Please cite your best evidence of "no-planes"

someone made that (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

a whole page of garbage.

i asked for bonafide evidence I can take to court.

you continue to give me debunker puke.

Do you know what bonafide witness evidence is? Do tell.

 

Where is your proof they made any of it up? I challenge you do prove any of those statements false. Have it lawyerboy.

 

Yes I do, and it's "bona fide". Do you know what a charlatan is? Are there lots of kangaroos in your court?

 

you arent challenging anything.

Its your claim they are bonafide witnesses.

you or som OSHugger posted a huge list of alleged witnesses.

See that means you have to prove it not the challenger.

thats the way it works in american courts.

or are we in a bass ackwards debunker court today?

 

Well then why don't we pick up where we left off before youskys ran away?

It's harder to persuade people that it's all "silliness" when your not whacking at the "no planes" straw man isn't it?

This fellow said it as well I could. That isn't to say that I would endorse everything that anyone said without being convinced first myself. I take such things on an item by item basis, ie I don't allow the saboteurs to drop turds in the punch bowl. When they do, I don't drink from it.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message804562/pg1

You see, not everyone is the simpleton youskys take them to be. But carry on, a sucker is born every minute.

 

When detectives have as much circumstantial evidence that someone is guilty of homicide as is available to indicate the same conclusion, they do not wait for "proof" to have those suspects arrested.

If a prosecuting attorney had as much evidence pointing to "inside job" as is available with 9/11, they could no doubt gain a conviction....anywhere but in a Kangaroo Court the likes of which the Kosher establishment would set up if they ever had one at all, which they haven't.

The removal of "reasonable doubt" does not consist of discounting every (*)(*)(*)(*) 'n' bull story imaginable with the rigors of a mathematical proof.

The problem is in getting the genuine article to this over-sexed, over entertained, intoxicated, and highly brain washed society.

http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

 

Familiar with Occam's razor? Didn't think so.

 

well that 100,000.00 reward for a video clip of a REAL plane impact is still unclaimed since 2008.

 

Havent seen a debunker correctly apply it yet, since you think its pertinent, (it not), lets hear how you incorrectly apply it.

 

The amount and type of destruction done to the WTC bldgs. is most simply explained by the use of thermite/demolitions.

http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/911-experiments-mysterious-eutectic.html

And from a more "neutral" publication:
(to be fair; something Debunkers are incapable of)

This admission, being from a university, most of which are under Zionist influence, still must clutch at any other explanation other than "the most simple" one.
With a name like Biederman one could scarcely expect anything else.

That's not nearly as scary as the silent coup being conducted by the cadre of Marxist/Zionist conspirators and their assistants within organized crime managing to Sovietize the US right under the unwary noses of so many flag waving "Patriots", or the conspiracy which led to the murder of thousands of US citizens in broad daylight, Mr. Biederman.

ALL "those things", Mr Biederman, the environment, wall board, all the rubber lying around, acid rain, even the ocean......they ALL have an additional "global warming" sort of "green" appeal to them that makes one want to impose carbon taxes....

ALL "those things must be explored".... EXCEPT for THERMITE!


THAT might have been done had those in charge of the investigation ordered them done as per legal and mandatory protocol in such cases where the particular signs of such are present as was the case with the WTC wrecks.

Somehow the signs were either ignored or overlooked by those who were too eager to accept "the simplest explanation" which the media dished out from day one.

Perhaps they believed that the reported FBI theory at the moment of explosives being in the building was just another by product of the mass hysteria which caused so many other witnesses to have similar hallucinations of "flashes of light", and "bombs going off".

COINCIDENTALLY, the fire sprinkler systems were didn't work.... in a building that housed the CIA and Giulliani's "war room" among other things. Building 7 was also allowed to burn for eight hours without much effort on the part of the Fire Dept., understandably after what had just been witnessed with Towers 1 and 2.

Initially, they charged up the stairs to those buildings with the idea that they could put out the fires "with one or two lines". Little did they expect to encounter so many explosions, and even less that the entire structure would collapse on them. Had they anticipated either of these occurrences they probably would have responded to bldgs 1 and 2 as they did to 7, by simply watching it burn. Certainly they would not have gone charging in as they did before. They needed no such demonstration with building 7 to be convinced of the possibility, no matter how much doubt they might have had prior to 9/11 that such a thing could happen.

Seeing is believing. Explaining what you see is another problem.



It was stated by "experts" on TV that thermite could not burn through steel also BUT
at least one industrious civic minded citizen took it upon himself to demonstrate OTHERWISE.....
[video=youtube;DonpXB6gjPA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA[/video]

.....which only goes to show that you can't always trust the word of "experts".

Good luck with that since in the haste to clean up the crime scene, those samples were all put on a slow boat to China where they got melted down to make bullets to shoot at Imperialist Running Dogs and products for Wal-Mart.

 

Ordinarily, people intent on committing a crime, particularly those who conspire to do so, prefer to carry them out in such a way as to disguise their own hand in it. At least that's what those criminals do who intend to not get caught.

Anything which might conceal the actual cause of the event or divert suspicion away from those who did it could be helpful in directing an investigation down the wrong avenue, or better still, prevent one altogether.

