deliberate malice and conclude that no criminal event of the kind described by the eyewitnesses occurred.

2- You can BELIEVE that a crime occurred but THE HARD EVIDENCE HAS BEEN COVERED UP and will turn up one day. However, and this applies only in CIVILIZED COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE medieval Patriot Act legislation, you cannot keep EVEN A SINGLE PERSON in jail based on your 'belief' in criminal Santa Clauses, much less bomb hundreds of thousands of people into pieces in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of it. That's why the mainstream media just pretends that the evidence is all there when none of it is there while the plane-huggers in the alternative media are even worse, they KNOW the mainstream tale is a gigantic pile of absolute dogshit but still cling to completely unproven fantasies of 'remote controlled planes' based on speculation and without one piece of hard evidence where hard evidence should have been plentiful for all to see.

John Lear's 9/11 No Plane Affidavit:

http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080128_94A...itLear.pdf



There is no such thing as ALL the people said this or ALL the people said that. It's only mass psychology applied through media manipulation that can convince people of any lie or absurd idea repeated enough times that appeases their ego and vanity rather than provide another reason for insecurity and paranoia.

The eyewitnesses were a combination of a few actors hired to construct the event in the public's mind and actual people on the street who either only saw an explosion or thought they saw a plane, after the event. Not that it makes one bit of difference WHAT THEY SAW if the HARD EVIDENCE isn't there to back it up.

You cannot say that the 'evidence of planes is there,' sans any black boxes, sans not a single matched plane part to the plane out of millions of numbered parts, sans even a single non-faked video, sans even any original serial #'s for the black boxes, but has been covered up SO THAT THE REMOTE CONTROLLED GLOBAL HAWK PLANES cannot be discovered !

That is absolutely absurd ! You might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

[Image: Darth-Vader-Easter-Bunny--55857.jpg]



Quote: eyeland wrote:
Did all the "on the scene" reporters get a briefing to only interview the actors and no one else. How was this done? Were they all shown photographs of the actors beforehand and then briefed on exactly were to be so the fake plane eyewitnesses could pull up in their cars etc, like the tash guy and deliver their fake plane script right on cue?


No, a few key people were in on it along with the actors and interviewed the actors, others did not, they just interviewed people on the street who were more than willing to say that they saw 'a plane' in order to corroborate what they had already been told were 'planes' by the media. So, even if they did not see anything but an explosion, they weren't going to look foolish and / or put their asses on the line by saying they didn't see any planes. Some eyewitnesses reported that there were no planes, only an explosion but most of those were blocked out of the networks. All the local stations were forced off the air on 9-11 and all you got was the same 5 major networks coverage of the event that everyone else on the planet got.


Simon Shack - Synched Out





5 TV Networks
Synchronized
September 11, 2001
8:52AM - 9:03 AM

From the Official 9/11 TV Archives


Make sure you MAXIMIZE this video on your monitor because all 5 channels at the same time are hard to see in the small viewing space here


Quote: eyeland wrote:
Would the reporters have had to memorise all the photographs of the actors or did the camera crews, the reporters and the fake plane eyewitnesses (the actors) all just go to the scene together in vans and then jump out ready to film their pre-planned script for the unsuspecting public?

How did the guy who says it was a bomb slip through the net as it were?


Who knows how he 'slipped through the net' ? Obviously the reporter wasn't expecting the surprise and moved on, figuring they would edit it out at the studio. If it was a live 7-second delay broadcast, they could have theoretically edited him out in real time but maybe they weren't paying attention just at that instant and the 7 seconds passed them by and it went on the air. Another possibility is they did notice it but just didn't think it mattered much if it went on the air once because they would edit that part out after the first showing and never show it again. The second scenario is less likely because they know that plenty of people out there would have their VCR's going full-time on all the networks they can manage to cover for as long as they can cover it the day of an event like this.

With either scenario, the result was the same. How many people saw this live snippet and remembered it? Not many and even those that saw it would distrust their memory after a while without video proof. You didn't see the people that only saw an explosion on the networks or anywhere else, did you? Right and you would have never even known that eyewitnesses who only saw an explosion existed if not for someone having recorded that live broadcast, caught them in their little embarrassing mistake, and posted it on you tube.



