International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12957759)
plans of the towers shown are incorrect and columns are seriously out of scale

And this changes the evidenced of the lateral impact of small projectiles, how?

carlitos 17th January 2020 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957877)
Oh look, you got the direction of travel of the wing wrong again.

Yup.
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957892)
It isn't exact, sure. It is simply a representation of how IF a wing could slice through the steel column, it would first have to slice through the aluminum sheeting that covered it.

You can't have a broken rib if you get shot while wearing a bulletproof vest. The bullet can't break your rib if it doesn't pierce the vest.

Hell, getting hit with a baseball bat wouldn't break your arm either, unless the bat didn't slice through the skin first.

This is very helpful logic.

Myriad 17th January 2020 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957668)
Listen to the ~38 second mark where the announcer almost said the "m" word. Are you on the north side there where the mmm...er...the plane made contact...lol!


Why do you think that happened? Did the announcer watch the unaltered video feed and saw the missiles? Why would that be permitted, with the conspirators controlling everything and being much better off if the announcer was fooled along with everyone else? Or was the announcer watching the buildings themselves during the impact? You repeatedly imply that hardly anyone saw the impacts directly and perceived them correctly; what a coincidence if the announcer just happened to be one of those! Or was the announcer briefed: "We're going to hit the towers with missiles, but be sure to say 'plane' on the air!" That seems really stupid.

Which scenario are you imagining here?

Captain_Swoop 17th January 2020 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957886)
Yes. I was wrong.

I ate crow about it, and other mistakes here: https://911crashtest.org/evidence-th...e-prerecorded/

And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

curious cat 17th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957920)
And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

This discussion is gradually moving from "interesting" to "entertaining" and now it is approaching the stage of being entirely "idiotic".

yankee451 17th January 2020 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12957907)
Yup.

You can't have a broken rib if you get shot while wearing a bulletproof vest. The bullet can't break your rib if it doesn't pierce the vest.

Hell, getting hit with a baseball bat wouldn't break your arm either, unless the bat didn't slice through the skin first.

This is very helpful logic.

no, it's like getting hit with a baseball bat, and it cuts through all your ribs but one.

yankee451 17th January 2020 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957920)
And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

Wrong again.

yankee451 17th January 2020 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12957947)
This discussion is gradually moving from "interesting" to "entertaining" and now it is approaching the stage of being entirely "idiotic".

Maybe you should stop typing.

yankee451 17th January 2020 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12957915)
Why do you think that happened? Did the announcer watch the unaltered video feed and saw the missiles? Why would that be permitted, with the conspirators controlling everything and being much better off if the announcer was fooled along with everyone else? Or was the announcer watching the buildings themselves during the impact? You repeatedly imply that hardly anyone saw the impacts directly and perceived them correctly; what a coincidence if the announcer just happened to be one of those! Or was the announcer briefed: "We're going to hit the towers with missiles, but be sure to say 'plane' on the air!" That seems really stupid.

Which scenario are you imagining here?

I don't know what he was thinking, sorry. But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.

yankee451 17th January 2020 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12957861)
Those images are from "United 93", the 2006 film, if I'm not mistaken.

You're mistaken. This is what you were thinking of:

https://www.bollyn.com/public/Flight-93-1.jpg

Myriad 17th January 2020 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957959)
I don't know what he was thinking, sorry. But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.


You claim to know he meant to say "missile." But how do you know it? What scenario makes it at all plausible that when he said "m..." he meant to say "missile?"

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957887)
I did. I'm waiting for you to explain how the jet wing cut through all the columns, and all the cladding, except for one.

The cladding is clearly severed, Steve.

ProBonoShill 17th January 2020 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957090)
You have me at a disadvantage. Whereas I have the courage of my convictions to sign my name to my beliefs, and am consequently held accountable for them, you fine people (I assume), are under no such constraints.

Your disadvantage has nothing to do with the fact you feel no shame in mocking the victims of 9/11 and are willing to express your idiotic beliefs using your real identity. It comes from your incessant lying.

