NO PLANERS EXPOSED----->INSIDE+WeAreChangeColorado

[Voskhod3]

Did it every occur to anyone that planes did hit the towers...but maybe the footage was faked because they weren't 757 passenger jets?

NOT ONE member of the public has come forward and said "they faked my video/picture".

Not one.

[Infokrieger]

Let me get this right - you're saying that the tv footage is possibly fake because you believe that there's evidence to prove this.

Yes.

And you're saying that you also believe that planes hit the towers because you also believe that there's evidence to prove this.

Yes.

That's a very unusual point of view and one that I've not heard before.

Exactly. Thanks for acknowledging that. It's possible, and, looking at the history of TV fakery in the media (Bin Laden tapes), entirely plausible.

[Infokrieger]

Your logic is not only flawed it is patently false which I hope is deliberate for your sake.

Show me where it's false. All you did is ask questions. You said nothing to refute me.

I could continue shredding your ridiculous assertions but that is enough.

Is that all you got? Come on, refute me.

[Infokrieger]

Did it every occur to anyone that planes did hit the towers...but maybe the footage was faked because they weren't 757 passenger jets?

Maybe that's what sekular is getting at.

Sekular? Sekular believes there were no planes. My name is "Infokrieger" thank you.

[Infokrieger]

NOT ONE member of the public has come forward and said "they faked my video/picture".

So? What are you saying, what is your logic?

If no member if the public came forward (to your knowledge) claiming they faked their video, then it's impossible that any of the videos were fake?

Flawed logic. I didn't expect anything else from you. Have a nice day.

[Voskhod3]

If no member if the public came forward (to your knowledge) claiming they faked their video, then it's impossible that any of the videos were fake?

If all the videos show the same thing and no member of the public has come forward and said 'they faked my video/picture' then I'm saying the planes as shown in the video hit the building.

That is my logic.

[Infokrieger]

How you have used these examples as evidence of fakery on 911 is fantastic.

Well thank you.

Those Bin Laden tapes are pure 100% fabrication bottom-line.(SO?)

Yes they are. That means, TV fakery in regard of 9/11 has been done before.

Yeah the BBC reported the collapse of wtc 7 early but where is the fakery?

OK, it was not fakery in the same sense as the Bin Laden tape. What I meant was, there were a lot of anomalies. Sorry.

Did they show us wtc7 collapsing before it did with a plane flying into it(because that would be the TV fakery definition I think of) NO? 

Nope. That doesn't mean that my logic is flawed. The point I'm making is, TV fakery is not the same as "no planes" theory. No planes is BS, TV fakery is something to look at. September Clues has some good analysis regarding TV fakery, but then comes up with the crack pot no planes theory. That's typical cointelpro, mix truth with deception and then have people throw out the whole thing.

what are you getting at in regards to TV fakery?

That it has been done before. Bin Laden tapes are sufficient to make that claim.

[9/11FalseFlag]

If all the videos show the same thing and no member of the public has come forward and said 'they faked my video/picture' then I'm saying the planes as shown in the video hit the building.

That is my logic.

So you're saying that it doesn't matter how much video evidence we prove to you, as long as the video shooters don't come forward you don't believe it.

Some logic.

[Infokrieger]

If all the videos show the same thing and no member of the public has come forward and said 'they faked my video/picture' then I'm saying the planes as shown in the video hit the building.

I'm not disputing that the planes hit the building. And your logic is flawed anyway, there is no connection of the premises to the conclusion. Please study logic, you're embarrassing yourself. Have a good day, lady.

[Voskhod3]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter how much video evidence we prove to you,

What have you proved?  

as long as the video shooters don't come forward you don't believe it.

No.. I'm pointing out the absurd logic that says the fakers planned a second impact 20 minutes after the first when thousands would be watching with a totally unknown amount of image capturing equipment and that they thought they could control that situation and that in fact they did.

That is completely absurd to believe that.

Unless you can tell me how they pulled off that miracle.