Quote: eyeland wrote:
Did the "bomb" eyewitness just look a bit like one of the pictures of the actors that the reporters had to memorise and the reporter just thought that the "bomb" guy looked like one of the actors whose pictures he had seen?

Please answer these questions/ It always puzzles me


Well, there are two ways you can do this.

The reporter knows the actors are going to be out there among the real people and goes out and interviews them along with a bunch of real people, knowing if the wrong thing is said it can be edited out either with 7-second delay or in any future broadcasts.

The reporter isn't told about the actors but assigned to the area where the actors show up and give him a nice little farce for his cameras.

The result is the same and very simple to set up when you have complete control of the 5 networks allowed to report on 9-11 events.



This particular audio here, done way back in 2008, is a MUST. It does a brilliant in-depth analysis of both the reporters who initially reported seeing 'only an explosion' and no planes and then subsequently changed their mind after being told 'there were planes' and the people on the street who didn't see or hear any planes, just an explosion. In addition, the obvious 9/11 actors interviewed to set up the fake story of 'planes' to go along with the fake vidoes are analyzed point by point. Everyone who has an interest in this thread or the topic of No-Planes & Media Fakery FACTS should absolutely listen to this audio:

Ace Baker - Media Fakery Timeline Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer - 15 Jan 2008.mp3 (7.9 MB)
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202008.mp3



NOTE: This guy did a LOT of brilliant research and there is a LOT of info presented even in just this one audio, so, unless you're stopping the audio to take notes and reflect on what you just heard, you should listen MULTIPLE TIMES so that it all sinks in.





Once you're done with that one, listen to these:


Ace Baker -9-11 Video Fakery(Harzakani)-Dynamic Duo- 07 Nov 2007.mp3 (7.9
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202007.mp3

Ace Baker - 9-11 Video Fakery - Dynamic Duo - 27 Sep 2007.mp3 (7.9 MB)
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202007.mp3

Ace Baker - 911 Video Fakery - Dynamic Duo - 18 Dec 2007.mp3 (7.9 MB)
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202007.mp3






''You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, a British journalist - But seeing what the man will do, unbribed, there's no occasion to.' - Humbert Wolfe


GEORGE ORWELL ON THE PRESS

'At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the other, but it is 'not done.'. . . Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals.' - George Orwell.


THE REGIMENTATION OF THOUGHT

'The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . The important thing is that [propaganda] is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.' - Edward Bernays 'Propaganda'.

'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' - George Orwell


'Lies come first, and drag along the gullible. Truth limps in long afterward on the arm of time.' - Balthazar Gracian.



'There is no such thing as an independent Press in America, unless it is in the country towns.. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you express an honest opinion, you know beforehand it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my newspaper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his race and his country for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes.' - John Swinton, Editor of the New York Tribune, to the New York Press Association, on February 26 1936


"The Internet poses a fundamental threat not only to the authority of the government, but to all authority, because it permits people to organize, think, and influence one another without any institutional supervision whatsoever.' - John Seabrook. American journalist at The New Yorker since 1993.



'I have heard MPs and senior political aficionados complain that if they were to say on BBC what they really think, they would never be invited again, and not to be invited again could make a quick end to an aspiring politician's prospects.' - Roy Bramwell, Inter-City Research Centre. Blatant Bias Corporation

'When it came to discussing the war in Iraq staff found it so difficult to find any member of the public prepared to speak in favour that they ended up planting people in the (Question Time) audience.' - Autobiography: BBC Director-General, Greg Dyke. Mail on Sunday. October 24 2004.

'You tend to find that television does accumulate around it left-of-centre people.... and the whole direction of television is left-of-centre.' - Anthony Smith, BBC Twenty For Hours, 1970/1971.


'The papers conducted by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook are not newspapers in the ordinary acceptance of the term. They are engines of propaganda, for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal wishes, personal likes and dislikes of two men... it is power without responsibility' - Stanley Baldwin, British Prime Minister 1924-1929 and 1935-1937.

'Political correctness is just another way of filtering the truth.' - Sir Peter Hall, Theatre Director.

'This is, in theory still a free country, but our politically correct, censorious times are such that many of us tremble to give vent to perfectly acceptable views for fear of condemnation. Freedom of speech is thereby imperiled, big questions go undebated, and great lies become accepted, unequivocally as great truths.' - Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, June 7 2000.


