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 18th January 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12958322)
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.

Nope, still wrong. As explained already, I started my investigation believing everything I was shown on television.

Back in the first gulf war they bragged about putting bombs and missiles through windows and down chimneys. Ten years later, do you think they ditched that technology, or do you think they refined it?

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12958329)
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.

Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:35 AM

FYI, people, there are 63 videos showing Flight 175. I've been collecting them for about 10 years.

There are more than 49 photos of the 2nd plane, too. I've recently added 3 new ones. Another was just found that hasn't been added.

Let's talk about the 2nd plane, Steve. Was it missiles cloaked in a hologram?

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958337)
FYI, people, there are 63 videos showing Flight 175. I've been collecting them for about 10 years.

There are more than 49 photos of the 2nd plane, too. I've recently added 3 new ones. Another was just found that hasn't been added.

Let's talk about the 2nd plane, Steve. Was it missiles cloaked in a hologram?

More red herrings. I've explained my position thoroughly already. How many of those videos were shown almost-live (considering the ~17 second broadcast delay)?

beachnut 18th January 2020 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958137)
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.

projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958340)
projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)

They were selling us planes, but launched missiles. All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know. Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit? Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:49 AM

Prove the NBC Chopper4 video wasn't live. Ace Baker would be interested.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:53 AM

So... no hologram, then?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:54 AM

You gotta hate that smoking engine. Just don't think about it.

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958347)
Prove the NBC Chopper4 video wasn't live. Ace Baker would be interested.

Hi Matt, well met.

I never said it wasn't live. Ace Baker could't care less.

What I did say, in the op, and numerous times in this thread, and on video, and in interviews, is that the view of the live shots did not show the crash, because the perspectives of the live (almost) shots were from the north side of the north tower. They were filming the hole in the North Tower when the explosion occurred in the south side of the South Tower, therefore, the crash itself was not captured live. What was captured live was a CGI plane flying "behind" the towers, followed by an explosion from the opposite side of the tower that the networks were showing us.

Please try to log it in.

Steve De'ak

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958352)
So... no hologram, then?

No. Holograms don't bend steel.

Please don't confuse me with whatever preconceptions you might have about so called truthers.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958354)
You gotta hate that smoking engine. Just don't think about it.

I don't know what you mean.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958357)
Hi Matt, well met.

I never said it wasn't live. Ace Baker could't care less.

What I did say, in the op, and numerous times in this thread, and on video, and in interviews, is that the view of the live shots did not show the crash, because the perspectives of the live (almost) shots were from the north side of the north tower. They were filming the hole in the North Tower when the explosion occurred in the south side of the South Tower, therefore, the crash itself was not captured live. What was captured live was a CGI plane flying "behind" the towers, followed by an explosion from the opposite side of the tower that the networks were showing us.

Please try to log it in.

Steve De'ak

The Chopper4 video was impossible to fake live according to Ace Baker. The camera was moving. The background was too varied. Are you a video production expert? Impossible. Like your missiles.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958364)
The Chopper4 video was impossible to fake live according to Ace Baker. The camera was moving. The background was too varied. Are you a video production expert? Impossible. Like your missiles.

Matt,

Perhaps you should talk to Ace about it.

It doesn't take a video production expert to figure it out. I am not an expert at anything. I have never claimed otherwise. But it isn't about me, is it? If, as the evidence indicates, missiles were launched, then there are very few ways to have masked them on "live" television. Only one that I can tell.

The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. It also is an indication that "the truth" is not high on the priority list of the so called Skeptics.

Steve

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958363)
I don't know what you mean.

The most complete discussion on the plane engines anywhere is found in my PDF. Again:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/Airp...s_WTC_9-11.pdf

Smoking hot engine parts photographed in the street 4 minutes after the 2nd impact were not shot out of the tower by a cannon. Agreed?

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958372)
The most complete discussion on the plane engines anywhere is found in my PDF. Again:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/Airp...s_WTC_9-11.pdf

Smoking hot engine parts photographed in the street 4 minutes after the 2nd impact were not shot out of the tower by a cannon. Agreed?

Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958369)
Matt,

Perhaps you should talk to Ace about it.

It doesn't take a video production expert to figure it out. I am not an expert at anything. I have never claimed otherwise. But it isn't about me, is it? If, as the evidence indicates, missiles were launched, then there are very few ways to have masked them on "live" television. Only one that I can tell.

The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. It also is an indication that "the truth" is not high on the priority list of the so called Skeptics.

Steve

A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958378)
A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

Then find an expert to do your thinking for you.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958375)
Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

The engine was clearly not planted. What now?

