Monday, September 18, 2006

The No-Planers Go Disco

This is considered evidence on the No-Planer side:



Hey, man, I'm convinced. Convinced that you guys are all nuts!

23 Comments:

At 18 September, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

This has to be a parody.

The difference in angle is obvious.

 
At 18 September, 2006 18:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ok...

clip#1 - left side width about 75% of right side width. Clip is closer to WTC
clip#2 - left and right sides about equal width. Clip is further back from WTC.

ummm...I don't see any difference when you account for the DIFFERENT ANGLE THEY WERE FILMED on.

TAM

 
At 18 September, 2006 18:42, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Don't it make ya feel like dancin...gonna dance the night away..whoo...dance the night away...who...dancin...who...dancin...who.

 
At 18 September, 2006 19:12, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Actually I feel like pounding the drum machine they used with a shovel..to the beat..beat..beat,,,

 
At 18 September, 2006 19:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Looks like a YTMND. And it's almost as stupid.

 
At 18 September, 2006 20:03, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

LOL Like hey man Avery_Dylan outta be along any moomnet now....

ROFL!!

That dude cracks me up!

 
At 18 September, 2006 20:20, Blogger Richard said...

If the angles were so well matched up why was there a shadow image of one set of towers? Where have I heard about people not taking into acount camera angle and position....

THE MOON LANDING HOAX!

 
At 18 September, 2006 20:36, Blogger Accept No Substitutes said...

Oh my, they are totally crazy. Without a doubt, utterly, completely batshit looneytunes.

 
At 18 September, 2006 21:02, Blogger Nyke said...

Let's just change the angle so the 2d translation of a 3d area is distorted to help our cause.

Yeah, you can do a whole lot with that. Hell, I can "disprove" the three-dimension distance formula with horrible angles.

 
At 18 September, 2006 21:50, Blogger default.xbe said...

its funny, in an investigation you want to establish means motive and opportunity

well for the most part CTers can establish motive (although weekly) they LOVE speculating means, and generally dodge opportunity

but for tv fakery, they cant give any

they cant say what system allows the govt to inject a CGI into plane into live television footage as well as countless camcorders and still cameras

they cant explain why the govt might opt to use fake planes over real ones, or forget the plane idea entirely and just use car/truck bombs

and they cant explain when the govt was able to attach their magic CGI devices to every camera in new york

 
At 18 September, 2006 22:57, Blogger roger_sq said...

its funny, in an investigation you want to establish means motive and opportunity

No, motove doesn't matter shawn already explained that it's illogical to look for a motive in a crime.


well for the most part CTers can establish motive (although weekly)

Trillions of dollars and unchallenged control of the world.


they LOVE speculating means,

They do indeed...and you LOVE taking every single weird idea and wrapping every doubter of the official story as a loon. We give your empty life a purpose, lame and pathetic as that purpose might be.

and generally dodge opportunity

19 Arabs can pull it off but the US MIC couldn't?

bwaaaaaaaaahahahaahah

but for tv fakery, they cant give any

That's because there's about 12 people on the planet (apparently Morgan reynolds is one of them) who believe there were no planes. And they are all probably more heavily medicated than you debunkers are.

they cant say what system allows the govt to inject a CGI into plane into live television footage as well as countless camcorders and still cameras

Countless? I've only seen 2. Even the footage released last week was cut when the plane came into the image, with the woman holding the camera screaming "it was a military plane!". Conspiratorial- not really. Weird? yes. Where IS all the film of the plane? You have pictures from these "countless" camcorders and still cameras you allege?


cant explain why the govt might opt to use fake planes over real ones, or forget the plane idea entirely and just use car/truck bombs

I like the real planes theory better. As for why not truck bombs- it's a psy ops. What good is it if you can't show the people and really get them fired up. OK City conpiracists never got their own debunker blog!


they cant explain when the govt was able to attach their magic CGI devices to every camera in new york

Again you are mistaken or I am way out of the loop. There is virtually no photographic evidence availble. 2 or 3 shots. EVERY camera in New York? Okay, Dylan.

 
At 18 September, 2006 23:33, Blogger default.xbe said...

No, motove doesn't matter shawn already explained that it's illogical to look for a motive in a crime.

me =/= shawn, just thought id clear that up

Trillions of dollars and unchallenged control of the world.

except they didnt get trillions and given the latest approval ratings they barely have unchallenged control of their own country let alone the world

They do indeed...and you LOVE taking every single weird idea and wrapping every doubter of the official story as a loon.

every doubter? no

everyone who thinks holograms hit the WTC? yes

We give your empty life a purpose, lame and pathetic as that purpose might be.

the only thing i get out of this is hours of entertainment, but rest assured, the day you stop being funny ill find a new hobby

19 Arabs can pull it off but the US MIC couldn't?

hey if you want to say 19 marines hijacked the planes and crashed them into the WTC in a suicide mission thats fine

of course when you remove the hijackers you need to add controlled demolition, the peopel to plant those explosives, CGI planes, the means to put the CGI into every camera, the means of tricking people into thinking they saw planes when they werent there...see where im going?

