No planes were used on 9/11

Assalamualaykum Video: http://www.youtube.com... In regards to your comment that you had made on the comments section, you asked what the remaining rounds are for. My answer: 'Anything'. In this 4th round of mine, I will refute some of your arguments that you have brought up, and probably provide some more evidence to prove to you that there were absolutely no planes used on 9/11, but rather, they were animations inserted into video tapes. With several years of experience in graphic softwares, animations, and modelling, and using a bit of common logical sense, I can assure you, the video clips that you are seeing are tampered tapes, and with further research, there are evidences showcasing that the eye-witnesses were actors, some of them may have well been faked, and some completely made up without any news coverage. On the other hand, there were many eye-witnesses that not once mentioned any 'plane', but there were those that had said that they only saw 'explosions'. Con said: "The "eyewitness account" is one of the most reliable forms of proof/evidence there is, especially for an event with the magnitude of 9/11. To claim that the U.S. gov. paid off or created fictional people to be witnesses is highly improbable. With as many people that you're claiming to be involved in this plot it's very unlikely for it to be kept long as a secret." I say: So you are saying that the eyewitness accounts are greater forms of evidences versus DIRECT and to the point visual evidence that can be VERIFIABLE? You tell me, what's better evidence, one that you can YOURSELF verify? Or just providing a link to a website full of text, claiming they are pieces of evidence. I'll let the audience decide. By the way, I never mentioned anything about the Gov. paying off/creating fictional people. It wasn't the government, but it was a large group of people that have planned this event, and this very group has also been responsible for giving us a distorted image on what really happened on 9/11. Tell me, have we, the people, REALLY been told the truth regarding everything that happened on 9/11? If you believe so, then you must be blind or unable to see many of the contradictions that are popping up, you are unable to see any distortions in the media, any cover ups that they don't want you to find out. They are trying to give out a deceived image of the event through their propaganda, and many are falling for it in a state of blindness. Con said in my response to explaining if he accepts the possibility of the eye-witnesses being made up: "No, because it would require hundreds of people to be involved in such a huge event which it would be impossible to keep it under wraps." I say: Who said anything about needing every person for an eye-witness, is it not easier just to make them up and put them on some newly created public website for everyone to see? Nobody is going to be able to find a made up persona now wouldn't they? This would easily fool the world. Con says: "It stands to reason that criminals with 'the power of publicly influencing the world' would have access to the best possible technology, and mistakes would be difficult to find. Pro's argument doesn't follow." I say: What I mean by 'publicly influencing the world' is that they have the power over media and propaganda. These people can say WHATEVER they want on the news, and odds are, a good portion of the viewers are going to blindly accept it, there ARE people like this in the world. They abused their power on 9/11. Con talks about the tornado effect. I refuse to stand down, because one of the big questions when the 'planes' crashed were, "How can a plane fly that fast at such low altitude?" It is near next to impossible. He also provides some images of plane wreckage. My defense: http://911review.com... In that website, you see images of the Pentagon, and you can clearly see how there are NO PLANE debris/wreckage present ANYWHERE. On top of that, a standard Boeing 757 is approximately 140-160 feet in width. The hole in the front of the Pentagon is only around 60 feet. The evidence is as 'plane' as clear. Another fact. If a plane was able to take the WTC's down, then why was the Pentagon's damage inconsistent with the damage to the WTC's? Shouldn't the damage be the same? The type of damage that has been done onto the Pentagon is clearly not from a plane, but more of that of a targeted missile, a direct impact from the skies. Even the pictures prove it. This website here has broken down many of the evidences that I have provided and placed them in sections for you to see. http://www.veteranstoday.com... And here is a quote from that website: "It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution. But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton"s laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air." Oh and remember Shanksville, where the 4th plane allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania? Even the MAYOR confirmed there was no plane. http://www.infowars.com... Scroll up and watch that video. It shows you how 'fake' the eye-witnesses are, and it shows how the entire plane crash was a fake! It is too clear + the previous evidences that I have provided in my previous arguments. I still await these refutations, you are beating around the bush.... My friend, even if the whole world said that the big rock fell into the water but there was clearly no splash, I will not believe the people. Unless there was some magical unknown force that moved the water away, but by using common sense, a rock cannot fall into an ocean WITHOUT making a splash. The bigger the rock, and the greater the velocity, the bigger the splash! Con said: "The b.o.p is on Pro since he is making the claim that no planes were used in the events of 9/11." My reply: Again I am repeating myself, refer back to my previous arguments, I have not yet received any proper refutations, but you keep bringing up your so called eyewitnesses which I have proven to be false with simple logic. I have provided my proof already, you have only stuck to one part of the proof, which I have refuted already. "My opponent has failed to do this." Again, that is your opinion, you still haven't convinced me planes WERE used, because I am seeing the flaws within your own proof, but you cannot detect flaws in mine? He states: "It stands to reason that if there really wasn't any planes there would be more witnesses claiming that there was none as oppose to ones that says there were." There were many witnesses claiming that there was no plane, some didn't even know a plane existed until they saw the news, and many people were claiming they saw explosions. Bottom line is, the media made sure the witnesses that were speaking the TRUTH, were not presented to the public. It is always the media that get the final say my friend. You are basing your entire argument over the official conspiracy of the US and the media. An old man and his students living on the other side of a planet, in a cave, planned one of the deadliest and most sophisticated attacks ever on the most protected airspace on the globe. This is the story that the media is trying to make you believe. I have provided many evidences proving that this 'official conspiracy' is complete bogwash, and the image that we are receiving regarding 9/11 has clearly been distorted and tampered with by the media. The proof is all there, all you need is to open your eyes and see. Not a single person saw a plane, this was an act, practiced many times before, and we have seen things like this countless times in history. 9/11 is no different. Refute my arguments, all of them. Peace.