This is why some murders are preformed in such a way as to make them appear to be accidents or suicide.
Chemical substances have been used to poison victims so as to lead coroners to believe that the death was by illness or natural causes. In such cases a thorough autopsy might be circumvented by those who chose to accept the "obvious" conclusion without question.
And if the remains of the deceased are left to the charge of those who were responsible for their death in the first place, a quick cremation might be preformed to ensure that no evidence could later be examined.

Another method is to provide a ready made scapegoat or "patsy" to take the blame.

Many people are convinced now that Lee Oswald did not murder JFK, but was set up to take the fall for those who did.

This idea was once scoffed at as being merely the product of overactive imaginations also, but not nearly so much as those who doubt 9/11 and show good reason for it are condemned.

 

For the simple minded maybe. The logistics involved with something like that would be massive and consist of removing interiors of the building and fire proofing, all the while that the building was occupied. It would have to include massive secrecy by so many people that it is unimaginable that they all keep quiet. It would have to be so well planned that the planes that on one hand by the truthers could not be flown accurately at that speed to hit two buildings in two different places, exactly where the alleged explosives were put.

There is also the fact that not one truther can explain how all this happens except for statements like yours, an "argument from incredulity" logical fallacy.

You are evidently very unaware of Occam's Razor.

 

You are mistaken on all accounts, including the application of Occam's Razor and this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

It is also a mistake to assert that one must know and be able to prove every detail of how a crime was committed in order to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred.

There are many reasons to doubt the Kosher account of 9/11 too numerous to list in detail in one post or even one thread. Had there not been, the controversy would never have arisen in the first place, much less gained the attention of so many professionals who have invested their own time and money and risked their own reputations to publicize.

What motive could all these people have had?

Youskys have never answered even this question, let alone the scores of others that have been put to you.
Instead you evade or ignore them and attempt to post impertinent and flippant quips in an attempt to make yourselves look cute.

You're not.

 

http://911proof.com/FactSheet.html

If anything the "argument from incredulity" fallacy should be applied to DeBunkers.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Yours definitely does since you purport to have no idea as to how such an operation could be performed.

At the same time it is practically impossible for the public to follow the strained and contorted way in which NIST and their disciples propose that ALL THREE of the WTC buildings JUST HAPPENED to ALL FALL in the manner of CONTROLLED demolitions all on the same day in the same location when no similar occurrence had ever been seen to have happened prior to that time.

That is to say that in ALL THREE instances the random processes of fire and damage sustained from the planes impacts, which could have not possibly have been predetermined or controlled with any precision, should ALL happen in precisely the correct manner so as to CAUSE the COLLAPSE of ALL THREE buildings according to the principles of Verinage demolitions.

If anything strains the imagination, it is how anyone could look at the NIST computer simulation and see any resemblance whatsoever to the actual occurrence or believe that the entire structural integrity of building 7 could rest upon one central column.

 

that's cause you guys have no intention of ever accepting that planes hit the WTC

 

How many proposals did NIST make for how those buildings collapsed?

And which one did they finally decide upon? I'm not sure since first they would say one thing and then another.
One got the impression they really weren't sure themselves.

In fact, in the case of building 7 at least one of them admitted THEY DID NOT KNOW.

Therefore if the NIST account is the one you rely on, and THEY do not know with any degree of certainty, then HOW CAN YOU?

- - - Updated - - -

FALSE!

I'm certain that planes DID hit the building. Those planes provided the cover for the real mechanism of the collapses and thus an alibi for those who had the foreknowledge and the means to covertly rig them for demolition.

Threads with titles like this are permitted in order to give unwitting observers with no foundation upon which to make an educated decision the idea that ALL "twoofers" believe in proposals which most people will discard without a second thought.

That's the idea isn't it? "Let's all laugh at and mock the 'twoofers' and FOR GED A BOUDIT."

In the meantime we will continue our TRILLION dollar war campaign for the conquest of Israel's enemies while King Obama continues the long march to socialism with his "healthcare" plans and the Federal Reserve further robs the public for the sake of the megalomaniac Banksters quest for power and immortality.

 

of course you believe that planes hit the buildings.

its insane, irrational, and illogical to believe otherwise.

 

And it's "insane, irrational, and illogical" to believe that seventeen militant Arabs escaped the notice of the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and the Mossad and then managed to avoid being intercepted by NORAD unless someone ran interference.

 

That would be 19 arabs,champ...And they didn't exactly 'escape notice',none of the agencies were keen on sharing intel prior to 9/11

 

Your problem is that you have proven no detail of your fantasy.

 

Seven or so who were on the initial list turned up alive elsewhere in the world. One of those died a year before 9/11!

This casts some doubt on the exact number of suspects, moreover on the true identity of the others as well. For if they were wrong on that many accounts, that casts doubt on the rest.

[video=youtube;vQBAcImb468]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQBAcImb468[/video]

When are YOU going to answer a question?

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly what can be said of yours.

 

none of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

they all died on 9-11.

 

What a surprise, a video by another antisemite.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean besides all the eye witnesses and the evidence.

 

Unlike truthers, there are things no one will ever know, which is the reality of the situation.

 

FALSE.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago

Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive

Fortunately for all us conspiracy nuts we have Ron the STAR and his crack team of 9/11 experts here who know better than the BBC and Director Mueller to set the record straight.