The stuff you do not know. Why are you unable to do reality, just like your anti-vaxx junk, you can't do physics. No wonder you can't figure out who did 9/11, and the videos are not fake.

You can't prove anything to support your lies and fantasties on 9/11.

No you make up crisis actors, an insane claim.

At least you can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. nothing


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...n-fans.html#p2

oops, 9/11 truth failed

The truth
https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

Where is the photo? The photo, please! I didn't see it for almost 2 days! :D

You said you don’t want to pursue an Apollo discussion, but you keep appealing to the notion of an Apollo conspiracy. You are incorrect that the average person can’t verify the authenticity of the Apollo missions. I’ve interacted with a number of them in discussions in this and other forums. All it takes is a willingness to learn, some time, and the ability to concede that what looks funny to you might not outweigh the rest of reality.

I don’t know what “improbabilities, contradictions and implausibilies [sic]” you feel you’ve identified in the Apollo record, but the only couple of specific Apollo claims you have made so far (simulations faking an entire mission, only a few people needed to pull it off) are not close to reality, based on my direct experience on over a quarter-century in the field.

In other words, you shouldn’t be using Apollo as an indirect crutch for whatever your claims are in this thread.

Again, spare me your mindless evasions.

This remains me a comedy about the faked Apollo mission aired on Australian TV (can't remember the name) on the anniversary of the first moon landing. It was absolutely brilliant and made so believable, I, not really knowing what I was watching, told myself somewhere in the first third of the movie "S***... so these footages were really staged!" (I never lost my faith in the mission in bulk being real though :-)). The movie featured some real historical footages, interviews with real former astronauts and politicians - some of them knowingly participating on the joke, some not.
I started to smell a rat only when they started to talk about how Kubrick persuaded NASA to relocate the whole launching complex so that it would look better in his sunrise shots and repaint the rocket to make it more appealing. From that point I was laughing my head off for the rest of the movie. It was absolutely brilliant.
My point is, if they managed to get me (for some time anyway), it is not surprising there are people around who are swallowing this type of conspiracy theories hook line and sinker. I am sure if our two friends saw this masterpiece, they would be using it as an argument all thru this thread. Highly recommended!

It wasn't those stills that convinced me. What I would expect to see, even in low res grainy images, is a 'crash'. There was no crash-the plane went through the wall as if it wasn't there. s

You spent time on fantasy, Radar proves you wrong. Radar, add it to the stuff you are clueless on.

There was badly faked 'interview' with 'Kubrick' that fooled a lot of grade1 truthers.But those of us who've been in the trenches long enough are no longer susceptable to such skullduggery.

In trenches? For a long time, huh? That explains a lot. :D

Where do I do that, exactly? In the message you quote, I mention thousands of victims.

I was arguing against the 'thousands had to be in it' argument you people asways come up with in regard to any CT. I Wwas Only using Apollo as an example. Nobody has yet explained why the people making the equipment had to know the mission was fake.

If I find a suitable example of Gene KRanz's quote I'll post it. In the book "Failure is not an Option" he allededly said that the simulations had become so realistic that the console crew wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Whether he said that or not, it stands to reason. They were looking a various data on their consoles. That data was fed to them from somewhere to simulate various aspects of the mission - the status of all the subsystems, the heart rates of the astronauts, and so on. If Kranz said, "today it's for real", how would the console operators know any different? All they see is what's on their consoles, just like they did on the many simulation runs.

That, right there, rules out Conspiracy Theorists.

How's a book going to help me verify the claims of 'officials'?
there's a video of a top NISt guy long after the day denying that he's ever heard of molten metal flowing in the WTC debris, depite that being shown in multiple videos and widely reported on. Am I to believe he's never heard of that? Though it's possible, it's not very plausible, in my opinion. So I'm not going to trust anything else that comes out of his mouth.

So just because something is said in a book, it doesn't bestow any extra credibility to a claim. We all have to use our own devices to sort through this world an determine who or what to believe.

