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?

Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...

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)?

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?

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

So... no hologram, then?

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

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

No. Holograms don't bend steel.

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

I don't know what you mean.

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

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?

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.

The engine was clearly not planted. What now?

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.

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

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

Harebrained. LOL

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

Yes, I made this gif.

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

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

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)

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

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.

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:

Easily faked.

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

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:

Have you read the OP?

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.

I can't speak for them.

How explain as they were beyond the Cameras white Balance?

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.

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

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

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.

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

Still a circular argument.

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.

[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.

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

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.

[quote=Robin;12958488] 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.

You shouldn't.

https://911crashtest.org/greetings-from-steve-deak/

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.