Here's a site that calls itself "9/11 Disinformation." It purports to offer evidence of planes hitting the World Trade Center towers. I've just started going through it, mainly just the photos. Nothing I've seen so far convinces me that real planes hit.
http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
go to that "9/11 disinformation" site - see the 3rd photo down - source: "here is new york" -
observe the plane as it is just about to strike wtc2.
here is a good analyses of that particular image:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html
it is not an image of a real plane!
in fact EVERY image of so-called ua175 has been analyzed and found to be phony in some manner or another:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/
^h.
Shouldn't you admit that nothing could convince you of that? Photos, video, eyewitnesses, none of it supersedes your opinions based on your faulty logic involving the crash physics correct? I see no honesty in your research as you quite easily determine what is and what isn't fake, and that determination is never more than a decision based on your pre-existing opinion.
Hi ningen
I concur. And what's with all the unknown authors?
What? noone want's the LIFE Magazine award? O that's right it went to Kathy Cacicedo and her wide-lens masterpiece. Website by anonymous? gee, the meme looks awfully familiar. I'm just guessing here but do ya think Mr. Anonymous has ever gone cow tipping with Arabesque or Greg Jenkins, maybe even smashed some mailboxes with DBLS....hmmm
Keep up the good work. You're far more courteous than your debaters deserve.
Anonymous 10:17:00 --
Yes, perhaps I should admit that no video or picture from that day will convince that an image depicting a physically impossible event is authentic, or that the physically impossible event happened in the real world. An image or sound of unproven authenticity certainly won't change my mind. I admit it.
Some of those images at 911disinformation.com do not seem authentic to me. Others do, but depict an event I know is impossible. Others are not conclusive. Others show plane debris that is obviously faked because of the physics involved in getting it through the building to the place where it was found. The images of the truck with "Aircraft Debris" spray painted on the back are just ludicrous. I have yet to see if the site includes videos or statements of people that did not see a plane, which could also lack authenticity but would at least provide balance and would comport with the impossibility of a plane disappearing into the building without significant debris found below the alleged impact point.
If you want to address my logic, you are welcome here. But I will not accept any more empty attacks on my integrity. If you have something substantive to say, say it. Otherwise, you have made your point.
Thanks, Driftbolt, I appreciate the kind words. I'm still waiting for Greg Jenkins to explain the fuselage penetrating like it did.
Post a Comment