911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?

[Thoreau72]

One again HD, not one source listed.



I doubt your more informed. What I bet is your sources are way different than mine. I tend to use all sources I can.

Once again HD, you have to try and belittle a poster with your self claimed superior thinking. I would bet I have done more investigations of tragic events than you.

Besides govt reports, list a source. Why is that so hard for you to provide one source.

With all due respect Mike, your posts demonstrate that it is beyond your comprehension that the world media has been talking about the events of the day for more than 13 years.

Asking for "a source" makes you look like you don't read the papers or watch TV. Good heavens man, there have been many links provided here regarding such things as strangely burned vehicles and molten metal. There have been links to Zadroga Bill and others, in the mainstream media. Do you not remember them?

Or are you more interested in giving the appearance to some lurker that there is no proof of those facts?

I'm not going to play around and provide some old source BECAUSE I am much more interested in the proverbial Big Picture. We've talked about that too Mike. Remember?

 

[mike2810]

With all due respect Mike, your posts demonstrate that it is beyond your comprehension that the world media has been talking about the events of the day for more than 13 years.

Asking for "a source" makes you look like you don't read the papers or watch TV. Good heavens man, there have been many links provided here regarding such things as strangely burned vehicles and molten metal. There have been links to Zadroga Bill and others, in the mainstream media. Do you not remember them?

Or are you more interested in giving the appearance to some lurker that there is no proof of those facts?

I'm not going to play around and provide some old source BECAUSE I am much more interested in the proverbial Big Picture. We've talked about that too Mike. Remember?

Same old dodge you post. Same old misdirect back to the person asking the questions,

As you must know, since your so well versed, there is a lot of information out on the net. In another thread I posted a link to a site that demonstrated the Russian released sat photo of mh17 shoot down was false. Is it correct? I have posted links to sites showing some of the melted steel photos were faked. Is the source correct?

See HD, you hide behind your believe and not willing to state what source backs up your statement. Unlike you, I am willing to backup my statements.

I am not going to play your game HD. All this time, it is known you fail to back up your views when asked. Yes, I remember your a BIG Picture guy.

Hope VToday, Prager, DRG serves you well.:mrgreen:

 

[Mark F]

I have read and considered many sources Mike.

Unfortunately, you make poor choices in reading material

Mysterious damage to vehicles on the street.

What mysterious damage to which vehicles?

Massive pieces of structural steel blown hundreds of feet horizontally.

Not just completely untrue to totally implausible and quote frankly laughable.

...explosions in the basements moments before the airplane strike.

Based on the accounts of a single witness with such a severe credibility deficit he has long fallen out of favor even with most TM's (who will happily believe just about anything that doesn't conclude terrorists) and zero physical evidence. Conversely, around 140 witnesses (not just one) are on record as seeing Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and their testimony is corroborated by overwhelming physical evidence yet you hand wave that away with the oft repeated chant no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon. So tell us, what makes Willy so credible but all the witnesses at the Pentagon not credible - other than they are not telling the story you want to hear and Willy (at least after 2004) is?

Explosions reported by hundreds of people, including cops and firemen.

Common in large fires. Show relevance and I will be interested.

Molten steel that lasted for 3 months.

Not true and you know it.

These and other facts have been reported since the very beginning, by many sources.

Not true. Many of the above lies did not come out until years later and most are promoted by people who, like you, can not think properly, are pushing an ideologically motivated political agenda and don't care if anything is true so long as it supports the fantasy.

Lets face it. You are probably the least objective observer here. The only type of evidence you een consider is anything that does not jive with the "Official Story", no matter how stupid it is. Prager hasn't figured anything out. He's so far off he can't even find a whackjob fringe publisher to back him up. Like Prager, your objective seems to be not to find out the truth, but to just go for the most bizarre, ridiculous, implausible, whacked-out explanation possible. It isn't enough for you to just be on the fringe, to be different from everyone else so you can pretend you are special - you have to go for the really big stoooopid.

Very little of what you claim is true, accurate or right. And if you could stop and think about it for just a moment you'd know that.

Or maybe you do and this is all pretend. Given your usual vague generalities, constant evasions and frequent disappearing acts when shown how ridiculous you are I lean towards the latter.

 

[Thoreau72]

Gents,

I am proud indeed to be shunned by the likes of you.

 

[Quag]

Gents,

I am proud indeed to be shunned by the likes of you.

Proud to be factually wrong on everything?
You are a strange person

 

[Quag]

Same old dodge you post. Same old misdirect back to the person asking the questions,

As you must know, since your so well versed, there is a lot of information out on the net. In another thread I posted a link to a site that demonstrated the Russian released sat photo of mh17 shoot down was false. Is it correct? I have posted links to sites showing some of the melted steel photos were faked. Is the source correct?

