Drones are more plausible, for sure. But there is still a lot of CGI evidence, which I admit might be CGI-created itself.
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants? Even in the video attached to this OP's post, the people supposedly looking up are not actually looking up at a steep enough angle to see the plane, and the person taking the video tracks the plane (but if you image there is no plane, it could just be someone turning on their camera and looking through it and panning over to the buildings). The voices/sounds could have been easily edited in.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Edit: when Trump is back and the truth is revealed, if he says they were drones, then I will be the first to track you down and say you were right and that I was wrong.
You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to support something you have believed, wrongly, for too long.
Rhetorical question:
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants?
It is on you to prove THEY WERE, not on me to prove they were not.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Hold on.... how do you know these people were not CIA plants??!!
However, I will easily answer that question >> Their perspectives were obscured by tall buildings, including the WTC. I would guess a great number of people saw a unique version of the impact, many only seeing the explosion and not the drone.
You don't get to pull the "prove it" card. Sorry. That cuts both ways. I do agree that the people I have heard say there were no planes could also be CIA. I'm done, though. I have to get to work. Thanks for your insights.
PS/edit... it's not cognitive dissonance. For a long time I believed they were drones (after first thinking they were planes for a short while)... and now I've moved on to a different opinion based on what I've seen put forth. That doesn't really depict a pattern of cognitive dissonance.
Drones are more plausible, for sure. But there is still a lot of CGI evidence, which I admit might be CGI-created itself.
Regarding the witnesses, can you prove that they were not CIA plants? Even in the video attached to this OP's post, the people supposedly looking up are not actually looking up at a steep enough angle to see the plane, and the person taking the video tracks the plane (but if you image there is no plane, it could just be someone turning on their camera and looking through it and panning over to the buildings). The voices/sounds could have been easily edited in.
There are too many people who say they saw an explosion with no plane.
Edit: when Trump is back and the truth is revealed, if he says they were drones, then I will be the first to track you down and say you were right and that I was wrong.
You're engaging in cognitive dissonance to support something you have believed, wrongly, for too long.
Rhetorical question:
It is on you to prove THEY WERE, not on me to prove they were not.
Hold on.... how do you know these people were not CIA plants??!!
However, I will easily answer that question >> Their perspectives were obscured by tall buildings, including the WTC. I would guess a great number of people saw a unique version of the impact, many only seeing the explosion and not the drone.
You don't get to pull the "prove it" card. Sorry. That cuts both ways. I do agree that the people I have heard say there were no planes could also be CIA. I'm done, though. I have to get to work. Thanks for your insights.
PS/edit... it's not cognitive dissonance. For a long time I believed they were drones (after first thinking they were planes for a short while)... and now I've moved on to a different opinion based on what I've seen put forth. That doesn't really depict a pattern of cognitive dissonance.
lol you pulled the 'prove it' card first
As for proving my theory, I've done that on this thread.
I rest my case.