quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
LOL this is a good. I replied to the point and still it isn't good enough so he changes the question

Here is a repsonse to troofers about eye witness reports which references numerous other articles:

quote:

Since we have so many good images of the second hit, and because physical evidence is profoundly more reliable than witness testimony, investigations into this aspect of the case are largely irrelevant. The only potentially meaninful study of eyewitnesses would be a survey of a substantial number of the witnesses who were observing the tower at the time of impact. And it's very easy to surmise that the number of witnesses should be, at the very least, in the thousands, and more probably in the tens of thousands due to the attention the smoking north tower was receiving from a city of millions and the vast number of potential vantage points with a view of the second plane's trajectory. A study with a large sample would minimize the influence of either planted testimony or erronious reports.

What we do know of eyewitness testimony so far supports the scenario of 767s hitting the towers. In addition to accounts from civilians like Evan Fairbanks, the oral histories released by the New York Times show that at least 50 FDNY firemen saw planes or plane debris in the streets. The no-planer treatment of eyewitnesses is as weak as their physical evidence analysis. The second plane was not visible from some vantage points because downtown buildings or the WTC themselves were in the way. Therefore, some people only saw the explosion. Not surprisingly, the no-planers have tried to present these accounts as no-plane testimony. Morgan Reynolds told MSNBC that he doesn't "believe anyone in Lower Manhattan" and implies that anyone who saw a plane was an actor on the government payroll.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Just get fucking glasses as I told you repeatedly, I'm sure anyone with normal eyesight can. There is a big fucking gash all the way from the top of the one purely yellow line down to the bottom of it. Most of the damage is obscured by smoke but some of it is clearly visible.

According to the NIST (?) report it was all about one column that was nowhere near that superficial damage. Any hypothetically damaged columns in the neighborhood of that superficial damage did not contribute to the collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
LOL this is a good. I replied to the point and still it isn't good enough so he changes the question

Here is a repsonse to troofers about eye witness reports which references numerous other articles:

quote:

Since we have so many good images of the second hit, and because physical evidence is profoundly more reliable than witness testimony, investigations into this aspect of the case are largely irrelevant. The only potentially meaninful study of eyewitnesses would be a survey of a substantial number of the witnesses who were observing the tower at the time of impact. And it's very easy to surmise that the number of witnesses should be, at the very least, in the thousands, and more probably in the tens of thousands due to the attention the smoking north tower was receiving from a city of millions and the vast number of potential vantage points with a view of the second plane's trajectory. A study with a large sample would minimize the influence of either planted testimony or erronious reports.

What we do know of eyewitness testimony so far supports the scenario of 767s hitting the towers. In addition to accounts from civilians like Evan Fairbanks, the oral histories released by the New York Times show that at least 50 FDNY firemen saw planes or plane debris in the streets. The no-planer treatment of eyewitnesses is as weak as their physical evidence analysis. The second plane was not visible from some vantage points because downtown buildings or the WTC themselves were in the way. Therefore, some people only saw the explosion. Not surprisingly, the no-planers have tried to present these accounts as no-plane testimony. Morgan Reynolds told MSNBC that he doesn't "believe anyone in Lower Manhattan" and implies that anyone who saw a plane was an actor on the government payroll.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Still no answer to my question. Instead we get a cut and paste quote, because you prefer to parrot other people rather than to think for yourself - but then I suppose that you cannot; think, that is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
LOL this is a good. I replied to the point and still it isn't good enough so he changes the question

Here is a repsonse to troofers about eye witness reports which references numerous other articles:

quote:

Since we have so many good images of the second hit, and because physical evidence is profoundly more reliable than witness testimony, investigations into this aspect of the case are largely irrelevant. The only potentially meaninful study of eyewitnesses would be a survey of a substantial number of the witnesses who were observing the tower at the time of impact. And it's very easy to surmise that the number of witnesses should be, at the very least, in the thousands, and more probably in the tens of thousands due to the attention the smoking north tower was receiving from a city of millions and the vast number of potential vantage points with a view of the second plane's trajectory. A study with a large sample would minimize the influence of either planted testimony or erronious reports.

What we do know of eyewitness testimony so far supports the scenario of 767s hitting the towers. In addition to accounts from civilians like Evan Fairbanks, the oral histories released by the New York Times show that at least 50 FDNY firemen saw planes or plane debris in the streets. The no-planer treatment of eyewitnesses is as weak as their physical evidence analysis. The second plane was not visible from some vantage points because downtown buildings or the WTC themselves were in the way. Therefore, some people only saw the explosion. Not surprisingly, the no-planers have tried to present these accounts as no-plane testimony. Morgan Reynolds told MSNBC that he doesn't "believe anyone in Lower Manhattan" and implies that anyone who saw a plane was an actor on the government payroll.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Still no answer to my question. Instead we get a cut and paste quote, because you prefer to parrot other people rather than to think for yourself - but then I suppose that you cannot; think, that is.

