Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:27

Glaucus said:
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.

Is that what you do, troll people past midnight? Goodnight sweet prince, fight another day.

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:28

Lol. So you can't argue the engine point. Good work. It is plane as day what he thinks. and as such the articles title is spot on. There is no trolling.

So someone you say I'm wrong as well as the article. explain how he thinks it might have been a plane when no engines recovered.

The other stupid things are engine parts where recovered from etc. So he's wrong on that part anyway.

Tefal · 21 May 2014 at 00:29

Nerusy said:
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.

the military planes that look like 767's are believe it or not 767's not some super amazing thing just 767's with new avionics.

also if these weren't two passenger planes where did the passenger planes and all the passengers go?

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:31

Glaucus said:
Lol. So you can't argue the engine point. Good work.

I believe I already provided factual proof that the title is wrong, it's you who is grasping at straws. You use to have make sense when I joined this forum, nowadays you just argue pointless things for the sake of arguing even when you know you are wrong. Sad times, sweet prince.

Tefal said:
the military planes that look like 767's are believe it or not 767's not some super amazing thing just 767's with new avionics.

also if these weren't two passenger planes where did the passenger planes and all the passengers go?

You are confusing me with somebody who cares about 911 conspiracies, the only thing that annoyed me was misleading article title, that's all. I am not saying he thinks it was a "military 767" just making a parallel that some people believe it was not 767 but other plane.

Relax boys, stop pouncing on everybody in 911 threads.

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:31

Nerusy said:
I believe I already provided factual proof that the title is wrong, it's you who is grasping at straws. You use to have make sense when I joined this forum, nowadays you just argue pointless things for the sake of arguing even when you know you are wrong. Sad times, sweet prince.

You haven't at all.

So come on explain how he thinks a plane hit with no engines recovered. still waiting for a theory.

You didn't read article. You then assumed plane was military, even though it says no bowing. Then you changed to plane, and now totally ignoring the engine problem.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:37

Glaucus said:
You haven't at all.

So come on explain how he thinks a plane hit with no engines recovered. still waiting for a theory.

Have you gone completely mental, how would I know what he thinks? What is wrong with you? :confused:

You didn't read article. You then assumed plane was military

I read what OP quoted, so I did read some of it. As for the military plane, that's not what I assumed lol, I was drawing parallel to what other theorists think. Making a point that there are people who think it was not 767 but still was a plane.

I think you can not read, my righteous Glaucus prince

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:39

You still totally ignoring the engine. the article is right, if not engine parts where recovered, which he is using for evidence of no Boeing. then in his own logic no plane can have hit. It really is that simple. So the article is very much correct. Or are these magic planes.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 00:47

Glaucus said:
You still totally ignoring the engine. the article is right, if not engine parts where recovered, which he is using for evidence of no Boeing. then in his own logic no plane can have hit. It really is that simple. So the article is very much correct. Or are these magic planes.

I am not an armchair aircraft engineer but you seem to be, so kudos on that. I already quoted points that clearly state that the title is wrong so I am not sure, you genuinely prefer to assume and take it as a fact or you trolling me here? I think you trolling

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 00:48

Oh god.
What do you understand, that no engines recovered is part of his reason if no Boeing. This applies equally to military planes.
It is easy to see what he is getting at.
You do not need to be an atm chair expert. You just need to know that a plane traveling that fast will have engines on it. Then read what he says about engines. If it applies to Boeing plane, it applies to all planes.

Tefal · 21 May 2014 at 00:52

the actual affidavit

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-g...ohn-lear-son-of-learjet-inventor-1935777.html

Tefal · 21 May 2014 at 00:55

24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted

as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 01:02

Glaucus said:
Oh god.
What do you understand, that no engines recovered is part of his reason if no Boeing. This applies equally to military planes.
It is easy to see what he is getting at.
You do not need to be an atm chair expert. You just need to know that a plane traveling that fast will have engines on it. Then read what he says about engines. If it applies to Boeing plane, it applies to all planes.

Stop grasping at the military plane, it was me giving you an example of what people think with regards to "it was not 767" and not what he thinks. Just a simple example that one can think it was not 767 yet think it was in fact a plane. You are exhausting bud, stop trolling and peace out.

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 01:02

More lolage, come on still waiting for engine explanation as well as what tefal has posted above.

Nerusy · 21 May 2014 at 01:06

Glaucus said:
More lolage, come on still waiting for engine explanation as well as what tefal has posted above.

What engine explamation? You have yet to show me him saying "no plane".

I provided facts while you grasping at straws, mods told me to ignore people who try to troll so peace out sweet prince, I will let you bother somebody else now. :rolleyes:

Glaucus · 21 May 2014 at 01:09

Not grasping at straws, no engines means no engines. So what powered the plane?

He is bat ****** crazy, read what he is actually saying and understand why the article is saying such things. It makes perfect sense. He has to belive no plane was involved as he holds views that are not comparable with any plane hitting. Down to even rejecting the video.

Angilion · 21 May 2014 at 02:27

Xordium said:
Yes, but it also means that now and then the governments can pull of some pretty shady stuff and we are all primed to dismiss it.

Which utterly proves that conspiracy "theorists" are actually undercover agents of the Alien Illuminati Freemason Secret Government, using highly implausible conspiracy "theories" as propaganda to discredit the idea of conspiracies. They're ruthless and amoral, but they're cunning!

deuse · 21 May 2014 at 07:22

Housey said:
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.

You don't see they whole and real picture.
NIST and the Commission won't release data even though the families of those who died took NIST\Commission to court.

So what's the only real way to make them release all data?
By making a affidavit stating (insert here) and filing it in court.

Now in the USA an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted.
So both NIST and the Commission have to release the data and then rebut
it point by point. That is the law. If they don't then both reports will be scrapped.

His took one for the team, so to speak and very clever.

mcast · 21 May 2014 at 07:42

Conspiracy theorists lack any form of common sense and reasoning, thus they are excluded by society and have to find other forms of income.

Give them love not hate.

doodah · 21 May 2014 at 07:52

If terrorists didn't cause 9/11, who did? Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Skeeter · 21 May 2014 at 08:01

We are at the stage now where no explaination will be considered correct by the conspiracy theorists. Each theorist has their own theory and will only accept an explaination if it matches their own view. All other views will be rejected, so its a no win situation.

Questioning things like this is fine, especially if it uncovers short fallings and leads to improvements in the future, but the culture of continually and indefinitely rejecting explainations on conspiracy grounds is just people fulfilling their own sense of self importance. They don't really want the 'truth', they just want to be seen as someone rejecting the explaimation, regardless of what it is.