[Voskhod3]

I'm not disputing that the planes hit the building. And your logic is flawed anyway,

Point out the flaw in my logic.

[Infokrieger]

No.. I'm pointing out the absurd logic that says the fakers planned a second impact 20 minutes after the first when thousands would be watching with a totally unknown amount of image capturing equipment and that they thought they could control that situation and that in fact they did.

You're still discussing no-planes. That IS BS, but that is not what I am talking about. You're missing the point - again.

[Infokrieger]

Point out the flaw in my logic.

I just did. I said, there is no connection between premises and conclusion. That's the biggest flaw there is. I guess you didn't understand that so you chose to ignore it. Sad.

[Voskhod3]

You're still discussing no-planes. That IS BS, but that is not what I am talking about. You're missing the point - again.

No I'm not.. the same logic applies to 'no planes' or 'different planes'.

[Voskhod3]

I just did. I said, there is no connection between premises and conclusion.

No that is not pointing out a flaw in my logic.

Point out the flaw.
 

[Infokrieger]

Look, I have a question for you.

For the sake of the argument, suppose a person DID go public and say, "they edited / faked / changed my video". OK?

Would that prove that there were no planes hitting the towers?

Think carefully.

[Infokrieger]

No that is not pointing out a flaw in my logic. Point out the flaw.

I said "no connection between premises and conclusion" is the biggest flaw there is. It's the only flaw there is. Study logic, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Voskhod3]

I said "no connection between premises and conclusion" is the biggest flaw there is. It's the only flaw there is. Study logic, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

That makes no sense. What do you mean there is no connection. That's not pointing out a flaw, that's you refusing to look at cold logic in the face.

Please state what you think my premise is.

Then state what my conclusion is.

And we'll test the connection.

[Infokrieger]

No lady, you formalize your argument, I'm not going to make your point for you.

Edit: alright, here we go.

Your premises

P1 "no one has come forward" which you don't know.
P2 "all the videos show the same thing" which is slippery at best.

conclusion
C is "None of the videos were touched, retouched, faked by any of the news stations".

Show me how you get from P to C. Where is the connection?
Forget it, you will never grasp basic logic.

[Infokrieger]

For the sake of the argument, suppose a person DID go public and say, "they edited / faked / changed my video". OK?

Would that prove that there were no planes hitting the towers?

Please answer that question. Our little discussion will be over if you do.

[Voskhod3]

P1 "no one has come forward" which you don't know.

It is a FACT that no member of the public has come forward and said "they faked my video/picture".
A goddamn fact.

Did you ever hear of the internet, do you really think they could shut everyone up?

P2 "all the videos show the same thing" which is slippery at best.

They are all consistant and show the same event.
FACT!

conclusion
C is "None of the videos were touched, retouched, faked by any of the news stations".

F*ck your bogus news stations argument... NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS SAID "THEY FAKED MY VIDEO/PICTURE".

The public... the public who witnessed it and recorded it... the f*cking public you keep ignoring.

[Infokrieger]

Please edit your post so I can quote you.

Please answer my question, so we can finish our little discussion. Might take me a while to respond, because some people have to work for a living.

"This is FACT! F*ck your argument" is the best you can do? We can stop the discussion right now. You're making the truth movement look bad.

Is everybody here like this? Do you support her?

[Infokrieger]

It is a FACT that no member of the public has come forward and said "they faked my video/picture".
A goddamn fact.

How do you know nobody tried?

Did you ever hear of the internet, do you really think they could shut everyone up?
They are all consistant and show the same event.
FACT!

No, what is the internet? Explain!
 

F*ck your bogus news stations argument... NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS SAID "THEY FAKED MY VIDEO/PICTURE".

Yeah, F*ck my argument. Potty mouth you.

The public... the public who witnessed it and recorded it... the f*cking public you keep ignoring.

Yeah, you are a naughty girl.

[Infokrieger]

For the sake of the argument, suppose a person DID go public and say, "they edited / faked / changed my video". OK?

Would that prove that there were no planes hitting the towers?

