Where is the proof that the airliners existed at all?

I am curious. Why is it important to go deeper into the rabbit hole in regards to believing commercial aircraft did not hit the twin towers? Isn't it enough that the neo cons could take advantage of a planned terrorist attack and turn it into something exponentially more spectacular than what it would have yielded if those building didn't come down as they did? I mean it is outrageous enough even with the planes. So why take it to a level that makes it even more unbelievable ? I think either the people that do this are in trouble mentally, OR, they are plants, to keep the waters muddied up, by disinformation.

 

The responders who heard explosions state they heard explosions, not demolition charges. That is a false assumption, and explosions are a feature of commercial, industrial and domestic fires. Many attempt to misrepresent the testimony, but it is easy to see through the nonsense. No-one has discredited the accepted version with any evidence or testimony that challenges the impact/fires collapse theory.

Agreed.

And some may actually believe it. The propaganda story has no real supporting evidence and a such, remains just another claim in a sea of unsupported claims.

The motives attributed to TPTB aren't very strong and certainly do not justify the 'false flag' accusation that has no supporting evidence. Nor does the 'empire' claim have any credence, because the evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't really the actions of an imperialist nation.

 

Clifton Cloud, adamantly disagrees with you and he was watching the towers before T2 exploded. He was one of many real-time witnesses that refutes the plane theory.

Clifton Cloud, rejects any plane's existence three times in seconds with the word NO and mentions just an explosion four times.

At 1:59 he tells his co-worker, "the second tower just exploded".

At 2:15 he is emphatic about no plane, just an explosion.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN', the building exploded from the other tower floors down. No, this is a horrific site."

2:37 "At first there was a report of a plane but I just, glass is flying..." He was responding to his friend's insistence that a plane hit the building.

NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 1-3 (WTC2 Plane Impact, 9:03am) - YouTube

 

Well, if Clifton Cloud says so ...

 

Then why did he zoom as the plane came into the picture and impacted?

 

He saw the same object I've been posting for years. I guess you could say he assumed it was a chopper, but ultimately questioned that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bttrlyx4k

"All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

"There was a police copter like near it...I swear, I don't know what happen to him, but. But when the second one exploded there was a helicopter not too far away."

PS: I don't expect you to concede these facts, only that you know simple answers are available to narrow aspects of 911.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DahTYtdHLA&feature=related

 

Funny.


in the video you can make out it's a plane evidently hw asn't looking and missed it


Your whole premise rest on what you THINK cloud saw..


Major fail

 

Why not ask Cloud what he saw? Cloud will say there was a plane, that's why.

 

Truthers never fail to get twisted up in their own convoluted language. I can't even figure out what it is you think I'm supposed to contradict. You keep posting snippets of conversations that are supposed to prove the opposite of what they say, photos of a jet smashing into a tower that are supposed to prove there was no jet, and odd diagrams that you've scribbled on that are supposed to prove God knows what.

Let's think about this scientifically for a moment.

175 was moving at about 590 MPH when it hit the tower. It was moving slower than that on approach. Just so we can get some perspective, let's say that when Greg "saw it over by the Verrazzano" it was going 500mph. If at 500 mph it crossed roughly perpendicular to the bridge then it was physically "over the bridge" for exactly 0.14 of a second. Clearly Greg didn't use the phrase "over the Verrazzano" to indicate the exact moment the aircraft crossed the bridge because it took longer to say than the plane actually took to cross. The language you keep posting in this conversations was never meant to, and cannot indicate the exact location and condition of the jet that smashed into the tower. It's meant to indicate relative position. That is to say, a position relative to Greg. And in that regard, the aircraft could have been in a field of view that was miles across, (almost 10 to be more exact) and still have been "over the Verrazzano" from Greg's position.

For example, the image below shows Greg's approximate field of view of the Verrazzano bridge.



The aircraft could have entered Greg's field of view over Silver Lake, or even much further south of the Verrazzano and Greg still would have said, over the Verrazzao because he wasn't trying to pinpoint the jet's exact position. He was trying to indicate the direction someone should look to find it. You could look anywhere in that cone of black in the image above, and it would be "over the Verrazzano" if you were standing in the ATC tower at Newark.

Now why don't you ask Greg whether he thinks it was 175 "over the Verrazzano" or whether he thinks it was a seagull, as you suggested?

 

Because he said all there is to say about no plane for T2, that's why. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't see a plane, only an object he could not identify. That's how the defeated thinks. Him changing his story or insisting there was a plane doesn't change what he said while he was standing there. He could only say there was a plane because black blobs were aired on TV, and one was added to his video.

 

So you don't believe your own witness?

It's odd that you keep providing these witnesses that we're required not to believe in order to believe your claims about what they said.

 

/thread.

 

you'll need to back up the claim that cloud indicated a plane was 'added to his video

 

I believe what Cloud said when he was on the roof, then a few hours later on TV. That no plane was anywhere near T2 when it exploded and nothing but a fake blob was added to his video before his Today show interview about 11:30 am.