It seems to me that some people inherently trust authorities and their proclamations. They are the ones tha will staunchly defend any official narrative.
Those that distrust authorities in general, like me, will naturallybview official proclamations with a great deal of skepticism.
WHatever your bent, I think it begins at an early age. I distrusted authority long before learning about CTs.d

No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default. Nor do I believe anyone claiming a CT by default. I doubt that your painting it that way fools anyone.

i'm not going to look it up. I'm willing to concede I made a mistake and was referring to another poster. The word 'thousands' has mostly been associated here with 'witnesses'. I apologize for the error.

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 

You offer nothing of substance, and failed to show any videos are fake.

The truth remains, big time

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

The claim was there was molten steel, not metal. In the video you speak of, Dr. John Gross of The NIST said: "I know of absolutely nobody, no eye witnesses who said so, who's produced it.."
[Molten steel]

That little bolded part at the tail end of the quote often gets glossed over while you truthers chase your tails over the "eyewitnesses" part.

au contraire - as has been pointed out many times, we all once believed the same things you do. It was a learning process to see things differently.

Your attempt to belittle those who don't share your faith in officialdom falls flat just as it does when truthers call you folks 'sheeple'. In either case, it only makes the accuser look bad, not the 'accused' and does nothing to shed light on the topic at hand.
I'm sure you know all that, so why keep doing it?

All the same, it's unfathomable to me that he was unaware of such reports.

ETA: I didn't realize that steel is not a metal!

You don't look up stuff (a fact), you make up stuff (a fact)
 

Liars on the no plane fantasy crusade don't look up stuff, the make up stuff.

We are 9/11 truth,
We don't look up stuff
We make up stuff

you don't have evidence, stuck spreading baseless lies

There is nothing to debunk you have no evidence.

Going from knowing what happened on 9/11 to complete ignorance is not learning, it is regressing into ignorance. You failed

Yes, trenches. I hate to quote Alex Jones, but he's correct when he says "there's a war on for your mind". Isn't that part of the reason we spend time here arguing back and forth?

I'm sure he was aware of people who claimed to have seen molten steel, the point is he knows of no one WHO HAS PRODUCED ANY MOLTEN STEEL.

Understand now?

You can parrot the Law of Motion; pity you don't understand what it means. I quoted Jay Utah earlier, and this is an example of what he was saying...

Newton wasn't talking about objects in isolation - their mass comes into the equation.

A great example of a bullet was posted by someone earlier. A .357 magnum hollowpoint bullet has a mass of around 7 to 12 grams - if I throw it at you it will likely bounce off, and its shape will be unaffected. You will be annoyed, but largely unhurt. However, if I load it onto a cartridge, shove it in the chamber of a .357 magnum point it at you and pull the trigger, it will hit you with velocity of about 1,500 fps, it will blow right through you going completely out of shape, maybe even disintegrating on the way though. The exit hole will be much larger than the entry hole.

According to Newton's Third Law, the force your body applied to the bullet (lets call it your "equal resistive" force) was equal and opposite to the force the bullet applied to you - yet it didn't bounce off?

Have a think about why that might be?

Given some of the really stupid things I have seen CT's post, I'm long past the point of second-guessing their grammatical errors.

This is based on your written track record.

You spew long debunked 911-Truth claims as if they are fact while trying to advance the ludicrous claim that no planes struct the WTC or the Pentagon. To do this you ignore the FDR, the MULTIPLE radar records, and eye-witness reports of over 150,000 people in Manhattan and New Jersey not to mention the mountains of physical evidence that those planes did crash into their targets.

If you bother to read the FULL accounts of the people who say they thought they saw a small aircraft hit the building you'll notice that they were closer to the buildings which means they would have had a limited view of the sky, and all they would see is a blur before impact and the only reason they'd look up would be the sound of the jet engines. The rest of the people who saw the jumbo jets were further away with a better view of the skyline and horizon.