The answer cited the quote dumbass. People on here often quote passages, videos or links as their responses but only conspiracy loons like your good self go on about parroting. Go back to daydream land and invent more fantasies about 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You were attacking me by focusing not on arguments but on personality in a critical fashion. It has been the substance of your posts on here. I replied by criticizing you back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Why? You are noted on this forum for believing all sorts of strange theories on circumcision. Others have said similar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I'm not denying video material can be tampered with. However, it is not easy to do convincingly. Furthermore, the events were reported live with a large array of news outlets form multiple independent sources.

quote:

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
You are beating your head against the wall trying to argue with people whose only reason for living is finding conspiracies around every corner.

[sm=banghead.gif]

They are never going to accept any logical argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
You are beating your head against the wall trying to argue with people whose only reason for living is finding conspiracies around every corner.

[sm=banghead.gif]

They are never going to accept any logical argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
You are beating your head against the wall trying to argue with people whose only reason for living is finding conspiracies around every corner.

[sm=banghead.gif]

They are never going to accept any logical argument.

that is exactly what I said when the government came out and said it was a conspiracy.

I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
You are beating your head against the wall trying to argue with people whose only reason for living is finding conspiracies around every corner.

[sm=banghead.gif]

They are never going to accept any logical argument.

that is exactly what I said when the government came out and said it was a conspiracy.

I agree.

Right, it was just a few pilots who became confused and flew their airplanes into buildings and decided to make a big hole in the ground in rural Pennsylvania.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You were attacking me by focusing not on arguments but on personality in a critical fashion. It has been the substance of your posts on here. I replied by criticizing you back.

Didn't your mom teach you better?

quote:


First of all you rarely have any arguments.
Secondly, it isn't personal if they are characteristics that you have in common with billions of people. It simply is who you are. This personal stuff is all in your mind.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Why? You are noted on this forum for believing all sorts of strange theories on circumcision. Others have said similar.

That they are strange - or would you rather say 'absurd' - does not mean that they are incorrect.

No, it is one more example of you evading the matter at hand and pulling in all kinds of extraneous matter to divert attention from your failures.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I'm not denying video material can be tampered with. However, it is not easy to do convincingly. Furthermore, the events were reported live with a large array of news outlets form multiple independent sources.

Ah, I notice some sense of realism, Perhaps there is hope for you yet. So video material can be tampered with. That makes all of it suspect, doesn't it?

quote:

quote:

quote:

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

Apparently you did not notice the title of this thread. There was a plane, and yes, it was seen and might have been filmed.

quote:


As far as I know, there are only a couple of movies of the plane hitting the second tower. That ain't too many to doctor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

insurance fraud. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Lots of people were in Dc, and africa, and seattle too.

There again sob stories and who is sick of hearing whatever does not cut it and does not change the facts and certinaly does not change the laws of physics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
So they would release one script when all they had to do was have a look and see the building collapsing! How daft you sound. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

insurance fraud. 

You know Pahunk, I was in DC when the Pentagon was hit and I am really tired of hearing all this bullshit.

A lot of innocent people lost their lives but you and others here are trying to turn it into a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: KeriB
My brother was on one of the planes and he didn't just disappear into some undisclosed location somewhere.

Now this is getting interesting. Would you care to divulge everything about your family and relatives? Not necessarily here, but put it somewhere on the internet so that someone who googles 911 and 'airplane passenger' can find it. For example on a genealogy page.

How old was your brother and when last did you see him alive? (Got to establish whether he was alive or dead when he boarded that plane.) Which plane did he get on? Either of the two that never took off, or one of the other two that landed elsewhere? How high was his IQ? Has he or someone else of your relatives ever worked for a secret service, were they members of secret societies such as for example the freemasons, what are or were their professions, and of course birth and death dates? Were any of them in some way connected to powerful families, perchance by marriage? At which universities did they study, if any? Please supply any other information that you think is pertinent. For example: was any of your relatives a drugs trafficker. Did any ever murder anyone? Was your brother interested in space travel, or in acting?

I repeat: there is no need to answer these questions here. Just put the information somewhere on the internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

insurance fraud. 

You know Pahunk, I was in DC when the Pentagon was hit and I am really tired of hearing all this bullshit.

A lot of innocent people lost their lives but you and others here are trying to turn it into a game.

Then if you really cared- you would put a stop to shenanigans like building number 7!  It is insurance fraud.