Where is the proof that the airliners existed at all?

Note the ball at the top right at 2:13. Where did April Amonica say there was a plane after she said..."WOW,...(long pause) I GUESS THAT'S IN THE OTHER BUILDING."

So, what was that about you knowing what you're talking about, Crazy Guy?

She saw the ball, but didn't comment on it because she didn't know what it was. That's logical and consistent with what any honest human would think. She was also careful not to acknowledge the ball and talk out loud about it like Clifton Cloud did so beautifully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAlA-H4QJRo

 

there was NO ball,only a plane

 

I have a question...

If in fact there was a plane, and that plane did in fact follow the flight path I have outlined, how would the videos you posted have been different?

 

The ball came from the southeast. It was captured on radar.

 

It's almost like I'm speaking a different language.

 

She didn't need to as it was obvious.

I'll repost it for you if you don't understand it. It is obvious to most, but if you need me to go through it, I'm obliging in that area.

No, it was obviously a plane. Don't make assumptions that are ridiculous. Here's a point that you have clearly missed: orbs or balls aren't all that aerodynamic, and as such it is difficult to get one off the ground unless it is a balloon. Are you saying it's a balloon?

Of course, she saw a plane that was obviously a plane.

Because it didn't exist. Do you think it was piloted by Reptilian shape-shifters?

Metaphor escapes you.

 

You're right! It was captured on radar. As the blue line in the picture below. My "drone" followed the path I have drawn in red which matches the radar data.

Your "drone", which you show traveling the light brown/tan route is fake.

Are you in on the conspiracy?!

 

If the conspiracy gave him directions to the weekly meeting, I'm not sure he'd be able to find it.

 

And how is that reconciled with the testimony of a firefighter who saw a plane the size of a seagull? He was right there near the towers. I just found this today. He followed the object to the end, which was the explosion. The distance remark is an excuse that's entirely false and cannot be duplicated.

CAPTAIN DAVID LOPER (FDNY)

"Anyway, it's then that I was looking at the north tower that I saw what I thought looked like a seagull in the distance almost and it went into the south tower and the south tower exploded in a huge fire ball."

http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums...6f-939a-5b28d1f94c34_zpsqt0xproe.png~original

 

Do you understand 'perspective'no firefighter saw a 'seagull' only a plane....what he used to describe it is another matter


Your dishonesty in this matter is astounding

 

Are you serious? He saw a plane. Please note that the statement 'looked like a Seagull' is a simile and not meant to be taken as written.

simile, noun plural noun: similes:
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion ).
•the use of similes as a method of comparison.

 

It may be a simile, but the plane could not have looked small from his close proximity with the towers. There's no chance he would not have identified the plane had there really been one. Let's see how smart you are. Use a comparison in a sentence as it pertains to Loper's testimony.

 

It has nothing to do with 'perspective' as he clearly saw something smaller than any size plane, which he followed until the explosion. He didn't really see a seagull, but the small drone the media captured many times.

Your excuses in this matter are cheap.

 

NO he did NOT see 'something smaller,because there was NOTHING with wings that was smaller that day...

 

It was on TV. We all saw the plans hit. I feel like this is sorta crazy to even talk about.

 

I love how truthers love to simply fling things toward the wall and see what sticks. There's never any regard for the rest of their story.

We've just been told by 7forever that the "orb" that air traffic controllers in Newark identified both visually and on radar as an aircraft flying over the Verazzano bridge at high speed was the size of a seagull.

In the truther mind, apparently that makes sense.

 

Flight 175 did not come over the bridge, therefore you or they can call it whatever you prefer. Here are some names used by some eyewitnesses, news anchors, and very few honest observers of several live broadcasts: Ball, orb, seagull, helicopter, drone, military plane, and United. Flight 175 would've passed north of and close to the Statue of Liberty located at the top left of the image. The Verrazano bridge approach was an entirely separate event that stands alone.

The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

Tepper: He was in a hard right bank, diving very steeply and very fast. And as was in he was coming up the Hudson River, he made another hard left turn and just heading for downtown Manhattan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk

 

So let me get this straight. Instead of 7 different descriptions of the same object, you think there's 7 different objects that none of the 6 other observers happened to notice?

Occum weeps.

 

I'm saying that what came over the bridge wasn't flight 175. That's really it. A supporter of the official story such as yourself either has one thing that wasn't flight 175 or an additional object that wasn't flight 175? I guess you could have it both ways, but either is inconsistent with the official story.

 

Tell me, what is the subject of the clause 'in the distance'?

Let's see how smart you are and see if you can decipher the ambiguity.

- - - Updated - - -

Weeps? He slit his wrists!

 

It wasn't a "drone/ball" that's for sure.

Why do you accuse folks of making up the flight 175 flight path, yet you did the same for your "drone/ball"?

Not very honest of you 7forever.

 

If that's really it, then why did you spend so much time contradicting yourself?

 

I just looked up Gregory Callahan on linkedin. He's been an ATC since 1989. Do you think an ATC with 12 years of experience would have trouble telling the difference between a 767 and a seagull at a visual distance of about 10 miles?

And you accuse us of wanting to "have it both ways?"

 

If what's really it is not really it, then why did you spend no time contradicting the Verrazano approach?

 

Given the testimony of a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of those responders who claim they heard demolition going off right before the buildings were brought down, and other reports from them that contradict the official story, its best not to ask these responders any questions at all, for they would negate the official story. See the problem with the official story is that i just isn't credible, and does not hold up to scrutiny, using hard science as the tool for inquiry.

But those were planes that hit those buildings, and those were real human beings who lost their lives when all of those planes were destroyed. That some people would actually believe the planes were faked, is an old propaganda tactic, that seeks to make a story as ludicrous as possible, so that the logical things are then ignored. This is prolific, and if you forget these tactics your brain is basically useless.

Another tactic used by men in power who lack integrity can be seen back in the occupy wall street gatherings. The powers that be send in people that will do acts that then allows cops to start arresting people(generally not the ones who were responsible) and to come down harder with force, thereby breaking up demonstrations. This was used back in the 60s with anti war demonstrations and the demostrations at the democratic national convention in chicago in the late 60s. This is how a gov't that lacks integrity operates. And you will always be able to fool those people who are easily fooled by propaganda. For if we did not have people with less than ideal brains, no one could ever use propaganda. It is used because it works. But only with people who tend not to question, and are very good followers. Those people that Jim Jones brainwashed, ending in mass suicide, were of the same vein as americans who will not dig deep enough into 9 11, and who have shut their brains off. So something very important was learned with 9 11. You can totally fool enough americans so that other false flags can be pulled off again, whenever the oligarchs and neo cons need to invade other nations and act like a proper empire.