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

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.

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?

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".

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

Wrong again.

Maybe you should stop typing.

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

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

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?"

The cladding is clearly severed, Steve.

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.

Another lie.

textbook projection -
 

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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

Shocked. Shocked!

Shifting the burden of proof.

Argument from incredulity.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

”What more?” Oh my.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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 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.

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 

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.

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

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.

Classic projection on steroids
 

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.

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.

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.