See HD, you hide behind your believe and not willing to state what source backs up your statement. Unlike you, I am willing to backup my statements.

I am not going to play your game HD. All this time, it is known you fail to back up your views when asked. Yes, I remember your a BIG Picture guy.

Hope VToday, Prager, DRG serves you well.:mrgreen:

HD doesn't back up his lies because they are lies and he knows it.
Including the claim he is a BIG picture guy. He spends all his time looking at leaves on small bushes without ever even noticing the bush let alone acknowledging that there is a whole forest out there. whenever he finds a leaf from an oak tree near the lilac he's looking at he claims AHA! anomaly The govt did this!!!!

 

[KokomoJojo]

HD doesn't back up his lies because they are lies and he knows it.
Including the claim he is a BIG picture guy. He spends all his time looking at leaves on small bushes without ever even noticing the bush let alone acknowledging that there is a whole forest out there. whenever he finds a leaf from an oak tree near the lilac he's looking at he claims AHA! anomaly The govt did this!!!!

and huggers dont care if its a lie or not as long as it came from the gov any **** is good to eat.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Unfortunately, you make poor choices in reading material



What mysterious damage to which vehicles?



Not just completely untrue to totally implausible and quote frankly laughable.



Based on the accounts of a single witness with such a severe credibility deficit he has long fallen out of favor even with most TM's (who will happily believe just about anything that doesn't conclude terrorists) and zero physical evidence. Conversely, around 140 witnesses (not just one) are on record as seeing Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and their testimony is corroborated by overwhelming physical evidence yet you hand wave that away with the oft repeated chant no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon. So tell us, what makes Willy so credible but all the witnesses at the Pentagon not credible - other than they are not telling the story you want to hear and Willy (at least after 2004) is?



Common in large fires. Show relevance and I will be interested.

Not true and you know it.

Not true. Many of the above lies did not come out until years later and most are promoted by people who, like you, can not think properly, are pushing an ideologically motivated political agenda and don't care if anything is true so long as it supports the fantasy.

Lets face it. You are probably the least objective observer here. The only type of evidence you een consider is anything that does not jive with the "Official Story", no matter how stupid it is. Prager hasn't figured anything out. He's so far off he can't even find a whackjob fringe publisher to back him up. Like Prager, your objective seems to be not to find out the truth, but to just go for the most bizarre, ridiculous, implausible, whacked-out explanation possible. It isn't enough for you to just be on the fringe, to be different from everyone else so you can pretend you are special - you have to go for the really big stoooopid.

Very little of what you claim is true, accurate or right. And if you could stop and think about it for just a moment you'd know that.

Or maybe you do and this is all pretend. Given your usual vague generalities, constant evasions and frequent disappearing acts when shown how ridiculous you are I lean towards the latter.

Not just completely untrue to totally implausible and quote frankly laughable.


yeh says oz LOL

How many loony paths has he led you down and you continue to fall for it lol

Not lies Mark. Just because they were not publlished doesnt mean they werent out.

Mark truthers would not exist if the government was anything but vague in their so called investigation which everyone knows is a code word for coverup.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Same old dodge you post. Same old misdirect back to the person asking the questions,

oh come on mike, I asked you countless times where the big ****ing hole came from and you wasted countless posts demanding I answer my own question. the moral of the story, which means the meaning of your post.... skunks always smell their own ass first.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Gents,

I am proud indeed to be shunned by the likes of you.

Resistance is NOT futile!

 

[Mark F]

Gents,

I am proud indeed to be shunned by the likes of you.

If that what it takes to make you feel like you are special,...

 

[Bob0627]

I have read and considered many sources Mike.

Mysterious damage to vehicles on the street. Massive pieces of structural steel blown hundreds of feet horizontally. Massive explosions in the basements moments before the airplane strike. Explosions reported by hundreds of people, including cops and firemen. Molten steel that lasted for 3 months. These and other facts have been reported since the very beginning, by many sources.

It could be that I am simply more informed than you Mike? Is that it? Have I been doing more reading than you, or do I just retain and analyze it better? I don't know.

Rodriguez described the skin dripping from the man coming out of the basement area for about 13 years now Mike. Where ya been?

Yes, Prager did put it all together, and yes he provided a lot of technical data that I had not been familiar with prior, but most of what he covered I already knew.

Critical thinking Mike, maybe that's what separates you and me? I'm not trying to brag or to criticize you, but it still amazes me how some folks simply cannot understand that the official story does not pass muster, intellectually.

