Military Plane? (911)


Recommended Posts

I believe the numerous witnesses.

You are quite right in thinking that no American Airliner hit the twin towers.

In fact 2 of the supposed destroyed jets were still listed as being in service, 2 years after '9-11'.

You can find an original 'live' video on-line, that shows that no plane at all hit the one tower -- a plane was edited in later.

There are any number of inconsistencies and mysteries connected to this 'terrorism'.

9-11 is a shameful fraud committed on the citizens to further the power and control of the hidden 'government'.

And in spite of what the sheep think, it does not take an army of people to pull off such a staged event.

:ermm:

  • Like 3

i also heard that Aliens did it....or i read it on the internet, so it must be true..

Go figure, i always thought this was done by terrorist, now i see that the illuminati must of have been behind this, with help of their alien friends. Wait wait wait! i saw a new video, it was said that a man on a red sled with reindeer pulling him was the cause of 911!!! OMFG!!!!

Oh dear. I love the huge jump in logic from omg its a military plane to, its clearly an unmanned drone plane.

a lot of people were looking at the plane from underneath, they don't usually put decals or colours on the underside of the plane, let alone being able to see them going at hundreds of MPH.

gallery3-6.jpg

post-1442-0-65531300-1359556036.jpg

Looks very similar, but no its clearly a military plane /s

Oh dear. I love the huge jump from omg its a military plane to, its clearly an unmanned drone plane.

a lot of people were looking at the plane from underneath, they don't put decals or colours on the underside of the plane, let alone being able to see them going at hundreds of MPH.

You were not there so thats pretty much invalid. The plane was flying really low so obviously some people had to see it close.

i also heard that Aliens did it....or i read it on the internet, so it must be true..

Go figure, i always thought this was done by terrorist, now i see that the illuminati must of have been behind this, with help of their alien friends. Wait wait wait! i saw a new video, it was said that a man on a red sled with reindeer pulling him was the cause of 911!!! OMFG!!!!

I counted so far 2 intelligent replies. Zinomian, you are a complete Dumb*** for your childish comment. I ask for opinions on the video. You failed at the simplest task ever.

I came across this video today on YouTube that I havent seen. A bunch of witnesses explain what they saw. Please do not bash for the love of god. I just want to know your opinion about what the witnesses said. This is NO debate!

As legendofmart said.. all of the witnesses on the ground are not going to be able to see the red/blue American Airlines logo/stripe while looking at the underside of the plane. How would you explain the air traffic controllers who saw the plane/call sign disappear from their radar at the exact time the planes hit?

You were not there so thats pretty much invalid. The plane was flying really low so obviously some people had to see it close.

I counted so far 2 intelligent replies. Zinomian, you are a complete Dumb*** for your childish comment. I ask for opinions on the video. You failed at the simplest task ever.

Actually, your post is sooooooo damm stupid and ignorant and just weird and dumb and anything bad you can say about a post, that my reply is the best i can do considering A. The poster, B. The post itself, and C. the information on the post.

You sir, need help.

....and you were there?

Take a look at the pics I posted.

No but I rather listen to a wittiness's testimony. That image is horrible to even to use. I think people can see better than that.

Actually, your post is sooooooo damm stupid and ignorant and just weird and dumb and anything bad you can say about a post, that my reply is the best i can do considering A. The poster, B. The post itself, and C. the information on the post.

You sir, need help.

61 post count... yeah you contribute a lot here. :rolleyes:

No but I rather listen to a wittiness's testimony. That image is horrible to even to use. I think people can see better than that.

Just look at the freaking pics, you can see the blue underneath and the red line, that was taken just before the plane hit the tower.

It is CLEARLY the same kind of type and colouring.

Guess that doesn't fit your crackpot theory though that's why you are dismissing it.

61 post count... yeah you contribute a lot here. :rolleyes:

I'd rather have 61 posts than your 1,412 ridiculous conspiracy theory posts and posts calling people names just because they don't agree with your daft theories.

No but I rather listen to a wittiness's testimony. That image is horrible to even to use. I think people can see better than that.

