We're still waiting for you and Yankee to prove the WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

I'm sorry but if we have to play by your rules you two need to prove that the Twin Towers are in fact gone and not hidden by a Reptilian cloaking device.

Then you need to prove than anyone in Afghanistan and Iraq has died and that those wars were not filmed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Your rules, I'm making the claim that these things are now the truth...Prove me wrong.:D

Grow up!

Well, it’s your time, after all; if you don’t want to use some of it to defend your Apollo claims, fine, but those claims remain unsupported. I will only note that your characterization of the controllers on console not being able to tell a faked mission from simulations bears no resemblance to reality. Nor does your characterization of who would be required to be “in on it”.

Well there are millions of people who saw the attacks on live coverage world wide, thousands of people who witnessed the attacks directly, thousands who were injured as a direct or indirect result of attacks, and thousands of people who died in the attacks who had some level of communication before their deaths providing insight regarding their nature.

Forget that video footage was captured from every angle by thousands of people with camcorders and news outlets, you have limitless numbers of other impasses to your narrative, but the best argument I've seen you come up with to refute that is:

Which doesn't pass the smell test. I've seen this video fakery argument pressed for 15 years. It hasn't changed in the slightest.

What is an "equalresistive force" (other than a bogus pseudo-physics thing you just made up)?

"resistive force" is usually drag or friction.

What you fail to acknowledge is that you suppose the building is a solid object like a brick.

In Physics we talk about the mass of an object not its weight, and speed is a scalar variable, not a vector. Also, we use SI units. The correct terminology would be

...the plane has a mass of m and is moving at velocity v

At the speed these aircraft were travelling, and with the relative hollowness of the building (these kinds of buildings are over 90% air) that is exactly what I would expect to see.

Your ignorance of physics and mathematics, and your personal incredulity are not evidence.

SO, what you're saying is, "we all saw it on TV, so that proves it must be real."

The mostly hollow spaces in the aluminum jet's wings are filled with jet fuel.

With all the tech involved, and their ability to warp minds, why didn't the PTB simply just hire Osama bin Laden? Or make the terrorists think that they were talking to Osama bin Laden? Maybe they could have substituted a fake Osama bin Laden for a real one? Or bought some planes and had them painted up in United Airlines/American Airlines livery at Area 51?

All much easier than your implausible scenario.

The thread is about proving the video is fake. When thousands of people saw it live, how did they fake it? You offer no proof, you repeat "saw it on TV", and think you presented evidence.

On 9/11, yes, it proves planes. Then you confirm the planes with Radar, and gee, which aircraft in the USA did not land at an airport.

This is so easy, it is amazing you can't grasp reality, and have to make up lies.

Can you prove any video was fake in real time, or after recorded? NO

How do it know?

Thousands saw the attacks in person, or were directly impacted by it in other forms. You apparently forget that one significant problem with your case.

I am ignoring the technically illiterate gibberish above and concentrating only on the blatant nonsense contradicting the evidence:

There was nothing uniform about individual parts of the plane penetrating the building. One of the engines has been found a few streets away from the impact. It obviously broke of its pod (as it is designed to do) and continued thru the building much faster than the rest of the plane and exited on the other side still with enough speed to cover a few hundred meters. Other parts of lower density either stayed trapped in the building or fell down much closer.
All exactly like anybody with a basic knowledge of highschool physic would anticipate. But we know you are not one of them...

If I was saying that I would have written that.

I am saying what I [i]actually wrote[/quote].

That large piece of aircraft grade aluminium alloy that you showed, travelling at 800 kph carries quite a good deal of kinetic energy. I know that comes as a surprise to a mo-planer, but it is true.

The fact that it breaks upon impact doesn't change the fact that this energy has been transferred to the column.

So, even after the spar has snapped and the remaining pieces have bounced off or travelled on past, the column continues.fracturing.

The cladding, a separate piece of metal with different properties and not directly attached to the column will behave differently under that impact.

There is no necessary reason why the cladding will be severed, although it probably will.

So what has happened to the starboard side of the airframe and the starboard wing, which have not impacted anything yet and therefore have not shattered so far?

So you can't prove the WTC was destroyed?

Err no, - attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a staple of Conspiracy theorists when they have been cornered. That is not how burden of proof works.

That four aeroplanes were hijacked by terrorists and three of them were flown into buildings is an established fact. This fact is supported by, among other things

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings
2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations
3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones
4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites
5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

All of the above amounts to what is known as"consilience". You claim that these airliners did not exist and that it was missiles that impacted the Pentagon, the Towers and the crash site at Stoney Creek. The burden of proof is on you to account for all of the above. This amounts to more that just saying "it was all faked". You have to show HOW it was faked, WHO did the faking.