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958378)
A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

Please try to address that awesomeness by the way. Until you can explain how the evidence does not support my conclusions, and can provide a better explanation for it, I win. All your gyrations, ad hominems, false dichotomies, red herrings, appeals to authority, and whatever other excuses you can come up with, won't change that.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958381)
The engine was clearly not planted. What now?

Says Matt! So if it wasn't planted, how is it consistent with the physical evidence?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958384)
Says Matt! So if it wasn't planted, how is it consistent with the physical evidence?

You mean how is it consistent with your harebrained take on the physical evidence.

Watch Church St. seconds after the engine hits the building 50 Murray St. -- smoke and dust everywhere. At vrt 0:55 in this clip -- the Gedeon Naudet 2nd plane impact video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdfZzpWDPeg

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958393)
You mean how is it consistent with your harebrained take on the physical evidence.

Watch Church St. seconds after the engine hits the building 50 Murray St. -- smoke and dust everywhere. At vrt 0:55 in this clip -- the Gedeon Naudet 2nd plane impact video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdfZzpWDPeg

Golly. You're citing Naudet. Still.

I can see this is a waste of time.

Jules Naudet's First Plane Shot Was Staged

More Proof the Naudet Video was Staged

MattNelson 18th January 2020 11:02 AM

Harebrained. LOL

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/BunnyVortex.gif

Yes, I made this gif.

beachnut 18th January 2020 11:02 AM

Claims fake Radar, but can't explain how to fake it - wowzer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958345)
They were selling us planes, but launched missiles. All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know. Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit? Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?

Nope, the Radar data is also backed up by video. Making up lies again are you. Yes.

I have an ATP, and it can be verified at the FAA, and has been by other failed 9/11 truth, and 9/11 fantasy authors who post woo like you.

FAA and NTSB Radar data is verified by the very videos you claim are fake but fail to provide evidence how it was done. The eyewitnesses also verify video and Radar.

Have you tried to make up a list of all the people needed to fake the things you made up?

What is sad, you believe this can happen, which means you would do this if you could, fake stuff to support or get your way.

The is no way you can explain how the Radar data is faked, you don't have the technical expertise to explain any of your sick fantasy claims mocking the murder of thousands. It is amazing how you spew this poppycock and have no evidence.

The planted engine is a big clue how failed your claims are. This is the Gish Gallop, you claim missiles, then say the engine is planted, etc, etc, etc, - all without evidence, or explaining the logistical nightmare you invented, adding more people to the fantasy.

Who did 9/11 in yankee451 demented fantasy...
USAF
USAF contractors
Boeing
American Airlines
United Airlines
FAA
NTSB
NTSB contractors
FAA contractors and sub contractors
ATC
ATC controllers
Government, the deep state which exist only in the minds of CTers
ABC
NBC
OMG, FOX news the propaganda minister of trump
CBS
CNN
NPR
Pentagon
WTC staff
NYPD
FDNY
the list goes on
Fake survivors
Fake survivor families and friends
And more
Private citizens with video cameras/phones
Thousand of Americans faked 9/11 according to yankee451 who can't do physics to save him from fantasy so stupid it burns - your burnt

MattNelson 18th January 2020 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958394)
Golly. You're citing Naudet. Still.

I can see this is a waste of time.

Oh, come on man! Bring the smoke machine theories! They're more fun than the "fake" mountain of video evidence you have teetering over you.

BTW, I love your equation for determining what is a waste of time. (= anything with video/images proving you wrong)

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958375)
Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

What about the oxidation flashes on contact with the buildings that couldn't be faked?

sts60 18th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958334)
Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...

I’m merely noting a similarity in approach, not addressing any specific claim you’ve made here. You have plenty of playmates in this thread. But if you’d like to start a thread to talk about your belief that Apollo was faked, I’ll be happy to talk with you there.

ETA: I believe you had made that claim (Apollo being a hoax) on this forum some time ago. If I misremember, please disregard with my apologies.

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958400)
Oh, come on man! Bring the smoke machine theories! They're more fun than the "fake" mountain of video evidence you have teetering over you.

He already did and then posted a link to where you can buy handheld smoke machines online. Then he speculated that the pentagon has better ones.

As you can see, this is an iron-clad argument. :rolleyes:

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958405)
What about the oxidation flashes on contact with the buildings that couldn't be faked?

Easily faked.

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958410)
Easily faked.

You need to explain exactly how. Like, in rather great detail.

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958400)
Oh, come on man! Bring the smoke machine theories! They're more fun than the "fake" mountain of video evidence you have teetering over you.