61 post count... yeah you contribute a lot here. :rolleyes:

Then imagine how moronic and stupid your post is to actually make ME post a response!!! :argh:

As legendofmart said.. all of the witnesses on the ground are not going to be able to see the red/blue American Airlines logo/stripe while looking at the underside of the plane. How would you explain the air traffic controllers who saw the plane/call sign disappear from their radar at the exact time the planes hit?

Well still someone had to see it from a closer range. From a building, who knows. About your second comment I really dont know what to say since there are a lot of things we still dont know about.

incidentally, the plane was in fact so low, that it was moving so fast relative to the people on the ground they wouldn't have seen anything but a dark plane shaped shadow.

and yeah, it looks like a UA civilian air plane, nothing else.

And yes you would need an army of people to cover something like this up. and remember, nothing is secret if more than one person knows. and the chance of a leak increases exponentially with every new person.

Remember you'd have to have the pilots in on it, all the people who killed all the civilians without a trace that they where killed before time as no one knew the towers would fall. and if you assume the fall is part of it, then you need a full team of demolition experts, the people who called and SMS'ed from the planes... and the list goes on.

Seriously, if you think this was a staged conspiracy thing, then you need to look up a lot of real facts, and realize that they didn't accomplish what they wanted anyway and never would have.

Then imagine how moronic and stupid your post is to actually make ME post a response!!! :argh:

Done yet?

Just look at the freaking pics, you can see the blue underneath and the red line, that was taken just before the plane hit the tower.

It is CLEARLY the same kind of type and colouring.

Guess that doesn't fit your crackpot theory though that's why you are dismissing it.

I'd rather have 61 posts than your 1,412 ridiculous conspiracy theory posts and posts calling people names just because they don't agree with your daft theories.

Agree?? I said this wasnt a debate. A lot of witnesses talk about the explosions as well. Why comment on one thing?

Well still someone had to see it from a closer range. From a building, who knows. About your second comment I really dont know what to say since there are a lot of things we still dont know about.

and the ones who saw it said it was a UA airliner.

the problem is that peopel close on the ground would see nothing but a blur, people in nearby buildings would see nothing but a blur. people far enough for the planes to move slow enough relatively to see it, would be to far away. The plane was also hidden behind buildings for most people, and they wheren't exactly looking for the damn thing.

Done yet?

Agree?? I said this wasnt a debate. A lot of witnesses talk about the explosions as well. Why comment on one thing?

Sorry didn't realise you ran Neowin.

This is a discussion forum, for someone who talks a lot about conspiracies and truth you sure do like to try and keep people quiet if it doesn't fit your agenda.

incidentally, the plane was in fact so low, that it was moving so fast relative to the people on the ground they wouldn't have seen anything but a dark plane shaped shadow.

and yeah, it looks like a UA civilian air plane, nothing else.

And yes you would need an army of people to cover something like this up. and remember, nothing is secret if more than one person knows. and the chance of a leak increases exponentially with every new person.

Remember you'd have to have the pilots in on it, all the people who killed all the civilians without a trace that they where killed before time as no one knew the towers would fall. and if you assume the fall is part of it, then you need a full team of demolition experts, the people who called and SMS'ed from the planes... and the list goes on.

Seriously, if you think this was a staged conspiracy thing, then you need to look up a lot of real facts, and realize that they didn't accomplish what they wanted anyway and never would have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loCPimNI5JY My reply to it being staged. I find it interesting how you said look up the real facts when people werent allow to question the official story and avoided talking about it as much as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loCPimNI5JY

My reply to it being staged. I find it interesting how you said look up the real facts when people werent allow to question the official story and avoided talking about it as much as possible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Sorry didn't realise you ran Neowin.

This is a discussion forum, for someone who talks a lot about conspiracies and truth you sure do like to try and keep people quiet if it doesn't fit your agenda.

Not sure where I said I ran neowin... hmmm... I really dont talk about this often. So I find it weird how you seem to know everywhere i post. I didnt ask for a debate and I guess its too hard for people like you to pay attention and learn to follow directions.