Please answer this single question and this will all be over. All I'm trying is make a point here. I'm NOT looking for a new GF.

[Voskhod3]

For the sake of the argument, suppose a person DID go public and say, "they edited / faked / changed my video". OK?

Nobody has.

You're a busted spreader of disinfo.

[Infokrieger]

I knew you would say that. 

Ever heard of a hypothetical? I guess not. I'll let the others deal with you while I'm at work. You can be proud of yourself now.

[Voskhod3]

I knew you would say that. 

Ever heard of a hypothetical? I guess not. I'll let the others deal with you while I'm at work. You can be proud of yourself now.

This is the most solid argument against your totally stupid cointelpro no-planes/different-planes crap.

Not a single member of the public has come forward and said "they tampered with my video/picture".

Not one.

Out of the unknown thousands who were watching the second impact (supposedly planned ny fakers 20 minutes after the first) with an unknown number of recording devices.

There are at least 50 videos alone of the second impact, they all show the same event, they are all consistant.

You're busted.

Go away with your nonsense.

[Infokrieger]

This is the most solid argument against your totally stupid cointelpro no-planes/different-planes crap.

So I am an agent now? Hahaha! Are you 8 years old?

Look, as long as you keep calling me "no-planes", despite me telling you a 100 times that I believe there were planes and no-planers are idiots, YOU are the one spreading the disinfo here and are not to be taken seriously.

You are what is called in net culture a "forum troll". The truth movement has fought endless meaningless battles against people like you. You are not interested in the truth. All you are interested in is attacking people who disagree with you personally, and "winning" the argument by not answering questions, endlessly repeating yourself and being difficult for as long as it takes until your opponent realizes it's a waste of time dealing with you.

I'm done with you. You can shout all you want now.

In this topic there were at least some decent replies. Thank you guys for that. If it weren't for you this place would be a Kindergarten.

[Voskhod3]

I'm still waiting for the flaw in my logic.

Not a single member of the public has come forward and said "they tampered with my video/picture".

Not one.

Out of the unknown thousands who were watching the second impact (supposedly planned ny fakers 20 minutes after the first) with an unknown number of recording devices.

There are at least 50 videos alone of the second impact, they all show the same event, they are all consistant.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Here we go again another thread derailed. 

[luckee1]

[Voskhod3]

Here we go again another thread derailed. 

No.. a busting of the stupid jerks who push no-planes.

Not a single member of the public has come forward and said "they tampered with my video/picture".

Not one.

Out of the unknown thousands who were watching the second impact (supposedly planned by fakers 20 minutes after the first) with an unknown number of recording devices, no one has raised any suspicion.

There are at least 50 videos alone of the second impact, they all show the same event, they are all consistant.

No-planes is so so very very dumb it just has to be disinfo.

Why am I not surprised to see the same people pushing this as pushing the equally dumb Apollo hoax?

It's all designed to bury real issues about 9/11 in the cesspool of "conspiracy theories".

Go away with your stupid nonsense.

[9/11FalseFlag]

What have you proved?  

Amazing.  Have you not been checking my posts?  I've come to the conclusion you are not going to change your mind no matter what evidence is brought forward to you.  People think they are awake but they are really still sleepwalking.  It is too uncomforatble to admit live video was tampered with that day because this forum is very against it, and so it most of the 911 movement.  Well I myself don't judge video evidence by how many people also believe it.

You remind me of my friend who didn't believe 911 was an inside job until his idol Charlie Sheen came forward and said so.

Phone Interviews with many of the original camera men of the WTC attacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0nl_ZY3D04&feature=PlayList&p=7EA2472A0606A350&index=64

Please watch especially at 3m 14s  NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO and then they ADD IT IN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZryf1sZBQc&feature=PlayList&p=7EA2472A0606A350&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=62

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ

"No second plane, it was a bomb! Bomb in the building, no second plane.  I saw everything."

Another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

"Were getting REPORTS that a plane hit the building"
"OH? I didn't even know that."