BTW, I love your equation for determining what is a waste of time. (= anything with video/images proving you wrong)

Circular argument. The lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling, is the evidence I refer to. That's a nice jig you're dancing, but it only reinforces my point:

Quote:

All it takes is to scratch the surface of 9/11 to realize just about everything peddled about that fateful day was and is indeed, “fake,” but it’s not just the authorities pushing fake news, even the 9/11 Truth Movement prefers fake truth rather than the real thing. In reality the rank and file within the truth movement seem quite content with the belief that the truth will never be known, which makes me wonder why they call it a truth movement in the first place.

In my 15-minute video “What cut the plane shaped hole” I discussed some of the evidence the truth movement ignores but in retrospect I should have named it, “What couldn’t have cut the plane shaped hole?,” because I focus on evidence that eliminates planes as well as planted explosives alone (and by extension “holograms”) as being responsible. As a followup to that video in this post I will explore what could have caused it, but first I should note that the information referenced herein is available to anyone with Internet access, so it is disappointing to learn nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement has already investigated it. In fact truthers and true believers alike still treat it as if it doesn’t exist. Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue, no matter how small, would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory. But truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don’t fit, an activity known as, “cherry-picking,” not “truth-seeking.”

If you’re like me and just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads then the details discussed in this post can lead directly to the most likely cause and the most likely suspects. If I’m wrong then there must be a better explanation for it and I want to hear what that is but so far the response has been silence. It is as the late Harold Pinter described how Americans react when they hear “real news” about all the atrocities committed by the USA around the world since the end of World War II:

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

It is this hypnosis that has kept the war on terror going strong, with both sides so entranced they will reject the evidence that can lead to the truth in favor of fantastical explanations straight out of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination. The truth is, no, planes can’t slice steel and no, buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world. For 16 years both sides (all sides) have bent over backwards to avoid the first step in any investigation; the scene of the crime, probably partly because it makes most of the truth movement’s hypotheses irrelevant, but also because of the staggering implications that accompany it.

Years ago a friend warned me that even if I did discover the truth about 9/11 nobody will give a damn, a prescient prediction. Not that I’m saying I’m right, but I have done my best to keep myself honest in my investigation, and although I am often wrong, I am also often not wrong. All I can say is, the fact that no one will address these clues is exactly what I would expect from controlled opposition if I did stumble on the right path.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958414)
You need to explain exactly how. Like, in rather great detail.

Have you read the OP?

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958419)
and the progressively worse damaged steel, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling, is the evidence I refer to.

Why didn't they have the television 767 traveling in the proper direction for their CGI videos then? Seems like a serious oversight on the part of the conspirators, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958420)
Have you read the OP?

You do not, in the OP, at all describe the processes in any detail on how to fake all video evidence. You simply say that it happened.

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958430)
Why didn't they have the television 767 traveling in the proper direction for their CGI videos then? Seems like a serious oversight on the part of the conspirators, no?

I can't speak for them.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958410)
Easily faked.

How explain as they were beyond the Cameras white Balance?

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958430)
Why didn't they have the television 767 traveling in the proper direction for their CGI videos then? Seems like a serious oversight on the part of the conspirators, no?


You do not, in the OP, at all describe the processes in any detail on how to fake all video evidence. You simply say that it happened.

It was a layer mask that was hanging like a curtain over the actual scene. Whatever they showed us on that layer mask, was what they intended for us to see. As explained in the OP, and numerous times already, none of the videos of the crash of flight 175 as it slid like butter into the south face of the south tower were released live. ALL were released later, after the propagandists had enough time to edit out whatever really did happen, and edit in a plane. They added those flashes purposefully, very likely to lead truth seekers astray. By adding anomalies like that into the script of the event they could control the opposition before it began. It was a layer mask. They drew-on the flashes to confuse you. Move on.


Quote:

Before they can “splice and dice” looped footage, they must first capture the footage. By not broadcasting the crash live it bought time to capture the footage of what actually cut the holes in the towers, to edit it out and then edit-in a plane. This edited version was then released as “amateur” footage which depicts a mostly hollow aluminum jet sliding like butter into a steel skyscraper.
What we think of as “live” television is not live. There is always a broadcast delay of as many seconds as are required for someone to be able to react in time to cut to a commercial. In this way the networks prevent unwanted content from airing.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the...-of-the-world/
Quote:

To accomplish this feat they had to use tripods to first capture footage of the undamaged towers, from the exact same location as they would capture the fireball. They used the footage of the undamaged tower as their “mask layer,” like a curtain to hang in front of the live footage of the real tower. Once the real footage was hidden behind the mask layer curtain, the holes in the tower could be cut, and only when that was accomplished could the mask layer be removed, exposing the damage. The plane was just another layer on top of the mask layer, both of which, the “undamaged tower” layer and the “plane” layer, were hanging in front of the real layer, giving the audience something to look at while the real hole was being cut. After the plane layer melted into the undamaged tower layer (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), they faded away the layer of the undamaged tower, to expose the live footage of the real tower behind it. From that point forward, it was a real-time play. The plane didn’t crumple and explode on impact because it was nearly impossible to create a convincing 3D animation that could be shown from multiple angles; they were limited to using what 2D means they had, and that was layer masking.https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958447)
They added those flashes purposefully, very likely to lead truth seekers astray. By adding anomalies like that into the script of the event they could control the opposition before it began. It was a layer mask. They drew-on the flashes to confuse you. Move on.

Yet they were too stupid to have the airplane flying in the correct direction?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958419)
Circular argument. The lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling, is the evidence I refer to. That's a nice jig you're dancing, but it only reinforces my point:

Oh, that TV jet that so many saw in person, some even reacting to it before it hit the tower. Shall I post a "fake" video link? :eye-poppi

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit....er_One_Reuters

"Another one! Another one! Another one!"
- witness, upon seeing the plane before it hit

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958458)
Yet they were too stupid to have the airplane flying in the correct direction?

They also planted the very piece of Cladding that he uses for his evidence so obviously they faked his evidence too since it shows evidence if an oxidation having occured on it.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958458)
Yet they were too stupid to have the airplane flying in the correct direction?

No, they probably know you'll believe the television, and defer to the authorities, rather than rub two pieces of gray matter together.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958466)
Oh, that TV jet that so many saw in person, some even reacting to it before it hit the tower. Shall I post a "fake" video link? :eye-poppi

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit....er_One_Reuters

"Another one! Another one! Another one!"
- witness, upon seeing the plane before it hit

Still a circular argument.

Quote:

Why this evidence is ignored by the truth movement should be obvious; because it eliminates most of their arguments. Many truthers have books to sell and everyone has a donation button. Over the years The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has collected millions of dollars in donations from concerned truth seekers who believe they are helping to expose the truth, when in fact they are suppressing it and funding Richard Gage’s $85K annual salary . Judy Wood, Richard Gage, Rob Balsamo, Christopher Bollyn and the list goes on all refuse to address this evidence because there is only one explanation for it, and that explanation isn’t a part of what they’re selling.

This off-limits evidence eliminates all the videos of the plane impacts as genuine in one fell swoop, and it exposes as false prophets in a bogus movement those who refuse to address it.
For too many years the veracity of the videos has been debated; whether or not they were all faked or if only some of them were faked or if none of them were faked, despite the evidence that answers that question definitively. Could it be that wasting time has always been the goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement? I ask because had they begun their investigations at the beginning by examining the scene of the crime, they could have cut to the chase on September 12th, 2001, and avoided a decade and a half of the silliness we were given.

Personally I think the biggest reason the truth movement avoids the truth is because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge all the world’s media are complicit. Very quickly after that comes a paradigm-shift of awareness, followed by inevitable soul-crushing depression, and for those who make it out of that phase they can look forward to losing faith in authority, as well as in society, followed by being labeled as crazy and outcast by friends and family; ending up with generally being a stranger in a strange land. I don’t blame people for not “going there;” who would want to put themselves through that?
Nonetheless you can’t call yourself a truther if you avoid clues that discredit your argument. The truth is what it is; if your hypothesis doesn’t account for the evidence at the scene of the crime then you need to head back to the drawing board.


I shouldn’t need to address any of the video evidence at this point; the damage evidence mentioned above is enough to discredit all of the jet impacts all at once. How they faked them is irrelevant and beside the point of what the impact evidence shows. It doesn’t matter how many “official story” witnesses or how many “amateur” videos they trot out, their claims don’t change the evidence of lateral impacts from small projectiles.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958468)
They also planted the very piece of Cladding that he uses for his evidence so obviously they faked his evidence too since it shows evidence if an oxidation having occured on it.

If they could do what you think they can do, then they wouldn't have faked it "wrong." Logically then, it indicates exactly what it appears to indicate; that something at once small and not very dense struck from the side, and as it traveled deeper into the tower, it became more dense and much bigger.

Robin 18th January 2020 12:38 PM

[quote=yankee451;12958369]
The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. /QUOTE]

Your constant evasions to my questions gives lie to that.

Axxman300 18th January 2020 12:42 PM

You guys have to understand, Steve's been banned from all of the 911-Truther sites. That's how nuts he is.