Grow up and do something more constructive with your time like retaking the ninth grade physics class you obviously failed.

ProBonoShill 17th January 2020 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957959)
But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.

Another lie.

beachnut 17th January 2020 07:06 PM

textbook projection -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957856)
Fascinating. The gyrations. The twists and turns. The obfuscations, the parries, the outright denial. Truly the stuff of legend.

Ah, projection - your posts are the textbook example of errors in logic.


And a large does of Gish Gallop continues in your quest to spread lies and mocking the murder of thousands with fantasy claims

Robin 17th January 2020 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957887)
I did. I'm waiting for you to explain how the jet wing cut through all the columns, and all the cladding, except for one.

I have had a look and I can't find it.

I need an answer before I can explain again so that this time I know you are paying attention.

bknight 17th January 2020 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957668)
Listen to the ~38 second mark where the announcer almost said the "m" word. Are you on the north side there where the mmm...er...the plane made contact...lol

Both of the time stamps provided prove I'm right. The views do not show the actual impact of the cgi plane. They show the plane flying behind the towers followed by the fireball. But no collision. Those all came later. Next!

Did I say that I saw the impact? No I said the airplane, not CGI as it was live, approach the WTC complex and disappear BEHIND WTC 1 and then a fireball erupts out of WTC 2,
Now answer the other questions what happened to the plane when it disappeared behind WTC 1? It never appeared again. And it wasn't as you say CGI as it was live. Go rethink your weak answers.

"m" word?

yankee451 17th January 2020 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12957970)
The cladding is clearly severed, Steve.

Really?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

This cladding?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x768.png

Severed?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

yankee451 17th January 2020 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12957962)
You claim to know he meant to say "missile." But how do you know it? What scenario makes it at all plausible that when he said "m..." he meant to say "missile?"

For all we know he knew full well what was going on. Why, what do you suppose he meant so say when he articulated the MMM sound when referring to the plane?

yankee451 17th January 2020 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12957972)
Your disadvantage has nothing to do with the fact you feel no shame in mocking the victims of 9/11 and are willing to express your idiotic beliefs using your real identity. It comes from your incessant lying.

Grow up and do something more constructive with your time like retaking the ninth grade physics class you obviously failed.

See the thing is the evidence I've brought to the table discredits the stories of the victims. Your outrage is misplaced. I'm not the one that lied to you, just the one that burst your bubble.

Physics proves me right, hence your penchant for relying on emotionally charged tales of faux victims.

yankee451 17th January 2020 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12957973)
Another lie.

Nope, it's the truth. Anyone can check for themselves.

yankee451 17th January 2020 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958005)
I have had a look and I can't find it.

I need an answer before I can explain again so that this time I know you are paying attention.

Shocked. Shocked!

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943285)
The same simple questions cannot be answered by you in support of your theory, whatever that is. The lateral bends to the steel and the lightly damaged cladding are consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles, not the head on impact of a jet. If you could turn to physics to support your conclusion you would. But you don't. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But it isn't. Why is that?

Shifting the burden of proof.

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943450)
No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.

I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

Argument from incredulity.

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943647)
A better explanation for the lightly damaged cladding and the sharp, lateral bends to the steel. It would be refreshing to even discuss it.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:

Thus far, the skeptics have been wrong about the crashes being broadcast live, wrong about where the engine allegedly impacted, wrong about the claim that only the bolted connections were broken, and very wrong about the assumed "thousands of witnesses."
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote:

So you tell me. What more will it take to convince you that you might be mistaken?
”What more?” Oh my.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943692)
Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

Tell me about your mother.

yankee451 17th January 2020 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12958069)
Tell me about your mother.

I guess this is a red herring fallacy.