That's because there's about 12 people on the planet (apparently Morgan reynolds is one of them) who believe there were no planes. And they are all probably more heavily medicated than you debunkers are.

well im glad we agree on something, and in case you didnt notice this blog post is related directly to the "no planers" as such comments are also directed to that subject

Countless? I've only seen 2. Even the footage released last week was cut when the plane came into the image, with the woman holding the camera screaming "it was a military plane!". Conspiratorial- not really. Weird? yes. Where IS all the film of the plane? You have pictures from these "countless" camcorders and still cameras you allege?

youve seen 2 videos of the planes in new york? how do you have time to eat with all that research your doing?

I like the real planes theory better. As for why not truck bombs- it's a psy ops. What good is it if you can't show the people and really get them fired up. OK City conpiracists never got their own debunker blog!

why is it when you ask why the towers had to be destroyed that becomes the main goal of the psyop, and when you ask why they used planes, planes becomes th emain goal of the psyop

personally i think the complete destruction of the towers, regardless of method, is that 99% of people remember about 9/11

Again you are mistaken or I am way out of the loop.

do you really want me to answer that? :)

 
At 18 September, 2006 23:55, Blogger roger_sq said...

do you really want me to answer that? :)

Yes, I really do. I've spent too much time lidtening to both sides. I've seen the national georgraphic footage, the Naudet brothers, and the two shots used in the disco mix here. So that's one of the first strike, 2 1/2 of the second strike (neither of them being of much use). The one still the pod people pass around taken from below the impact, so yes...slighgtly more than 2. Less than countless. Is there some sort of archive where you have all these pictures you speak of?

 
At 19 September, 2006 05:11, Blogger shawn said...

No, motove doesn't matter shawn already explained that it's illogical to look for a motive in a crime.

Don't ya just love strawmen?

I said motive wasn't proof of a crime. But you seem to have missed what I was explaining.

 
At 19 September, 2006 05:47, Blogger shawn said...

You can't just go "oooh oooh he had a motive". Since the inside jobbers have no other evidence besides motive, then they have no case. Simple as that.

 
At 19 September, 2006 08:35, Blogger Alex said...

Gee Shawn, you mean a Twoofer misquoted you? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tell ya!

 
At 19 September, 2006 08:41, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 September, 2006 08:44, Blogger ScottSl said...

I've lost count exactly but I think there are around 20 something different videos of the second tower getting hit and 3 shots of the first hit.

This video here has about 9 shots alone.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3OaALcbAg&mode=related&search=

 
At 19 September, 2006 08:54, Blogger Jujigatami said...

hey if you want to say 19 marines hijacked the planes and crashed them into the WTC in a suicide mission thats fine

You know, you really hit on something here.

If the CT loons had half a brain, that would be the mainstream CT. Really, they could make up a fake "confession" from a CIA/NWO operative that was piloting the plane (you know, before he did actually pilot the plane), just like all the fake confessions of firefighters, cops, and the Bush administration that they make up, and that CT would actually make sense and work.

But no, they have to make up the most ridiculous and impossible theories. Thermite, CD, CGI, Pull it, A-3, Javelin, NASA Hangar, Remote control, etcetera, etcetera.

If the government is so evil, why didn't they just have 19 CIA agents pose as arabs and hijack the planes? Wouldn't that be much easier than all of the other BS?

Of course Nessie will say hat IS what happened or that they weren't CIA, but Mossad.

You know, fine. At least that, while being an undeniably stupid assertion, would be possible.

Of course if the CIA or Mossad could train 19 guys to hijack a plane and fly it in to buildings, so could a terror group, but thats not relevant right now.

 
At 19 September, 2006 09:41, Blogger Safe-Keeper said...

No, motove doesn't matter shawn already explained that it's illogical to look for a motive in a crime.
And I thought a motive was the first thing investigators of crimes always looked for.

 
At 19 September, 2006 11:14, Blogger Malcolm said...

These people really are insane.

They faked the video????

They faked a live video shown on all major networks LIVE.

They faked the people on the ground screaming as they saw the plan hit.

The somehow suspended reality and placed in something else.

Some of these people are in serious need of psychological help.

It should worry us that these are the same people who babysit our kids, fix our meals, repair our cars.

Hey, that's an idea...the next time you get your car repaired, the guy should say "I know you SEE a rod sticking out of the engine block, but I just FEEL the problem has to be with the windshield wipers.

 
At 19 September, 2006 12:53, Blogger Alex said...

That's a good point Malcolm. If I were a mechanic I'd qork only for CTers. Charge them triple the price and blame it on the CIA. I could retire by 30!

 
At 19 September, 2006 13:01, Blogger Jujigatami said...

If I were a mechanic I'd qork only for CTers. Charge them triple the price and blame it on the CIA.

Unfortunatly, most of the CTers are either not old enough to drive, Can't afford cars, or borrow their mothers car.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home