He gets to post here because he serves as comedy relief.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JyW51lx5XMDgQ/giphy.gif

MattNelson 18th January 2020 12:42 PM

Why should we trust your interpretation of the chaotic "impact evidence" ???

We have a thousand reasons not to.

Now please tell us explicitly that the witness who decried "ANOTHER ONE!" after seeing both planes -- was fake. We have his name. Jeff Hill would have called him. But then Jeff Hill changed his mind about no planes because he listened to the witnesses. He looked at all the evidence, focusing too long on "impossible speed" much like you are stuck on "impact evidence" ... but he figured it out. I hope you do.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:48 PM

[quote=Robin;12958488]
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958369)
The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. /QUOTE]

Your constant evasions to my questions gives lie to that.

We all have access to the same information. That doesn't change. That you refuse to use the same photographs of the impact holes we all have access to to explain how they do not support my conclusions, and instead, better support yours, tells me you aren't interested in an honest debate. Instead you offer one evasion after another, ending with a false dichotomy.

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958492)
Why should we trust your interpretation of the chaotic "impact evidence" ???

We have a thousand reasons not to.

Now please tell us explicitly that the witness who decried "ANOTHER ONE!" after seeing both planes -- was fake. We have his name. Jeff Hill would have called him. But then Jeff Hill changed his mind about no planes because he listened to the witnesses. He looked at all the evidence, focusing too long on "impossible speed" much like you are stuck on "impact evidence" ... but he figured it out. I hope you do.

You shouldn't.

Quote:

The reality is I can only be sure about me.* I know I’m not on anyone’s payroll, but when I examined the evidence I came to a completely different conclusion than the rest of the truth movement.* Nobody should take my word for anything; I urge everyone to scrutinize my research, and conclusions, carefully, and I wish the leaders of the truth movement would say the same.* None of us should take at face value any claim without first examining the evidence for ourselves, but we have been too busy raising families, and living our lives, to afford more than a cursory glance at 9/11.* Sorting through the dead-end clues, and false leads, requires a time commitment most of us aren’t prepared for.* The fact is very few people are able to do any research at all, so we trust other people to bring us the truth; something we have been trained to do since we were old enough to read the news in the daily papers.* We aren’t immortal beings with endless time, so more often than not; the way we arrive at ‘the truth’ is to believe whatever suits us.

This explains why truthers almost never consider the best way to control the opposition is by leading it.* It also illustrates why it is so difficult for us to recognize that the leaders of the opposition are more interested in keeping us occupied with red-herrings and infighting, while the war machine marches on, than they are with exposing the lies that started the wars to begin with.

We’re lying to ourselves.* You know whether or not you’re being honest in your investigation, and you know how to verify whether or not the leader you’re following is being honest, too.* Since grade school, we were taught the best way to acquire knowledge is by using the scientific method, and it is long past time for the 9/11 Truth Movement to apply it to 9/11, to prove, or disprove, something; anything.* Anyone that sincerely wants the truth needs to examine whatever 9/11 hypothesis they’re attached to, and ask themselves if it can withstand such scrutiny.* If it can’t then it can’t be the truth.
https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/

yankee451 18th January 2020 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958490)
You guys have to understand, Steve's been banned from all of the 911-Truther sites. That's how nuts he is.

He gets to post here because he serves as comedy relief.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JyW51lx5XMDgQ/giphy.gif



Quote:

Finding the truth, the actual truth, about what happened that day, is almost impossible by following the work of the truth movement. The leaders will simply ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments and carry on like they never saw it. They then publicly argue among themselves, as if only their hypotheses carry any weight, while pointing a hypocritical finger at each other (and everyone else), for being a spy. I am no expert, but this is exactly what I would expect from false prophets in a bogus peace movement; I suspect this is what controlled opposition looks like.

By now it should be obvious exposing the truth was never the goal; that their intent all along was to divide and conquer us. Good propaganda always targets emotion, not reason, which reveals why truth seekers are often angered when someone challenges whatever it is we believe happened on 9/11, because we are emotionally attached to it. But the truth is what it is, whether or not it agrees with us, or with what the 9/11 Truth Movement is selling. If the Truth is the goal, it should be a threat to nobody, or as Flannery O’Connor put it, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”
https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958480)
No, they probably know you'll believe the television, and defer to the authorities, rather than rub two pieces of gray matter together.

So how long until you start to argue that the events of that day actually occurred at nighttime when everyone was sound asleep and the apparent daytime seen in videos and photographs was the result of large CIA spotlights shining on scene? We can't be too far off.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 AM.

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