Nose through followed by immediate fade to black...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...Oops. The 9-11 plane videos do not stand up to scrutiny -- the planes are NOT real.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM

[Ordr]

1. "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

[seemslikeadream]

2. That's interesting because when Jacques Vallee talks about UFO fakes

he says the same thing a black (blank) frame in the videos.

[Laurier]

3. Faked planes hitting the WTC?

Yes, that's entirely plausible, rational, and sane.

(where's that sarcasm smiley thing when you need it?)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. You can't really be that thick, can you?

The planes in the 9-11 videos are fake, as in video fakery -- in other words, NO planes hit the the WTC towers, not FAKE planes.

If common English is presenting that big a comprehension hurdle for you maybe you should seek out a tutor/interpreter.

[hack89]

5. What about the eye witness accounts?

and how many video cameras were in the vicinity of the WTC on 911? How did they fake all of them? How did the plotters factor in the absolute certainty that there would be video cameras that were not under their control?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. Which ones specifically are you referring to?

These? (see first 3 min 50 seconds)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWIpUoBaUvs&feature=user


I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11. As to exactly how the televised video fakery was done, you'll find some insights to that in September Clues. The fact that it was video fakery, and poorly done at that, is obvious:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204337

[Sweet Pea]

26. I love it!

"I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11."

With that statement, Jeff renders all argument about however many videos in the area of lower Manhattan null and void!

It doesn't matter how many were there because "I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11"!

How difficult would it be to fake ALL those cameras, jeff? "I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11."

How could so many different people in so many different places with so many different backgrounds fake such an event on their cameras, Jeff? "I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11."

What logic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. How would anyone know how many video camcorders were in the WTC vicinity on 9-11?

Your questions are a straw man distraction from the irrefutable evidence of 9-11 video fakery which you never address. The same way you never address any other real arguments.

Another day, another couple dozen nuisance distraction posts in the 9-11 forum from Sweet Pea -- some things never change.

[Sweet Pea]

32. Face it!

You just can't answer the question because it would demolish your "no plane" argument in a NANO SECOND.

Go ahead. Tell us how the Gub'mint faked 30 or 50 or however many videos from all over the region at all the same time with such a diverse group of people timed *perfectly* with explosives that were set in the *exact* floors where the planes supposedly impacted.

That's some Gub'mint planning!

[Laurier]

7. That was intentional irony, right? Right?

Video fakery? No planes?

Um, no.

And no, I do not have any problems whatsoever with the English language, despite your rather odd, poorly worded, poorly punctuated, and grammatically incorrect attempt to suggest otherwise.

It was nice of you to pop in with a nonsensical, ineffectual, unsupported and, frankly, ludicrous, response to my post more than a month after the fact, though. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the idiocy and downright lunacy of the *cough* "truth movement". Very well done, sir.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. Yet another non-substantive nuisance distraction post from Laurier...

...No surprise there.

[Diane_nyc]

54. No-planes claims are NOT representative of the 9/11 Truth movement

For example, the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice strongly rejects no-planes claims. See http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf">A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (PDF) by Eric Salter, October 2006. See also http://stj911.org/evidence/pentagon.html">Evidence: The Pentagon Attack, implicitly rejecting Pentagon no-plane claims.

No-planes claims, especially for the WTC, are also strongly discouraged on major 9/11 Truth sites such as 911blogger.

Also, I'm quite sure you won't find any endorsement of no-planes claims in the http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project">Complete 9/11 Timeline on the History Commons site.

[victordrazen]

6. the "live" footage is the elephant in the living room

most of the eyewitnesses have been found to be people in media and at least one a paid actor. I like the guy who only seconds after describes how the buildings fell "due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense". LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo

[Sweet Pea]

8. Bullshit

Pure and utter. "Most" of the witnesses have *not* been found to be media people, and as far as actors are concerned, New York City is one of the acting capitals of the world! Ya THINK you might find an actor or two in New York City? Imagine that!

Bullshit. Prove it. You said "most". There are over a million people who live in the borough of Manhattan. How many of those million live and work in lower Manhattan? How many of THOSE do you think were outside watching the north tower burn when the second tower was hit?

Go ahead...come up with your own number of how many people out of that million-plus were watching the events that day and prove to me that "most" of those witnesses were "found" to be "media" people.

Bullshit. That's the problem with Troofers. They lack the objective quality to see the inherent bullshit and lies they put out.

[LARED]

9. Forget the borough the Manhattan

How about the east coast of Jersey just on the other side of the Hudson? How about Brooklyn just to the east of Manhattan? Literally millions watched the first tower burn from afar. Both areas are part of the most densely populated areas in America.

