Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

Pawnless Endgame · 20 May 2014 at 22:33

Dimple said:
I feel sorry for Al-Qaeda in all this Tin Foil Hat nonsense.
They pull off one of the greatest victories on American soil and white idiots want to take the blame away from them.

... and there was me thinking that it was the Jews that did WTC

McBain · 20 May 2014 at 22:59

Jono8 said:
lol. That is all

My thoughts exactly.

bloodiedathame · 20 May 2014 at 23:01

What happened at the Pentagon?

*I remember hearing that there was "no debris" etc etc. Seems there was after a quick gooogle.

Glaucus · 20 May 2014 at 23:07

Nerusy said:
From the reading the quote OP provided.

From the title it seems that he claims no plane hit the towers but what I got from reading the quote OP provided it seems the fella argues that it couldn't have been a Boeing piloted by amateurs, rather than no planes at all. Am I wrong?

Yes as they quite clearly state of it was a Boeing the tail would have broken off and floated to the ground,

Housey · 20 May 2014 at 23:07

I'll go with the view of people I know who were in the towers and on the street watching rather than YET ANOTHER idiot.

Jimbeam3678 · 20 May 2014 at 23:07

Jokester said:
Wacko!

Conspiracy theories only work if they have an element of believability to them. To claim they weren't hit by aircraft given all the thousands of witness testimonies, videos and of course the fact that 2 planes otherwise disappeared with all passengers onboard (some of whose remains were found at the scene by the way) is quite frankly an offence to those who died.

I've always thought this , let the poor bloody families try and get on with their lives

Pestilence · 20 May 2014 at 23:16

Seems legit.

*trollface*

Nerusy · 20 May 2014 at 23:31

Glaucus said:
Yes as they quite clearly state of it was a Boeing the tail would have broken off and floated to the ground,

What are you on about? Me and Fenris were not talking about the plausibility of his claim but rather that the title is misleading. What is it exactly you are talking about? As your sentence does not make any sense when replying to mine.

Glaucus · 20 May 2014 at 23:35

Nerusy said:
What are you on about? Me and Fenris were not talking about the plausibility of his claim but rather that the title is misleading. What is it exactly you are talking about? As your sentence does not make any sense when replying to mine.

How does it not makes sense.
They are saying if a plane hit, then the tail would have broken off and floated to the ground. As such no plane hit. And they are clueless about Newton laws of motion. Hence they are bat crazy.

Nerusy · 20 May 2014 at 23:40

Glaucus said:
How does it not makes sense.
They are saying if a plane hit, then the tail would have broken off and floated to the ground. As such no plane hit. And they are clueless about Newton laws of motion. Hence they are bat crazy.

What does them being crazy has to do with me pointing out the title is misleading and wrong? What is happening, can you not read :confused:

Glaucus · 20 May 2014 at 23:43

Nerusy said:
What does them being crazy has to do with me pointing out the title is misleading and wrong? What is happening, can you not read

Everything, as the title is not misleading at all. They believe no Boeing hit the trade centre, they quite clearly state this.

Nerusy · 20 May 2014 at 23:50

Glaucus said:
Everything, as the title is not misleading at all. They believe no Boeing hit the trade centre, they quite clearly state this.

There we are now I understand you.

Just because they think Boeing did not hit the tower does not necessarily mean they think no plane hit the towers, I remember witnessing one conspiracy claiming the plane footage of the impact seems to indicate that the plane was of military origin. Again I am not arguing about validity of these theories but from the quote OP prpvided , it sounds to me that they rule out that the collapse was caused by a commercial a plane rather than no plane at all. I did not read the article though , just what OP posted here, so if they do state that no plane at all could have hit the towers then title is fine but from what I read, the title is wrong

Glaucus · 20 May 2014 at 23:53

Nerusy said:
There we are now I understand you.

Just because they think Boeing did not hit the tower does not mecesserely mean they think no plane hit the towers, I rember witnessing one cispiracy claiming the plane footage of the impact seems to indicate that the plane was of millitary orgini. Again I am not arguing about validity of these theories but from the quote OP prpvided , it sounds to me that they rule out that the collapse was caused by a commercial a plane rather than no plane at all. I did not read the article thiufh , just what OP posted here, so I'd the do state that no plane at all could have hit the towers then title is fine but from what I read, the title is wrong

It pretty much does as planes are built in a very similar way. Where's the engines, why doesn't the tailplane float to the floor. These all apply to any fast plane of that size and speed.
So it's very much they do not believe a plane hit and has nothing to do with, planes hit but just flown by professional like you suggested.

Jet engines apply to commercial or military so this is very much what they are saying. Perhaps you should actually read it.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:04

Glaucus said:
It pretty much does as planes are built in a very similar way. Where's the engines, why doesn't the tailplane float to the floor. These all apply to any fast plane of that size and speed.
So it's very much they do not believe a plane hit and has nothing to do with, planes hit but just flown by professional like you suggested.

Jet engines apply to commercial or military so this is very much what they are saying. Perhaps you should actually read it.

I read the article, nowhere does he say "no plane", he specifically says it couldn't have been 767. Thus the title is wrong, like I said.

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:05

Read what he says about engines. Or are these rocket powered planes with no tail plane. Just lol. the title is not wrong at all.

So did you or did you not read the article, it can't be both.

I did not read the article

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:09

Glaucus said:
Read what he says about engines. Or are these rocket powered planes with no tail plane. Just lol. the title is not wrong at all.

So did you or did you not read the article, it can't be both.

I read it after you said I should, is it that hard to deduce from our conversation, what is wrong with you? If you want to assume what he means go for it, going by factual quote he does not say no plane hit the tower.

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:13

Nerusy said:
I read it after you said I should, is it that hard to deduce from our conversation, what is wrong with you? If you want to assume what he means go for it, going by factual quote he does not say no plane hit the tower.

I don't have to assume anything it's their in black and white.
What do you think military planes run on? That's right jet engines, so where's the jet engines from that.
So yes what I've been saying is exactly what he is saying. And as I keep pointing out, if a civilian plane didn't leave engines & tailplanes etc, then nore can a military plane.
Unlike what you initially said that it was just professionally piloted. that isn't what he is saying at all.

Jokester · 21 May 2014 at 00:14

Yeah because jet engines and tail planes are a peculiar design aspect of the 767.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:19

Glaucus said:
I don't have to assume anything it's their in black and white.
What do you think military planes run on? That's right jet engines, so where's the jet engines from that.
So yes what I've been saying is exactly what he is saying. And as I keep pointing out, if a civilian plane didn't leave engines & tailplanes etc, then nore can a military plane.
Unlike what you initially said that it was just professionally piloted. that isn't what he is saying at all.

‘The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

This quote shows that he makes an argument that the pilot could not have been novice, in the previous quotes I've already proven to you that he specifically says Boein 767 rather than no plane at all.

That is a factual proof that he does not state "no plane has hit the tower". Now this is a fact, no matter how much you go into black and white fallacy that fact won't change. Now he *may* think on a personal level that no plane hit the tower but he does not state such theory in this article hence the title is wrong and what you are doing is very confusing because you are arguing against factual quote :confused:

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:26

Lol, so where's the engines from any plane? He is bat crazy and if there's no engines recovered he's saying there's no engines. Was it a glider?

Do you understand what he is saying about the engines and tail plane. are you capable of using some logic.

Nope it is plane as day to see what he is saying. Listen to the engine argument. The title is spot on.