If you bother to read up on either alleged cruise missile used in this fantasy you'd know that they are designed to strike the target head on and not from an angle as Yankee suggests. The missile will self -correct to ensure it strikes head on. The AG-158 JASSM was not operational in 2001 because Lockheed was having problems:

source: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ssiles-014343/

So there was no way a JASSM was used.


Cruise missiles are not exotic technology. And then there is the problem with the ordinance of the warheads, they would have done more damage and four of them (as Yankee claims) would have snapped the towers in half because - unlike a 767 - those warheads are designed to pack an explosive punch:

source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ions/jassm.htm

Now if you have a basic understanding of military ordinance then it should be obvious that the damage seen in both towers was NOT a cruise missile.

If you can show me another warhead that had a limited blast that looks like jet fuel and bounces around the interior of the target busting support beams then you need to present it.

this is funny
 

Look up equalresistive. That is funny

Guess what you made this was up, and what you were thinking about is not this. Electric stuff you post

The truth remains as you keep proving it...

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

The more I read, the more I feel sorry for you... Why didn't you tell us earlier, we are quite a compassionate bunch! On the other hand, there are people coming out of it much worse, some permanently institutionalised and treated with electric shocks (you are not, are you?) or under a supervision. You are a lucky guy, be grateful silly!

I think he invented that thing after he "couldn't see any signs of equal and opposite force" (from one of his previous posts) on the photo of the crash site. :-).

If you’d like to learn something about it, we can start a separate thread up in the general conspiracy forum. But you shouldn’t try to lean on this as support for your claims here when you clearly don’t understand who and what would need to be involved.

You have an alleged quote from a book. That’s nice. I have actual experience in simulations in the MCC. More importantly, your problem is not limited to simply not understanding this particular issue, but also a very grave fallacy of limited scope.

My intent here is not to have an extensive discussion; this is the wrong forum, although I’d be happy to discuss on a new thread up one level. I’m merely pointing out that you keep appealing to similarity with Apollo to help you with 9/11 claims, but that doesn’t help you here because your Apollo claims are badly uninformed. If you want to discuss why, we can start a new thread.

d

Great, I don't want to get into the landings either. But since you have MCC eperience, why don't you briefly enlighten me on how controllers could have known the differnence between the data they received in the simulations and what they would have received during a real mission.

I promise not to respond, so we don't get into it. I'd just like to know.

lWhy are we here then? Surely you don't expect to change my mind any more than I expect to change yours.

I'm not leaning on Apollo to support any claims about 9/11. I'm only trying to point out that the 'thousands had to be in on it'argument is specious. That is all.So let's drop it.

Well, you drew the wrong conclusion.

Density. Your bullet analogy isn't relevant since the difference in density between a bullet and flesh is far greater than the difference in density between a plane and the steel columns.

Since you mention exit holes, can you show an image of an exit hole in WTC2 that's big enough to allow for whatever that is protruding from the side opposite the impact?

you really have no clue what physics is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

oops, density, you have no clue

You could have answered my question instead of posting that tripe.

Case in point: I gave you a detailed response on why the missiles are not a realistic cause of the damage and you've ignored it.

So I'll sit here and wait for you to prove to us that the World Trade Center's original twin towers were actually destroyed and are not actually still there under holographic cloak.

Again, I'm only playing by the standard of proof set by you and Yankee.

failed physics of 9/11 truth no planers
 

proof physics is not in your toolbox - did you look it up yet?

you're addressing the wrong guy.i'm not saying the missiles caused the damage. and I couldn't care less what you think my standard of proof is.
ETA:You're making the orginal claim that the towers are still there under a cloak. So the first burden of proof is yours.

Learning can be fun.

https://youtu.be/_nq_-ldfUh0?t=329

Myself? For fun, I said it before. If I should be taking this discussion with you seriously, it probably wouldn't be covered by Medicare :-).