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5lFVxr4A8

"Some people said they THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE"  Magically cut out from news footage.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49deDpOyfHA

"That was NOT and American Airline!"

And to top it off a collection of witness accounts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU

[sekular]

Infokrieger: first argument, why would they need to alter the footage of the impacts, which is proven with many different points. if they had four planes hitting the locations. they would only theoretically need to alter the footage regarding the secondary explosions aspect and the final free fall speed destruction.

i appreciate that you accept that the tv media was edited on the day. this really is not such a difficult aspect to take on board. when you consider that all of tv is edited, even live tv. take big brother for example they run a 15 min lead time on it so they can bleep out swear words and edit what they want. the 24 hour media channels is a production, a 24 hour production. there is even legislation in place that says when there is a terrorist attack the government will "take over". as if they don't use that power indefinitely... this is in the uk. they can issue something called a section d (i forgot was it was called..?) and restrict the media or edit it.

but what i am getting at is that, on the day it was maliciously edited. not only was it maliciously edited. but it was edited in such a way to hide the fact that missiles impacted the towers and not planes. if you study (video and audio) the first 30 mins of each station. you will find this to be true.

i am open to the possibility that the missiles aspect was a counter intelligence program, but like i said that would be one hell of a preemptive counter intelligence program. as well as that, the footage itself does not support the missiles aspect as a co intel pro. but it is possible...

voskhod: just because you can not comprehend how it could be done does not mean it is not possible.

for example if someone says to you that they can split an atom. if you can not comprehend how that is done, well it is not sufficient logic or proof to ultimately say that it is not possible, or it did not happen, in the case of the atom, the man can not split an atom.

i have supplied you will my theory, which is a theory based on the information that i have received. i looked at all the information and the event and i thought, how did they do this, how can i tie all this together. i forget about the msm nonsense. the isi connections, the bin laden connections. i asked myself who could do this type of op and what would they have needed to do...

[Voskhod3]

No-planers and different planers (possibly crazier than no-planers) have to explain why supposed fakers would fake a second impact 20 minutes after the first one with thousands of unknown people from all parts of the world watching, and these people carrying an unknown number of image recording devices, why these fakers would think they would be able to control all these witnesses and their images in the internet age!

Can you do that?

Can you explain to me how they acheived that miracle - because you obviously think they must have done that.

Until you do, your theories, your bullsh*t Sepetember Clues clone disinfo vidoes are totally meaningless.

[sekular]

well i have attempted to answer you.

if i had to answer your question, i would be repeating myself.

[Voskhod3]

Oh.. and I'll keep asking the same question until someone comes up with an explanation.

[KiwiClare]

This thread and this forum is not for people to push the baseless notion that no planes hit the WTC in New York on 9/11.    

No-Planer Cointelpro Operation Becoming Transparent
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news

“No Planers” have become a pseudo-movement, adding lunacy, deception, and division to the legitimate questions emanating from 9/11 families, first responders, government officials, intelligence experts, scientists, engineers, architects, academics, entertainment personalities, and so many others.

[Dewk]

   you gotta have an open mind. You can watch a "no planer" video and learn something.

[9/11FalseFlag]

KiwiClare, the link you posted doesn't work.

Voskhod, can you answer ME why EVERY SINGLE VIDEO, YES EVERY ONE, of the second attack on the WTC has been tampered with in one way or another?  EVERY SINGLE ONE.  I have 10+ videos of amature footage and the part where the plane is supposed to hit is just magically cut out!

I am NOT saying there were no planes, all I am saying is that the live video footage has been HEAVILY EDITED!!! It is so bloody obvious. 
Yes it's easy to ask 1000 more questions about this situation, but please just look at the footage, it is blatlantly obvious the videos have been heavily edited!

Where did this co-intel term come from anyway?  Think about it.  Faux news would be pushing this no plane stuff hard if it actually held no ground, but the fact is, it does hold weight.  And lots of weight.  Most people denying are just too scared to come to the light, and sit in the comfort of their darkness.