[victordrazen]

10. millions watched it on TV

not in person. The photos and footage give people the impression that everyone had this perfect view of the towers and they didn't. A person could go months (when the towers were there) or even years without seeing the wtc in Manhattan or NJ/Brooklyn because of other buildings/density. Also, the pictures that show the towers from NJ or Brooklyn are zoomed in giving the illusion that people standing there could see that clearly when it was a lot farther.
They probably chose the plane scenario partially because if they used bombs there would be more liability issues since they knew bombs were a possibility because of the 93 bombing. With planes they could (and did ) say "we would never think that planes would be used as missiles, bla bla bla.." (although it turned out there was some precedent, real or otherwise)

As far as how the images were televised, there is footage in the 911 television archives where the anchorwoman says ("do we have control over this shot?") about Pentagon footage and the answer was no. The images were not coming from the networks themselves.

[Sweet Pea]

11. So....

You are saying that nobody saw an airplane hit the tower. Nobody, because people "could go months (when the towers were there) or even years without seeing the wtc".

That has to be the single stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say in my life.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. The singe stupidest thing you've ever heard?

Perhaps you've forgotten the enlightened brainstorm you had and shared with all of us not so long ago when you claimed that the amazing video of flight 175 just slicing right in and then disappearing into WTC2 took place over the course of a single nano-second.

Shall I dig that one up?

[Sweet Pea]

29. Go ahead and dig it up, Jeff

I've never said I wasn't subject to the occasional bout of hyperbole when writing in these or other fora.

If that is the best that you have in trying to throw a "stupidest thing" accusation back at me, you really don't have many better things to do, do you? Knock yourself out, bud.

And could you remind us how many video cameras were running in lower Manhattan on 11 Sept? And how so many could be faked?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. The relevant question is how could the plane videos which were aired on 9-11...

...be authentic given all the evidence to the contrary -- not a question Sweet Pea wants deal with though is it?

[Sweet Pea]

34. Deal with it? Can do easy!

WHAT evidence to the contrary? Neither you nor any other of the the morons who push the "No Plane" theories have a shred of evidence that would stand up against anything else in ANY court of law ANYWHERE that there were "no planes".

And humor us.....just take a guess as to how many video cameras were running in lower Manhattan or in the area that day. Go ahead. None? 15? 300? 5,000? Make a wild stab.

Before you DO come up with a number, though, make sure you keep in mind what the population of Lower Manhattan was/is, how many people you think would have been out of the offices watching the north tower burn or who were stuck to their windows watching it burn or said to themselves "Holy Geez!!! I need to get my camera!", video or otherwise, an das a result had it pointed in the general direction of the incoming aircraft or at the WTC.

NOW come up with a number.

or, you could ignore the whole thing and say "I don't know how many videos were in the vicinity of the WTC on 9-11." and forget about them and render them null and void.

But back to the original point of this post, WHAT evidence to the contrary?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

12. No planers are like a cult,

no amount if reality can break down the walls they build.

Enjoy your fantasy

[victordrazen]

42. The majority of the world's people have ridiculous religious

beliefs too, because someone told them too. It's the same thing with what happened on 9-11. I have a feeling you know that, though.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[eomer]

46. I'm curious -- what exactly do you mean by that?

Each of the major religions of the world teaches that all the other ones are false in significant respects. Therefore, at most one of the major religions can be wholly true and at least all but one have to be significantly false. If at least all but one have to be false then a majority of believers in the world have to be mistaken.

In fact, a majority of all people in the world, believers and non-believers, have to be mistaken, not just a majority of believers. This is clear because the case that would produce the highest number of people who are not mistaken would be if the religion with the largest number of followers turns out to be true. If you add the percentage of people who believe in that religion (Christianity, I believe, at about 33%) to the percentage of people who have no belief on the subject, you still get less than 50% of people in the world.

So it does seem to be the case that a majority of people in the world are mistaken in their religious beliefs.

That is, of course, if you take them at their word. There is also the possibility that many of them are liars rather than fools.

[tinrobot]

13. Tens or Hundreds of thousands saw it in person.

How many people lived/worked in lower Manhattan on that day? How many watched it from Brooklyn, Staten Island, New Jersey? You're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Real people.

If you crawled out of your basement and stepped away from your computer monitor, you'd realize that the events of the world don't just happen on TV and the internet. They happen in reality.

[wildbilln864]

21. that's bullshit!

and you know it! Are you projecting? I think so. Hundreds of thousands saw it on TV for sure. But not real time on the scene, nope. Some yes. :eyes:

[Sweet Pea]

22. "Some yes"

Finally! Perhaps we're making some progress. You have at least acknowledged that "some"
people did see planes hit the buildings. What the numbers are (some or millions) is just quibbling, although I don't know how you can argue the fact that if "some" did see the planes hit the towers, then what did all the people in lower Manhattan who were outside watching the north tower burn see, what all the people in Brooklyn watching the north tower burn saw, what all the people on Staten Island watching the north tower burn saw, and what all the people on the east Jersey shore watching the north tower burn saw.

