there was no moon landing .... discus

[Frutos]

Question for colinz -

If, as you say, no planes hit the towers on 9/11, where did the planes go? By that I mean we know that the hijacked planes existed. They had a flight crew, a cabin crew and a full complement of passengers when they were hijacked and flown into the towers.

If they didn't fly into the towers, what happened to them? Where did all the aforementioned people go? Where did the aircraft themselves go?

What's the matter [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION]?

I can only presume that your constant ignorance of my question (quoted above again to make it easy for you to see) is because your bullshit theories don't provide an answer for it and your poor little deluded brain can't come up with anything that fits in with the rest of your crap?

Feel free to prove me wrong.....

 

[Since1982]

The plane would crash, with highly visible wreckage, given that Manhattan is a built up area.

It did and there was. Next...

 

[Triggaaar]

Triggaaar, if you go to about the 4 minute mark of this video, you'll see that the nose cone carries on through the building, penetrating out the other side unscathed.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man. Unfortunately, this isn't a good one. I've watched you video, suggesting the graphics were added live (realtime by a PC), then not shown again. Yet if you just go onto youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8) and watch other live footage, you'll see different cameras from different angles, also live, show the same plane and same piece of nose come out. Your video suggests the nose was still there because the background moved, and it was a computer mistake, yet completely different angles/backgrounds etc show the exact same result - consistent with a real plane crash.

Not another one, who thinks that aeroplanes can fly into and disappear inside buildings.

Make you mind up. You don't like that the nose goes through the building, and you don't like that rest of the plane doesn't make it. The second plane didn't hit the middle of a tower, it hit near a corner. Have you looked up the height of each level of the towers, and the thickness of each floor, and the height of the aircraft, in order to determine how likely it is that a plane could largely miss a floor/ceiling?

It's fun to think we've all been duped, but it just doesn't stack up.

 

[colinz]

firstly, you need to grasp that concept that at speed a airplane will puncture the relativly thin skin of concreate and steel on the outside of such a building. vans/jcbs have penetrated similar steel reinforced concreate at 30mph to commit ram-raids, it seems that a plane at 10-20x faster, with greatly more energy, would have little trouble. secondly, there was wreakage of the planes on the ground at the foot of the towers. the ignorance of this small fact is what makes you look like such a loon, you'd rather believe that a hundred of members of the media (assuming for a moment that freakishly no one witnessed the actual planes or lack of them) all conspired to pretend their footage was live when it had a CGI clip spliced into it, for which you have no evidence.

Can you provide a link to the wreckage at the foot of the tower.

 

[colinz]

Still ignoring my question then [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION]...

There are numerous theories as to what happened to the planes & passengers.
The 2 American Airlines planes were actually officially doumented in the Bureau Transport Statistics (BTS) as never having taken off that day.
The flight passenger lists were probably just fabricated. When you research the flight lists, you find out that the more high profile celebrity passengers have the better back stopping. Some of these celebrities obviously exist/ed. Who knows where they are now though.

9/11 : Ten Years?! - Page 15

 

[Curious Orange]

Can you provide a link to the wreckage at the foot of the tower.

So the plane didn't disappear in the building then, thanks for clarifying that.



When you say "foot of the tower", what do you mean? Within a metre? ten metres? What? Surely how far away any wreckage that actually managed to pass through either building landed from them is entirely dependent on how fast it was going at exit, and in which direction.

 

[Nibble]

Colinz, prove your frankly idiotic and offensive ideas or do us all a favour and f*** off you massive, massive (unt.

 

[Curious Orange]

Colinz, prove your frankly idiotic and offensive ideas or do us all a favour and f*** off you massive, massive (unt.

He won't, because he can't.

 

[One Love]

I was rather hoping that everyone was going to ignore this guy now.

He's been disproved so many times but wont accept it and just moves onto his next drivel.

You know if you keep responding he'll probably go on forever.

 

[Nibble]

I was rather hoping that everyone was going to ignore this guy now.

He's been disproved so many times but wont accept it and just moves onto his next drivel.

You know if you keep responding he'll probably go on forever.

Do you think so Dad? You know I suspect you may not be the only one that's figured that out.

 

[Curious Orange]

I was rather hoping that everyone was going to ignore this guy now.

He's been disproved so many times but wont accept it and just moves onto his next drivel.

You know if you keep responding he'll probably go on forever.

Maybe I like feeding the trolls

 

[One Love]

Do you think so Dad? You know I suspect you may not be the only one that's figured that out.

Then act like you've figured it out and shut up.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

I notice we've moved towards the, "there were no victims, all those bereaved families mourning loved ones are either in on it, or have been duped, or have been fabricated, or whatever."

For me, this is the bit that moves away from a scientific debate (although that's been a one sided hammering of colinz's lack of education), and moves into 'tasteless and offensive' territory.

So, I think I'll leave him be as far as that angle goes.

 

[Nibble]

Then act like you've figured it out and shut up.

Alright Barbara, keep your Alan's on. I am enjoying this thread and shall continue to do so, with your express approval of course

And may I suggest if you want him to go away don't post on the thread. Genius.

 

[One Love]

Alright Barbara, keep your Alan's on. I am enjoying this thread and shall continue to do so, with your express approval of course

And may I suggest if you want him to go away don't post on the thread. Genius.

No problem. I'll leave you to enjoy each other.

 

[colinz]

I notice we've moved towards the, "there were no victims, all those bereaved families mourning loved ones are either in on it, or have been duped, or have been fabricated, or whatever."

For me, this is the bit that moves away from a scientific debate (although that's been a one sided hammering of colinz's lack of education), and moves into 'tasteless and offensive' territory.

So, I think I'll leave him be as far as that angle goes.

And you think the plane can enter the building, provided it can target the space between the floor & the ceiling.

 

[colinz]

So the plane didn't disappear in the building then, thanks for clarifying that.



When you say "foot of the tower", what do you mean? Within a metre? ten metres? What? Surely how far away any wreckage that actually managed to pass through either building landed from them is entirely dependent on how fast it was going at exit, and in which direction.

This engine was found a few blocks away, and landed under a scaffold, after falling 450 metres, and was taped off within about an hour.

 

[sten_super]

This engine was found a few blocks away, and landed under a scaffold, after falling 450 metres, and was taped off within about an hour.

I know we're not going to agree on this, but I don't really understand how 'unlikely' (I use quotation marks because I have no idea of the probabilities involved) results support your argument. One assumes those organising this conspiracy would have had models which suggested the likely result of a plane hitting the building, and that's how they faked the impacts and spread of rubble. If it's incredibly unlikely that an engine would have made it through the building and out of the other side, why would they project the damaged engine in that direction and distance? Surely if the most likely thing was that the engine would either stay in the building or drop at the point of impact, that's what they would have done when trying to fake the impact?

For me, the fact that rubble, etc. ended up in unlikely places is much more likely to indicate a real impact with small probability results than a faked one where I would have thought everything would end up where it was 'supposed' to be.

 

[Curious Orange]

This engine was found a few blocks away, and landed under a scaffold, after falling 450 metres, and was taped off within about an hour.

Thanks, that seems quite a reasonable distance away to me. I note that that isn't the entire engine, it must have taken quite a battering as it passed through the superstructure.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

And you think the plane can enter the building, provided it can target the space between the floor & the ceiling.

If you go back and read the original post I made on this, PARTS of the plane could, yes. If you think a plane hitting a building like that remains in one piece then again, you need to revisit your old science books.