Why is it I know all about all the relevant various sources for all that information? And I've known about all these for years before I stumbled into forum. The faithers pretend they don't exist no matter how many times they've been provided with the various links to sources (or claim these are all made up lies) because none fit (or all contradict) the official narrative. You're arguing with a bunch of obvious fakes HD. It's an exercise in futility.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Why is it I know all about all the relevant various sources for all that information? And I've known about all these for years before I stumbled into forum. The faithers pretend they don't exist no matter how many times they've been provided with the various links to sources (or claim these are all made up lies) because none fit (or all contradict) the official narrative. You're arguing with a bunch of obvious fakes HD. It's an exercise in futility.

yeh when they play stupid to bog down threads and waste everyones time, then move on to the next issue. Then a month later the go through the same cycle again. Its designed to waste everyones time.

 

[Quag]

Why is it I know all about all the relevant various sources for all that information? And I've known about all these for years before I stumbled into forum. The faithers pretend they don't exist no matter how many times they've been provided with the various links to sources (or claim these are all made up lies) because none fit (or all contradict) the official narrative. You're arguing with a bunch of obvious fakes HD. It's an exercise in futility.

Lol, says the guy who rejects tons of evidence because he found a site on the internet that has a couple of people say they didn't see a plane.
far larger amounts of eyewitnesses who did, Video, Radar, DNA, etc. etc.. All irrelevant somebody didn't see it therefore no plane.
As you are patently unable to comprehend evidence you will continue to fall for the lies of others.
Either that or as is more likely and shown by your attempts to get people to donate money to such fraudulent acts as the high rise safety initiative you are a shill.

 

[mike2810]

oh come on mike, I asked you countless times where the big ****ing hole came from and you wasted countless posts demanding I answer my own question. the moral of the story, which means the meaning of your post.... skunks always smell their own ass first.

You must have responded because what I posted applies to you also. Good to know. If you believe a skunk is posting, then it must be one smart skunk.

How many times have I asked you questions or what source you have to back up your statement and you refuse to answer.

ok koko. before I answer your question, when was the photo taken? Is not the timeline important in discussing the "hole"?

What is the material you believe indicates melting due to nukes?

The hole was made during removal of material. There you go.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You must have responded because what I posted applies to you also. Good to know. If you believe a skunk is posting, then it must be one smart skunk.

How many times have I asked you questions or what source you have to back up your statement and you refuse to answer.

ok koko. before I answer your question, when was the photo taken? Is not the timeline important in discussing the "hole"?

What is the material you believe indicates melting due to nukes?

The hole was made during removal of material. There you go.

ooz actually got my attention, I took note of what he had to say "on that subject", you on the other hand fail consistently. I asked the question, again you want me to answer my own question. If you have information you wish to bring in I am willing to listen. ooz however did not prove the point yet, but actually getting my attention is one giant step beyond what any of the debunker/hugger regulars have done.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sure Maus, sure. And Dubya saw the first airplane strike on a TV somewhere or other and the Moon is made of Green Cheese!

No, he didn't. And that changes the FACT noted how?

They don't.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Lol, says the guy who rejects tons of evidence because he found a site on the internet that has a couple of people say they didn't see a plane.
far larger amounts of eyewitnesses who did, Video, Radar, DNA, etc. etc.. All irrelevant somebody didn't see it therefore no plane.
As you are patently unable to comprehend evidence you will continue to fall for the lies of others.
Either that or as is more likely and shown by your attempts to get people to donate money to such fraudulent acts as the high rise safety initiative you are a shill.

This is a really tough concept but people who toot the official stories are shills not people who reject it. There you go folks another fine example of twisted hugger logic.

 

[Bob0627]

yeh when they play stupid to bog down threads and waste everyones time, then move on to the next issue. Then a month later the go through the same cycle again. Its designed to waste everyones time.

A perfect example is that what I posted has nothing to do with whether I believe planes hit the towers or not but was immediately convoluted into a false assumption. I kind of forgot this thread is about the evidence of planes.

My opinion on that subject is that there are too many eyewitnesses to airplanes, not to mention supporting videos, for me to reject that planes hit the towers. I can't say the same for the Pentagon and Shanksville though, since no known videos have been made available that can corroborated anything. Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are also far too many suspicious issues with the planes hitting the towers (as with just about everything about 9/11).

 

[Fledermaus]

I have read and considered many sources Mike.

Too bad they are CT sites.

Mysterious damage to vehicles on the street.

Relevance to CD?

Massive pieces of structural steel blown hundreds of feet horizontally.

And this indicates CD how? You have yet to explain.

Massive explosions in the basements moments before the airplane strike.

What source? The man who can't get anything straight?

Explosions reported by hundreds of people, including cops and firemen.