"A slave is one who can speak neither well of Hitler or ill of Jewry" - Frederick Toben


"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed". -- Mark Twain




[Image: police_car_accident-4017.jpg]
Ghost planes with wings that disappear into massive 500,000 ton concrete and steel buildings ? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! I don't think so !

All you plane-huggers still out there need to stop drinking the kool-aid now or risk permanent insanity and brain damage in the la-la land of 2+2=5 with the rest of the sheeple
04-09-2012, 08:48 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-09-2012, 08:50 AM by Zammo.)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
It is crap like this that keeps the truth about 9/11 ever being discovered.

Of course 2 planes hit the twin towers, it was clear as day to see. The camera footage that has been posted in this thread has been carefully selected, edited and screwed with so you can try to prove your argument. Your evidence in inconclusive and circumstantial. We are not fools.

Quote:You have seen nothing but different versions of the same 45 FAKE videos, both live & so-called 'amateur,' each one analyzed and proven to be fake 100% conclusively.

Oh really? Like what you have posted here, the snippets of a few seconds, in poor quality, some even made into a .gif are verbatim? They are ridiculous and pathetic attempts to distort facts to fit your own story. Are you the guy that created Obama's birth certificate?

Quote:Let's see you find the original serial #'s of the black boxes of these so-called planes that are ALWAYS & AT ALL TIMES recorded before the plane takes off and have NEVER GONE MISSING in the history of post-black-box aviation before or since.

Erm, where have you been? It was widely report that all 4 black boxes were found. Or are you choosing to ignore this fact because it doesn't fit in with your story.

If we know nothing else about 9/11, there is one thing that there is no doubt about... 2 planes hit those towers. They may not have been the planes that took off carrying the passengers, but they were planes. The pentagon was very unlikely to be a plane.

How do you expect remains of peoples property to be found after it was crashed into a building with a plane, exploding into a fire ball, burnt at 800'c, fell 110 stories and then had the building collapse on to of it? Not only that, anything that did somehow remain intact was hidden by the FBI or loaded into dump trucks and sent to china as fast as humanly possible by the major.

You are not working to expose the truth, your misleading rants only serve to discredit any work that is being done in the 9/11 truth movement. You are only making it easy for the government to avoid our questions about what happened that day and label us all crazy conspiracy theorists.
04-09-2012, 04:31 PM,
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
thanks for that but you are wasting your time. in about a week these goons will post yet more of the same "evidence" they posted 6 pages ago as they seem to think quantity beats quality every time.

Ive said it before. no planers are BY DESIGN undermining anything associated with 911 truth.

They have had their bullshit shown to them but they deny ANY data to the contrary.

In fact its almost starting to feel like spam. attention seekers every last one. they are not interested in the truth but prefer outlandish theories because they are simply more fun.
04-10-2012, 05:16 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012, 01:58 AM by p4r4.)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes








one of them is fake ...


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Bug Proof Wikileaks is a Psyop CharliePrime 8 1,073 07-30-2013, 01:05 AM
Last Post: mexika
  computer targeted planes on 911? Bull Medicine 3 769 10-23-2011, 05:34 PM
Last Post: sekular
  Wikileaks and Assange = Rothschilds: The Proof Solve et Coagula 29 6,478 12-15-2010, 10:07 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Firefighters For 9/11 Truth Debunk Assange: Irrefutable Proof Of Cover-Up Dunamis 0 674 12-12-2010, 03:21 AM
Last Post: Dunamis
  Ben 'Shalom' Bernanke on 60 minutes "We're not printing money" Scorpio 3 1,174 12-07-2010, 02:20 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Obama on “60 Minutes”: A Servant of Big Business h3rm35 0 477 11-10-2010, 11:09 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  16 Lies in 7 minutes State of the Union Video Breakdown datars 0 434 02-01-2010, 08:48 PM
Last Post: datars
  Straw vetoes publication of cabinet Iraq war minutes mothandrust 5 864 03-05-2009, 01:11 PM
Last Post: ---
  9/11 Proof on Video: CNN/FOXNEWS-Involvement! Fake airplane impacts turn to be missiles at WTC Solve et Coagula 2 598 07-16-2007, 10:15 PM
Last Post: TeslaandLyne
  How To Hack A Diebold Voting Machine In 4 Minutes waxzy 2 751 09-06-2006, 06:19 PM
Last Post: tsoldrin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)