there was no moon landing .... discus

[pastafarian]

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

whats wrong collinz...why are you now making crap up what people say?.....getting desperate? where did he give any indication he believes planes disappeared inside the building?...in fact where has anybody on here ever said the planes hit the twin towers and then disappeared inside?

 

[pastafarian]

I personally don't think anything impacted the towers, because of the damage it would have caused the pre set demolition charges.

so you would say to my sister in law and out of the 1000`s of others who were outside in the streets if not 10`s of 1000`s,you would say to all those people out in the open air looking skyward after the first tower got hit that every single person who saw the second plane hit just imagined it?

 

[readingstockport]

Once again someone has quoted colinz, apparently replying to me but I'm not sure as I can't see his shite anymore.

colinz, you've STILL not explained what your science qualifications are. I know that could only be an oversight on your part as you are such a well educated person who has managed to study , in depth, principles of flight and aviation engineering, physics, space travel - in particular gravity and it's effects and actions outside ot the earth's atmosphere, explosives and of course civil enginering - in particular structural engineering as it relates to sky scrapers. So I was wondering if you could tell us where you studied all this to such an extent that allows you to tell all the scientists on here and elsewhere that they are wrong.

Sadly I won't see any reply that dribbles from your semi-formed consciousness as you are still on my ignore list but others will. So feel free to tell them.

 

[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?

[MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] - any chance of answering my question from yesterday, as quoted here?

 

[colinz]

Sorry but I don't have to dredge the net for eyewitness reports, even if I did you'd say they were lying.
There is plenty of footage of people witnessing the planes hitting the towers but that's no good to you because everything you don't want to believe on the tv is dismissed as CGI.
How about you find footage of people witnessing the explosions (without the planes)
Surely if you are correct then people would have at least the 2nd explosion caught on camera.

Also seeing as you think we are stupid because (according to you) we think planes disappear into buildings, do you think falmer & rosa are stupid too ?
After all they too believe something the same size as a jet airliner hit the towers so I'd like to know

Falmer & Rosa are not in the "Aeroplanes can fly into & disappear inside buildings" camp, I've already stated what I believe to be their position, unfortunately they appear to no longer be posting any more, not that I can blame them given the amount of abuse they received.

Sorry but I don't have to dredge the net for eyewitness reports, even if I did you'd say they were lying.
There is plenty of footage of people witnessing the planes hitting the towers

Put up or shut up.

How about you find footage of people witnessing the explosions (without the planes)
Surely if you are correct then people would have at least the 2nd explosion caught on camera

You mean people would hear an explosion, look up & take a photograph (assuming that people in Manhattan going about their daily business, carry a camera on their way to work, when's the last time you took your camera to work ?) it would be a bit late to capture the explosion.
Your the one saying people eye witnessed an aeroplane flying into the tower, the onus is on you to provide the eyewitness testimony.

 

[colinz]

Once again someone has quoted colinz, apparently replying to me but I'm not sure as I can't see his shite anymore.

colinz, you've STILL not explained what your science qualifications are. I know that could only be an oversight on your part as you are such a well educated person who has managed to study , in depth, principles of flight and aviation engineering, physics, space travel - in particular gravity and it's effects and actions outside ot the earth's atmosphere, explosives and of course civil enginering - in particular structural engineering as it relates to sky scrapers. So I was wondering if you could tell us where you studied all this to such an extent that allows you to tell all the scientists on here and elsewhere that they are wrong.

Sadly I won't see any reply that dribbles from your semi-formed consciousness as you are still on my ignore list but others will. So feel free to tell them.

Biggles your the one throwing all their toys out of the cot putting me on ignore, if you want dialogue do it with me directly not through a third party, you gutless prick.

 

[colinz]

Hang on [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION].... You mock people for thinking it "disappeared" inside yet you also say it couldn't have cut through the building & come out of the other side, what do you think it should it have done then, transform into optimus prime turn it's wings into robot arms & wrap them around the tower then slide down it like a giant firemans pole ?

Your an idiot mate simple as that

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

 

[beorhthelm]

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

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.

 

[One Love]

9 11 Video Footage Timeline

Private individual videoing towers. If you keep pausing and playing around 20secs you can clearly see the 767 enter the building.

 

[Curious Orange]

[MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] - videos of second plane impact.

It is quite clear from the footage taken from several angles that the plane doesn't disappear, it explodes - due to hitting all that structural stuff do you think?
Bits of it do make it all the way through I see, momentum perhaps - I seem to remember hearing something about that at school.

 

[Frutos]

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

 

[One Love]

9 11 Video Footage Timeline

This one you can see a closeup of the time the first tower collapsed.

And no explosion causing it.

 

[tezz79]

Falmer & Rosa are not in the "Aeroplanes can fly into & disappear inside buildings" camp, I've already stated what I believe to be their position, unfortunately they appear to no longer be posting any more, not that I can blame them given the amount of abuse they received.


Put up or shut up.



You mean people would hear an explosion, look up & take a photograph (assuming that people in Manhattan going about their daily business, carry a camera on their way to work, when's the last time you took your camera to work ?) it would be a bit late to capture the explosion.
Your the one saying people eye witnessed an aeroplane flying into the tower, the onus is on you to provide the eyewitness testimony.