My dear mother passed away in November, 2018. You can Google my name, Steve De'ak, and learn all you'd like to know about me and my relatives. You'd get along with Christopher Bollyn, who has done the same. Is this why you don't use your real name and face on the Internet? So that you can say anything you want without fear of repercussions?

yankee451 17th January 2020 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12958066)
Shifting the burden of proof.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Hell yes. The original claim was that a jet cut through a steel building, which the EVIDENCE proves didn't happen. The burden of proof is on the original claimant. I'm just a guy calling BS to it, and providing extraordinary evidence to boot. You guys suck at this.

curious cat 17th January 2020 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958085)
I guess this is a red herring fallacy.


My dear mother passed away in November, 2018. You can Google my name, Steve De'ak, and learn all you'd like to know about me and my relatives. You'd get along with Christopher Bollyn, who has done the same. Is this why you don't use your real name and face on the Internet? So that you can say anything you want without fear of repercussions?

Very few people are using pseudonyms on internet for a fear of "prosecution" - from the authorities anyway. In the existing climate of identity frauds and idiots calling for actions like "killing chemtrail pilots" (just a random, but very real example I came across lately) there is a good reason for anybody with a bit of common sense not to expose himself to the whole world. Once done, you are losing all control of who and what will do with the information provided. If you do chose to take the risk, it is your and only your decision and I hope you will never have reason to regret it. It certainly doesn't give you any right asking others to do the same or suggesting you are better than they are.

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 11:49 PM

Yep. How did that piece come to be situated in between the steel columns? You think it might have undergone some trauma? So we can put down not knowing anything about the rules of perspective to the list of things that you don't know and don't care to look up?

beachnut 18th January 2020 12:00 AM

go to NYC and sell this pathetic fantasy to the FDNY and NYPD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943692)
Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

Have you walked up to the FDNY and NYPD to explain this to them?

If there is one thing that will help unite the NYPD and the FDNY, it would be your fantasy version of 9/11. Lucky for you they are not on this forum.

Lucky for you to be thousand of miles away from those who gave their all on 9/11 and were murdered while doing their duty in NYC. As you make up the dumbest lies, no one is impressed with your disrespect and mockery of the murder of thousands.

The ironic part is you have no clue you are spreading lies dumber than dirt.




BTW, others have been sued for claiming there were no victims to mass shootings. Lucky for you nobody cares about your insensitive lies as long as you don't go more public.

You have offered no rational evidence for fake videos, and never will. The fake video lie is a big Failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958085)
I guess this is a red herring fallacy.

My dear mother passed away in November, 2018. You can Google my name, Steve De'ak, and learn all you'd like to know about me and my relatives. You'd get along with Christopher Bollyn, who has done the same. Is this why you don't use your real name and face on the Internet? So that you can say anything you want without fear of repercussions?

You know what a red herring is, but you have no clue you are doing a massive Gish Gallop? Why do you lie about 9/11?

Robin 18th January 2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958040)
Shocked. Shocked!

Still stonewalling with weak evasions are you?

If you think that the column can't be damaged even a little bit without severing the cladding all the way through then you are hardly going to understand any explanation.

Why can't you answer?

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12958103)
Very few people are using pseudonyms on internet for a fear of "prosecution" - from the authorities anyway. In the existing climate of identity frauds and idiots calling for actions like "killing chemtrail pilots" (just a random, but very real example I came across lately) there is a good reason for anybody with a bit of common sense not to expose himself to the whole world. Once done, you are losing all control of who and what will do with the information provided. If you do chose to take the risk, it is your and only your decision and I hope you will never have reason to regret it. It certainly doesn't give you any right asking others to do the same or suggesting you are better than they are.

I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.

beachnut 18th January 2020 12:11 AM

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958093)
Hell yes. The original claim was that a jet cut through a steel building, which the EVIDENCE proves didn't happen. The burden of proof is on the original claimant. I'm just a guy calling BS to it, and providing extraordinary evidence to boot. You guys suck at this.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim witnesses are liars, you claim multiple videos of 175 impact of the WTC is fake. Yet, you failed to prove anything except you made up sick fantasy about 9/11. You can't comprehend Radar data, you can't refute four planes crashed on 9/11. Radar data backs up videos.