Explosions to not equate to explosives.

Molten steel that lasted for 3 months.

And this indicated CD how? It doesn't even indicate a NUKE.

These and other facts have been reported since the very beginning, by many sources.

You facts are lacking and many do not point towards CD.

It could be that I am simply more informed than you Mike? Is that it? Have I been doing more reading than you, or do I just retain and analyze it better? I don't know.

You get your various claims from CT sites and regurgitate them without critical thinking.

Rodriguez described the skin dripping from the man coming out of the basement area for about 13 years now Mike. Where ya been?

What explosive does that? It is far more indicative of the KNOWN fuel fed fireball.

Yes, Prager did put it all together, and yes he provided a lot of technical data that I had not been familiar with prior, but most of what he covered I already knew.

So... EXPLOSIVES of NUKES?

You seem a bit unclear....

EXPLOSIVES of which we have ZERO physical evidence, no blast consistent with CD, no overpressure consistent with CD, no seismic signature consistent with CD.....

or

NUKES of which we have ZERO physical evidence, no blast consistent with NUKES, no overpressure consistent with NUKES, no seismic signature consistent with NUKES, no ionizing radiation consistent with NUKES, no fallout consistent with NUKES,,.....

Critical thinking Mike, maybe that's what separates you and me? I'm not trying to brag or to criticize you, but it still amazes me how some folks simply cannot understand that the official story does not pass muster, intellectually.

You have yet to bring anything to the table that negates "the official story"

 

[Kanzaki]

They wanted the buildings destroyed obviously. It's entirely possible that both towers could have been saved despite the plane crashes....

Also applies for BCman.
Possible, only if the fires didn't cause the additional damage. Oz also covered what I didn't have time to mention before. Whether they would have been kept even in such a case is up in the air. Removing the wreckage, bodies of the victims... it's an issue that probably would have had very political implications. That being said, it's a scenario that never happened in the first place and you guys still allege that "they" would have rather brought it down intentionally "disguised" as a normal collapse. Seen that allegation before. My criticism of "CD" doesn't discriminate between "conventional and non conventional CD", you have to provide the evidence. And I note Bcman never addressed my last major response thus far. I will mark the post, and bring the post up in that case to avoid retyping things when the claims get rehashed again.

There was a 25 story office building hit by several Tomahawk missiles on two separate days, caught fire but did not collapse...

And as usual the answer to "why" is so plainly obvious to anyone who understands design it leads me to truly believe you're either uneducated in the topic or willfully ignorant. You don't address "debunkers" anyway so I don't expect you to care, but here's a few factoids anyway:

• It's total height (25 stories) is approximately the same (Actually less, WTC 2 impact region had ~30 floors above) number of floors that the impact area of the south WTC tower had to continue supporting after suffering substantially greater damage both relative to the scale of the building and in terms of literal size.
  Think about that... the upper portion of WTC 2 was larger than the building you're comparing to...
  
• At 25 stories it's structural system did not have remotely the same design requirements as the WTC

And to highlight how bad the comparison is, these say so much about why the comparison is so god awful bad without getting into design details of the construction which I guarantee are much different from what the twin towers had. Call this unusually harsh criticism compared to my previous posts, but I have to laugh at these kinds of responses which call us skeptics brainwashed shills when you're ostensibly blind to any level of technical detail... even the basics. I have to ask... when you do these comparisons do you even remotely think about why a collapse did or did not happen or do you just look at whether collapse scenarios took place and wing it? Nevermind, don't answer, rhetorical question.

 

[Quag]

A perfect example is that what I posted has nothing to do with whether I believe planes hit the towers or not but was immediately convoluted into a false assumption. I kind of forgot this thread is about the evidence of planes.

My opinion on that subject is that there are too many eyewitnesses to airplanes, not to mention supporting videos, for me to reject that planes hit the towers. I can't say the same for the Pentagon and Shanksville though, since no known videos have been made available that can corroborated anything. Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are also far too many suspicious issues with the planes hitting the towers (as with just about everything about 9/11).

in other words you are just shilling for the high rise safety initiative. and have nothing even remotely coming close to evidence of anything other than 4 planes being hijacked on crashed on 911.
thanx for plying but you are outed shill.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

lol did Bob become a quasi no planer while I was gone?

 

[Fledermaus]

lol did Bob become a quasi no planer while I was gone?

Everything is "plausible" but the "OCT"....

The new TRUTHER talking point.

 

[Quag]

lol did Bob become a quasi no planer while I was gone?

Like a good CTer Bob is both a no planer, a 2 planer, a 4 planer and any other combination you can think of at the same time.
Why should he be limited to just one CT when he can embrace and shill for them all?