Again, this is a discussion forum, people will talk about what they want to talk about you can't just say "NO DEBATE" and then expect people not to debate it. What did you expect when you posted your silly conspiracy theories.

Why not go to a conspiracy theory site like infowars where people actually care.......

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Personally, I’ve found that it’s usually worth investing in the infrastructure you don’t want to replace later, especially cabling. Running Cat6A (or better, depending on your needs) during an upgrade is relatively inexpensive compared to having to re-cable a few years down the road. For switches I try to balance current specs with realistic growth. If my budget allows it Ill choose switches with higher uplink speeds which leaves room for expanding later on, but I don’t necessarily overspend on access ports if the endpoints won’t benefit from them anytime soon. One lesson I’ve learned is that planning for scalability pays off. It’s much easier to add devices, VLANs, or higher-bandwidth workloads when your network infrastructure already supports it than to replace hardware later.  What is your budget like?
    • I hate the term, "future-proof." We saw it back in the 90's / 2000's, if not before. You cannot future-proof anything, since there is no definition of how far into the future you plan on prepping for. Best idea is to tell us what you currently have and what its use is at the moment, and we can then offer ideas about some areas that might need an upgrade and other areas that can be left alone.
    • I can agree that it is being used in a small capacity. I worked for a company where their engineers still used XP, and when asked why it was because their sensor software wasn't compatible with newer operating systems and the software was discontinued so they couldn't upgrade the software. Given that the sensors were still in use by companies, they had to continue using XP to support the sensor, otherwise the price to the company would have gone into the millions or billions. Our response was simple: Ok, you can keep the XP machine. But we're removing it from the network. "But then it can't access the Internet or folder shares!" Yup, kinda the point. If someone wants to continue using an unsecure OS they can do, I have no problem with that. But it should be isolated. Simple. I had a fight with a guy in the engineering department for weeks before he finally relented. But we digress.   What do I plan on doing to commemorate the anniversary? Nothing. I have fond memories of the OS, but at the end of the day it's just an OS. If I had some time I might see if I could install it on my Raspberry Pi for a laugh. But my reflex memory with today's OS ideas would probably get me frustrated and I'd uninstall it after 5 mins.
    • Shutter Encoder 20.2 by Razvan Serea Shutter Encoder is one of the best video converter software and image, audio available today. It has been designed by video editors in order to be as accessible and efficient as possible. It is one of the few free professional tools. Based on FFmpeg, it has the largest codec library available. You can thus convert your files into many different formats. Complete settings for the most advanced Shutter Encoder has a panel containing a large number of settings, in order to define your own choices based on your files and perfect your video or audio output. Well-thought-out settings, with parameters predefined to create files quickly and easily. List of functions Without conversion: Cut without re-encoding, Replace audio, Rewrap, Conform, Merge, Extract, Subtitling, Video inserts Sound conversions: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MP3, AAC, AC3, OPUS, OGG Editing codecs: DNxHD, DNxHR, Apple ProRes, QT Animation, GoPro CineForm, Uncompressed YUV Output codecs: H.264, H.265, VP9, AV1, OGV Broadcast codecs XDCAM HD422, AVC-Intra 100, XAVC, HAP....and much more. Shutter Encoder 20.2 changelog: Added "Intel Quick Sync" hardware acceleration for Linux Added 'Identify speakers' option for "Audio transcription" function Improved installer package Improved video player performance Improved timecode display with drop-frame videos Improved naming convention for surround audio files Fixed splash screen freeze Fixed bug with file hanging Fixed bugs with presets loading Fixed bugs with video player's buffer Fixed bug with 'Total length of file' option Fixed bugs with 'Record screen/device' option Fixed bug with "XAVC" & "XAVC Long GOP" functions Rollback to XPDF tool for PDF conversion Removed unused binary architecture for Mac Various corrections Various improvements Download: Shutter Encoder 20.2 | 166.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Shutter Encoder Portable | 185.0 MB Links: Shutter Encoder Home Page | FAQ / Tips | macOS | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • did you give it permission to do so? its probably on the ToS. After that South Park episode I'm paying attention to them lol
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      265
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      152
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      99
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!