You think a 757 at 590 knots can't break the WTC shell designed to stop a 707 at 180 mph. Thus you have no useful or practical knowledge of physics.

You spread lies, and don't know it, and don't care.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958117)
Still stonewalling with weak evasions are you?

If you think that the column can't be damaged even a little bit without severing the cladding all the way through then you are hardly going to understand any explanation.

Why can't you answer?

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I do know that you don't deserve an answer, regardless.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958109)
Yep. How did that piece come to be situated in between the steel columns? You think it might have undergone some trauma? So we can put down not knowing anything about the rules of perspective to the list of things that you don't know and don't care to look up?


It isn't between them. It is protruding in front and to the side of the column it was once attached to. If you see it as "between" columns, please explain, or use the photographs to demonstrate.

beachnut 18th January 2020 12:19 AM

Classic projection on steroids
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958118)
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.

lol, it is funny, it does not matter if people mistake the north tower, or the north face, your claims remain fantasy. There were no missiles used on 9/11, only four planes.

What is the problem, you can't comprehend 19 terrorists from the Middle East able to fake hijackings and use planes as weapons? You can't do simple physics to figure out it is possible for the damage seen on the WTC shells to be made by aircraft, 11 and 175. High School physics proves you wrong, yet you ignore science and cling to fantasy born in ignorance.

Projection. Your post is an excellent example of projection, only trump beats you at project by an order of magnitude.

Learn physics, stop spreading lies. If you are upset about war, do something instead of spreading lies which might mislead the gullible.

beachnut 18th January 2020 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958124)
It isn't between them. It is protruding in front and to the side of the column it was once attached to. If you see it as "between" columns, please explain, or use the photographs to demonstrate.

oops, videos prove you are a liar


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958128)
oops, videos prove you are a liar


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

Still no. As explained repeatedly already, not all of those were broadcast live. The ones that WERE broadcast live, or almost live actually, were from the perspective of the north face of the north tower. How do you figure the crash was shown live, when the alleged plane crashed into the south face of the south tower, which was not visible in the live footage. Do your research and, please, stop foaming at the mouth.

Robin 18th January 2020 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958121)
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I do know that you don't deserve an answer, regardless.

This is your lamest evasion yet

For days you refuse to answer. Now you say that my simple question "doesn't deserve an answer" (whatever that is supposed to mean)

So be it, if the question scares you that much then don't answer.

And I don't suppose we will ever get an explanation from you for how a cruise missile could have passed through that small gap.

Because we both know it couldn't possibly.

Robin 18th January 2020 01:23 AM

Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.

curious cat 18th January 2020 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958118)
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.

Exactly the answer I expected from the smartest and most honest man in the universe. :-)

JSanderO 18th January 2020 07:02 AM

It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12958177)
Exactly the answer I expected from the smartest and most honest man in the universe. :-)

So sayeth some nameless, faceless, nonentity.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958265)
It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.

You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958149)
Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.

The answer is, false dichotomy.

JSanderO 18th January 2020 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958311)
You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.

The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958314)
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.


I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.

abaddon 18th January 2020 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958316)
I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.

No, you don't. You point out things you cannot understand and make a crazy leap to "missiles" despites the simple fact that no missiles are capable of such precision then or now. Thus you rely on some heretofore unknown technological solution that you pull directly from your fundament. This is no different than the claims of the insane Judy Wood with her space beams.

sts60 18th January 2020 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958314)
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.

Well, I believe he once said he believed the Apollo landings were phony. Apollo hoax believers in general have a very similar M.O.: see something they don’t understand, declare it an “anomaly”, and pronounce the whole thing fake - with no good explanation for the evidence, and no evidence for the methods of alleged fakery, and certainly no sane explanation for how such a gigantic conspiracy makes any sense in the first place.

I’d enjoy seeing Yankee451 develop his Apollo views here, but he’s shown no inclination to do so.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.