If you think the aircraft wreckage was planted, how was it planted without a single witness seeing anything, and where did the wreckage originally come from?

If you think the passengers' DNA evidence was faked, who faked it and how did they do that without the regular DNA technicians knowing about it?

Where are the missing passengers?

Where are the missing planes?

Neither you nor yankee451 have posted any physics in support of your contentions.

Show me the physics of what you think we should have seen in lossy video of a distant object.

I can see nothing in any of the videos that is inconsistent with the physics of a plane crash.

Well no, that’s not my logic.

There has long been an investigative and scientific consensus on the various aspects of 9/11. The findings are not arbitrary or based on say so but supported by all manner of evidence and analysis. Since this is so, it is considered the null. Any challenge to parts or all of the null therefore takes on the burden of proof.

Ferraris are made at the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy. It’s well established to be true; it’s the null. If anyone wants to claim that they’re actually screwed together inside the laundromat behind Marge Butler’s of Kalamazoo, the burden of proof is theirs.

The current, conventional wisdom re: Martians, three-headed or otherwise, is that they don’t exist. As well, two hijacked jetliners were crashed into the twin towers. Claim otherwise? Support your claim.

Did you know that in Earths gravitational field objects accelerate downwards at 32' per second per second. So a falling object will travel downward 16' in 1 second.

The whole plane minus a few parts was inside the building in .2 seconds. The wings only took .04 seconds to penetrate the building.


So how far should these panels have fallen before the explosion. Show us the math.

I corrected this image for you. No need to thank me. Feel free to use it any time you have the need to post more of your stupid drivel.


https://i.imgur.com/xjYkctl.jpg







Well that kinda explains your bent flanges and the cladding wedged behind the wing skin fragment on WTC2 doesn't it.

Thanks, whereas one jet "dragged" the steel to the right, the other didn't, yet both left almost identical damage.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg

Name them.

Peter for one. Also Margaret, I think.

No need. GB states a number representing a (low) reasonable estimate under given circumstances. We discussed it before.
If you have one or two people who say they saw something else than the thousands mentioned, you'd better name them :-).

Circular logic. You assume there were thousands of people to witness what you saw on television, therefore what you saw on television occurred.

Not circular logic, a circular discussion - familiar to every psychiatrist.

How am I contradicting my own story?

You do know what the words "or" and "possibly" mean, don't you? If not, please consult a dictionary.

You guys are like case studies for the logical fallacies sites.

Do you get upset when no one believes in your silly theory yankee451?

http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017...t-michael.html

And this trait in no way reminds me of the current occupier of the White House, L. Ron Hubbard or any other cult leader/wannabe who insists that it's my way or the highway. :rolleyes:

And what you actually wrote means that the spar gouged out most of a steel column (but not all of it), but somehow managed to miss the aluminum sheeting that covered that part of the column it was able to damage. What you describe is not reflected in any of the videos or photographs. It is also contradicted by the official organs like Purdue, MIT and the NIST.

Your opinions are yours alone. That you think you speak for others doesn't surprise me.

Well it's possible frogs could have done it too, I guess.

It is what it is, dude. Deal with it (or continue to go off for the next 14 pages about a detail that is entirely your own speculation about how a piece of cladding should behave).

I wonder if this person was confused about a missile or a plane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_...er_11_survivor)

You first.

You claim a jet wing cut the steel and created the damage as found. I say hogwash, as anyone can see with their own two eyes. So now that you've brought up physics, I want to see the math. Show me the physics of the interaction between the wing and the wall columns. You can even use someone else's math if you want to.

I'm looking for the wing that didn't penetrate the wall, but which the television, and Purdue, said did penetrate. What was it the propaganda organs said? "In one side and out the other," "like a bad special effect."

Oh, gasp - look, a witness.

A witness and survivor. Did you interview him?

Why would you be looking for that when the television, Purdue and the Michael Hezarkhani's video are all in agreement? Ever hear of chaotic motion?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the World Trade Center was destroyed. This picture is Photoshopped.

Just playing by your rules.

I would expect that which didn't penetrate to fall off.

I would like to see the math that explains how the wing could not sever the cladding, but still gouge out the steel the cladding was wrapped around.

You are claiming that I said it misses the cladding?

When I obviously said and diagrammed that it impacted the cladding, crumpled it, pushed it back but wouldn't necessarily sever it completely?

Again you are lying about what I said.

I guess it bears out the old adage that the person who boasts of his own honesty is usually the most dishonest person in the room