You're wrong colinz falmer has stated that black planes were seen flying into the towers so answer my question & stop ducking it.

As for my eyewitnesses take all the footage you can find of people screaming & gasping in horror as the planes hit the towers..... There are my eyewitnesses so where are yours ?
Where is the footage of the explosion in the towers (minus the planes)
Why is it only the version I believe has footage ?
Also seeing as there is some documented footage of what I believe to have happened (no matter if you believe it to be cgi or not) the onus is actually now on you to provide me with evidence of what you believe.

Are you stupid or something (no need to answer that)
So after the 1st "explosion" you think the only people (out of millions) that would have started filming all the chaos of what was happening were people that were willing to have their footage doctored & lie about what they saw.... Isn't that convenient for you colinz !!!
One of the worlds most iconic buildings just gets blown up, there is a gaping hole in the side with smoke billowing out & debris everywhere yet out of million (including tourists) nobody bothers to film or happens to snap anything of the 2nd "explosion" minus the plane ?
Don't you find that odd ?

So again colinz what I'd like from you is some footage of an explosion (minus the planes) because we know somebody would have been filming what was going on in the 1st tower right ?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I'd also like to know if you think falmer is foolish for thinking that the eyewitnesses that saw the black planes with blacked out windows hitting the towers are credible.... If not why not seeing as (according to you) no wreckage of black planes were found ?

Don't fob me off with how you've made this clear in an earlier post because no you have not, you have skirted around & sidestepped the answer because no matter how much you'd like somebody on here to back up & agree with your tripe you know falmer has actually contradicted your theory & therefore does not agree with you so come on give us some straight answers

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

P.s the reason you are probably getting abuse is because you claim to know better than people who were actually there, you claim to have a superior knowledge of what people did or did not see with their own eyes despite the fact they were there & you were not which makes you come across very condescending & patronising...... I don't know how you can't see how you're coming across & the fact that you can't see it actually says a lot about your intelligence & refusal to listen to people, to be honest it makes you come across as a cock which is why you are getting stick

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Biggles your the one throwing all their toys out of the cot putting me on ignore, if you want dialogue do it with me directly not through a third party, you gutless prick.

Still dodging questions.

Why don't you 'put up or shut up' as you so eloquently asked someone else on here?

 

[One Love]

The second video clip doesn't seem to link properly.

If you go to that site and search the timeline for Apr 5, 2006 you will see closeup footage of the 1st tower collapse which I believe ruins all ideas of controlled explosion.

At the end there is a link to another video showing the 767 coming in to strike the 2nd tower. Colinz how is this fake??

Now found youtube link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZR24kKaToio

 

[readingstockport]

Still dodging questions.

Why don't you 'put up or shut up' as you so eloquently asked someone else on here?

I guess that was his reply to me. I take it that once again he didn't answer a direct question. Funny how everyone else, except rolmer of course, on this thread has answered any direct question put to them. I think it is safe to assume that colinz has absolutely no scientific qualification, civil engineering qualification or aeronautical qualification (of any kind) at all.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

The last bastions of somene who has no ability to justifytheir side of an argument.

1. Ignore questions that will give the game away when answered.
2. Change the subject and divert people away from flaws in your argument by asking a different question in response to a question being asked of you.
3. Throw insults and childish language about at your questioners in a pathetic attempt to discredit them.

colinz is on top form with regard to all three.

 

[tezz79]

I guess that was his reply to me. I take it that once again he didn't answer a direct question. Funny how everyone else, except rolmer of course, on this thread has answered any direct question put to them. I think it is safe to assume that colinz has absolutely no scientific qualification, civil engineering qualification or aeronautical qualification (of any kind) at all.

No he said it to me mate, he claims not a single person saw a plane that day & expects me to provide him with eyewitness accounts for some reason, I don't know why because even if I did he would either claim they were in on the conspiracy or that he actually knows more about what they saw than they do despite the fact he wasn't there.

He is what my late friend would have called "a great knower of nothing"

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Hi tezz, no it was in reply to readingstockport, who he jovially refers to as 'biggles' because this trivialises the fact that readingstockport actually undertands aerodynamics whereas colinz doesn't.

On the subject of eyewitnesses seeing planes hit the towers, colinz himself has already posted such clips, however they were supporting HIS argument because the witnesses were, and I quote, "bad actors".

 

[tezz79]

Hi tezz, no it was in reply to readingstockport, who he jovially refers to as 'biggles' because this trivialises the fact that readingstockport actually undertands aerodynamics whereas colinz doesn't.

On the subject of eyewitnesses seeing planes hit the towers, colinz himself has already posted such clips, however they were supporting HIS argument because the witnesses were, and I quote, "bad actors".

Hi mate, Ah right he must have said it to both of us, I know he quoted me (post #647)
It's getting to the point I can't be arsed even answering him now as he obviously just wants to believe what he's spouting & is not willing to listen to any facts that would suggest otherwise.
If something does not sit right with he's soppy conclusion he just dismisses it as lies or CGI but true to form the majority of NSC can see & take him for what he is