If "some" people did see planes hit the building, a huge honking big number saw it.

Meaning it happened. Any argument that it never occured rests - lives and dies - on *nobody* seeing it live and in real time. You cannot say that.

[victordrazen]

27. That is an illusion

created by the tv.

[Sweet Pea]

37. Were you not very good at math in school?

Statistics? Probability? Estimation? Averaging? Those sorts of things?

I ask that only because anyone with clue one will see that the population of lower Manhattan and of Brooklyn and of Staten Island and of eastern Jersey amounts to a significant number, and if you even take 1% of that number you still have a significant number of people. That might be a low estimate of people who were watching the North tower burn when the south tower was hit.

And it wasn't an "illusion" they saw when a plane impacted the south tower. To say so is nothing more than trying to pull a blanket of ignorance over the eyes of people who saw the thing happen.

But again, if you want to repeat your claim that "nobody saw the impact", go right ahead. We're a tad short on humor these days in the dungeon.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. You speak of all these witnesses whose testimony you...

...never produce. Who specifically are you talking about and what exactly is their testimony?

[Sweet Pea]

39. To claim....

nobody saw the events because there is no "testimony" or "interview" transcript is the height of hubris and foolishness.

The fact is there are hundreds of "interviews" and transcripts and testimony out there - you just need to look for it.

Whenever I read anything from the Twoofers, I always remember James Michener's line in his novel Space about the Dark Ages (paraphrased):

They were called such not because people couldn't see, but rather because they choose not to see.

[T Monk]

43. there aren't any legitimate eyewitness accounts on any media i looked

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. I did not claim that "nobody saw the events"...

...only requested that you offer something substantive to support the often touted "but what about the thousands of eye witnesses" argument OCTers seem to think is so bullet proof, but never bother to back up.

I don't suppose the testimony of this witness would be of any interest to you? It certainly didn't seem to be of any interest to the Fox News reporter:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU


Watch the first 3 min 50 sec of this video -- the eyewitness accounts collected on that day (before so many were repeatedly exposed to the video fakery aired on all major networks) lacks any continuity.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWIpUoBaUvs&feature=user


And why no reaction from these observers as a ridiculously low flying 767 jet enters their view over Manhattan?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WnGNN6TZ3d4

Hint: Because there was no plane -- it was added to the video later.


The "thousands of eyewitnesses" rhetoric is yet another OCTer straw man, and nothing more.

[Sweet Pea]

48. laugh my ass off!

That second video just disproves EVERYTHING you've posted in this thread!

You want eyewitnesses, Jeff? ARE YOU BLIND? ARE YOU DEAF?

A diverse population is going to report diverse experiences and diverse perspectives. If anything, that vid solidifies the eyewitness accounts.

Thanks.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. So why didn't you offer...

...the first 3 min 50 sec of the September Clues epilogue in support of your "what about all the eye witnesses" argument if you seriously think it supports your case? Such a thoroughly well researched OCTer such as yourself, you surely must've seen it -- September Clues has been around for a while. Why haven't you used it?

Is it the same reason you never have anything to offer in support of the OCT fairytale? -- because there just isn't anything?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. You're laughing YOUR ass off?

For all you do, Sweet Pea, this video's for you:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zab6DH_ViD8

:rofl:

[T Monk]

14. can you point me the way to an actual ordinary unscripted witness that day?

[hack89]

16. Show me a scripted witness first

so it is clear exactly what you mean other then "someone who doesn't support my view of 911."

[T Monk]

17. see the post about the actor guy

[HamdenRice]

19. yes, here --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195232&mesg_id=195277

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[HamdenRice]

18. check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195232&mesg_id=195277

[T Monk]

20. thanks but an earwitness

[victordrazen]

28. I've never met ONE person in NYC

who saw a plane that day. I live here now and have for a few years, but didn't on 9-11. I ask people all the time.

[T Monk]

33. this must be haunting to you

[victordrazen]

40. well, the impression people get from television

is sooooo much different than the reality. Although, most people here just saw it on tv too.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. my neighbor was in the Marriot and he heard planes from the street but didn't see them

he said they were loud but not that loud.

[Sweet Pea]

35. You need to get out more. n/t

[victordrazen]

41. self delete nt

[balantz]

50. Kick

[LanternWaste]

52. If video can be faked...

If video can be faked, then it stands to reason that the video you've linked to can just as easily be faked too. That we, in fact, cannot trust any video from anywhere-- including any you link too.

Sorry.

[Grateful for Hope]

53. Very true.

It is all too easy these days to fake videos -- to the point where it is probably not a good idea to rely on any for evidence for or against what what is arguing for.