He was one mile away and only saw the ball and a white flash. He failed to mention seeing something on tv, but stuck to not seeing anything. This one witness is corroborated by the four tv broadcasts that aired the ball. You have to make up lies that are easily refutable. It is not possible for a plane to be mistaken for a chopper or ball from a mile away.

Clifton Cloud: "I was probably about a mile away and um, I didn't, didn't realize that the second explosion was going on...it was just just a quick sharp blast of white light, orange and then the sound, the shockwave hit a few minutes later."

Lauer: "And it was while you were shooting that, that the second plane came into view, and as you said, you really didn't even realize what you had captured. What was your response when you went back and looked carefully at the tape?

Cloud: "I thought about um, where the plane had hit in the sixties floor where one of my companies largest client's is."

2nd plane & 1st "collapse" Clifton Cloud 9/12 11:50 am - YouTube

 

The media agreed with me and what they saw with their own eyes. An object circled around and in between the towers. What that means exactly is the following: The ball was north of T2 just before it was suppose to crash (southeast corner) into the rear of it.

"There you see the plane...between the two buildings...and then you see the explosion...right there, unbelievable."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs

 

No planes on 9-11, huh????

[video=youtube;PMQWzdc175A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A[/video]

lol!!!!

 

They never said the plane 'went between the buildings',and from their vantage point,they were looking at the back side of the tower from where 175 hit...

 

A few minutes later? The shockwave must have taken a cab.

 

Further indicators that he was more than a mile away

 

Perhaps. More likely that it's evidence that Cloud is not speaking in precise terms. Shockwaves move at or beyond the speed of sound through the material. For air, that's approximately 760 miles an hour. That's around 13 miles a minute. Cloud wasn't 26 miles away. Obviously he was speaking in general terms. He meant it was a noticeable difference in time. But that's the issue with 7's argument. He's trying to apply a precise interpretation of language in order to construct his fantasy of what happened that day. The problem is he also tosses aside anything that conflicts with his fantasy as made up by conspirators in an attempt to discredit his fantasy. That leaves him having to chase his tail with people like Cloud who don't agree with him. He wants to use them to support his claims, but they only support his claims if he crops out tiny pieces of what they said and twists it to fit his fantasy.

He has to argue that Cloud couldn't mistake an aircraft from an orb, even though Cloud could mistake the amount of time it took for the shockwave, and even though Cloud currently says that what he captured on film was clearly an aircraft.

For 7 to be correct, Cloud must be mistaken about everything he says, with the exception of one very precise thing that he said...

 

7 deletes more than he posts.

Must be hard fabricating truth.

 

You have to pretend that Cloud could've mistook a plane for a chopper and at the same time admit that no chopper was near T2 before it exploded. Clifton Cloud, would never have missed a plane coming from his left. Cloud, currently says that what he captured on film was an aircraft, even though the object appeared out of thin air within the frame, had no wings, engines, or anything that could possibly make it authentic.

A deceiver like Fangbeer must skirt around many facts. Cloud, said he thought there was a chopper near it, but that clearly was the ball that 4 news stations filmed. It's understandable that any person who acknowledged the object could imagine that it was something like a chopper or a bird. It was something, but certainly not a plane, and that is all that matters.

"There was a police copter like near it...(I swear), I don't know what happen to him," This was Clifton's way of questioning whether he really saw a chopper.

All I saw was a helicopter and I didn't see the helicopter anymore. It just looked like it exploded from the inside."

"There was a police copter like near it...I swear, I don't know what happen to him, but. But when the second one exploded there was a helicopter not too far away."

NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 7-9 - YouTube

For you to be correct, Cloud must be wrong about everything he said during the moments when all this happened, with the exception of the fake blob added to his video.

"Ya, the second one I'm tellin' ya..was...I didn't see a plane...I was watching it...I didn't see a plane." He didn't see a plane because he was watching it. Just imagine trying to refute this evidence. It's unassailable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bttrlyx4k

 

Yeah,

That's a great argument you have there. My witness is always wrong, except when he's right.

Your argument is so convoluted you can't even argue that he was right when you think he was right. You have to argue that he was wrong in a way that doesn't conflict with your theory...

 

countless videos showing the 2nd plane crash into the tower.

....but they're all fake?

lol!!!!

 

You've made excuses, not arguments. He's one of the most important eyewitnesses from 911. He was correct about there being no plane, but mistaken about the ball being a helicopter.

Your excuses aren't even convoluted because there's no depth to them whatsoever. You've never made one intelligent argument that he was wrong for your plane fantasy to be right. You have to make excuses that he was wrong in a way that doesn't conflict with your false theory. Any suggestion that he could have missed a plane is absurd to the highest degree. It was and is totally impossible for a person like Clifton Cloud. He adjusted his experience to fit the 911 hoax of planes crashing into the twin towers.